Labour’s Progress MPs Should Be Helped to
Join the Tory Party
It's time for Momentum to mobilise support for Corbyn and begin the process of delection of Progress MPs
The narrow victory of Brexit in the European referendum has split the
Tories down the middle. The Conservative
Party is in the middle of an unprecedented political crisis as Cameron resigns
and Boris Johnson is the favourite to assume the mantle of leadership. Division over Europe has been the Tories Achilles
heel.
Corbyn demonstrates his boredom at Benn's actions by sacking him!
Labour's Right come to the rescue of Johnson
Added to this there is a constitutional crisis as the SNP moves to call
a new referendum over independence whilst seeking to preserve its place in the European
Union. The break up of the Great Britain
is a distinct possibility as Scotland will almost certainly vote for
independence in a new vote.
It is therefore no surprise that Labour’s Right has chosen this of all moments
to challenge Jeremy Corbyn. It is
entirely possible that the Tories will have to call a General Election. Their majority is less than 20. What Progress fears more than a Tory election
victory is a Labour victory under Corbyn.
As The Independent reported: ‘Tony
Blair has said he would not want a left-wing Labour party to win a general
election. The former prime minister said
that even if he thought a left-wing programme was the route to victory, he
would not adopt one.’
Labour's far-right Tory MP Peter Kyle should be helped to reach his natural political home
Blair’s opinion
represents the views of Progress. They
don’t want a radical change to the capitalist system. They don’t want a radical programme which
means the transfer of wealth from the super rich to the poor. They want to preserve inequality whilst
tinkering around at the edges.
David Lammy MP calls for Referendum to be ignored
It is now essential that Momentum, which Jon Lansman has ensured remains a toothless
guard dog, now springs into action to begin the process of deselection of Benn,
the multi-millionairess tax dodger Margaret Hodge, Hove’s Peter Kyle and all
the other Labour Tories.
Corbyn has
made a good start by sacking Hilary Benn from the Shadow Cabinet. He should now pre-empt any resignations by
sacking Angela Eagle, who is equally disloyal, her sister Maria, Israel’s
devoted supporter Fabian Hamilton and any other scab within the Shadow Cabinet. Stephen Kinnock, son of the Labour traitor
Neil Kinnock, who managed to lose 2 successive elections, Anne Coffey and the
rest of them should go.
The
disloyalty of Labour’s Right is unacceptable.
There needs to be a bloodbath and the deselection of at least 50
Progress MPs to encourage the others.
Farage ran a nakedly racist campaign
It is not
necessary for the Shadow Cabinet to cover every equivalent position in the
Cabinet. A smaller and tighter Shadow
Cabinet is better than a larger and more incoherent body.
The only
question is whether Labour stands for anything radically different from the Tory
Opposition. It is time to clean the
Augean Stables of the PLP.
Politically
Labour needs to make it clear that the Referendum on Brexit is not the final
say on the European Union. There needs to
be a political fight to win over the heartlands of Labour in the North and to
defang UKIP. It needs to drain the
poison which says that immigration causes low wages and loss of jobs. Immigration is a lightning conductor for
fears over jobs, housing and prosperity.
The idea that immigration causes job losses is nonsense.
If it were true then any country with
unemployment could expel a section of its population and solve the problem of
unemployment! In reality immigration
creates jobs because it increases demand.
The deindustrialisation of the North and Midlands was a result of a
deliberate policy of Thatcher to make Britain dependent on financial services
and a candy floss economy of coffee shops and services.
There is
no reason why the referendum on the EU should be final. It was won on lies and
there is no reason for there not to be a second
referendum. See
A
socialist economic policy is the only thing that can win over the Northern working-class. New Labour has no alternative. When Blair won in 1996 anybody could have
defeated the divided Tory party. In
every successive election Labour lost millions of votes. Blair’s reign was not a success, quite the
contrary. Corbyn was elected Labour
leader because of mass revulsion at the Tory’s victory and the half-hearted
response of Ed Miliband. Now is the time
for courage. Now is the time to wage war
on Progress MPs.
Below is an Open Letter I have sent to Hilary Benn concerning an article that he wrote for the Jewish News on his recent visit to Israel. Benn has copied the tactics of Horatio Nelson and turned a blind eye to that which he didn't want to see. Below are also the statements of Fabian Hamilton, who was recently appointed to a shadow junior ministerial role in foreign affairs. Not only is Hamilton a Zionist who smears supporters of the Palestinians as anti-Semitic but he is a signatory to the pro-Iraq War Euston Manifesto and a member of the cold war, far-Right Henry Jackson Society. A wonderful choice as a future Labour Minister.
It raises the question why Jeremy Corbyn has appointed two overt Zionists to the shadow foreign ministry when he could easily have put in someone who was pro-Palestinian. Indeed Fabian Hamilton specifically pointed out what his position on Israel/Palestine was and he was told by Corbyn's aides that this wasn't a problem. Well I think it certainly is a problem if Jeremy is jettisoning everything he has said about Israel and Palestine.
Tony Greenstein
Fabian Hamilton - Jeremy Corbyn's new Zionist shadow Foreign Minister
There was a time when people
visited South Africa, which incidentally was Israel’s closest military ally,
and came back with stories about how prosperous Black people there were and how
South Africa too was a “hi-tech centre” unlike the surrounding Black African states.
Indeed people used to visit Nazi Germany and come away equally blind to
the situation of its Jewish people. For
example Lord Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail, wrote in the Daily News
(4.9.33) re the situation of the Jews that:
‘They have started a clamorous campaign of
denunciation against what they call 'Nazi atrocities,' which, as anyone who
visits Germany quickly discovers for himself, consists merely of a few isolated
acts of violence.’
Like Lord Rothermere, you came and
you saw what you wanted to see.
Everything else was discarded.
