Political Parties

A while back I wrote a blog that upset a few people by comparing Corbyn with Moseley, in terms of their style of politics, rather than ideology. Since then, I have read a number of articles which demonstrate that I am not alone in my concerns about the anti-democratic instincts of the Corbyn ‘movement’ – including Nick Cohen’s piece here.

Corbyn is often hailed as being principled? Is he? Or are people mistaking stubbornly held views and being narrow-minded for a moral stance? Being principled is generally seen as acting with integrity and honesty; Corbyn has little of either.

He does not give any of the top shadow cabinet positions to any women. So he then lies when appointing a shadow defence secretary who is pro-Trident, stating that he knows her views, but that he will stand by what the party chooses to decide. Did he heck! As soon as it was clear it wasn’t going his way he chose to make a public statement which made a pro-Trident decision by the party invalid. Oh but he’s the leader! Yes, he is, in which case make the policy and have done with. Don’t put on an act about respecting internal democracy in the Labour party and then override it! Then, if it’s not enough that he refuses to meet her to discuss what is her shadow cabinet portfolio after all, he undermines Eagle by putting Ken Livingstone as co-chair of the party’s defence review. Yes, that’s right the elected shadow cabinet minister is going to share the chair with the unelected ex-Mayor of London. Why is this? Greater knowledge and experience? More understanding of the issues? Insight and links which Eagle does not have? No, he is there to ensure it goes the right way for Jeremy.

That’s not the only dishonesty that has got me riled recently. He reversed his decision on giving MPs a free vote on Syria, which he said he would at the start of his leadership. However, Jeremy’s passive-aggressive tactics begin again. He fails to persuade his shadow cabinet, so undermines them by conducting a poll of party members’ views. He doesn’t even bother the f*** to get the survey results compiled, instead a ‘selection’ of 2000 of the tens of thousands who responded were analysed and which surprise, surprise endorsed Corbyn’s view. Either they went through them even superficially to gauge support and therefore have some credibility saying it was representative OR they could see a lot more responses against Jeremy’s position than expected and came up with this ridiculous face-saving exercise. I would have no problem if 99% of those who responded had had agreed with Jeremy Corbyn’s stance, but at least they should have been counted. Or, here’s a thought, if you want to conduct a poll at short notice, make it a simple one that can be easily analysed by a computer. I’ve taught 7 year olds to conduct this kind of a survey using Survey Monkey. It’s really isn’t that difficult.

And I do believe there was more opposition than 25% in that survey because after all the rigmarole he then decided not to whip the vote after all. Why, if he has such backing did he bother to do that? Yet what a dishonest act it proves to be because in the same sentence where he stated Labour MPs would have a free vote he threatens them. ‘The party membership will be watching’, which is simply an underhand way of saying, ‘it’s not my fault if you vote for the airstrikes and then get de-selected’.

Go to hell, Jeremy! Are your lapdogs watching those MPs who disagree with you and voted for the airstrikes? Are they getting their friends in Militant, SWP and Left Unity to tag along, not to mention Stop the War, who don’t seem as opposed to violence as the name would suggest?

Fine, but bear this in mind – the rest of us are not walking around with blinkers on. The 51% who voted against you in the Labour Party; the Labour electorate, and the electorate in general is watching you too. And what they are seeing is not honesty or integrity.

This post was originally published on the Labour Teachers website.

Continued from yesterday’s post.

As I mentioned in the part one of this blogpost, it is not I that changed my views but the other half. Rather than paraphrase and quote him, I thought it best if he wrote what made him change his views.

The views of my other half:

I watched “Labour: the Wilderness Years” on the back of my attendance at my first ever party-political event: a Jeremy Corbyn campaign rally. I had found him to be an inspiring speaker, who spoke from a place of conviction rather than a carefully edited script. His views on many issues aligned with mine and I felt that at last I had seen a politician that I could rally behind as they led their party – my party? – and the country towards a bright new future.

Three weeks later, and I find myself hoping that any of the other three candidates wins. So what’s changed? At the outset, I want to say that I still admire Corbyn for the principled stances he has taken on many important issues over the years. I hope that he has many more years in Parliament ahead of him, so that he can continue this work.

What’s changed since I watched the documentary is that I now understand why so many senior figures in the Labour Party from the 1980s are horrified at the prospect of a Corbyn victory. Not because they don’t care about the same issues that he does. Not even that they necessarily disagree with his positions on those issues. But because they know that the British public disagrees with him.

The footage of Tony Benn speaking at rallies in the early 1980s was particularly alarming, as it provoked strong feelings of deja vu from the Corbyn rally I had attended. He shared some of my views. Like Corbyn, he expressed them passionately and eloquently. He argued that although the public might not initially agree with the left wing, once they heard their arguments stated clearly, they would change their views and adopt left-wing positions on a range of issues. (Hear, hear, I thought.) He pointed to the large numbers of people attending their rallies as evidence of a political sea change in the electorate. But – and this is the key point – they were wrong. Not necessarily in their positions on key issues; rather in their belief that the public were sympathetic.

As the documentary showed, in the run-up to the 1983 General Election, the right wing of the Labour party decided to allow Benn and the hard left to present their manifesto in unadulterated form. And the electorate roundly rejected it. Although I sincerely wish that it were otherwise, there is nothing to suggest that anything different would happen today. Most alarmingly, Benn’s supporters were very clear that being right in principle was more important than winning elections. At the level of the individual this is undoubtedly true, and even at the level of a protest movement. But for a political party that seeks a democratic mandate to change the country for the better, winning elections is essential.

Hattersley summed up the lesson of the 1980s when he said that he believed Labour had let down the poorest people in the country by condemning them to live under 18 years of Tory government. No matter how well meaning the left wing of the Labour party were or are (and I don’t doubt their sincere desire to improve the lives of the poor and the marginalised), failure to win elections means that Tory policies not Labour policies were implemented.

I urge everyone who plans to vote in the Labour leadership election to watch the Wilderness Years before casting their ballot.

My Views:

There is much that I and the other half still disagree on yet one thing we do have in common is how moved we were by Roy Hattersley. In each programme, he was as consistent as Corbyn. It was clear the responsibility he felt towards his constituents. The poor and vulnerable, who elected him time and time again and for whom he could do nothing stuck in opposition in a party riven by factionalism.

My Other Half Again:

As wiser people than me have said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

This post was originally published on the Labour Teachers website.