NByNW Diary: Benn Steals the Day by Opposing a Bennite

Wednesday 2^nd December

It has been the sort of day which encapsulates the best and worst of our democracy.

The best in that the most important issue of all – the matter of war and peace – was openly discussed in great depth and at great length.

The worst in that those who made mistakes in the heat of the moment were too proud to apologise for it.

Last night, the Prime Minister let his legendary temper get the better of him and said to those Tory backbenchers who were going to vote against military action in Syria that they would be voting with (amongst others) “terrorist sympathisers”. It was insulting and unstatesmanlike, and at the start of today’s epic debate he attempted to play down the scandal, but like a child who was being told to say sorry for something he didn’t feel sorry about, David Cameron did not apologise.

Then 10 hours of debate followed. Numerous speeches were excellent. Both for and against. Yvette Cooper, Margaret Beckett, Andrew Tyrie, Sir Alan Duncan, Angus Roberston all excelled themselves, to name but a few. Hell, even Tim Farron rose to the occasion. In contrast, David Cameron was hampered by his outburst the previous evening, and Jeremy Corbyn was halting and lacking in coherence.

However, like many a Shakespearean drama, the best moment came from the subplot, which has been about the Labour party and the divisions within it. It was encapsulated when Hilary Benn stood up to speak against his leader’s position.

Benn’s famous father Tony may not have delivered the speech that his son did tonight, but he was somehow, seminally present. His son stood up for what he believed. He spoke with passion and verve and if you closed your eyes just a bit you could have seen his progenitor in the mannerisms and gesticulations that he used. When talking of the “fascists” of Daesh who hold everyone else in contempt, he produced a grand sweep of his arm as he pointed to every member of the House. It was a Bennite expression, and will live long in the memory.

Hilary Benn’s speech was about the matter at hand and he made a clear case. But the speech was also about the soul of the Labour party. His leader sat grim-faced behind him, and he got grimmer and grimmer as Benn’s rhetoric soared and drew purrs of approval from the opposition benches behind. It spoke of Labour’s role in founding the UN, in being a party of internationalism. It was not just opposed to his leader’s view on Syria, but to his leader’s foreign policy almost entirely.

As Daniel Finkelstein noted this morning, after the 1970 election defeat his father asked Harold Wilson whether he still had to speak with the opinion of the Shadow Cabinet. Today, his son took on that spirit but the irony of all ironies is this: Hilary Benn tried to reclaim the soul of the Labour party from a Bennite.

His speech was greeted with applause (unparliamentary, but allowed by the fastidious Speaker Bercow), and cries of “outstanding”. His opposite number, Philip Hammond, called it one of the great speeches. When he sat down next to Jeremy Corbyn the tension was palpable. John McDonnell looked crestfallen. The speech of the day had been given in opposition to their position and by their own Foreign Secretary.

Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, to see someone to speak with such passion and energy and conviction and good conscience and import in such extraordinary circumstances is the true celebration of what our Mother of all Parliaments gives a platform for.

The votes began and a hush descended before the result was announced. The motion was carried by 397 to 223: a majority of 174. The word was that 15 Labour waverers were swayed by Benn.

A severe moment, and it is worth echoing the words of Toby Perkins (Labour, Chesterfield) from the debate: “I envy those who describe this choice as a “no brainer”… It’s not been obvious to me, it’s been very, very difficult indeed.” He voted against military action.

NByNW Diary: Beware of Simplicity in the Syria Debate

Thursday 26^th November

This is a rather serious entry. It is also rather long, so for ease it is in sections. The first concerns the events of the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament on Syria this morning. The second analyses the strategy. The third looks at where this leaves us.

1. The Prime Minister’s Statement

One of the reasons for my lack of levity, is that there doesn’t seem to be much to mock. Today, in many ways, saw the Commons at its best. Normally when the Prime Minister is before the House there is the braying and roaring and besuited hooliganism that makes this diarist, as well as countless others, despair. Not so today.

Today, the Prime Minister made his statement on strategy in Syria, as he builds up for a vote to extend our airstrikes against ISIS from their current mission in Iraq. He spoke eloquently and carefully. There was no bombast, but a frank assessment of the matter at hand and of our ability to deal with it. He proposes that we join the coalition currently bombing ISIS military targets (arms depots, training facilities, oil plants, oil convoys etc.), but has confirmed that no western ground forces will go in (because that doesn’t seem to have gone well in the past). He hopes that a grand coalition can be born out of the myriad forces in conflict in Syria. As for legality, the advice is never published, but the recent UN Resolution 2249 authorises “all necessary measures” to defeat ISIS.

In response, Jeremy Corbyn asked seven pertinent questions. The Prime Minister answered them in a yes/no style, with further elaboration on each point. Angus Robertson of the SNP took a stronger stance against the proposed strikes, but argued his case and reiterated key concerns. He said the SNP will not, at present, vote to support airstrikes.

The session was filled with wisdom and concern, and for a few hours in the morning the frequent cynicism that I feel towards our democratic institution faded.

2. Where are the Flaws in the Strategy?

There can be no doubt, as all of the aforementioned leaders said, that the threat is real and that the suffering is too terrible to ignore. That creates the sense that something must be done but, as Yes Minister fans know, this leads to the danger of politician’s logic:

1. Something must be done.

      2. This is something.

      3. Therefore, I must do it.

Mr Corbyn and Mr Roberston are very right to be cautious, and they raise key issues. Even if these airstrikes are to be meticulously targeted on ISIS’ considerable military organisation, they would at best leave a vacuum in a politically turbulent area. It is not clear what ground forces would be able to secure a military victory, and no ideological consensus there to provide fertile soil for a victory of hearts and minds.