You wrote that ‘today
there is no peace process’. But has there ever been a peace process? There have been many peace plans – from Rogers
to Kissinger to Kerry, but they have all fallen foul of Israel’s
intransigence. Israel is a settler
colonial entity that needs enemies in order to justify its militarism, even if
it has to manufacture them. The Zionist
movement which founded Israel, has always claimed the whole of the British Mandate
area of Palestine, Eretz Yisrael (the
Land of Israel).
The ‘peace process’ has been a cover for
expansion and settlement, under both Labour and Likud governments. Netanyahu’s Coalition Government unanimously
opposes a 2 State solution. When Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi
Hotoveli says
‘This land is ours.
All of it is ours. We expect as a matter of principle of the international
community to recognize Israel’s right to build homes for Jews in their
homeland, everywhere.” The Guardian,
22/5/15
what
part of that statement do you not understand?
The possibility of a two state solution has long
since disappeared. 600,000 settlers and
the strategic placement of settlements has
ensured that a Palestinian state is impossible to achieve.
Netanyahu made his position crystal clear in
Israel’s 2015 general election. He is
opposed to a Palestinian state. Why is
that so difficult to understand? Talk of
a ‘peace process’ and a 2 State solution serves one and only one purpose. It provides Israel with a pretext for
refusing to grant any civil or political rights for the 4½ million Palestinians
in the Occupied Territories. The ‘peace
process’ thus enables the present Apartheid situation to continue. Israel has no intention of agreeing either to
a Palestinian state or the granting of equal rights to the Palestinians under
occupation because that would be the end of a Jewish state. Those who talk of 2 States and a peace
process are accomplices in Israeli Apartheid.
What is most repugnant about your article is
that you treat the oppressed and the oppressor, the Palestinians and the
Israelis, as equivalent. People could be
forgiven for believing that Palestinians too fly war planes and drive tanks. You imply that there is a symmetry between
the two. Nowhere do you even mention the
Occupation.
You treat Israel as a normal western-style state rather than a state
based on ethno-religious supremacy. You
give succour to the Israeli claim that their main concern is a lack of security. You state that ‘the absence of a settlement
creates fear and uncertainty about the future in a very troubled region.’ This is complete nonsense. Israeli Jews voted overwhelmingly for parties
opposed to Palestinian self-determination and statehood. One can assume that people who vote for the
parties of a Greater Israel intend the consequences of their actions.
The people who require security are not the Israelis, who are armed to
the teeth but the Palestinians who live under military occupation or siege in
Gaza. Not once did you mention the blockade
of Gaza which is preventing the rebuilding of Gazan homes after Israel’s blitzkrieg
which killed 2,200 people, including 550 children, in Operation Protective Edge
in 2014. Gaza is subject to a water
tight blockade, by air, sea and land.
Its water has been stolen and now 90% of its water is unfit for human consumption. Gaza has had its trade destroyed and its gas
fields stolen yet none of this was worthy of comment by you.
It is ironic that you and your new fellow shadow Foreign Affairs Minister,
Fabian Hamilton, oppose sanctions against Israel but have nothing to say on the
blockade of Gaza. That is the measure of
your hypocrisy.
In your description of your visit to Hebron, you mention the checkpoints
and ‘a pervasive tension’. Checkpoints
were of course part of the pass system of South Africa. You refer to ‘a cycle of killing.’ as if there
was parity between the occupied and occupiers.
But whereas you display sympathy for the ‘Young Israeli soldiers (who) are
stuck in the middle of it all’ you evince no sympathy for the Palestinians
whose city it is.
Even when you mention the fact that Palestinian shopkeepers and
residents have ‘metal netting separating them to catch the rubbish that some
settlers throw down on their neighbours’ you draw no conclusions. The settlers in Hebron are a bunch of racist red
necks. Their fellows in the nearby
settlement of Kiryat Arba have a shrine and memorial to one Baruch Goldstein
who, in 1994 opened fire on worshippers
in the Ibrahimi Mosque killing 29 people and wounding some 125. Hebron’s settlers not only throw their shit
(literally) down on their Palestinian neighbours but they scrawl graffiti such
as ‘Arabs to the Gas Chambers’ on their walls.
But all this merits no comment from you.
You mention, without comment, the fact that Israeli soldiers are ‘operating
to different rules of engagement for Palestinians and for settlers.’ To most people that would suggest a racist apartheid
style occupation. But for you it merely
‘fuels resentment.’
You are on record as describing Israel as a
‘vibrant democracy’ ‘Labour must “take on” those who delegitimise Israel, says
Hilary Benn’ Not only is there discrimination
against Israeli Palestinians in every single sector of life such as education,
housing etc. there is also a virulent anti-Arab racism.
On Jerusalem Day every
year, mobs march through the city chanting ‘Death to the Arabs’, a popular
slogan of the Right. According to an
opinion poll in the largest circulation daily, Yediot Aharanot40 percent of Israeli Jews agree
that Arabs should not have a right to vote and over 50% believe Israel should
encourage its Arab citizens to leave the country.
Only last week it was reported that a book was banned by
the Education Ministry for use in Jewish high schools because it depicted a
romance between Jewish and Arab teenagers.
The book was held to pose a threat to Israeli Jewish national identity. In the words of the responsible Education
official, Dalia Fenig,
‘The story is based on a romantic motif of impossible
prohibited/secret love. Young people of adolescent age tend to romanticize and
don’t, in many cases, have the systemic vision that includes considerations
involving maintaining the national-ethnic identity of the people and the
significance of miscegenation.'
In other words Israeli schools should not encourage relationships between different races. Does that call to mind any similar countries?
We also had last week legislative attacks on human rights
NGOs such as Btselem and Breaking the Silence in this ‘vibrant democracy’.
I can only suggest that the next time you visit Israel that you take a
pair of spectacles with you.
Last week I visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel. It
was my third trip to a region I first visited more than a decade ago. The aim
was simply to hear, to see and to learn more from people and politicians on
both sides.
