Here's an interesting article by Dan Hodges - a long time Labour supporter - who has resigned his membership of the party over Ed Miliband's 'flip-flopping' behaviour on Syria.
I remember when I left the Labour Party back in 1999 - sure I had lots of disagreements on policy issues such as the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), but the straw that broke the camel's back for me also came down to the duplicity of people in leadership positions who - when the chips were down - behaved with a lack of integrity.
So I can understand where Dan Hodges is coming from - and I suspect he's not alone.
Miliband was governed by narrow political interests – not those of Syrian children. I have left the Labour Party
By Dan Hodges
Whatever your view of last night’s defeat for the Government over Syria – for what it’s worth mine is it was a catastrophe for the cause of progressive interventionism – there is no avoiding the fact that it was a triumph for parliamentary democracy. The legislature asserted its will over the executive in one of the most dramatic ways imaginable, and in doing so clearly reflected the prevailing view of the British people. Let’s not hear any more about how what occurs within the House of Commons is an irrelevance.
Another thing is crystal clear. This was a grievous blow to the authority of David Cameron. As Iain Martin wrote in the immediate aftermath of the vote, “It is no good Tory MPs who helped vote this down saying, as they are tonight, that this is not a personal blow to Cameron”. It is, though whether Iain is right to describe it as a “catastrophe” for the Prime Minister only time will tell.
What is not in any doubt is that this is a catastrophe for British foreign policy. This morning Britain has the international credibility of Luxembourg. There will still, rightly, be military action against Syria. It’s just that Britain will not be a part of it. Those who wanted to see a loosening, or severing, of the “special relationship” have finally got their wish. The US will respond on behalf of the global community to the use of chemical weapons on the children of Syria without us.
But the implications go far beyond Syria. There is now no prospect of British support for any military strike against Iran, for example. Hooray, many will say. Well, be careful what you wish for. Because the events of the past 24 hours will have been observed just as closely in Jerusalem as they have been in Damascus. And Israel will have watched the spectacle of British politicians stating events in the middle-east are not their concern, and she will not forget. Unlike us, when the Israelis say “never again”, they mean it.
Yesterday Nick Clegg said that he did not want to be part of a generation of British politicians that chose “to walk by on the other side”. Well, through no fault of his own, he is. Britain is now an isolationist nation. And neither we, nor the world, are stronger for it.
The same can be said for the political party that I was a member of until late yesterday evening. There are many Labour MPs who voted against the Government yesterday in good conscience. But the spectacle of some of their colleagues who sprinted through the lobbies in support of the Iraq invasion tweeting self-righteous platitudes about how the Government has “to do better” in presenting the case for war was nauseating. If they have genuinely learnt the lessons of 2003 fine. But they should at least have had the good grace to do so with humility.
Which brings me to their leader. Before the vote I penned a piece in which I said Ed Miliband’s atrocious performance in yesterday’s debate, indeed his conduct over the past 72 hours, amounted to his “Westland moment”. In its aftermath my Twitter feed was filled with people joyously inviting me to recant in the face of his Commons “triumph”.
But in fact, I actually think yesterday’s vote serves only to underline my point. Up until yesterday I had thought Ed Miliband was a weak leader. I doubted, and still doubt, he has what it takes to make it to Downing Street. But I also thought that despite his numerous flaws, Miliband was basically an honorable man who was struggling to align his natural liberal instincts with the new conservatism that is the by-product of the age of austerity.
His conduct over the past week shows that’s simply not the case. In another passage of his response to last night’s vote Iain Martin asks, “Why on earth did the Conservative leader and his aides not war-game this properly? Their strategy was predicated on the Labour leadership falling in to line behind intervention. It was always a daft presumption”.
The answer is David Cameron believed Labour would fall in line because Ed Miliband kept telling him they would. Yesterday, there was lots of debate about who had said what to whom in what meeting or what phone conversation.
But these facts are indisputable. Ed Miliband said that if he was to back the Government, David Cameron would have to publish the legal advice upon which the case for war rested. David Cameron agreed, and did so.
Ed Miliband then said a solid case needed to be presented demonstrating the Assad regime’s culpability for the chemical attacks. David Cameron agreed, and published the JIC analysis which concluded “there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility”.
Ed Miliband then said the Government would have to exhaust the UN route before any recourse to military action. David Cameron agreed, and confirmed he would be submitting a motion to the P5 to that effect.
Ed Miliband said he would need to await the UN weapons inspectors report. David Cameron agreed.
Finally, and crucially, Ed Miliband said there would have to be not one, but two House of Commons votes before military action could be authorised. Once again David Cameron agreed.
And then, having sought – and received – all these assurances from the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband went ahead and voted against the Government anyway.
It may well be that the way Ed Miliband has conducted himself over the past week will work to his political advantage. There’s no doubt there will be lots of briefing today about a “game changing” moment. The line in his conference speech where he solemnly tells his audience, “people criticised me for the stand I took on Syria. But there are times when you have to do what’s in your heart” will already have been inked in. As will the pause to enable him to modestly acknowledge the subsequent standing ovation.
But Miliband’s “victory” has come at a price. David Cameron has lost much of his authority over Syria. But he at least had the courage to stand up, set out his case, and do what he felt was right.
Ed Miliband did not. Over the past week we have had the spectacle of the leader of the opposition busily beating his swords into plougshares, then back into swords, and finally back into plougshares again. I still have no idea whether he really supported or opposed military action against Syria, and now I never will. What I do know is that at every step of the way Ed Miliband’s actions were governed by what was in his own narrow political interests, rather than the national interest. As for the children of Syria, they didn’t even get a look in.
This week I’ve seen the true face of Ed Miliband. And I suspect that the country has too.
