My reply to Labour's 'your views on Syria' consultation



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

Comments