In Vancouver for the Parliamentarians for Diabetes Global Network – an incredibly important issue and one close to my heart – I had the pleasure of speaking with progressive Canadian politicians fresh from their resounding general election victory. Aware of Labour’s travails having experienced something very similar not long ago I asked our victorious progressive cousins how they won (there is not now a single Conservative administration at any significant level in Canada). ‘Winning isn’t straightforward’, they told me, ‘but you have to want to win’ …
In many ways it’s as simple as that, isn’t it?
Speaking of winning …
Jim McMahon’s victory in Oldham – and with it the further humiliation of the United Kingdom Independence party – is the latest illustration of how to beat the Kippers and both maintain and grow Labour support: centre-left policies, good sense on core issues like security, and a commitment to local issues that affect the lives of people in the constituency. Sounds simple. Real credit should be given to Andrew Gwynne for organising the campaign. A real Labour combatant in the chamber – like few others – Andrew should write the playbook for seats like Oldham from now on in.
What is remarkable is that the victory took place against the backdrop of everything happening within the party right now, including the closure of a phonebank at Labour’s headquarters due to it being picketed by the Stop the War Coalition, some Labour members and – if reports are to be believed – a sitting Labour member of parliament. Rules? What rules?
The nice man cometh
A lot has been said and written about the decision taken by parliament to extend our already existing operations against Islamic State/Daesh in Iraq across the non-existent border into Syria. The rationale behind my decision can be found at jamiereed.net
The speech given in the chamber by Hilary Benn was the best I have ever seen in my tenure as an MP. Searing, electrifying, compelling. The cheers and applause from the Labour benches as he sat down were not – as the hard left would claim – cries of bloodlust on a vote that committed our forces to further military action, but a spontaneous outpouring. The genius of the speech was worthy of applause itself but other factors came into play, too.
Hilary has been consistently visible and available for all Labour MPs – whatever their view – to ask about Syria ever since he became shadow foreign secretary. Michael Fallon, the Ministry of Defence and others have been similarly available to inform Labour members of the situation on the ground and about our emerging national strategic thinking.
The first, and to my recollection, only time that Jeremy Corbyn offered any such briefing was on the day of the Syria vote, despite being repeatedly asked by Labour MPs to provide such since his first meeting as leader with the parliamentary Labour party. Extraordinary. So the cheers were for a man with clear convictions, able to present them lucidly and in a compelling fashion. The cheers were for a man unafraid to lead and unafraid to answer the tough questions that not only confronted the country with regard to the Syria decision, but which confront the Labour party on a daily basis during these long dark nights. Benn’s speech was a ray of light for the Labour benches and the spontaneous demonstration of joy was like that of a group of people feeling the sun on their faces for the first time in a long time.
Away from the decision to expand our activities from Iraq into Syria – an issue that does not deserve to be sullied by petty, partisan political considerations – it is with real regret that I write that the Labour leader sought to use this vote as a party management tool. For the Tories, the timing of the debate was chosen with an eye on the Oldham byelection. Shame all round.
Next week, I’ll write in detail about how the new politics is being prosecuted in the parliamentary Labour party. Naturally, and in line with what appears to be new party policy, there will be no hiding place …
———————————
Jamie Reed MP is member of parliament for Copeland. He writes The Last Word column on Progress and tweets @jreedmp
The majority of the Shadow Cabinet voted against the motion! It appears that the prior leaks to the media, universally reported, that the majority were against Jeremy Corbyn were completely untrue and the source of this blatant misinformation has yet to be revealed. It may have escaped Jamie Reed’s attention that a free vote was offered to Labour members while the Conservatives were whipped.
The Hilary Benn speech was a triumph of style over substance! It omitted to address many of the issues that had arisen during the debate, or the major flaws that had been exposed (mainly by senior Conservative and SNP members) in the government and Labour supporters case. It has been compared to the false prospectus advanced by Tony Blair, in 2003, that was equally well received, at the time.
This was explored last night, on This Week with Andrew Neil, where Michael Portillo made the very same points: that rhetorical exposition on fascism, the 1930s and 1940s, international and european solidarity etc have a powerful emotional appeal but can be used to mask the inherent logical fallacies in the speech. Alan Johnson could not answer, or chose not to do so, because he perhaps realised that this was true?