I returned full of thoughts and reflections, but I am sad to say that
politically my overriding sense was of gloom at the lack of progress since the
Oslo Accords. To put it bluntly, today there is no peace process.
For the Palestinians, who rightly want their own state and their civic,
political and economic rights, hope is absent. The younger generation grew up
on promises of peace, progress and jobs but now there is just huge frustration
and despair.
And for Israelis, who also want security and to get on with their lives,
the absence of a settlement creates fear and uncertainty about the future in a
very troubled region.
We know, however, that politics can find a way forward. We have seen how
it can bring peace where once there was only conflict. All the Israeli and
Palestinian politicians I met told me about their continued commitment to two
states, with Israel living in security alongside an independent Palestinian
state. But this could all too easily slip away unless political leaders on both
sides act with urgency. Some people told me that the continued building of
settlements means that time is running out for a two-state solution, and yet
that the alternative does not bear thinking about.
As in all long-running conflicts, more attention is paid to past wrongs
rather than to the possibilities of future cooperation. The economic dividend
of peace would be enormous, especially for the Palestinians. But instead both
sides find it hard to move beyond suspicion and resentment.
Of course, each conflict is different, but as on my two previous trips,
I found myself reflecting a lot on our experience in Northern Ireland. At the
height of the troubles in the 1970s, it used to be said that the conflict had
been going on for 400 years and would still be going on in another 400 years.
And yet it isn’t. In the end, it took political leadership in both communities
to change things; a decision to seek peace rather than continue to blame each
other.
The international community certainly has its part to play in securing
two states so that Israelis and Palestinians can live side-by-side in peace,
security and mutual respect but ultimately it must and will fall to leaders to
make this happen.
I hope that the new year will bring a new commitment to peace,
remembering that small steps can lead to big progress. A freeze on illegal
settlement building and vocal condemnation of violence would certainly help.
There are two possible futures for Israelis and Palestinians. The
morning I spent in Hebron illustrated what can happen if the conflict continues
to fester and isn’t resolved. The main road, where once there was a thriving
market, has been closed off. There were checkpoints, no-go areas and a
pervasive tension, created in part by a cycle of killing. Settlers live above
Palestinian shopkeepers with metal netting separating them to catch the rubbish
that some settlers throw down on their neighbours. Young Israeli soldiers are
stuck in the middle of it all operating to different rules of engagement for
Palestinians and for settlers, further fuelling resentment.
And yet it could be so different with people of different faiths living
alongside each other and worshipping freely. This is not a dream because it was
the history of Hebron for many years and there is no reason why is should not
be so again.
The other future is the one I saw in Jerusalem in the new media quarter
by the old railway station. Start-up media companies, a technology incubator,
restaurants, a music club and concert venue and a youth empowerment programme
supporting youngsters from some of the city’s most deprived
neighbourhoods.
It is all about people coming together to build something better and
provide jobs and opportunity for the next generation. It can be done.
For hope to win out and to achieve justice for the Palestianians and
security for Israel, all that is needed is for courageous political leadership
to compromise in the interests of peace.
There are always reasons why it is hard to do this. But if not now,
when?
‘The new shadow minister didn’t mince his words in
speaking out against boycotts of Israel. “If you’re going to boycott Israel
because of what it allegedly does you should boycott China too which means not
buying computers or mobile phones. Are you going to boycott Burma? Are you
going to boycott all the countries that treat minorities far worse than Israel
ever does because Israel is a democratic country? Are you going to boycott all
the dictatorships in the world? If you’re going to do that then maybe you have
a case for boycotting Israel. Until then, it’s absolutely out the question.
It’s simply anti-Semitic.”
He said he was “disgusted and appalled” at the
recent vote by Labour’s national executive committee to sever ties with
security firm G4S over its work in Israel, adding that holding the vote after
many members had left the meeting was “disgraceful”. It came despite the
party’s long-standing stance against boycotts.
Fabian Hamilton also stressed that he had opposed
sanctions against Iran “because it hits the ordinary people far more than the
elite leadership. The only time it worked was in South Africa. It’s a cheap and
nasty way of making a point”.’
He hailed the Jewish
state as a with a “vibrant democracy”, adding: “Our future relations must be
built on cooperation and engagement, not Israel of Israel. We must take on
those who seek to delegitimise the state of Israel or question its right to
exist.”
Benn’s War Mongering is in Stark Contrast to the Anti-War Record of Tony Benn
According to The Telegraph, Hilary Benn is 'the poster-boy for war in Syria and David Cameron’s favourite
Labour MP'
Corbyn speaks to anti-war demonstrators
Whilst
his father, the great socialist and anti-war campaigner, Tony Benn was spinning
in his grave, the Tories were in raptures over Hilary Benn’s vacuous and
emotive speech.
Murdoch’s
Sunday Times reports that Benn talked his way into being Labour’s white knightand Adam Boulson reported that, ‘The applause after Hilary Benn’s speech in
favour of extending RAF bombing into Syria was unprecedented, running in a
Mexican wave from the Tory benches, around the horseshoe of the chamber’.
Cameron - transfixed by Hilary Benn's speech in favour of an imperialist war
Dianne Abbott - the most consistently loyal member of Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet
‘JEREMY CORBYN is thought to be
planning a “revenge reshuffle” to purge his shadow cabinet of MPs who voted for
airstrikes on Syria, senior Labour sources fear.
Tristram Hunt - ex-Etonian War Mongering New Labourite
…. Among the key targets would be
Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary, whose rousing 15-minute speech in
the House of Commons in favour of airstrikes was seen as having stiffened the
resolve of MPs opposed to Corbyn’s resistance to bombing. Corbyn faced calls from John Ross, an
influential supporter with links to key members of his inner circle, to remove
Benn.’
