First thoughts on Jezza's win

It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
(Eugene V. Debs: US Politician)

Well, the deed is done and Jeremy Corbyn has been elected as leader of the Labour party. A friend said that I must be excited that he has and I am. But any excitement is moderated by a realistic expectation of a very rough ride from here on in and, I'll admit it, some trepidation about how Jezza will adapt to his new role. Being a long standing rebellious back bencher might not be the best training for being a responsible Party Leader.  

Jezza's elevation has given encouragement to those of us on the left who want to see Labour end its miserable cohabitation with neo-conservatism and privatisation. Since the ascent of Blair, Labour has sought power by adopting the rhetoric and politics of the right. Consequently, when it gained power it disappointed many because there was little or nothing to distinguish it from the bogeymen it claimed to be protecting us from. And it got worse. As the party’s rightward drift continued, it turned into the very bogeymen that Labour was founded to fight against. For the Blairites, the party’s socialist past is precisely that - passed and in the past.

But as many have pointed out, winning the leadership was the easy bit. The really difficult task has only just begun. And it’s starting with a party whose foundations are becoming increasingly unstable. The Parliamentary Party has received the news of Corbyn’s victory with as much joy as a papal blessing in an Orange lodge. Already significant numbers of the previous shadow cabinet and Labour’s front bench have refused to serve in Jezza's line-up. They’re the sort of politicians who believe that it’s not them who are wrong, it’s the voters and if they had their way they’d elect a new electorate. But they are a powerful force set against any possibility of serious change within Labour. Can the party survive with such divisions?

The divisions within Labour contrast with a media which is almost universally hostile. The UK press has absolutely no intention of giving Corbyn a fair hearing. He’s going to be monstered and misrepresented by mealy mouthed mendacious mediocrities, who’ll claim that their columns represent balanced reporting. Because, as we all know, the media are scrupulously fair and only an anti-democratic wannabe dictator would think of criticising the spawn of Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay twins. Jeremy’s voice will be drowned out whilst those of his critics will be given free rein. Faced with all this, it's going to be incredibly difficult for Labour to make substantial inroads into a voting population which will find itself subject to a vigorous fear campaign. It’s going to be relentless and unforgiving. The mildest of proposals will be hysterically blown out of proportion and stripped of context. And it won’t stop. The stakes are too high.

The British establishment could survive the loss of Scotland. Losing Scotland would be a massive blow to their prestige, to their entitlement, to their pockets, but the establishment would still reign over all except the rebellious Scots who refused to be crushed. But the British establishment can’t survive the success of the Corbyn project: he threatens the end to their privilege and preference. That’s precisely why they will conspire to ensure that he fails. Renationalising key industries threatens the bank balances of the rich, scrapping Trident threatens the power hungry dreams of the establishment. 

Already the Tories are talking in the language of threats to national security. Because in their world, national security is the same as the security of the very rich and the very powerful. The security of the poor and the marginalised is of no account. When the government refers to the main opposition party in such terms, when it describes the opposition in apocalyptic terms as an enemy of the state, we should all be concerned. Interesting times ahead, eh? Just think how boring it would have been if one of the others had won!
 

When political dinosaurs ruled the earth.

As the General Election draws ever nearer, a number of Labour Party luminaries (specifically Tony Blair, Alan Milburn, Peter Mandelson and Ed Balls) have talked about the need for Labour to chase the 'centre ground'. All of them, in my opinion, wilfully ignoring the fact that, since the days of Thatcher, the Tories and their cronies have been working hard to change where the centre ground lies. Labour, following the lead of their natural opponents like a puppy, has allowed the project to succeed. The centre no longer lies mid-way between the old-fashioned binary choice of Left and Right: it is well to the right of where it once was. And is that where the Labour party should be? Is that really the pinnacle of its aspirations? Once upon a time the party had ideas that transformed society for the better but all that now remains of Clement Attlee's post-war revolution is the NHS and even that is under serious threat (No, Posh Dave, I don't believe the NHS is save in your hands).

I think Ed Miliband understands the need to make public ownership, redistributive taxation, greater social equality, employees' rights and fair welfare provision subjects for serious discussion once more. Unfortunately I don't see any signs that he can turn these issues into a coherent and convincing set of policies to present to the electorate. I know what the Tories are about as they've been at it for years. I want a real Labour party of the conventional left to oppose them. But where is it, Ed?

I've mentioned Clement Attlee once already and some say that Miliband is a sort of latter-day Attlee. A man who is deceptively modest and unassuming; who will amaze us once he gets into Number 10 and his many strengths emerge from behind the scenes. Possibly but this scenario forgets that Attlee had a formidable team to help him get his policies through. Who will give Ed the passion of Aneurin Bevan? The skills of Herbert Morrison and Ernest Bevin? The intellectual support of Harold Laski? These are the people Ed needs, not the likes of Blair and Balls babbling about the centre ground. A truly vacuous concept if ever there was one. 

Me? I'm a political dinosaur: unashamedly Old Labour with a fantasy that one day Real Labour will come back and represent the social values and heart that have long been stolen from mainstream politics by the Tories, Lib Dems and New Labour. I am a product of Attlee's reforms and, to a very large extent, I owe my present lifestyle and health to them. I wish that my children and grandchildren could have the same privileges but the chances of this are fast receding. Perhaps we need a Syriza or a Podemos to stir things up?