David Hare invites Neil Kinnock to explain 'why on earth I, or anyone like me, should vote Labour next month'. What defence can Kinnock offer to people 'like [him]self' disillusioned over Labour's support for the Iraq war? In the course of answering Hare, Kinnock says:
And remember, the constitution has been changed. No prime minister in Britain will ever be able to go to war without the endorsement of a majority of the House of Commons.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Tony Blair had such an endorsement. But for 'anyone like' Hare, that parliament voted on the war wasn't good enough; it should have voted as 'anyone like' him demanded.
In any case, if being 'anyone like' David Hare means thinking the invasion of Iraq was a major war crime, I'd say they shouldn't be voting Labour. Perpetrating major war crimes is a serious matter, and if you believe that governments should be answerable for what they do, you ought to hold them answerable for that at least. Consequently, 'anyone like' Hare who does nevertheless vote Labour reveals that his or her talk of war crimes or of bringing Tony Blair before a court somewhere is just so much hot air.
Not being 'anyone like' David Hare, I for my part will be voting Labour, as always.
Me too. And let's all remember, as we elect our new MPs, that an MP is not a delegate but a representative. There is a difference.