One should though make an exception for the right-wing eccentric, Peter
Hitchens, of the Mail On Sunday, who summed up Benn’s speech beautifully: ‘if Hilary
Benn’s politically illiterate, factually challenged and emotive diatribe was a
great speech, then we have indeed fallen on hard times.’
Hitchens
is right. Hilary Benn’s speech was
dishonest and disingenuous. He first
summoned that gang of cutthroats, otherwise known as the United Nations, in
support. The same United Nations that
has elected Saudi Arabia to the Human Rights Council and as Chair of a Human Rights Panel.
At a Washington State Department Press Conference, one questioner asked about
the United State’s reaction to the fact that Saudi Arabia was named to head the
Human Rights Council in view of the fact that they had just announced that they
were about to behead a 21-year-old Shia activist named Muhammed al-Nimr. A Mr Toner, spokesperson for the State department was quite explicit:
‘I don’t have any comment, don’t have any
reaction to it. I mean, frankly, it’s – we would welcome it. We’re close
allies. If we’
That
is the reality of the ‘anti-fascist’ alliance that Benn conjured up in order to
gain support for the murder by bombing
of Syrian civilians. Apparently the
cause of ISIS’s barbarities is that ‘they
hold us I contempt, our values and tolerance in contempt, our democracy in
contempt, fascists need to be defeated.’
Like
the vacuous George Bush, they hate us because of our freedoms. Perhaps it might have something to do with
the fact that we bomb them!
Although
it is easy and lazy to describe ISIS as fascist, it is not a fascist
movement. It is an extremely reactionary,
murderous group that has grown up as a result of previous western military
adventures, notably in Iraq. It is not
the product of an industrial society and the need to destroy working-class organisations,
which is the classic hallmark of fascism.
Nazi Germany was one of the world’s foremost industrial powers. Italy was heavily industrialised. Spain had a militant working-class and so
on. Isis is a nasty and reactionary
group but to call them fascist is incorrect.
It is a movement that grew up in opposition to imperialism but reflect
all the savagery and more of imperialism.
But
even if we accept that Isis’s mindset is close to or akin to that of fascists,
then is it seriously suggested that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan are also
anti-fascist allies? How does the
cutting off of heads by Saudi Arabia differ from that of Isis? Is the proposed stoning of a young Sri Lankanhousemaid by Saudi Arabia also part of this socialist alliance? As for our ‘sister socialist party in France’
it has introduced a 3 month state of emergency which renders illegal all public demonstrations. This is an administration which had already
outlawed Palestinian protests and has now presided over the tear gassing of a
Climate Change protest. Hollande is no
different from Tony Blair in his politics.
There is nothing whatsoever socialist about this bankrupt government.
The
comparison with the International Brigades, who went to fight Franco in the
1930’s was positively shameful. They
fought for a Republican Government which was starved of weaponry and support by
Britain and the western powers, thus handing victory to General Franco. The same Tory Party whose MPs applauded Benn
last week were the ones who supported Franco in the 1930’s.
The
reality of the situation is that the United States, Britain and France have pursued,
for the last 30 years a policy of using Political Islam to destroy secular and
left-wing opponents in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East. Isis is a product of that strategy. They came into being as Al Qaeda in Iraq and
were funded by Saudi Arabia and provided with weapons, an oil trade, banking
and much else by Turkey. That is why Turkey
shot down a Russian plane.
Yet
we are in alliance with the Erdogan regime in Turkey which has launched a
bitter and murderous war on the only secular force in the region, the Kurdish
PYD/PKK. It has openly provided a base
for ISIS and threatened the Kurdish forces fighting Isis. Like Saudi Arabia and Qatar it also supports
the ‘moderate’ terrorists of al-Nusra (Al Qaeda) and other Jihadist groups.
It
has to be accepted that the anti-war position of Jeremy Corbyn and his allies
was not based on an anti-imperialist position that the West has no right to be in
the region at all, but on arguments that bombing would make the situation worse
or not achieve its objectives. It didn’t
challenge the fundamental problem, namely that it is western interference that
has created the problem in the first place.
That is why Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Left suffered a heavy defeat
last week.
Below
is a good article by John Ross, who has been demonised in some of the papers
today:
The Sunday newspapers are carrying stories presenting Orwellian 'double speak'
on the situation in the Labour Party - that is words which are the exact opposite
of their real meaning (in Orwell's 1984 the Ministry of Peace carried on war).
Hilary Benn's position supporting bombing Syria
is rejected by Labour members as all polls show, by the majority of the PLP as
shown in the vote in the House of Commons, by the majority of the Shadow
Cabinet as also shown by that vote, and by the Labour Party leader.
As bombing Syria is by far the most important
foreign policy issue of the day it is not viable that a person whose view is
rejected by every body of the Labour Party that has shown its position should
be Shadow Foreign Secretary. It is necessary to have a Shadow Foreign Secretary
who is line with and expresses Labour Party policy.
But some people in the Labour right are
ridiculously trying to claim that removing someone from a position where they
disagree with Labour Party positions is 'revenge' - for example see the article
in the Guardian
"Jeremy Corbyn critics fear ‘revenge reshuffle’ after election boost".
Having a Shadow Foreign Secretary who represents Labour Party policy is not
'revenge' it is the most elementary Labour Party democracy. Even the Labour
Party right should realise that - even if they refuse to acknowledge it
publicly. They should have a quiet word with Hilary Benn and point it out.
Hilary Benn should ask to be reassigned to a
domestic portfolio, or if he refuses to do that he should retire to the
backbenches.
The correct and normal thing would be for Hilary
Benn to resign because he does not support Labour policy. Robin Cook resigned
when he could not support the Iraq war.
Labour Party members should point out it is
unacceptable and indefensible to have a Shadow Foreign Secretary who does not
agree with or express Labour Party foreign policy on the key issues. If Hilary
Benn does not resign he should be replaced by Jeremy Corbyn - the timing of
that replacement being purely a question of tactics.
Hilary Benn could represent Labour on some
domestic issues but he cannot be Shadow Foreign Secretary.
