There is a serious problem with
the media and with the British public - and I include all elected representatives
in this category - on the matter of Jeremy Corbyn. He is constantly being
brought up as some kind of bogey man whenever a labour politician is challenged,
on their current policies, for having once supported Jeremy Corbyn.
When Jeremy Corbyn was being put
forward as leader of the labour party the very fact of his candidacy brought
about a huge influx of membership into the party. Great numbers of young people,
who probably for the first time in their lives in choosing a political position
to support, chose Labour because of the ideas and policies stated by Jeremy
Corbyn. Is it any wonder that a number of senior Labour Party members and
officials supported him as a result?
Nevertheless throughout his time
in the spotlight he was seen as ‘unelectable’, ‘too far left’, ‘unrealistic’ ‘too
radical’ ‘too old school leftist’ and any number of other things. So what was
so bad that it attracted so many young people to his cause. He wanted economic and
social equality for all, he wanted the Palestinian people to have a country of their
own, he objected to the manner in which the Israeli Government dealt with the
Palestinians, he wanted to get rid of Trident or at least stop keeping up the
payments, he wanted to divert a lot of military spending towards the NHS and
social care, he wanted to use Prime Ministers Questions to actually ask
questions that were sent to him by his constituents and the general public
rather than attempting to score debating points and clever repartee, he wanted protection
for workers and tenants, he wanted to promote peace around the world.
So I ask what is so dreadful
about any of these aspirations. If his campaigning for the Palestinian people had
succeeded would we now have the appalling situation in Gaza? If his diverting
funds spent on weapons of mass destruction to be spent on the NHS and providing
social care, would we have the waiting lists and chaos we now have? Might we
also by now have had more protection for tenants from eviction? Might we have a
clearer path towards protecting the environment? There are any number of ‘far
left’ and ‘unrealistic’ goals that might have been reached. We will never know.
He did not institute the
disastrous Brexit Referendum. He did not openly lie to the British Public and
to Parliament. He did not initiate a complete economic breakdown and spark a
cost of living crisis across the country. There are any number of ‘realistic’
and ‘popular’ policies that he did not initiate. So why is this man, who has
never held government power, or even been given a chance to do so, seen as such
a bogeyman?
I hear journalists ask in so many
words “Horror of horrors, you once supported Jeremy Corbyn, what have you to
say for yourself? How is it you keep
changing your mind? How can the public trust you now that you no longer support
him?” I hear conservative politicians bring up past support for Jeremy Corbyn as something to be ashamed of and a flaw in one’s character.
Again, who crashed the economy
with wild hare-brained schemes, departure from the European Union, failure to
provide adequate and safe housing, failure to maintain the NHS, continuing
failure on social care, a significant diminution of the country’s influence in international
affairs. One could go on and on. I do not understand why Labour leaders do not
push back on ‘accusations’ of support for Jeremy Corbyn. For goodness’s sake spin it back. Do not be
ashamed of wanting a better world.
All political parties,
particularly in this multicultural, differently educated, and multi-layered economic
society, are a broad church. Each has equally centrist and extremists across its
spectrum. Unless the Labour Party is pushed from the left we might never even
get near any progressive legislation at all. It would just be a continuation of
what we’ve already had from the Conservatives, and a lot of people thinks that
is what we already have. Change? What change? Is it really a change of ideas or
just a change of personnel.
I had started to do a piece about
voting and elections generally across the world, but I was incensed on hearing
Amol Rajan, on Today BBC4, bringing up the Jeremy Corbyn reference yet again. One just has to
mention the name and there is a presumption that it has an actual derogatory
meaning. Why should there be that presumption and why do people buy into it?
Here is what I started to
contemplate yesterday:
The average citizen in a
democracy (and I include low-information voters in this category) does not
spend their time constantly thinking about politics, nor do they meditate over
the lives of their political representatives 24/7. In some democracies every
such citizen however, does, at the appropriate time, think about how they will
cast their vote, whether it be for a party or a specific individual, to be
their representative in government.
In some countries, elections
occur at fixed periods of time and some, even more precisely, on fixed dates.
The lead up to elections that have no specific date is the time between the
announcement of the election and the date itself. It is usually a short period
of approximately six weeks to two months. The various parties and candidates
will then campaign to solicit as many citizens as they can to vote for them.
For a short period of time they will bombard the electorate with leaflets,
adverts, displays, interviews, debates and any number of performances and
attractions to garner the voter’s support. It is an intense undertaking.
