UK Politics

Corbyn’s fragmented party is felling a future of success

corbyn1_3343657b

In the midst of fierce debate within the Labour Party, its leader Jeremy Corbyn has made clear that a shadow cabinet reshuffle is imminent. Longstanding Labour stalwarts are set to become stripped of their coveted titles, and damaging presidential politics will become the norm.

Of course, this is a new – and once again ‘new’ – age for Labour. A November poll showed that approximately 66% of those able to vote in the September leadership election believed Jeremy Corbyn is leading “well.” 86% believed Corbyn is doing a good job, and nearly half of all who voted for Andy Burnham to become leader agreed. This advent of contentment must be celebrated, highlighting the still grassroots element of the Party. In addition, policies such as nuclear disarmament and foreign policy have been moved closer to the top of the Party agenda. Labour’s core values as social-democrats have become reinstated, a mindset which is reflective of Party members’ views.

But progression and success can only come in positively criticising the Tory government, and momentarily, Labour MPs are instead criticising themselves. The comments of Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair are indeed understandable, but have highlighted the damaging divide between existing and new Blairites and Corbyn supporters. A disunited party is unable to scrutinise its opposition and make effective changes to British lives, and this is having a stark effect on the strength of Labour.

The emerging political crevasse is demobilising Labour and impinging on possibilities of a successful future, including 2020 election gains. An imminent cabinet reshuffle will surely fail to fill the cavity in Labour’s enamel which once sparkled. Corbyn’s principle of ‘new politics’ has been abandoned. Willfully enlarging the already sweeping divide amongst Labour MPs largely goes against the principles of dialogue and compromise upon which his politics is said to be based. How can Corbyn justify punishment for voting freely over Syria, in a supposedly free vote?  An effective Labour party must endorse discussion, and take into account the ideas of all members.

Lewisham-Dreamer-flickr-corbyn

By staging a Cabinet reshuffle after just one huge party defeat, Corbyn is mindlessly creating a deficit of able frontbench politicians. Demoting the likes of Hilary Benn and Maria Eagle is a mistake. This is not only demoting key political brains, but also supporters of some true left-wing policy for which Corbyn’s party should be striving. Disagreement is needed for effective policy synthesis, and a move to more presidential and autocratic politics harks back to earlier, contentious Labour periods. Tony Blair’s leadership methods largely ignored the views of many backbench Labour politicians. The party simply cannot move back to those days of internal dictatorship and division.

Whilst I am an advocate of the socially democratic policies which Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters uphold, the Labour Party remains detrimentally polarised. This flurry of disorganisation will only debilitate the Party in scrutinising David Cameron, and will wreck chances of future election success. The Labour Party must once again decide on what it stands for – crushing austerity, standing up for hard work and values of social justice, surely. It is time Labour MPs realised that only they can narrow the gap in opinion, and uphold the friendly and co-operative values the Party aims to work by. Labour must be united in policy, and must work together to create resolutions which please its activists and politicians.

Standard
World Politics

The UK’s hand in striking Daesh will become Cameron’s greatest regret

syria-push-out-terrorists

See this article published on Youth Journalism International.

Obliterated towns and villages, a quarter of a million civilian deaths, and young faces exposed to the barbaric atrocities of warfare. Unfortunately, these scenes of global dissonance are real for many Middle Eastern communities witnessing the rampage of Daesh. As the death toll increases, the extremists’ abominable threat to humanity must come to an end. However, destroying the moral high ground through airstrikes is surely no way to a peaceful global society.

Wednesday evening saw Prime Minister David Cameron and opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn lead British MPs into one of the most divisive votes of the decade. Westminster representatives voted 397 to 223 in favour of pursuing airstrikes on Daesh militants. As the richest terror organisation in the world, having yielded a gross income of over 2.9 billion US Dollars in recent years, this extremist pandemic must undeniably be fast terminated. However, the means by which infected Middle Eastern communities are inoculated against this political disease has proven to be a contentious issue amongst British voters. Yesterday evening’s decision, after an impassioned debate, showed that there is growing confidence in Syrian airstrikes amongst MPs, crushing the caliphate. However, after news of airstrikes during Thursday morning, a significant proportion of the electorate made its discontent known, after weeks of preceding protest.

The case for the use of weapons in order to deplete the influence of Daesh is blatantly flawed. Politicians have devilishly branded use of weapons as a quick fix to this new age of Islamist insurgency, wiping out key leaders and reducing the ability of forces. But the legacy of such intervention would have huge consequences, a truth which lurks behind Cameron’s façade of diplomatic strength.

2003 interventions against the similarly repulsive regime of Saddam Hussein still taint British society today. Haven’t our politicians noticed that an identical situation exists in comparing Iraqi invasions with possibilities in Syria today?  Iraqi intervention has, in the long run, meant more harm than safety, with retaliation coming at the expense of innocent civilian destruction. Many of our politicians, and albeit those of coalition nations, relax knowing that livelihoods of innocent civilians will be annihilated. Strategists claim that the latest technology can reduce destruction, but there is no guarantee that airstrikes won’t cause despair amongst guiltless individuals. An alarming 1.7 million were killed due to brutality of Western attacks in Iraq. Furthermore, over the first three years of intervention, almost a third of all deaths were deemed to be the result of Western forces. And twelve years on Iraqis are still subdued by the air of plight. Every day, civilians cast their eyes over the houses, schools and other institutions which once were, now reduced to rubble.

Mideast Jordan Syria

Questioning the legitimacy of this intervention is vital. A vast number of voters simply cannot see sense behind the UK Cabinet’s decision. Government for the people instead of with the people has never become more obvious. 66 of 218 Labour MPs sitting in the House of Commons voted in favour of airstrikes, whilst only 13% of the Labour party’s subscribed electorate supporters firmly supported such intervention. Values of social democracy which the Labour party claims to stand for have been challenged outright. Of course, democracy will always create losers, favouring the majority decision. However, the British government has wholly disregarded the views of its people in presiding over such a contentious issue. Pollster YouGov revealed slashed electorate support for airstrikes this morning with only a mere 48% in support of David Cameron’s Daesh policy. It is abhorrent that Labour members and, of course, Conservative government members, have disregarded the views of large numbers. There can surely be no clearer showcase of governmental bureaucracy as our elected representatives fail to act on opinions of the people.

There is simply no obvious equilibrium. Airstrikes would lead only to a very short-term gain, and long-lasting disparity.  The consequences of a smashed-up society are evidently too great for much of the British population to stomach. In aiming to defeat Daesh, the same dangerous legacy as that of Iraq will haunt us in coming years, and further terror attacks on our now vulnerable nation are imminent. Whilst intrusive, in these extreme circumstances, close surveillance tactics should be employed instead, amongst strategies in order to limit the presence of Daesh in our global community. The virtues of discussion, and not those of violent weapons, should be embraced by all. Dialogue can and should build bridges, leading citizens of all backgrounds into a more prosperous and peaceful humanity.

The Prime Minister’s vehement labelling of opponents to airstrikes as ‘terrorist sympathisers’ is unacceptable. Advocates of peace are those who retain the moral high ground, and those who promote the safe world which we all aspire to. David Cameron has removed the bandage of a wound which will continue to bleed for years to come. Global harmony has been pushed years further away, an unforgivable move.

Standard