* * * This article by John Ross,
on the unviability of Hilary Benn’s position, was originally published on Facebook.
December 2nd in the House of Commons saw one of
those pantomimes that if it did not result in the death of thousands of people
could form the basis of a Whitehall farce.
The centre piece of this farce was, of course,
the ‘historic speech’ – articles praising the speech’s ‘historic character’,
‘extraordinary eloquence’ etc were incidentally prepared for the media before
the speech was delivered or anyone knew what was in it. The figure chosen to
deliver said ‘historic speech’ was Hilary Benn – although any other gullible
person could have served the Tory media and Cameron equally well, and would
have been equally praised for their 'historic stature', 'capturing the mood of
the nation', 'historic speech' etc.
Performing to the pre-written script, Tory ranks
in Parliament rose to a person to cheer and applaud the deliverer of the
‘historic speech’ – they had received special coaching from elderly Pharisees
who had carried out the same performance when Judas was given the thirty pieces
of silver.
Let us now examine the content of this ‘historic
speech’. Its first task was to achieve the extraordinarily challenging
intellectual task of convincing people that ISIS were a vile load of murdering
scum who deserved to be removed from the planet. Given the huge amount of
evidence to the contrary – burning people alive, beheadings, selling of
thousands of Yazidi women into sexual slavery, attempted genocide against
Yazidis – it took an intellectual giant of Hilary Benn’s stature to establish
these facts which of course have never been reported in the media.
But the crucial point is that the ‘historic
speech’ contained not a single practical proposal actually capable of achieving
the goal of defeating ISIS. In short the ‘historic speech’ was a total fake – it
is immaterial whether it was fake because it was intended to be so or because
the person delivering it was incapable of understanding what is necessary to
defeat ISIS.
Bombing will not defeat ISIS - nor does a single
serious military figure believe it. What sustains ISIS is its supply routes
from Turkey and its financing from Saudi Arabia. To quote what was written here
on 29 November under the title ‘How to really defeat ISIS’:
‘The effective measures that would really defeat
ISIS are very simple…
‘1. Turkey should be told it must close within
24 hours the main supply route across its border to ISIS at Jarablus and at
other border crossings. If it does not a UN Security Council Resolution will be
adopted imposing financial sanctions on Turkey, as with Iran and North Korea,
and the UN Security Council will authorise coalition bombing for 5km inside the
Syrian border with Turkey to cut supply routes to ISIS from Turkey.
‘2. Saudi Arabia should be told it must cease
all transfers of money to ISIS. If proof is found of any further such transfers
a UN Security Council Resolution will be adopted imposing financial sanctions
on Saudi Arabia as with Iran and North Korea.
‘If these measures are adopted they would,
unlike Cameron's bombing, lead to the crushing of ISIS. …If Cameron refuses to
adopt this policy it shows he is not in fact trying to defeat ISIS.'
None of the measures capable of actually
defeating ISIS were proposed in the ‘historic speech’ This is why Hilary Benn’s
campaign against ISIS, including the ‘historic speech’ itself, was a fake – to
repeat it is not important whether it was deliberately fake or because Hilary
Benn is not able to understand what is necessary to defeat ISIS.
The right of Hilary Benn to deliver said
‘historic speech’ was established by two things. First his proven track record
in supporting the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and bombing Libya – all remembered
as triumphs of British military intervention leading to the complete
eradication of jihadism in the countries concerned. Second his suitable
gullibility was proven by the fact that this new war was motivated by Cameron
on the basis of a straightforward falsification that there are 70,000 moderate
members of the FSA in Syria - but despite this lie being on the scale of
Blair’s notorious ‘WMD ready in 45 minutes’ Iraq one, Hilary Benn did not see
through it.
However this lie is the key to Cameron’s whole
position. Because if the real situation in Syria were admitted – that the
‘opposition’ is controlled by fanatical jihadists supported by Saudi Arabia –
then Cameron’s real goal of removing Assad resulting in these fanatical
jihadists coming to power would be rejected by the British population.
What was the role of most [not all] of the
‘incisive’, ‘investigative journalists’ and ‘commentators’ confronted with this
pantomime? It was not to point out that Cameron’s position was a lie and that
Hilary Benn was totally gullible to believe it, but to play their pre-assigned
role in praising like parrots the ‘historic speech’. A far better job was done
by Gerald Kaufman, someone not usually right on international questions, who
even if he did not understand the situation fully at least partially hit the
nail on the head: ‘I will not be a party to killing innocent civilians for what
will merely be a gesture.'
What is it that so many members of the
‘commentariat’ now wish to conceal? That despite the ‘historic speech’, Hilary
Benn’s position was shown to be opposed by all polls of the Labour Party
membership, the majority of the PLP, and even the majority of the Shadow
Cabinet – not to speak of the Labour Party leader. In short the ‘historic
speech’ failed to convince any significant body of the Labour Party.
As Hilary Benn’s position on the most important
foreign policy issue of the day is opposed by every single major section of the
Labour Party you would think a number of giants of ‘incisive journalism’ would
point out that his position as Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary is totally
unviable.
However such a blindingly obvious conclusion escapes a number of members of the
commentariat who are attempting to pretend - or are perhaps too dense to
realise - that the really unacceptable ‘bullying’ that is going on is about the
Syrian people and children who are about to be blown to pieces or hideously disfigured
for life, not about MPs receiving emails urging them to vote against war.
And that the bombs dropped by Cameron’s orders are not to defeat ISIS but to
conceal that he refuses to take the effective measures to defeat ISIS because
he is in alliance with Saudi Arabia and Turkey who are the main supporters of
ISIS.
But of course Arab children being killed is not
as important for some journalistic giants to write about as white British MPs
receiving rude or even pleading emails.