Undoubtedly it was a powerful and stirring speech by Hilary Benn but the appeal was essentially emotional and shallow, rather than on an intellectual or logical basis. The fact that it worked and may have even swayed the odd waverer, is both fascinating and slightly worrying, for those parliamentarians who ever bother to consider such matters. Unfortunately, there are too many historic examples of well received speeches containing poor policy or strategy.
NB. The Labour share of the vote increased in Oldham, from the already very high level achieved under Michael Meacher.
I sincerely wished it was not true, but I found that many labour contributions to the debate were really lite-weight. The Tory (and other inputs) represented far more substance and had the appropriate focus. Hilary Benn’s input was worthy of a shakespearian actor, but it dealt with none of the substantial issues; its likeness to the Spanish Civil War, I suspect, will come back to haunt him. A St. Chrispin’s day speech is suburb drama but most people expect political responsibility when the drama has died down. Read it in written form and I am sure its lack of substance will stand out more clearly.
Stephen Kinnock disowned Simon Danczuk, on The Daily Politics 04/12/2015, as one of the Labour MPs, who with their scribbling in the right-wing press and continual attacks on the Labour leadership, were bringing the Party into disrepute.
There are multiple instances of Progress related MPs and contributing authors who frequently indulge in the same behaviours: Jamie Reed, John Woodcock, John Mann, Mike Gapes, John Spellar, Chris Leslie et al. There is no shortage of evidence in recent: archived tweets, media interviews and press columns.
Robust discussion and debate is to be encouraged but all these individuals and many of their associates are not compliant with the standards being demanded of ordinary members and supporters. The level of hypocrisy appears unbounded!
Interesting article by Peter Oborne in the Daily Mail. Critical of Hilary Benn and the Blairite tendency and (relatively) supportive of Jeremy Corbyn – it is still the Mail, after all.
“But I believe that only one politician deserves to emerge with an enhanced reputation as a result of the week’s events. That figure is Jeremy Corbyn.
Whether or not you like Mr Corbyn (and I profoundly disagree with many of his policies), there is no denying that he emerged from the arguments over Syria as a man of moral courage, integrity and principle. Indeed, how interesting that after months of denigrating Corbyn, the Blairite tendency — together with those excitable inhabitants of the Westminster bubble — have been made to look silly in their prediction that Labour would lose the Oldham by-election.
In the real world, it seems the voters have more time for the Labour leader than the metropolitan commentariat.
Faced with bitter hostility from his own side on Wednesday, Mr Corbyn stood his ground. Courteously, he set out his honest doubts about the wisdom of bombing raids on Syria. To put his achievement another way, Mr Corbyn performed the role which every leader of the Opposition is expected to perform, according to British constitutional textbooks: he held the Government to account.
Unfortunately, this approach has become very unusual in modern politics just when it is most needed — before our country goes to war. None of the British adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya in recent years produced any gain for our country, to offset the sacrifices made during those conflicts by our soldiers and their families.
Quite the contrary — all three turned into disasters. Indeed, Islamic State came into being as a direct consequence of the Iraq invasion, as even Tony Blair grudgingly acknowledged recently.
Crucially, all three of these disasters were strongly supported by British Opposition leaders. In 2003, Iain Duncan Smith failed to ask the right questions ahead of the Iraq invasion. David Cameron failed as Tory leader when Tony Blair dispatched troops to southern Afghanistan in 2006. Ed Miliband was equally remiss over Libya.
At last we have an Opposition leader who does his job by opposing the government and asking the right questions. Throughout the debate, Jeremy Corbyn was calm, resolute and precise — a performance that was especially creditable given that he was subject to vilification from his own Labour MPs.
One of the most disloyal of these was Hilary Benn, whose speech on Wednesday night was not nearly as impressive as reported. Mr Benn showed no comprehension of the complexities of the Syrian civil war. He offered no ideas of his own to contribute to a successful outcome. He is a political mediocrity who has become a convenient stalking horse for the Blairite faction which has been determined to destroy Jeremy Corbyn since he was elected.
There is growing evidence that the British people have seen through all the politicians cynically trying to exploit the war for their own ends. Polls now suggest that opposition is growing to David Cameron’s decision to attack Syria. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s case for war is already in disarray. In particular, his claim that there are 70,000 ‘moderate’ Syrian ground troops ready to fight ISIS is now in shreds.
Mr Cameron has personally insulted millions of British people (including many Daily Mail readers) who have doubts about the bombing by implying that they are supporters of terrorism.”
http://tinyurl.com/hje7nh4