Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

BROWSE MY BOOKS WITH THESE LINKS

Malcolm Blair-Robinson U.S        

Malcolm Blair-Robinson UK

Not quite perhaps, but nearly. The problem is simple. The party members and supporters have chosen, and polls of them indicate they approve of, Jeremy Corbyn, by a democratic margin which is overwhelming. He stands far to the left of what was once called New Labour. The majority of Labour MPs are of the New Labour brand. For some it is their only adult political experience. The shadow cabinet is mostly drawn from their ranks. Prior to the leadership election disaster as they see it, most of them regarded Corbyn as a well meaning crank. Let us pause a moment to look at the political make up of the House of Commons as a whole.

There are two coherent parties of government in the lower House, one, the Tories, governs the UK with a small majority and England where they have a big majority. The SNP governs in Scotland. Labour is in confusion because of the Corbyn problem as they see it and although it is the official opposition, it is at some levels dysfunctional. Yet it is also in political terms very successful. It has managed to lead a substantial attack on aspects of economic policy which the government has had to abandon; the tax credit issue and cuts in police funding. The reason for this is that if you abandon party labels and consider only the members, there is a left leaning majority in the commons on social issues. This is because all parts of Labour, the remaining handful of Lib Dems, the SNP and most MPs from the smaller parties lean left. So do a score or more post Thatcher Tories of the last two intakes, who see their first loyalty to their constituents rather than their party.

The political relationships are further complicated by the fact that maybe seventy or more Labour MPs are much closer to the Tories than their own Leader or party membership. In fact there is only a political cigarette paper between them and Cameron and even less than that with Osborne. Between this group and their Leader, with his spectacular popular mandate, there is an unbridgeable chasm. The easy way forward  would be for those to resign from Labour and take the Tory whip. Although this would give the Tory party a big working majority, the Government would still need to take account of its now much larger left wing when hatching plans to hit the poor.

Corbyn would then head a smaller but closer knit Opposition made up of those very few who voted for him and those willing to accept the wishes of their party membership. If he then makes a go of things he will be well placed in 2020 to head for quick gains in the turncoat seats as well as gains across the board. That will mean the Osborne economic plan has not worked out and people are ready for a radical turn left and a change of political weather. Of course if Cameron’s bombs bring peace and tranquillity and Osborne gets his sums and forecasts right, he has a 55% statistical chance of doing so based on his own record thus far, then Corbyn will join Foot in the hated gallery of electoral disasters.

But unless Corbyn right now reads the riot act and instils discipline into a parliamentary party out of control, even if the result is half of them leave, he will be denied even the opportunity for that. For at the end of the day Brits forgive cranks and turncoats (Churchill made crossing the floor of the House a signature manoeuvre) but there is one thing they will not abide. Weak leadership. The thing they love most of all is strong leaders who are willing to stand alone. It is from that small group that all their heroes are drawn.

Cameron made his case. Politically it was attractive. Strategically it was very weak. This is the key. Britain and its allies in the West, especially the US, stand at the head of a string of failed military interventions which although produced an apparent initial military victory, caused the failure of everything that came after. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan are failed states with governments split and in only partial control. The terrorist threat is now many times greater that it was when this project began post 9/11. There is already concerted bombing by America, France and Russia and although there is a rumour that the RAF has a weapons system with unique properties on its Tornado jets, which even the Americans cannot match, this is not a material military factor. The skies above Syria are already congested adding to the hazards of war.

Militarily voting yes to bombing Syria requires the following conditions to be met. First there must be a full agreement for a coordinated military campaign among all the engaged powers, namely Russia, the US, France, Britain, Iran and other members of the US coalition. Second, the various backers in the Gulf secretly funding and arming IS must be told to stop or be threatened with a freeze of their financial assets in the West and an embargo on the sale of their oil. Third, there has to be a clear focus on a single enemy; Islamic State. This fantasy about moderate opposition groups has to stop. Were these so called groups to defeat Assad, they would fall out among themselves and the only certain thing is that IS would occupy Damascus within days. They should be given a choice. Either join and fight IS and IS only or be regarded as an enemy. The reward for them is to be part of the political settlement in Syria.

The political settlement, which must be integral to the military assault, can only happen if the West drops its opposition to Assad going before it is agreed and the Russian hint that he might stay on afterwards. This will presumably lead to properly supervised elections for a new President and Assad should be allowed to stand if he wants to but not if his authorities have anything to do with running the poll. The West has to accept that Assad is the price for containing IS. Without his powerful army on the ground leading the various other forces willing to engage IS, the air campaign is a waste of bombs.

Finally, and this may be the most important point of all, it is essential that part of the political settlement is a new deal, probably an autonomous homeland, for the Sunni minorities in Syria and Iraq. The reason IS, with a few thousand fighters, has been able to rampage across the region is because the Sunnis have at the least stood aside and more often extended the hand of welcome. However much it is pounded and driven from hither to thither, IS will not cease to be a potent threat until it loses the tacit support of Sunnis and that will not happen until they get a fair deal.

None of this is in place yet so the proper vote is NO. The biggest disappointment in Cameron arises from his assertion that British bombing of IS in Syria makes the UK safer. He knows that is not true. In the short term the risk of terrorist attack rises and British civilian dead are a real possibility. Brits have put their lives on the line before in the cause of freedom and paid the price, but it is very wrong to make these misleading assertions to bolster a case full of holes.