Where does this leave the situation in the
Labour Party after the pre-arranged charade of the ‘historic speech’? It leaves
two of Labour’s former leadership contenders, Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper,
having voted for war and thereby fortunately eliminating their chances of ever becoming
Labour leader – as well as being on the list of 66 Labour MPs voting for war
who deserve to be deselected not as an example of ‘bullying’ but because they
have the wrong policies on a literal matter of life and death.
Andy Burnham voted against the war, which is to
his credit, and it is not interesting to try to work out whether this was from
conviction or because it left his hat in the ring as a viable candidate in any
future leadership contest. On such a vital matter as war people should be given
the benefit of the doubt. But Andy Burnham, nor any member of the Shadow
Cabinet, cannot be taken to really stand for Labour Party democracy or policy
unless they have a quiet (or public) word with Hilary Benn that his current
position is unviable as his policy on the most vital foreign policy issue of
the day is opposed by the major representative bodies of the Labour Party.
They should urge Hilary Benn be asked to be
‘redeployed’ to some domestic portfolio, or if he refuses to accept this he can
retire to the backbenches. Perhaps Hilary Benn can start preparing his evidence
for Chilcott 2 when it is set up to establish what went wrong in Syria and why
no lessons were drawn from the disasters of Iraq and Libya? A Shadow Foreign
Secretary who actually expresses Labour Party policy is necessary.
Although it is very far from the most important
point Hilary Benn, as much as the Royal Family, is conclusive disproof of any
‘genetic’ theory of talent. To have a giant of a father did not stop the
gullibility of a son. The compensation is that Tony Benn really will be
remembered by history, whereas yesterday’s ‘historic speech’ will be forgotten
as soon as it has served its purpose for warmongers and the Tory Party.
To return to the starting point all this
pre-arranged charade could be treated as a farce if it were not for the fact
that thousands of people in Syria, and very probably hundreds in Europe due to
terrorist attacks, were about to die as a result of it.
Meanwhile the fight for the real measures that
would defeat ISIS, as opposed to Hilary Benn and Cameron’s fakery, goes on.
This article by John Ross,
on how to defeat ISIS, was originally published on Facebook.
On behalf of this blog I wish to express my
heart-felt sympathy for those 67 Labour MPs who voted to bomb the Syrian
civilians of Raqqa, men, women and children. It is a terrible thing to bring home to those who vote in favour of death and destruction, from the comfort of Parliament,
the implications of their vote.
Brighton anti-war vigil
I imagine that readers of this blog will
wish to join me in expressing their revulsion at the idea that Stella Creasy,
one of the New Labour reptiles,should
be held to account for her vote to murder
innocent civilians.
#
Apparently some wicked people even posted
photos of dead babies through the doors of war-mongering MPs. This is disgraceful and should be stopped at
once. It is difficult to imagine what
goes through the mind of someone who seeks to connect someone’s vote to the consequences
of their vote. One can only hope that the
Police do their duty and arrest such people forthwith. At the very minimum they should be sentenced
to life in prison.
Unfortunately it’s
not possible to bomb such people and their homes, as this is not Israel.
As that floating voter Andy Burnham MP
said, ‘we need a code of conduct to curb such abuse’. Quite.
It should be a criminal offence to acquaint MPs with the possible
results of their votes.
Another sensitive soul, Labour MP Neil Coyle told the Daily Mail (who else!)
that he
had reported a threatening tweet to the police. Again one cannot but condemn this in the
strongest terms.
And not only threatening tweets. Some
‘had pictures of severed heads pushed through their home letterboxes or had
their offices barricaded by protesters.’ Don't they know this is a democracy? It is barely possible to believe what one reads. Severed heads. One can only hope they weren’t severed by
our democratic ally, Saudi Arabia!
Ben Bradshaw however has found a way to
deal with this disgraceful intimidation.
He does this ‘by not reading the messages’ which begs the question, how
does he know they are intimidating? No
doubt our Ben possesses some telepathic quality which enables him to discern
the flavour of a message without actually reading it. This is the kind of stuff of which leaders
are made.
Brighton anti-war vigil
Stella Creasy - warmongering MP for Walthamstow - doesn't like being held to account
Hull North MP Diana Johnson, who voted against air strikes, said she had
received an email before the vote warning she would face a no-confidence vote
in her local party followed by a move to de-select her "if I didn't vote
the right way". I’m sure people will join me in deprecating this kind of behaviour. MPs are there to represent their own consciences and Labour MPs are there to support David Cameron in his hour of need. How dare mere members think they have the right to interfere with their delicate consciences? I guess it's fortunate that she did vote the right way.
The Daily 'hate' Mail expresses all our feelings over this intimidation of MPs. Intimidation is something the Mail has made into a fine art.
Labour MP Stephen Kinnock, son of Neil, demonstrated the Kinnock devotion to democracy when he called for Momentum to be
"disbanded" if found to be co-ordinating attacks, describing the
group as a "sort of organised mob". Presumably he would prefer that it was a disorganised mob.
Another example of intimidation - a call for the deselection of Labour warmongers - This blog is calling for calls for deselection to be made a criminal offence and the position of MP made into a lifetime job
Another Labour MP, Ann Coffey, says she was sent messages from an email
account previously used by Momentum, before Wednesday's vote, branding her a
"warmonger" and saying she would have "blood on her hands"
if she supported bombing. Yes I know. It's almost beyond belief.
How one might ask can someone who votes for bombing civilians be said to have blood on their hands? As Coffey said, those who say unkind things like this "create(s) a threatening atmosphere and other people come behind that with physical threats of assaults". Coffey, who voted for the air strikes, obviously believes that bombs dropping on peoples' heads are just cartoon images with no physical consequences. Something like Tom & Jerry.
They Actually Believe This
It is difficult to believe that those who vote for war can then whine and
complain about receiving a little abuse for their actions. They believe that you can vote for the death
of others and not be brought to account for the consequences of one’s own
actions.
There is no doubt that the threat of deselection acted as a spur to those
who would otherwise have voted with the Tories.
