Read on Twitter
1/ This is the point where I probably make trouble for myself as someone who voted for Starmer as leader but I think Nadia Whittome and co have thus far (but not decisively) come out of the events of yesterday evening looking better than he does (or at worst no worse)
At no point has Labour given a good reason *in principle* why it wanted its MPs whipped to vote in favour of abstaining on the Veterans Bill. I’ve seen ‘oh, now it can be discussed at committee stage’. That’s manoeuvring, not principle. What is that they want discussed?
I’ve seen ‘it wouldn’t have made any difference because the Tories have a majority of 80 anyway’. Again that’s tactics and manoeuvring, not principle. Why don’t they at least want to try and make a moral difference?
I’ve seen ‘Oh you have to do this to stay on the right side of the patriotic voters and distinguish yourselves from the Corbynistas’. Does that mean that there is no such thing as centre-left patriotic people with a basic interest in human rights? Because that’s where I come from
If you don’t believe in condoning torture, why would you have not voted against this bill? If you feel that *specific amendments* need to be made – giving amnesty to Irish republican terrorists as well as to soldiers seems the most obvious to me – then you *need to say so*.
At the very least, if you are uncertain of what the bill entails and you feel it needs to be discussed in greater detail at committee stage, then *you need to be honest about just saying so*. It might look a bit cautious and prudish but at least you& #39;ve been open and candid
I am uncertain whether Nadia Whittome is exactly on the same political wavelength as me – I might be a bit to the right of her and to the left of Starmer. But *that’s the whole point* - a lot of us don’t divide neatly into packages so our position in these cases can& #39;t be assumed
But because she has made a very eloquent and reasonable and empathetic statement today explaining *why* she resigned (and how difficult it was for her to do that), you cannot just chuck ‘lefty’ pejoratives at her *if you can’t explain in principle why Labour abstained*
So what is it? If you want to stay on the side of the patriots, as you see it, why didn’t you vote with the Tories? If you feel the current system regarding legally defined war crime works, why didn’t you vote against to assertively defend it?
Lest we forget, Corbyn’s very leadership of Labour became a plausible concept in 2015 when Labour did abstain on the Welfare Bill and he took the trouble to (rightly I think) vote against it (proof that tactical manoeuvring on visceral issues can be very rash in itself)
This is a complex and visceral issue but it’s precisely because of that Labour needed to at least demonstrate they were *thinking it through* - not just cryptically dodge it.
As someone who did not vote Labour in 2019 simply because they could not face the idea of Corbyn being PM, I am aware I am in an invidious position now.
But again, to believe in human rights from a liberal humanitarian perspective is perfectly possible without being a tribal Corbyn fan or prohibitively critical of Starmer’s foes. So I think we need an explanation /end thread
