We all know the Labour party is somewhat divided over the bombing vote on Syria. Death threats are usually a telling sign. In fact, Hilary Benn’s celebrated speech backing intervention in Syria gave the impression that the decision was all about the future of the Labour party and, hey, maybe it was.
But in the meantime, spare a thought for the Lib Dems, who also find themselves divided on the issue, with a quarter of their MPs voting against bombing in Syria – despite the leadership’s position of being in favour (Tim Farron said his five tests had been met).
It is worth putting these divisions in context. There have been no death threats in the Lib Dems, as far as I know, but there have been a number of prominent cries of “I’m considering letting my membership lapse”. It’s too early to say that there will actually be lapses, but the reversion to the usual Lib Dem pattern – “we should have been consulted better” – is a sign that the simple habit of being a Liberal will kick in when it comes to paying their subs, as it usually does.
I write as a Lib Dem who was pretty sceptical about bombing. There is a strong strand among my fellow party members who find all prime ministerial rhetoric about war deeply suspicious, but are not necessarily pacifists. Their complaints about extending the bombing to Syria are about whether this would be counterproductive without an explicit UN mandate, without a coalition on the ground, and without much of a plan. They are sceptical about Cameron’s warlike rhetoric, mainly because it is warlike and because it comes from Cameron.
They remember that Charles Kennedy was somewhat bounced into his position against the Iraq war by the party’s federal executive. They also note that Tim Farron did not actually consult the federal executive or policy committee this time.
So it isn’t a fundamental split. I’ve noted the names of people “considering resigning” and can see that they include supporters of the leadership ambitions both of Farron and of Norman Lamb (who voted against). It seems to imply more about their suspicion of the habit the establishment has – firing missiles first, whenever requested, and looking for justification afterwards.
There will be the usual hand-wringing about consultation – the Lib Dems claim to be a democratic party, after all – and they will promise each other not to do this pre-emptive voting again. Then that will be that. The activists will stay as grumpy as they usually are.
Perhaps the real question was whether we have all been somewhat bamboozled by the vote. After all, the RAF was bombing Islamic State before and they are bombing Islamic State afterwards. The war hasn’t changed. The coalition is a very little bit stronger, that’s all. Did David Cameron really need to talk the whole issue up as much as he did, when it might have been easier for him to downplay it?
So why didn’t he? The answer has to be that the impression Benn’s speech made was correct: this was really all about revealing the divisions inside Labour, bringing them to the surface – the death threats must be an added bonus (who could have imagined that socialist pacifists could be quite so violent?). Perhaps it wasn’t really a coincidence either that the vote took place the day before the Oldham byelection either.
So maybe the real question for the Lib Dems is why they allowed themselves to get caught in the crossfire as much as they did. After all, no decision would have been unifying, and certainly abstaining was hardly a possibility. But there is an implication for how they should behave now.
Dust themselves down, agree to differ and move on. And make sure that next time there is a divisive issue debated in the Commons, it is one of theirs. The nation needs a united opposition, and it doesn’t look like it will come from an official opposition that looks like it’s tweeting itself into division.