That does not mean that the
parties and representatives are not campaigning for support at other times,
only less intently. Every interview or action taken by our representatives is
always made with the prospect of further support down the line. The opportunity
to gather voter popularity is never turned away, and whilst in office it is
important to proclaim success in ‘delivering’ on promises achieved or yet to be
fulfilled. There is no moment when a
representative does not have an eye on the next election. They want to serve
their constituents, of course, but staying in office is key to being able to
serve, and staying in power is equally attractive. So the performance goes on.
In countries with very fixed
election dates, the campaigning aspect of political life is a bit more
hardcore, and seems to be never ending. It intensifies from about 12 months
before the actual election as candidates vie for party nominations and selections
for the various offices on offer. The higher the office, the more intense and
prolonged the campaign. Prospective candidates for high office, whether in or
out of office, are constantly promoting themselves, gathering support and
funding at every opportunity. They are constantly in the public eye. Indeed,
unless they are seen and heard no one will know who they are. So the gathering
of adherents is unceasing. It is ramped up to astronomic proportions during the
six or so weeks before the actual election date, and even longer, perhaps two
years, for lesser known political hopefuls.
Bearing this in mind, if the
pundits on electorates and elections are correct, a majority have already made
up their minds who and which political party they will support. That being the
case, the campaigns must be directed at that small percentage that has not
decided, and in the vain hope of changing some minds that have. Whatever the problem, the propaganda and
assault on the senses by political spin doctors is most certainly overwhelming
and I know very few people who are not turned away from the plethora of exhibitions,
revelations, disclosures and other manifestations of political agendas to make
one’s life better, save the planet and bring peace to the world. It becomes too much.
The frustration of watching and
listening to a debate between opposing candidates and being baffled by the
failure of one’s favoured candidate to push back on the inanities of an
opposing candidate is too much to bear. “Why doesn’t she say this…? “Why does
he let that go…?” “What can she be thinking…?” etc. and so much else; so, tune
out rather than in. You begin to wonder why you support them.
Hence, whilst not immersed in
politics all of the time, there is a nagging and uncomfortable anxiety about
what the future holds. Given the nature of democratic societies in any country
with a reasonable population of very mixed and multicultural citizens it is
quite natural to worry about the various things that hold the nation together
and how to bring everyone on board to at least recognise and work for the
essentials. Governments, whether national or local, cannot perform miracles. Democratic
government cannot stop crime, prevent disease or discrimination. It can only provide the tools to control
criminal activity, places to provide care and cures for illnesses and promote
well-being, help to create a climate for promoting equality and prevent all
forms of discrimination within its own institutions.
The creation of rules and
regulations does not stop individuals from breaking rules and regulations. The
rule of law and duty of care exists only because people follow the rule of law
and understand their own duty of care towards others.
The problem of how to maintain
and create the best security, health and welfare of the nation is what concerns
us all. Various groups have come together with a plan and philosophy on just
how to go about that endeavour. They form political groups. Some put themselves
forward as champions of that plan and philosophy. They try to convince others that
theirs’s is the best plan. They offer themselves up to serve the general
population and bring that plan to fruition.
In a democracy people argue over
these plans constantly. They are only put into effect with the consent of the
electorate. When it is clear that the plans are no longer working and are in
fact detrimental to society at large it is time to change course. This will
either be a complete change of plan or merely a change in direction. The
electorate will ultimately decide, but that involves the politics boring into
our lives, in all senses of the word.
The great tragedy for some of the
current democracies is that the philosophies of the parties are so divided and
far apart that there seems no room for compromise and there is an edge of
darkness about them. Serious violent clash lies just below the surface. On the
spectrum of political problem solving there is on the right a group that would
narrow and control the democratic process so as to prevent any dissent from its
point of view. They seek to restore order. They seek to enforce order. They
seek to dictate and they have followers who would support them every step of
the way on the assumption that they too would have dictatorial advantage. Some
of them might, whereas many others, even amongst their own, would suffer.
It happens time and time again
and is happening now across the world, in Russia, Hungary, Belarus, Myanmar and
many other places. It could most assuredly happen in the United States as well
as in the United Kingdom. Do not be tempted to believe ‘It can’t happen here’.
The constitution and freedoms promoted by the colonists of the seventeenth and
eighteenth century, those European refugees from feudal lands, is just as
fragile now as it was them.
That is as far as I got before deing distracted by Jeremy Corbyn, so more of this anon.
