Despite
the poor press over the summer holiday about Ed Miliband lacking leadership it
is clear that the events of the last 48 hours have proven otherwise.
A
true test of character is how you deal with a crisis and this one is perhaps
the most testing so far. In part because of the significance of intervention but
also because of the international ramifications of the decisions made. It is
also in stark contrast with some previous leaders who have held – in my mind
wrongly – strongly interventionist policies on Foreign Affairs and who got
burnt. The lesson it seems eerily reminiscent in some senses this week.
Ed
has a strong sense of purpose despite his detractor’s and it isn’t one which he
feels necessary to trumpet in an overt manner. It was noticed by many yesterday
that many tweets from Cameron concerning National Security and on procedure
were not just coming from the Number10 twitter feed but also his party
political account; it was clear Cameron was building momentum. I noted that we
learnt of important materials via this medium, before as I understand, MPs of
all sides had even been briefed. I felt it was clear that Cameron
wanted a firm motion to give permission for an immediate strike. He was
bouncing Parliament, his own Party and more importantly the British public into
an outcome. It failed.
Contrast
with Ed Miliband who remained calm and collected on consulting with colleagues
on the best course. Considered he indicated a clear position to little
fanfare late yesterday afternoon and the impact was immediate. Labour may
indeed support further action on the despised and disgraced Assad regime but
not before the full publication of the UN Report from inspectors gives a firm
account of whether or not a chemical attack did actually occur. If further
proof can be provided about the security and validity of information, coupled with international support this may indeed require military
intervention. Labour has not ruled out intervention; just not rushed
intervention. I couldn’t care a jot whether this nuanced position plays well in
the polls or not; it is the right thing to do.
Despite
the right now clamoring on Miliband for embarrassing Obama and looking weak. this is no more a left v right argument than in previous conflicts. This is
about evidence-based decision making on the most important aspect of politics;
whether we send our troops in harms way. The Labour position on no blank cheque
for conflict contrasts with in my mind the perception that Cameron may have committed
Britain to action whilst on the beach in Cornwall, only to find himself impeded
by the real politic that he has since misjudged. A judgement the public will be
watching closely given many feel he has over-reached once again.
It
is also of abject concern that the Conservative-led government has refused –
thus far – to publish the written legal basis for action from the Attorney
General Dominic Grieve. This must be made public.
Rushing
headlong into a conflict prior to UN consideration and before MPs can rightly
make there own decision would be and is wrongheaded and foolish. The fact
Cameron thought he could do it has been halted by Labour but also in part by
Conservative backbenchers yesterday. The power of Parliament has rightly
corrected an executive elite.
I
find myself in agreement with a number of rebel Tory MPs, who though small in
number, are speaking up; and in particular Sarah Wollaston MP who in my mind
over the last six months has become the model centrist new Labour MP on so many
issues in regards to public health. Many have rightly spoken to residents and I
believe asked the right questions. The lessons from Iraq are clear that no
party leadership can assume support for war.
That
being said; rushing into saying I would not support a conflict in response to
people prior to evidence being published is also wrong.
It is why if I were MP
I would indicate that my position remains in line with the leadership of the
Labour Party led by Ed Miliband - in that whilst reserving a natural negative judgement
on conflict I would require more evidence and time. Not an easy position to
take but the right one; its why I voted for him in 2010 because he stands up for
the right people.