The Syria vote: the wrong way to decide foreign policy...

The vote in Parliament on intervention in Syria was pretty much a how to in how not to make massive decisions on matters of foreign policy. For a start, the whole discussion was characterised by the kind of school boy jeering which is standard practice in the House of Commons, but I would have liked to think our elected representatives would rise above when discussing the potential of sending our army into a country in the midst of civil war. Apparently not. Syrian children are being massacred, but this is not, it seems, a matter serious enough to forgo an opportunity for some laddish taunting of those on the opposite bench.

Both the government and the opposition put forward motions, Labour’s slightly more cautious and restrained (and, in my opinion, better for it) but broadly both motions were rather similar; both saying military intervention was an option, but neither calling for it immediately or without further evidence.

This begs the question of why Cameron decided to call the vote at all. With UN inspectors currently gathering greater evidence, and the wider response from the international community not yet clear having a vote on “whether we might do something at some point maybe depending on what happens” seems at best pointless and at worst damaging; and the result was closer to the latter.

Both the government and the opposition put forward motions which left the option of military intervention on the table, and the result seems to be that military intervention is no longer on the table.

Parliamentary democracy at its finest? More of a muddle, with many MPs being interviewed afterwards citing Cameron’s motion being hasty and reckless as their reason for voting against, rather than total opposition to intervention (you’d imagine, since both the motions put forward left it as an option, neither side was really against it, right?). Cameron’s motion was concerning, most clearly for its short termism. If we go in to Syria, we are not leaving for a very long time and if we were to intervene we’d need to accept this and have a long term strategy; that would be truly learning the lessons of Iraq.

But if the reason Labour voted against the government’s motion was not that they opposed intervention entirely but that they disagreed with the motion itself, why have Cameron and Miliband decided that, no matter what happens, no matter what happens on the ground in Syria, no matter what the international community does, the UK will not be taking part in intervention?

I’m not saying I definitely think we should intervene in Syria; I’m actually really sceptical of the idea. Although my instincts are fundamentally internationalist and interventionist, the situation in Syria makes it next to impossible to know what a successful intervention would actually entail – with no clear “good guys” on either side of the conflict for us to work alongside – and intervention might well do more harm than good. As hard as it might be to accept, at least right now, they’re might not be much we can do, humanitarian support and aid aside.

What I don’t understand is what is to be gained from completely rejecting any possibility of intervention no matter what happens or what is discovered about the situation, based on a vote which arguably shouldn’t have happened at all, where party politics was more relevant than it should be on issues of this magnitude and complexity, where all sides went in wanting the opposite of what happened and where many  MPs reasons for voting the way they did were not that they completely rejected intervention.

People are being massacred in Syria and though we should be cautious and measured in our response, we should not be taking options off the table and we should not be limiting the ways in which we can, potentially, help. The vote on Thursday night was about as far from the right way to take a decision, to take any decision, on this situation, as we could have gotten. 

A new sense of optimism, and musing on Labour Party Conference.

A while ago I wrote a blog post asking why so many of my fellow Labourites did not feel optimistic about our party, our electoral chances and the direction we were moving in. More recently, I discussed the need for Labour to show greater courage of their convictions. After this year’s Labour Party conference, both blog posts no longer seem relevant. I left conference unsure of my opinion on party conferences, but so sure of my opinion of my party, its leader and its vision; so filled with optimism that was now shared by far more people than when I wrote a blog post calling for the party to cheer up.

This was my first year attending conference, and beforehand I read the occasional conference tips blog post, as well as following the little labourlist debate over whether conference is even worth having…but mostly I was excited to go but didn’t do much to really plan or structure what I was doing to do, and I didn’t really know what to expect. So what do I think of conference, post having actually done it myself? I’m not sure. I guess the one thing I’d say is it’s kind of what you make of it. I had a really great time at conference, but when I go again I’ll be sure to plan more, to structure more; to really fill my time, try and meet more new people (however lovely it is to keep bumping into old friends), attend more training sessions (two of the highlights of conference, for me, were Young Labour’s speech writing training and a workshop on using contact creator for community organising)…or maybe I’ll just apply to be a steward and ensure I’ll be productive during conference that way. Because, yes, I did have a lot of fun, but the length of conference is a long time to kind of just be milling around for a lot of it.

That being said, there were some excellent fringes; Andy Burnham talking about the living wage was seriously inspiring, and I’m really excited to work on Young Labour’s priority campaign on youth homelessness, having attended its launch. There were a lot of really interesting stalls (although there were also some really random ones; including what was, as far as I can tell, a completely none-political jewellery stall. Also the Countryside Alliance seemed to have got confused and wandered in by mistake). And there were also a lot of really awesome people collected together in one space, and I wish I’d had more time to see more of them.

