Labour MPs are enemies of democracy

If Labour are trying to install the kind of democracy they have at Westminster in Baghdad, then not only is the method wrong, but they are entirely the wrong people to do it.

To say, as the governnment have, that now is not the right time for an inquiry because it would give succour those fighting British troops in Iraq, is to accuse the Americans of doing exactly that. Over the Atlantic, the Baker commission is right this minute looking into the details pre and post invasion.

All Parliament was asked to do last night was set up an inquiry to look at the government's conduct around the Iraq war. Even the Tories, who supported the war, backed it. Labour MPs, in extremely twisted loyalty to Blair, refused. They claim it's all been a big success, but don't want anyone to ask any questions about it.

As Simon Jenkins says in today's Guardian: "The Commons has become little more than an electoral college for the prime minister."

Grant Thoms has got a list of 12 MPs who backed the original Early Day Motion that brought forward this debate, but who then miraculously changed their minds last night e.g. Neil Gerrard. This would have reduced the government majority to 1. BSSC also lists the further 9 EDM signing "toadies" that didn't turn up to vote at all (explanations for absenses may roll in - one reason all MPs should have blogs). This would have meant a government defeat of 8.

And then we have the converts to the war. Yesterday, people that claim to be anti-war voted with the government and couldn't bring themselves to back a simple inquiry. Step forward Sadiq Khan and Shahid Malik for example. Gordon Prentice and Mohammad Sarwar did not turn up. But I also reflect on the fact that 138 Labour MPs rebelled on that famous vote on the eve of war. Admittedly some aren't there after the 2005 elections. But that doesn't account for the fact there are only 12 rebels yesterday who aren't even saying they were against war - just that there should be an inquiry. Has Labour opinion come more in favour of the war despite everything that's happened?

Opportunity lost - for now. Blair hasn't heard the last of this though.

Comments

[Noman]

Osama Bhai!

You highlighted Shahid Malik and Sadiq Khan, however, you failed to mention the leader of Labour's very own "A" team.. Kahlid Mahmood 'MP'!! The man who voted for the Iraq War and announced proudly on Tuesday night on Radio Five that he voted against an independant inquiry taking place, while singing from Tony Blair's hymn sheet.

Frankly, It was a disgrace!

How luckly is the Muslim community to have such wise, dignified and self respecting members of Parliament who are committed to demonstrating on behalf of millions of law-abiding and peaceful citizens?

[Osama]

Not at all Noman, I left Mr Mahmood off the list of hypocrisy because at least he's consistently pro-war!

[Mustafa Arif]

There is a substantial difference between the Baker Commision in the USA, which was set up by the White House, to *advise* on what to with Iraq - and the nationalist motion which was clearly contrived (and spun, including on your own blog) as a political machination to "impeach" the Prime Minister. I suspect that's why the vote was lost.

Sure Baker is reviewing what happened, but only with the view of informing what the USA should do, going forward.

[Osama]

Mustafa, Baker has been extremely critical of the Iraq disaster, and Beckett's argument about boosting the Iraqi resistance could apply equally to that. There is no way Blair's regime would implement anything like Baker anyway.

I can't understand the "oh you can't vote with a nationalist motion" sentiment. I would imagine most outside the Commons can't identify with such narrow party political partisanship either. The motion was as it was written. Even if impeachment was inherent in the motion, it is equally perplexing why Labour MPs would rally to such an odious leader who is dead and rotting anyway.

[Mustafa Arif]

It's not at all perplexing. The fact is that when it comes to the crunch, British elections are not won on foreign policy. Blair won three elections in a row - including one (2005) by which time the failure of the Iraq campaign was obvious.

There's nothing wrong with supporting a motion put forward by a nationalist party. The problem is when that motion is put forward in a manner that is inherently designed to score politicial points rather than make a non-partisan attempt to be constructive. The Baker commision has made criticisms, but in a tone designed to be constructive about the way forward. The SNP spin was very much focussed on making Labour look bad ahead of the next Scottish elections. On this occaision MPs from all sides were guilty of playing politics with a serious issue. I'll concede Beckett's argument was weak but frankly the level of parliamentary debate was not at all sophisticated.

I don't really blame any of the MPs. This apalling behaviour is a symptom of the political system they are forced to operate within. Whilst Simon Jenkins might jest that the Commons is a an "electoral college" for the Prime Minister - it is exactly that, so can never be expected to provide accountability. In my view this crucial flaw will never be resolved unless we follow the USA in having a directly-elected Executive with a genuinely independant parliament.

[Osama]

Mustafa, you say that elections aren't won on foreign policy, but also that this Iraq debate was a nationalist ploy before the Scottish elections!

I couldn't find a flaw with the wording of the motion. The fact is Labour don't want to talk about Iraq except when people can't answer back. They don't discuss it in Parliament, they don't discuss it at their party conference, they wouldn't dare set up anything like Baker. Who would have thought that "exporting" democracy would actually see it leave our shores.

Blair is unpopular not because of the state of the NHS, some economic disaster, crime or education. He's unpopular because he's considered to be a liar, principally due to Iraq.

Regarding constitutional reform, I think PR might help. The majority that Labour enjoyed particularly in the last 2 Parliaments was too unhealthy.

[Mustafa Arif]

Indeed foreign policy, in general, does not determine British elections. Blair's unpopularity is, in large part, as you point it because he is perceived to be a liar i.e. it's about sleaze. Of course we knew the Iraq WMD claims were fiction before the last general election, yet he still won. This is because we tend to tolerate a certain level of sleaze in return for domestic policy competence. Since then the camel's back has been broken, so-to-speak, by more sleaze (most notably "cash for peerages") and more domestic policy failures.

My previous post was therefore not contradictory since opposition parties, particularly nationalists in Wales and Scotland who have elections coming up, have most to gain from exploiting government sleaze. The motion, in and of itself may well have been valid, or not (I haven't read it). The point still stands, as I'm sure you understand very well, that in politics presentation counts as much as substance. The way you present things indicates your motivation, sincerity and the likelihood of success. The motion was not presented (to the public at least) in a way that showed a genuine, bi-partisan interest in being constructive. It smacked of politicking and the division along party lines was entirely understandable.

Incidentally, bipartisanship on important issues, whilst a rarity in the UK Parliament is much more common in the United States Congress. I put that down to having independent legislature and executive.

In this aspect, PR would not help much (if at all). Sure you might be more likely to have coalition government. But the point still stands that the government dervies its authority from being the majority grouping in parliament. So, parliament can not really be expected to be truly independent of the executive nor hold it to account. It is possible, in a PR situation, that you might get a coalition partner that decides to change 'sides' though, personally, I don't see the backroom deals that mark out coalition systems, nor the compromising of the constiuency link a price worth paying.

(N.B. I'm not ruling out PR for one House of Parliament, as part of a wider constitutional settlement. However it is no panacea and will not solve the problem of independence of parliament vizzavi the executive. Only a directly elected executive can do that.)