Two intertwined power struggles are being fought in the Labour party this week, one over British airstrikes in Syria and the other over the future of Labour, with questions raised over how it will make collective decisions in the future. The conduct and tone of the debate over the former may yet determine the future of the party itself.
For the past two months both ideological wings have been acutely aware of the febrile nature of rank and file party opinion, and as a result neither side at the very top of the party has wanted to take the blame for firing the first shot in a party civil war. The faction that comes to be regarded by ordinary party members as the instigator may be so badly handicapped they lose.
Yet at the same time the issue of Syria inflames so much passion in the party, partly due to Iraq, the Blair legacy and its wider symbolic importance to Britain’s place in the world, it cannot be guaranteed that either side will be able to restrain themselves. The issues are too fundamental to let narrow internal advantage become the primary consideration. Syria may also be one of the few votes this parliament when the position of the parliamentary Labour party (PLP) matters in the real world.
For those seeking to avoid a party civil war the position is finely balanced.
It appears this weekend as if the tide in the parliamentary party is swinging, if anything, towards opposition to war. A week ago supporters of airstrikes thought in the wake of the Paris terror attacks that there was a substantial majority ofLabour MPs for war, but they now fear it is finely balanced at best or instead a majority opposed. “People that I would have had down as supporters are expressing doubts,” said one source.
If that is the case David Cameron may have to hold back from a Commons vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment