Tonight Jeremy Corbyn's team sent out the above email, nominally seeking the views of Labour members like me on how Labour should vote on military action (although the link doesn't really prevent multiple responses from different addresses and does not require a party membership number). Below is what I sent back.
Dear Jeremy,
Thank you for your email asking my opinion on
Syria.
I have great respect for the hardworking
members of the PLP, whatever decision they have each individually made on this
matter of grave conscience. However, I personally lean towards the view that
Britain should join our US, French and now German allies in their action
against Daesh/ISIL, as both our party’s elected deputy leader and our shadow foreign secretary have advised.
Our party has a proud tradition of
internationalism, as well as one of standing up against fascist aggression, of
which Daesh/ISIL are a clear modern day example. You also pledged that our
movement would stand with the French in the wake of the tragic attacks in
Paris, but words must be met with actions.
It is of course correct to say that military
action alone will not solve this problem, and airstrikes will need to be
combined with diplomatic and economic efforts, but I believe advocates of
intervention have been satisfactorily clear that they understand this point
too. It is also of note that our actions would now be backed by the UN
resolution our conference motion called for.
I am glad you extracted assurances from the
prime minister that there would not be British boots on the ground, as I do not
believe it is the time for this, but airstrikes could be a valid contribution
that would minimise risk to our forces. Daesh/ISIL have lost 25% of their territory in recent months to ground offensives by local forces in theatre, backed
by airstrikes – UK action could help intensify these efforts.
I also do not believe it is correct to say that
acting will make us less safe – Daesh/ISIL will not leave us alone or go away
if we simply ignore them. The Yazidis and Kurds did not provoke a fight with
Daesh/ISIL, but this has not saved them from slaughter. Belgium has been
targeted, despite not currently being involved in the international effort. We
cannot apply logic and reason to the actions of these murderers – we must
instead confront them.
I further believe the prime minister has acted
duly, especially in light of the fact that his answers in Commons on Wednesday
appeared designed to address the four conditions stated in our party’s
conference resolution.
However, I must also be honest, both as a
Labour member and a citizen of the country you seek to lead – though the above
are my views, I feel they are irrelevant and that me replying to this consultation
means little, as I find it hard to believe you are seeking my opinion or those
of anyone else in good faith.
It has been reported that much of the shadow
cabinet leant towards intervention in its discussions on Thursday and was due
to re-adjourn on Monday for a final decision, but you nonetheless sent a letter
to all members of the PLP encouraging a vote against. This was combined with
Momentum, the successor organisation to your leadership campaign, calling on
its members to lobby the PLP against action, despite it being unclear how
Momentum reached this position within its currently opaque structures.
Given that your mind on the issue is clearly
made up, I can only assume that this consultation exercise is simply a further
attempt to pressure your own MPs as they rightfully wrestle with this difficult
issue (YouGov has already found that Labour members oppose military action, as
I am sure you and your team are aware, though it also found that the public and
Labour voters in the country at large appear to support it).
Further, I am unable to believe that there is
any circumstance under which you would personally support military action, in
Syria or otherwise. This is strongly implied by the stances you have taken
throughout your lengthy service in public life and by your failure to properly
answer when directly asked about your philosophy during one of the leadership
debates. On these grounds, you attempting to set tests for the government to
meet before you would agree to action is simply not a legitimate or honest
exercise - I cannot help but feel it would be far better for both the party I
love and the country I love if you could simply acknowledge this and explain
your genuine reasoning.
Kind regards,
Elliot Bidgood
Islington South & Finsbury Labour
Islington South & Finsbury Labour
Comments
Post a Comment