A week ago people were talking about 100 Labour MPs voting for bombing. The fact that, despite a free vote, only 67
Labour MPs, less than a third of the total, voted for war, is a tribute to the
pressure put upon them. However this is
still unsatisfactory.
We want MPs to vote against war, not because they are pressurised to do so,
but because they genuinely oppose such action.
The obvious and immediate answer to this is mandatory deselection. MPs are not representatives of their own
consciences but delegates of the Party whose MP they are. They should be recallable and accountable. The first MP who should be deselected
is Peter Kyle, the Labour/Tory MP for Hove.
This New Labour war criminal voted for bombing the Syrians who are under
the thumb of Isis despite the overwhelming view of posters on his Facebook page
and constituents that it was wrong to vote to support Cameron. Kyle is someone who would be happy
standing for the Tory party and he should be enabled to do so.
That said there were real weaknesses in the case that Jeremy Corbyn promoted. It was not an anti-imperialist but
essentially a pacifist case. What didn’t
get mentioned was the fact that it is the United States, Saudi Arabia and the
Gulf states have deliberately promoted sectarianism and Salafi/Wahabi
Islam. Isis was a product of western
imperialism’s divide and rule strategy in Afghanistan and then Iraq. The idea that Western bombing is the answer
to the monster they created is an absurdity.
The fact that NATO member and ally in the ‘war against terror’ Turkey is the
main proponent of terror against one of the few remaining bastions of
secularism in the Middle East, the Kurds and which provides Isis with a rear
supply base and oil trading base demonstrates the nonsense of the idea that
bombing Isis will somehow be a solution.
Isis is a consequence of the sectarian nature of the Iraqi state which has
driven Sunni Muslims into their hands.
The answer to them is not merely military but political and without a
fundamental reform of the Iraqi and Syrian state of Assad there will be no
solution.
Tony Benn, currently spinning in his grave at the antics of his son. Alongside Tam Dalyell, a vigorous opponent of militarism and Jeremy Corbyn at the back, with Alice Mahon besides him.
As for the new ‘hero’ of the Labour Right, one Hilary Benn. It’s not enough to say that his father, Tony
Benn, would turn in his grave. Benn was
thoroughly dishonest. If Isis is fascist
(and superficially it has similarities
to fascist groups) then is he seriously suggesting that western imperialism
including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are also anti-fascist? His summoning of the heroes of the fight of
theose who fought for the Spanish Republic was a disgrace. As if the Tories of today, anymore than the
Tories of yesterday, would have supported the Spanish Republicans.
It was a dishonest speech from a dishonest politician made possible only by
the weakness of the Corbyn left.
Image copyrightReuters Jeremy Corbyn and deputy leader Tom Watson said abuse would not be tolerated
Labour will not accept abuse and intimidation
"from whatever quarter it comes", Jeremy Corbyn has warned.
His comments came in an email to members after a fresh row erupted over
alleged bullying of MPs who voted to bomb so-called Islamic State in Syria.
Shadow home secretary Andy Burnham, who opposed air strikes, has called for
a new code of conduct to curb abuse.
The Metropolitan Police confirmed it was assessing a number of online
threats relating to MPs.
A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "The assessment of these threats is
ongoing."
Labour MP Neil Coyle told MailOnline he
had reported a threatening tweet to the police.
Corbyn and Watson warn members
At the end of a joint email to Labour members on Thursday evening, Mr Corbyn
and his deputy, Tom Watson, said they backed the right to "protest and
lobby" and said MPs had to be "open to hearing the views of their
constituents and others".
They added: "But, as we have both said many times, abuse and intimidation
have no place in politics. And the party as a whole will not accept such
behaviour, from whatever quarter it comes."
What Andy Burnham said
He
called on Mr Corbyn to take a "firm line" with the alleged
perpetrators, saying: "There cannot be abuse by members of the Labour
Party or supporters of the Labour Party. That isn't the kind of party I want to
be in."
He told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme social media was "in
danger of poisoning our politics". "I think it's because if you are just sitting with a keyboard you can
be more offensive than if you are speaking to somebody face-to-face. It's a bad
culture and we need to draw a line under it," he added. He said talks were
under way in the party about a code of conduct.
Some of the tweets
Some MPs were sent pictures of dead children by anti-war protesters and
faced foul-mouthed abuse - others allegedly had pictures of severed heads
pushed through their home letterboxes or had their offices barricaded by
protesters.
Here are some of the messages and the MPs' replies.
Former minister Ben Bradshaw, who voted for air strikes, said the party
leadership needed to do more to combat online abuse, which "wouldn't be
tolerated in any other walk of life" and which seemed to be
"worse" for women in the party. He said he dealt with it by not
reading the messages.
He added: "Jeremy Corbyn has made it clear he doesn't want this
retribution... We can't start having threats of retribution based on what
someone has done on a free vote."
Hull North MP Diana Johnson received an email before the vote warning she
would face a no-confidence vote in her local party followed by a move to
de-select her "if I didn't vote the right way".
Labour MP Stephen Kinnock called for Momentum to be
"disbanded". It was a "sort
of organised mob".
And it gets worse. Labour MP, Ann
Coffey was sent messages from an email account previously used by Momentum
(where else?) branding her a "warmonger" and saying she would have
"blood on her hands" if she supported bombing.
What Corbyn-supporting groups say
Momentum, a successor organisation to Mr Corbyn's Labour leadership
campaign, said it was "proud" to have helped 30,000 people email
their MP asking them not to vote for bombing.
A spokesman said: "It can never be a threat to express your views to
your elected representative. "Momentum strongly disapproves of anyone who engages in abusive
behaviour towards MPs or anyone else, and threatening or bullying, whether they
are outside the Labour Party (as most are) or inside it. "We specifically asked our supporters to emulate Jeremy Corbyn, and to
keep their messages about the issues and to refrain from any personal
attacks."