And, really, it was worth going to conference just for Ed Miliband’s speech; I’m not going to go into depth about how amazing it was…that’s been done enough, but if the only purpose of conference was to give this speech the media attention it deserved (which I don’t think is the only purpose of conference, by the way) then that would be more than enough of a reason for it. It was phenomenal (I may have been teary eyed throughout; in fact I may have been teary eyed before it even began, having welled up when I realised David Tennant was narrating the montage of Labour’s achievements shown before Ed took the stage).  

And the optimism after this amazing speech was just wonderful. A party maybe still a little dubious about its leader before was now no longer. The Fabian’s Spin Alley fringe after the speech was required to do very little spinning (the whole panel went something along the lines of: “how good was it?!” “I know; it was SO good!”. It was very enjoyable). Cheers of “Ed, Ed, Ed!” as Ed walked into the Young Labour reception illustrated a mood felt throughout conference; our leader is amazing, his vision is there and it’s a vision we believe in and want to fight for and we can win in 2015. One Nation Labour, reused and echoed throughout other conference speeches, and also just in everyone’s conversations, is a really rather brilliant framework for the Labour Party to move forward within.

“One Nation: a country where prosperity is fairly shared. One Nation: a country where we all feel part of a shared endeavour. One Nation: a country that we rebuild together” 

Reading my free copy of Total Politics on the train home from conference, I was happy to be getting back to politics. But wow, was I excited about the politics I was going back to.

The Labour Party vs The Democratic Party; the courage of our convictions and what we stand for.

“If [the party] can’t articulate what Labour stands for, voters will lose interest.”, says Jenni Russell in a recent article; and the sentiment here seems to be one that is shared by much of the electorate. Why is it such a struggle for Labour, and Ed, to say what we stand for? I spent the past month-and-a-bit working on a Congressional and Senate campaign in the US. Of course my experience was of one campaign in one state, but during that experience something that struck me was that the Democrats knew what they stood for, and the voters I spoke to knew what they stood for. This is a party with far less party unity, where candidates do not all communicate the same “message” and quite openly have differing views on certain issue; but there was a far clearer sense of what made them Democrats, and what they stood for and were fighting for, than, I think, there currently is in the Labour Party.

Of course, it is easier when you’re in government; it is far easier to have a concrete policy agenda when it consists is what you’ve done, from which point it is easier to say what you will do. And it helps that there is a massive divide on social issues; to be socially liberal becomes a far more defining feature than it ever would be in the UK. But these factors don’t go the whole way towards explaining why the Democrats seem so much more successful at communicating, as well as fully understanding themselves, what they stand for, than the Labour Party.

Firstly, they have a coherent economic plan. Now, on one hand, so do we; the fundamental divide between Labour and the Tories; stimulus vs austerity; is clear. But the Democrats have a far clearer vision on what money will be spent where, which taxes will be cut and where that moneys going to come from. Of course, this is easier when you’re in government; and it’s easier when the election is in site, and the economic circumstances in which you will take power are (relatively) clear. Of course Labour can only say, “this is the plan; but that may change as the circumstances change”. But we can still form more of a plan; VAT cut, house building, jobs for young people…what else? What other, concrete things will Labour do? And in forming our economic plan, it may take the courage of our convictions, when it comes to where the money will come from, to say, “some will be raised through taxes, but some will come later; when the economy is growing and we are generating more income. And we can afford to wait for that to really tackle the deficit”.

The courage of their convictions is something the Democrats are displaying in spades, right now. And that is something that has alot of weight, politically. Trying to be all things to all people, or seeming to be apologising for yourselves, makes you look weak. The Democrats were guilty of this in 2010; Obamacare being treated as this shameful issue of which they must not speak. By contrast, the at the Democratic National Convention, Obamacare was celebrated; even if you did not like the policy, you could not doubt that Bill Clinton, or Michelle Obama, or Stacey Lihn, the mother of a child she feared would die without Obamacare, or Barack Obama himself, liked the policy. Labour has its moments of conviction and self-belief, but all too often it can seem to be trying to appeal to everyone. We need to courage to say “this is our policy; this is why it’s right”.

And the Democrats, without a doubt, have values. As does the Labour Party. But the power in the values the Democrats communicate, and in the rhetoric they use, is that they relate it back to people. Very specific examples of how this college grant helped his person succeed, or this healthcare expansion saved this person’s life; be they hypothetical or real people. And if I were to summarise the values that the Democrats stand for; it would be enabling people to be able. Empowering people to be as limitless as they can be; not letting circumstances get in the way of their potential. And beyond this, the Democratic Party has been broadly pragmatic; to achieve this goal, they approach individual issues not as ideologues but as problem solvers. This puts them in stark contrast with a Republican Party that is, currently, fiercely and stubbornly ideological.

The Labour Party could so easily paint ourselves in the same way; the Tory’s economic policies are horribly, stubbornly and idiotically ideological. But it is tempting to try and counter this with a grand vision of our own. But no one knows what will happen while you’re in government. And portraying a Labour government that tackles each knew problem, with values, but also with pragmatism; and looking at, fundamentally, how decisions will really affect individuals and communities, is a strong message.