Nevertheless, Mr Cameron is equally right to follow his conscience and make his case. If something must be done, then to do nothing is such a horrific abnegation of responsibility that it should leave us with yet more shame on top of that we have accrued so far this century.

There is likely to be a vote soon – possibly next week – and it seems probable that the airstrikes will be authorised. Mr Cameron still has questions to answer about the long-term strategy, but those who are asking the questions must also seek for alternative answers. It is not enough to find the holes in this road. You have to fill them. Given the immense complexity of this situation, it will require people on all sides to work together.

3. Where Does This Leave Us?

In recent weeks, I have read opinions that describe the proposed intervention as simply us “wanting to play with the big boys”. This seems to be very far from the truth when thousands are being slaughtered in Syria and Iraq, and the threat travels overseas into museums, bars, music venues and more. It is worth saying again, the threat is real – not just to us, but to millions of others. If you care about the migrants who have fled across seas and continents, then you must equally care about those left behind.

We are wary. We are understandably wary. As a country, we are racked with guilt and anger over our obvious and dreadful errors in recent decades. Of course we do not want to repeat them. To his credit, Mr Cameron cites that recent history – even his own mistakes in Libya – and claims to be a student of them. Let us hope that he truly is.

However, many fear that this is just another instance of us sticking our oars into troubled waters only to make them more troubled still. Perhaps so. That is why this kind of scrutiny and debate must be celebrated and not scorned. We can never be certain about anything. All we can do is respectfully listen to all sides and humbly seek as much information as we can.

But, beware of misinformation. Beware of catchy memes. Beware of “facts” that get retweeted a thousand times.

For instance, on today’s Daily Politics, Lindsey German of Stop The War claimed that ISIS was being given arms by Saudi Arabia. It seems to chime with our fears and reservations of the Saudis. It is immensely plausible, and is within a 140 character limit. However, Next to her was Malcolm Chalmers, Director of the respected think tank on such things, the Royal United Services Institute. He had heard of no such evidence, nor could she actually provide it.

None of this grave situation is simple. Therefore, above all, beware simplicity.

Follow North by North Westminster on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NByNWestminster

Like our Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/northbynorthwestminster?fref=nf

Follow us on SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/north-by-north-westminster

The North by North Westminster Diary: Rambo Trump Wants to Fight Fire with Oil Fires

Tuesday 17^th November

The number of people who have crowbarred the horrific events of the weekend to fit their own prejudices just grows and grows in a frankly sickening display.

Today, I would like to focus on Donald Trump. His initial reaction to the news from Paris was all too predictable: “Oh, there’s been an attack involving guns. Just goes to show that everyone should have guns.”

Well, John Rambo, let’s consider this particular case. If everyone had had firearms, the terrorists would not have been able to gun down as many people as they did, but only if ordinary people had had the calm and the aim to not shoot at the suicide vests the attackers were wearing. And if the terrorists hadn’t just detonated their bombs. Which they probably would have done because they would have known they would have been shot.

Even if that hadn’t happened, the armed police might not have been able to respond as quickly as they did because they would have been spread about town dealing with all of the firearms incidents and killings which happen when there’s no gun control. On the basis of American figures, there would be 54 firearms deaths and injuries across France every day.

All of which leaves us with one conclusion – loads of people would still have died, and more would be dying as a matter of course. So, well done Donald: another hole got out of by digging it deeper.

Rambo then moved onto military strategy to combat IS, and he suggested that, because IS makes a lot of its considerable wealth through oil, that he would “bomb the shit” out of the oil camps, and then send in the Marines and take the crude.

Well, here Donald has put his finger on an actual strategic issue. The revenue from ISIS’ oil is vast and it goes toward funding terrorism, war and human trafficking. That’s why the Coalition has been bombing the oil refineries, though no-one has suggested going in and grabbing the black gold.

Here's the problem - it didn't work. They bombed the refineries, and what did IS do? They sent the unrefined oil ahead to other refineries. To remove the problem of the oil, you have to destroy it. Which you would do if you "bombed the shit out of it" with incendiary bombs. Which, as anyone who’s studied fire safety knows, would destroy quite a lot of the oil. Try using it or selling it then, you Gordon-Gekko-jackass.

My problem is the sheer, hollow-headed idiocy of suggesting a policy that hasn't worked as if it's a new idea, and then coming up with a Machiavellian scheme to make money out of it which doesn't work because he hasn't read an elementary science textbook.

He isn't some moustache-twirling, or indeed wig-adjusting, super-villain. He's a total berk with a psychology so warped that Freud and Jung would have to get help in order to psycho-analyse him.

My problem is that he's so jaw-droppingly inept and inappropriate for the important job for which he is applying.

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Soundcloud.

Listen to our rebuttal of Katie Hopkins' response to the Paris Attacks below.

The North by North Westminster Diary: Compassion and Unity - Not Division

Monday 16th November

The diary takes the form of a short podcast today with Jack Blackburn, Ben Mepsted and Tristan Rogers discussing the terrible events in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad. In particular, they focus on an article written by Katie Hopkins the day after the Paris attack with which they took issue. You can listen to it below.