[audioplayer src=”http://rss.acast.com/viewfrom22/thegreendelusion/media.mp3″ title=”James Forsyth and Fraser Nelson discuss Labour’s civil war over Syria airstrikes” startat=700]
Listen
[/audioplayer]It makes no sense for Britain to bomb Islamic State in Iraq but not Syria. Attacking a group that does not respect international borders on only one side of a border makes no strategic or military sense. From the Prime Minister down, government ministers are acutely aware of this absurdity. That is why they have been so keen to gain the Commons’ permission to extend the strikes to Syria.
Yet this week Westminster has been gripped, not by the strategic case for taking the fight to Islamic State in Syria, but by the effect that this debate has had on the Labour party. Unprecedented is an over-used word in political coverage; very few things are without precedent. But there really is no precedent for the Labour party’s current state.
It is far worse than Labour not having a position. Instead of having no policy, it has two policies — that of the leader and that of the shadow foreign secretary. Jeremy Corbyn is adamantly opposed to airstrikes and will make that case from the despatch box on Wednesday. But Hilary Benn is in favour and will make his argument from the same despatch box later in the debate. Even during the great Labour divide over Europe in the 1970s, Harold Wilson insisted that ministers speaking from the despatch box had to represent his position, even though cabinet collective responsibility had been suspended.
Almost no one in the Labour party is pretending that this is anything other than a shambles. The free vote and the opposing arguments being put from the same despatch box aren’t part of the fabled ‘new politics’ but a product of the fact that the leader and the shadow cabinet can’t agree.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in