Syria - Iain Dale WRONG On Corbyn

The leaders of our two main political parties have widely, and to some pundits, worryingly divergent views on throwing yet more bombs into Syria. The view of Theresa May we know, given the bomb and missile attack was partly the work of British armed forces. That of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is diametrically different.

Iain Dale

ITV political editor Robert Peston was one of those expressing concern: “It is serious and worrying when there is such a gulf between government and opposition on whether military action should have been taken”. His observation was correct: the gulf between Government and opposition cannot be ignored. But others, rather than take a considered stance, have merely dumped on Corbyn for being insufficiently bellicose.

One of those is pundit, publisher and broadcaster Iain Dale, who disdainfully told his followers “This is the statement just issued by Jeremy Corbyn on the bombing in Syria. I tweet it without comment”. And in case anyone failed to get his message, he rather grandly told “My test for whether I could support military action was 1. Were there clear objectives and 2. What is the endgame? The objective was to weaken Syria's chemical weapons capability. The endgame is to eliminate that capability. The action so far has been clear & proportionate”. Thus the strange and isolated world of the Pundit Establishment.

So what is Jezza’s crime? Seemingly, it is to show leadership. This is what he had to say on the attacks. “Bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace … This legally questionable action risks escalating further, as US defence secretary James Mattis has admitted, an already devastating conflict and therefore makes real accountability for war crimes and use of chemical weapons less, not more likely”. There was more.

“Britain should be playing a leadership role to bring about a ceasefire in the conflict, not taking instructions from Washington and putting British military personnel in harm’s way … Theresa May should have sought parliamentary approval, not trailed after Donald Trump. The Government should do whatever possible to push Russia and the United States to agree to an independent UN-led investigation of last weekend’s horrific chemical weapons attack so that those responsible can be held to account”.

Interestingly, those backing the attack and dismissing Corbyn appear to have missed that an inspection team was to have arrived in Syria at the beginning of next week to investigate the attack on Ghouta in which so many died. Did Dale miss that? Does it not matter? And what about the opinions of those who have been elected to serve?

Take, for one, Laura Smith, now my MP, who has concluded “PM taken military action in Syria without any recourse to parliament. I have serious reservations - was prepared to listen to all sides but PM has sidelined parliament and taken her orders from Trump. Not at all convinced this will make the world or our communities a safer place”. Iain Dale would have listened to her predecessor Edward Timpson, wouldn’t he?

Or one who has been elected to represent his fellow workers, such as Dave Ward of the CWU: “Escalation - with no accountability, no Parliamentary debate, no long term plan and no voices of reason”. Dale may not like Ward’s politics, but his opinion is no less valid.

And someone who is also - perhaps grudgingly - allowed into the sanctum of the Pundit Establishment, Owen Jones, has a view which must be as valid as Dale’s: “There have been no shortage of bombs dropped on Syria in the last seven years. These symbolic strikes will excite the armchair generals of the Cabinet and the commentariat, but they will do nothing to win a lasting peace and stop the killing of innocent Syrians”.

Perhaps Iain could take into account the response of Harry Leslie Smith, who knows a little about wars, having been conscripted into the last really big one: “So far this year Donald Trump's America has accepted just 11 Syrian refugees and Britain isn't much better. So it's galling to hear Theresa May talk about the urgent need to bomb Syria to save the lives of innocents”. I would submit that there are many more out there with similar views.

And it is to those people - ordinary people, the kinds of people with whom the Pundit Establishment does not mix - that Corbyn is addressing his response on Syria. Many pundits cannot understand why Labour maintains its current support with Corbyn leading the party; they do not realise that, in this case, he is the one showing leadership.

For Iain Dale and all those other pundits who really don’t get this, once again I refer them to J K Galbraith’s definition of leadership: “All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common; it was their willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership”.

Voters have been sold a pup by successive Governments - a false prospectus over Iraq, that the Libyan intervention would be worth it, and now that if only we were to rock up and throw a little more petrol on the fire that is Syria, it would improve the lot of its citizens.

The major anxiety of an increasing number of those voters is that we will only make matters worse by yet another exercise in petrol throwing. And they rather like the idea of a leader who makes his own mind up, holds a consistent line, and wants to see the thing that will have to come eventually, no matter how much bombing is done - and that is a political settlement.

So the likes of Iain Dale - who is by no means alone in his disdain for Corbyn - would do well to engage with Jezza’s ideas, rather than sneeringly dismiss them.

There is a world outside the hermetically sealed bubble of the Pundit Establishment. Those inside the bubble ignore that reality at their peril.