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.
No comments:
Post a Comment