To win in 2015, Labour must reject Conservative austerity

Arguing that the party will be "tougher than the Tories" risks letting the Conservatives back into the game.

If the old maxim that whoever sets the agenda wins is true, then David Cameron is in even greater trouble than the polls suggest. Ed Miliband has led on numerous issues from Leveson to Syria and is defining the terms of debate again with his defence of living standards. His call for an energy price freeze has succeeded in reviving Labour's fortunes, with the Tories responding with their own pale imitation on water bills.

But if Labour has won the battle, how can it win the war? With wages down by an average of £1,500 a year since David Cameron became Prime Minister and prices outstripping earnings in 39 of the last 40 months, a clear break with austerity is needed. Yet the Tories intend the next parliament to be marked by the toughest years of cuts yet. A taste of just how bad things are going to get was provided by an unlikely source. The Conservative chair of the Local Government Association predicted councils will go bust after the next round of severe budget cuts in 2015-16.

Alternatives are needed and that’s why the Labour Assembly Against Austerity has been established. Its launch conference this Saturday will look at the further policies needed to develop the agenda around defending living standards as an alternative to the Tory plan to deepen austerity. Its launch statement has already won the support over 20 MPs and over 500 councillors and activists.

While Ed Miliband is reflecting the public mood, those in our party arguing that Labour needs to reject policies such as a Living Wage are out of touch with the majority. After years of rip-off energy policies and crowded and expensive trains, the public wants more action against these companies who abuse their monopoly position to win super-profits for the few. From soaring payday loan use to growing NHS waiting lists, millions have a story to tell on how austerity is making life tougher.

Labour has everything to gain by promoting more polices that take on vested interests and the failed cuts agenda. Conversely, arguing that Labour will be "tougher than the Tories", as some shadow cabinet ministers recently have, will let the Conservatives back into the game.

Polls show that Labour has a strong lead over the Conservatives on being best able to provide jobs, keep prices down and improve living standards. It’s by offering a progressive economic alternative to austerity that it can best reach out to a broad coalition of voters left worse off by the coalition.

Cat Smith is Labour PPC for Lancaster and Fleetwood

Ed Miliband with David Cameron during the service to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II at Westminster Abbey. Photograph: Getty Images.

Cat Smith is Labour PPC for Lancaster and Fleetwood

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Bomb Isil? That's exactly what they want

The government appears not to answer the nature of its enemy, warns Maria Norris.

As MPs are set to vote on further airstrikes in Syria, it is difficult to shake off the feeling that the government does not fully appreciate the complexity of the problem Isil poses. Just a cursory glance at its magazine, the pronouncements of its leaders and its ideology reveals that Isil is desperate for Western bombs to fall out of the sky. As Martin Chulov argues, Isil is fighting a war it believes was preordained since the early days of Islam. Isil’s obsession with the city of Dabiq, in Northern Syria, stems from a hadith which prophesises that the ‘Crusader’ army will land in the city as a precursor to a final battle where Islam will emerge victorious. Dabiq is also the name of its magazine, which starts every issue with the same quote: "The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify -- by Allah's permission -- until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq". Isil wants a war with the West. If we don’t negotiate with terrorists, then we also should not give them what they want.

Further, bombs are indiscriminate and will inevitably lead to the suffering of those trapped in Isil territories. Isil is counting on this suffering to swell their ranks. Civilian suffering from airstrikes only underline the narrative that the West is at war with Islam, which plays directly into Isil’s hands. And despite misleading headlines and the genuine government concern with individuals fleeing to Syria, Isis is supremely unpopular. It is no wonder that its magazine is filled with glossy adds begging people to move to its territories.  You cannot be a state without people. Terrorist attacks such as Paris thus have a two-pronged purpose: they provoke the West to respond with its military, and they act as a recruitment drive. The fact that fake Syrian passports were found around the sites of the Paris attacks is no coincidence as Isil are both seeking to stem the flow of refugees from its territories and hoping to provoke an Islamophobic backlash. They hope that, as more Muslims feel alienated in the West, more will join them, not just as fighters, but as the doctors, nurses and teachers it desperately needs.

In addition to this, airstrikes overlook the fact that Isil is a result of what Fawaz Gerges calls a severe, organic institutional crisis in the Middle East. In a lecture at the London School of Economics earlier this year, Gerges pointed out the dysfunction created when a region that is incredibly resource rich also is also deeply undemocratic, riddled with corruption, food insecurity, unemployment and poverty. This forms an institutional vacuum that is filled by non-state actors as the population does not trust its political structures. Further, the civil war in Syria is also the site of the toxic soup of Middle Eastern state dysfunction. Iran supports Assad, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, fund anti-Shia groups in Syria. Throw in the Kurdish conflict, Turkey’s ambiguous position and Russian bombs, it is difficult to see how airstrikes will solve anything.

Finally, it is crucial that Isil is seen as a direct result of the Iraq war. The American-led invasion destroyed the institutions, giving the Shia majority power almost overnight, creating deep dissatisfaction in the Sunni regions of Iraq. On top of this thousands of foreign fighters flooded Iraq to fight the invaders, attracting disenfranchised and angry Sunnis. The result is that since 2003, Iraq has been embroiled in a sectarian civil war.  It is in civil war, inherently connected to the Iraq War, that you find the roots of Isil. As even the Prime Minister concedes that ground troops are necessary, albeit it regional ground troops with its own set of problems, it is important to consider what further monster can arise from the ashes of another ill-thought out military intervention in the Middle East.
We have had decades of military intervention in the Middle East with disastrous consequences. Airstrikes represent business as usual, when what we actually need is a radically new approach. Who is funding Isil? Who is buying its oil? How to curb Isil’s recruitment drives? What can be done about the refugees? How to end the conflict in Syria? What happens to Assad? These are questions hopefully being addressed in talks recently held in Vienna with Russian, Ira, the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states. Airstrikes do not answer any of these questions. What airstrikes do is give Isil exactly what it is asking for. Surely this is reason enough not to bomb Syria. 

Maria W. Norris is a PhD candidate and a teacher at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Her PhD is on the UK counter-terrorism strategy since 9/11 and its relationship with identity. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.