Post-reshuffle and post-Maria Eagle, Corbyn has no one involved in Labour’s defence review that he doesn’t see eye to eye with. The near-future of Labour defence policy now rests on the shoulders of Emily Thornberry and Ken Livingstone. If that didn’t give you a little shudder, nothing will.
The latter of those two illustrious figures appeared on the Daily Politics yesterday to declare that Labour’s position on NATO was fair game:
“My main view on this is it doesn’t really matter whether you are in Nato or not terribly much because the cold war is over. If we are to stay in Nato, the question is what’s it’s role going to be? Invading more countries in the Middle East? I’m not in favour of that.”
I could make an impassioned case for why NATO is so important here, but I’ll refrain. It would be like making a case for why democracy is necessary – you either get it already or no amount of arguing will convince you. But just a few things to consider on the subject: NATO is one of the few things in the world that scares Vladimir Putin into avoiding a Dugin-inspired invasion of parts of the west. If there were no other reason to support it, that would be enough for me. So why does Ken really not like NATO? For the same reason Corbyn isn’t a fan: it’s American led and identifiably part of the apparatus of western liberal democracy. If you don’t like any of the things mentioned in that last sentence then obviously NATO won’t be for you.
What really got me was the “invading more countries in the Middle East” quip. What the hell is Livingstone on about? One of the major objections to Iraq was that international institutions such as the UN and NATO weren’t keen on the premise, but the US and Britain went ahead with the invasion anyhow.
It should be noted here that yes, Labour HQ denied that NATO membership was up for grabs pretty much right after Livingstone said what he said on TV. However, he remains co-chair of the defence review, does he not? So is he in charge of whether leaving NATO is put up for a vote at Labour conference in autumn 2016 or not? Given we were told that Corbyn would effectively be making foreign policy now instead of Hilary Benn, refuted by Benn himself the same day, how these things work within Labour at the moment is far from clear.
The big problem is that if Labour takes an explicitly anti-NATO policy on board, in other words it becomes official party policy to pull out of the alliance should Labour win a general election, this will possibly be the most damaging thing to them electorally – more so than even an anti-Trident position, which becomes irrelevant very quickly anyhow as the deterrent will unquestionably be renewed in this parliament and then not be an issue for another two decades. But pulling out of a military alliance that looks pretty comforting in the face of a very uncertain world to most British people will be a bad plan even by Corbyn standards.
I’m tempted to say they’ll never do it; that some fudge on the whole issue will happen instead and that Labour HQ is really the final word on all of this. But given the people leading the review, I wouldn’t take that for granted.
“The near-future of Labour defence policy now rests on the shoulders of Emily Thornberry and Ken Livingstone. If that didn’t give you a little shudder, nothing will.”
Sometimes I can’t help feeling that bloggers should get out into the real world a bit more.
Ironically enough, the same advice could be given to Emily Thornberry and Ken Livingstone.
Actually I am out in the real world and it doesn’t make me shudder it just makes me laugh and at the same time cry that the Labour party can behave in this way.
Corbyn made it clear back in September that the purpose of the defence policy review was “to try and bring people with me” – so no surprise that he should pack it with people who already follow his line. What is surprising is that after saying that anyone should still believe that he genuinely meant any of his stuff about welcoming different views in Labour.
He said it to John Pienaar – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34399565
Labour needs to sort itself out.
Corbyn has terrible ideas that people won’t vote for and it’s equally disappointing that the shadow cabinet has no sense of collective cabinet responsibility.
Corbyn was presumably voted in because he wanted to do politics differently. That is not the same as having crap policies. He should reach a consensus on issues in the shadow cabinet rather than upsetting everyone by trying to push his personal agenda.
You could have predicted that there would be trouble from the second that he decided the cabinet should have a woman quota rather than giving the right jobs to the right people.
Very disappointed that Liz Kendall did badly in the leader elections and now sits out on the backbench. She had decent and sensible ideas.
We should stay in NATO but we should be pressing harder to make sure it reflects what we’re after. Most notably, what is the Islamic State of Turkey still doing in NATO, going totally unrebuked despite its connivance at the Islamic State of Syria and other terrorist movements and its attack on the aspirations of the Kurds? Does Shameron even care about this or our “alliance” to the Islamic State of Saudi Arabia? Thought not.
I still am pro-NATO and pro-EU because I don’t like the thought of Russia swanning round on the world stage unchallenged. They happen to have stumbled onto the right side against Islamic State but they still need to be kept at arms’ length. Have you noticed how many of these far-left and “nationalist” movements are slavishly pro-Russian, and often receive Kremlin funds? Because it looks as though Vladimir Putin is in with a chance of winning the French elections.