A lot of this is about conviction and coherence. There are times when we have alternative policies, but we attack the Tories rather than express them; times when we could develop more policies but shy away because we do not know what’s coming; times when we could paint a picture of ourselves as the competent problem solvers of British Politics, and instead we attack the Tories. In an ideal world, the Labour Party would get Bill Clinton to explain to the electorate who we are, what we stand for, what we will do in government and the attitudes with which we would do it. But, since that is unlikely to be a realistic option any time soon, we should probably work out how to do it ourselves. 

A few thoughts on the Queen's Speech...

So council seat losses left, right and centre (including in Cameron’s own constituency), senior Lib Dems thinking of pulling out of the coalition agreement early and a situation where the two parties appeared to be agreeing that each would drop their policies in exchange for...well, the other also dropping their policies (the imagine of this manner of coalition government continuing, with continued policy shedding until all that is left of the coalition is Osborne and Alexander sharing a copy of the Financial Times is highly amusing) ; that whole Tory-Lib Dem coalition thing is going excellently, isn’t it?

But the timing was excellent; the Queen’s Speech; a perfect opportunity for the government to redeem itself by laying out its key proposals for how it would improve the lives of currently dissatisfied British electorate.

And there was a promise to establish a Green Investment Bank, measures to “ensure supermarkets deal fairly and lawfully with suppliers”, promises of banking regulation and increasing the flexibility of parental leave (and if we’re looking at general positives of the speech, might as well mention the foreign policy promises; although “we don’t like nuclear proliferation and like the spread of democracy” is not really a stance that anyone’s likely to disagree with).

There was also the symbolic but still meaningful promise of modernising the governing succession to the Crown (although, and I may just be being really ignorant about constitutional law here, but the need to “take it forward”, implying a gradual change, rather than, well, just do it, seems slightly odd to me), which is...well, quiet nice. Not all that helpful for most people’s lives, but it should be done, and it’s good that they’re planning to.

A bill to “reduce burdens on charities” is no bad thing; although a funny proposal from a government that has recently decided to tax charitable donations. Promises to ensure energy prices are “fair”, again, are clearly good in theory; but what fair means to the Tories in comparison to most people’s understanding of the word, and how exactly they intend to ensure prices are fair, has yet to be seen.

Beyond that, however, this speech was at worst bad and at best bland.

Of course suggestions we should help children with disabilities and special needs are positive suggestions, but given the government’s current record on disability benefits and funding to education for kids with special needs them implying that they want to help these children...unless it’s followed by a real policy U-turn are nothing short of disgusting.

That “legislation will be introduced to reduce burdens on business by repealing unnecessary legislation and to limit state inspection of businesses” is genuinely worrying in terms of workers’ rights. Of course, the exact legislation will need to be seen; it may prove fine but the implications of this statement are a serious cause for concern.

“Legislation will be introduced to reform public service pensions in line with the recommendations of the independent commission on public service pensions.” ...because, clearly, the coalition, thus far, has been so excellent and fair in their attitude to public sector pensions, I’m sure this legalisation will continue to be so!

Above all, however, it is not what the bill says, but what it does not; where is the plan for jobs and growth? How does this speech show any kind of departure from what the government is doing at the moment? It doesn’t. The economy re-enters the recession and the coalition ploughs on with their economic strategy. Surely by doing the exact same thing, they’ll produce a different result this time! Because that is in accordance with all logic!

House of Lords reform is, apparently, after much dithering, still going ahead. I’m...not going to talk about my opinions of House of Lords reform here, because they’re somewhat against the general left-wing grain and I think might require a full blog post...but my own opinions aside, it’s just so...we have massive unemployment and an economy that’s going no where. And the government has no real plans to fix this. But they have plans to introduce House of Lords reform! Making a real difference to people’s lives in hard times, right there!

Individual voter registration seems like nothing but a cheap political move; when turn out as low as it is why on earth should we make it harder for people to vote? Labour will need to respond with a massive drive to ensure our voters are registered; those who require postal votes especially.

Ed Miliband was probably the best I’ve ever seen him in the Commons today. He was really funny (from yougov to penguins) but also really strongly on message; really clear about the problems with this speech and with this government. Cameron’s attempts at rebuttal were poor (and his attempts at humour even worse...); increasingly he has shown himself to be an over-schooled and under-skilled Etonian in his ability to hold this government together (and his claim that Labour did “nothing” during the financial crisis deserves a brief mention for its sheer historical inaccuracy...).

Aside from settling the will they won’t they question regarding House of Lords reform, this speech, then, this speech was mostly just...rather rubbish....at a time when the coalition needed to deliver something spectacular.

So well done, Cameron.

Well done, Clegg.

Clearly this whole thing’s proved to be a match made in heaven.