every smith
  • MS: Max Smith's blog
  • History to the Defeated
  • every smith: independent creative consultants
  • Words: Max - a brief bio
  • Sites to see

Leamington Letters #103: "What sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion"?

3/12/2015

16 Comments

 
Picture
We’re at war. Again.
 
The debate last night was disappointing. I agree that Hilary Benn was, by some measure, the most passionate, the most eloquent. I agree absolutely with him that Daesh is a group of fascists, murderers and rapists which represents a serious threat to the security of Britain and, indeed, the world. I agree with him that it must be confronted. I do not agree with the means by which he urges us to do so.
 
Which, according to our prime minister, makes me part of the “bunch of terrorist sympathisers”. I am not.
 
Yesterday, I listened to an interview with a Syrian Anglican priest, Father Nadim Nassar. He is the only contributor to the debate I have heard who lives in Syria, who knows Raqqah, who understands the situation. “It is the wrong thing to do” he said. “IS lives among the people” he said, “there is no front line”. For every Daesh terrorist killed, hundreds of innocents will die. Hundreds more will be radicalized.
 
And yet, within an hour of Benn’s speech, the bombing had commenced, validated by an overwhelming majority in the Commons.
 
I suspect that the House of Commons is the only place in the country where such a large majority for bombing exists: when the Mirror and the Mail are at one, one can sense a national consensus emerging. A significant proportion of the majority was made up of Labour MPs and we heard some of them this morning, distressed at what they regard as bullying but sounds more like petty name-calling to me. No-one who has spent any time in the Labour party or in politics of any kind can lose much sleep over being termed a ‘red Tory’ or even a ‘warmonger’, although plenty will be losing sleep over the fact that we are once again engaged in a war which, like Iraq and Libya, will probably make things worse.

But apparently many Labour MPs are tossing and turning and, for huge swathes of the Today programme this morning, the main thrust of Robinson’s questioning of Labour politicians concerned this frankly ridiculous side-show. “It’s all about me” seemed to be their mantra.
 
Listening, I was prompted to search out my old copy of Edmund Burke’ speeches, and in particular his address to the slave-trading electors of Bristol in 1774.(OK, I Googled it - it was quicker.)
 
Burke argues against the view that an MP is a representative whose “will ought to be subservient to” that of his electors. He argues against “authoritative instructions” and “mandates issued” (Burke’s italics).
 
In a much-quoted sentence, he stated: "Your representative owes, not his industry only, but his judgment”(my italics).
 
Putting aside the parliamentary practice of whipping (“authoritative instructions”) and claims of legality and validity for welfare cuts claimed as a result of a paltry electoral majority (“mandates issued”), this remains true today. Or should.
 
Our MPs have exercised their 'judgement'. And it is their ‘judgement’ which will be called into question and, legitimately and logically, called to account.

No, Alan Johnson, that is not a threat. It is the democratic process. As Burke pointed out, an MP's "unbiassed opinion, mature judgement, enlightened conscience" are a trust ...

"for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable".

​My italics.
 
Today from the everysmith vaults: Muddy Waters: “there’s no escape from the blues”.
 

16 Comments
Jane
3/12/2015 11:14:21

I emailed my MP urging him to vote against the motion. I did so politely, but passionately. I referred to him only as a 'representative'. He did not respond of course but he did vote for. Pathetic to claim bullying when voting for bombing campaigns.

Reply
Ed
3/12/2015 11:27:53

Thank you.

The key quote is often used as a justification for MPs to vote against the wishes of their constituents. It's good to see the context.

Reply
Charlotte Ford
3/12/2015 11:33:57

Ken and myself strongly opposed to the bombing . It can hardly improve matters by killing vast numbers of innocent men women and children and destroying infrastructure. Cameron suggesting that holding such an opinion makes us supporters of terrorism is crass , and low even for him. Your blog on the subject is excellent and informed, with good wishes, Charlotte and Ken

Reply
Max
4/12/2015 12:31:41

Great to hear from you, and I know that Ken is better. Good news. Xxx

Reply
Jon Gregory
3/12/2015 13:39:09

I listened to the debate most of yesterday and while I have deep reservations about bombing, I failed to hear a worthwhile alternative suggested by the opponents.
How else do we defeat daesh?

Reply
Max
4/12/2015 12:43:33

Hi Jon - wish I knew. But I do know that this campaign will not have the desired effect, tacitly admitted by Cameron who is now saying that it will take 'years'. The complexity of the situation does not mean that we should simply join in with the others in a camping which has already been in operation for months with little impact. And I have taken on board what the few rational voices in Syria have said about the bombing affecting innocent civilians more than Daesh. Love to Sue.

Reply
Tony
3/12/2015 14:09:19

How does one measure this? if they have 'abused' our trust (and I believe they have), at what point do we 'judge' them. I see Cameron is now talking about 'long-term' and 'patience'. Until London is successfully targeted?

Reply
Allan
3/12/2015 15:28:30

Well (and carefully) argued. I think (or would like to think) that this is the end of old New Labour, betraying all Labour principles in defence of Blair's policy of war and war and war. Five of them. And now here's another, a Labour war as much as a Tory war, flying in the face of history and of facts. To make a point to Corbyn? A disgraceful night in the history of the party and the country.

Reply
DavidL
3/12/2015 15:59:17

lrb.co.uk. James Meek. Raqqa of the mind. Good piece on bombing.

Reply
PaulB
3/12/2015 16:54:59

Yes. There is no argument against confronting IS. The argument is whether bombing will work. Even the military is dubious. As for the rest, as you say, it's pathetic. The thing is, these Labour MPs have never been challenged before. Never had to justify themselves or their judgement.

Reply
MikeL
3/12/2015 17:00:24

In the States, they also have 'de-selection', but they call it democracy. A primary election in which the incumbent can participate to decide who represents the party. Often, the incumbent loses, is de-selected. Seems like a good idea to me.

Reply
AngelaD
3/12/2015 17:31:40

Ms Abbott (or to the Mail, Corbyn's ex-lover, said it: bombing is "an analogue response to a digital problem". Centuries of civilisation and our leaders still can't move beyond unleashing the dogs of war.

Reply
parn123
3/12/2015 20:00:29

More Edmund Burke quotes

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ... All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. ... Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. "

Doing nothing is not an option.

The debate was disappointing mainly because the opposition didn't propose convincing alternatives to extending the bombing to Syria. Had the leader done so many of the 66 would have voted with him.

Reply
Max
4/12/2015 12:30:26

Agree with Burke on this also. The issue is not do nothing but not bomb. Cameron is now being quoted as predicting that this will take 'years'. And the confusion over the long-term strategy remains. Under the system, the opposition can, to all intents and purposes, respond to a government motion. To oppose one course of action does not mean that no other course of action cannot be considered. Good to hear from you. Both well?

Reply
ChrisG
4/12/2015 10:46:31

Think it went further than a bit of name-calling. Some was seriously unpleasant and a lot was sexist. No justification.

Reply
Max
4/12/2015 12:25:36

I accept this. I was responding to an interview in which those two insults were the only ones quoted. I agree that there is no justification for intimidation of any kind, but defend the right of members of the public and the party to lobby their MPs, particularly when the motion is for taking us to war.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    Max Smith

    European writer, radical, restaurateur and Red Sox fan. 70-something husband, father, step-father, grandfather and son. Resident in Warwick, England.

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

    RSS Feed

    Categories

    All
    Art
    Baseball
    Books
    Film
    Food + Drink
    French Letters
    Leamington Letters
    Media
    Music
    People
    Personal
    Politics
    Sport