Campaign group Stop the War, which until recently was chaired by Mr Corbyn,
said: "Stop the War condemns the whining complaints from those MPs who
apparently do not like being lobbied.
"If an MP is not robust enough to withstand emails and tweets, they
should really not be voting for bombing other people - those who wish to be
alone with their consciences would do better to consider a life of religious
contemplation. "Stop the War will continue to hold to democratic account all those MPs
who vote for war."
The de-selection threat
A number of groups, including Left Unity, have called for MPs who voted for
military action to be sacked by their local Labour parties.
Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy,whose office was targeted by
anti-war protesters, is facing an attempt to de-select her by a member of the
Socialist Party over her pro-air strikes vote.
The disgraceful Nancy Taafe threatening Stella Creasy with deselection
Nancy Taaffe, who stood unsuccessfully against Ms Creasy in May's general
election for the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition, told the BBC's Daily
Politics she wanted to see "a conference to make mandatory re-selection the
heart of the new Labour project, if you like, the Corbyn project".
She said Labour was "essentially two parties in one" and
"peaceful co-existence is impossible" between the Corbyn-supporting
membership and "right wing" MPs and councillors.
The disgraceful ex-MP and London Mayor Ken Livingstone calls for deslection ('shock horror')
Ken Livingstone weighs in
Momentum said candidate selection was "entirely a matter for local
party members and rightly so" but Ken Livingstone said party members had a
right to get rid of MPs and candidates that did not back the party leader.
The former left-wing London mayor, who has come back under Jeremy Corbyn's
leadership to be co-chair of the party's defence review, told BBC News:
"Nobody should be doing abusive tweets or anything else like that, but
people expressing their genuine belief that they would rather have an MP who
supports the Labour leader rather than undermines them should be free to say
that."
Andy Burnham said Mr Livingstone's comments were "disgraceful" as
Labour MPs had been given a free vote on Syria and "to then say they
should be subject to a witch-hunt or a campaign against them is wrong".
Liz Kendall, defies 'intimidation'
How can Labour MPs be de-selected?
Mandatory
reselection of Labour MPs as candidates by their local parties was introduced
by supporters of the late Tony Benn in the 1980s. They were frustrated by the
leadership ignoring the views of party members and also wanted a chance to get
rid of MPs seen as lazy or complacent.
But opponents saw it as an attempt by the hard left to tighten its grip on
Labour by getting rid of those on the right of the party.
The system was abolished by then leader Neil Kinnock as part of his war on
the "party within a party" Militant.
Labour now uses a "trigger-ballot" system to decide before each
election whether it wishes to carry out the full selection procedure - very few
MPs are thrown out in this way.
Mr Corbyn has assured MPs mandatory reselection will not be brought back -
but MPs out of step with his brand of politics could be ousted anyway, without
an official "purge" from the top, as left wing campaigners increase
their influence.
Analysis by BBC Parliamentary Correspondent Mark D'Arcy
There will be
recriminations and, possibly, attempts at constituency level to deselect the
recusants (there does not have to be a return to the '80s era of mandatoryreselection; the coming Commons boundary changes will ensure most sitting MPs
will not face a simple rubber-stamping to become their party's candidate
again).
If they succeed, some MPs may quit immediately, forcing uncomfortable
by-elections, or simply go rogue in the Commons and vote as they please.
Mr
Bryant told the Commons on Thursday that many people had "hurled a great
deal of abuse" at MPs on both sides of the debate.
He
said some had been called "murderers, peacenik, terrorist sympathisers,
whatever", but insisted "no MP should ever be intimidated".
"Sadly
the abuse for all members of this house has been beyond the pale," Mr
Bryant said.
"Several
members have had their offices barricaded, one member had her house surrounded,
many had photos of dead babies pushed through their front door at home.
"I
gather today some members have received photos of severed heads."
"MPs
have broad shoulders, of course we do, but can I ask members to review the
security of members homes and offices," Mr Bryant added.
A shocked Stephen Doughty MP
Media caption Welsh MP
called 'murderer' over Syria views
Mr
David, a frontbench justice spokesman and former minister, told BBC Radio Wales
that as well as being called "a warmonger" he had been told he would
have "blood on my hands", had received anonymous calls to his office
and was threatened with de-selection.
Another victim of hateful bloggers - all he did was to vote for killing Syrians
They
were joined by Susan Elan Jones, the Clwyd South MP.
Twenty
of Wales' 25 Labour and three Plaid Cymru MPs rejected the plan.
Among
the Welsh Labour MPs who voted against air strikes were shadow cabinet members
Nia Griffith and Owen Smith.
They
were joined by Kevin Brennan, Geraint Davies, Chris Evans, David Hanson, Paul
Flynn, Carolyn Harris, Huw Irranca-Davies, Gerald Jones, Stephen Kinnock, Ian
Lucas, Madeleine Moon, Christina Rees, Jo Stevens, Nick Smith, Mark Tami and
Nick Thomas-Symonds, Jessica Morden and Albert Owen.
Ann
Clwyd was absent from the vote due to illness.
Media caption Cardiff South and Penarth MP Stephen
Doughty was one of four Welsh Labour MPs to vote in favour of air strikes
Although
the Liberal Democrats said they were in favour of air strikes, the party's only
Welsh MP, Mark Williams, voted against.
Glyn
Davies, Conservative MP for Montgomeryshire, who voted in favour of the action,
said most MPs accepted there was no certainty the strikes would work to combat
so-called Islamic State targets.
"If
there was certainty then there would be no difficulty securing the vote of
everyone. It's a big problem we're confronted with - a massive problem,"
he said.
The
prime minister said carrying out UK air strikes in Syria would "keep the British
people safe", as MPs debated the issue on Wednesday.
Mr
Corbyn had claimed David Cameron's case "doesn't stack up", but he
allowed his MPs a free
vote on the issue.
