ad hominem assaults in print, which have focussed upon his personal life. To his credit, Corbyn has weathered this somewhat hysterical campaign against him with commendable aplomb.His conduct in Parliament and at the Labour Party Conference has been measured and well balanced. All this is to his credit.
As a committed Labour voter, I cannot remember one Labour Party leader with whom I have been in complete agreement in all the years I have been eligible to vote. Corbyn has a number of policies which I support, and some that I don't. I am in complete agreement with him over the need to combat austerity, re-nationalise the railways and protect our welfare state - especially the NHS. I am also glad that, unlike the other parties, he recognises the importance of the Arts in our cultural life.
I part company with him over his apparent links to Hamas and Hezbollah via the Palestine Solidarity Committee and the Stop the War Coalition, both organisations with which he is in close contact. Nor do I agree with his view that we should restrict (or abandon) military activities against ISIS. But - as I said, I have disagreed with Labour leaders in the past. None of these disagreements stopped me voting Labour then, and I shall vote Labour in the future.
Of course, we need to keep a sense of proportion here. We still have a Tory government which, prior to Corbyn's victory, was gloating at the prospect of an unelectable Labour leader who they could rout in the Commons and at Election time. The disgusting character assassinations made against Corbyn in the right-wing press though, seem to point to a change of mind. Perhaps they have suddenly recognised that Corbyn has been able to mobilise more popular support than they expected? As the International Business Times said:
"Tens of thousands of people have joined Labour after Jeremy Corbyn won almost 60% of the vote in the party's leadership contest on the back of a left-wing surge in support. The party has claimed now more than 352,000 people are full members of the reds after more than 40,000 people signed up on the back of the Islington North MP's victory on 12 September."
And this, surely, is the main achievement of Jeremy Corbyn: the fact that he has drawn in thousands of new supporters for his party. Some, undoubtedly, are ultra-left "entrists", but the majority, I am convinced, are sincere young people with ideals - in other words, the very kind of people who felt there was no future for them in organised politics. Full marks to Corbyn for that, and for making David Cameron jealous. As "The Spectator" said in 2013:
"134,000. That’s how many members the Conservative Party now has, according to Paul Goodman at ConservativeHome. Despite months of campaigning from the site, the only figure Conservative HQ would release is that 253,600 people voted for David Cameron as leader in 2005. Today’s number means that membership has nearly halved throughout Cameron’s eight-year term as party leader."
So, it looks as if Corbyn is set for a honeymoon period as Labour Leader - for how long, no-one can say. His problems with the right-wing press will doubtless continue, although I foresee problems with the minority of "ultras" who have slipped into the party, despite efforts to screen them out. They will doubtless create problems if Corbyn is seen to be compromising (as he will have to) on some issues ("No sell-out!"... I can hear it now). The pro-Palestinian elements might seek for a stronger stance on Gaza, etc, perhaps even calling for all pro-Israeli Labour Party members and MPs, such as the Labour Friends of Israel, to be expelled. If Corbyn does not meet their expectations, "No sell-out!" will ring out loud and clear. If he compromises on Rail renationalisation, I'll be displeased - but I'll just write a letter of disapproval.
All this is for the future. I conclude with the question alluded to in the title. I would like to ask the Conservatives, LibDems and New Labourites (SNP, Plaids and Greens are exempt): "If Jeremy Corbyn is able to interest and involve young, idealistic people in mainstream politics, what are YOU doing wrong?"
You are wrong to identify a relationship with Stop The War and the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign as meaning support for Hamas. I have supported both organisations myself, but do not identify myself with Hamas. Having said that, Hamas was elected with a decisive majority in the Palestinian Parliament, whether we like it or not. Believing in democracy means sometimes having to accept results you don't agree with.
ReplyDeleteWhile he has his own strongly-held views, Corbyn is a committed democrat within the Labour Party and prepared to accept majority opinion. This immediately sets him apart from his immediate predecessors. A minority may call for the expulsion of Labour Friends of Israel, although I've not heard such a call yet, but I cannot see that ever being the position of the Labour Party as a whole. I therefore don't see how Corbyn could be accused of selling out for supporting the majority position, especially as that's what he has said he'll do. Anyone who does so has failed to understand his message of inclusivity.
There will inevitably be such ludicrous accusations at some point over a variety of issues by Leftist fundamentalists who will profess themselves 'disillusioned' simply because Corbyn hasn't accepted every tiny detail of their own personal manifestos. Such people always end up marginalising themselves.
Evidence of his inclusivity is the fact that he has appointed someone to the shadow defence brief with radically different ideas to his own on the nuclear issue.
To state that you wish to protect the Welfare State and in particular the NHS when you write an article as a Labour Party supporter, is to suggest that these are under threat from other political parties. To be correct and wrong with one innocuous statement is common.
DeleteCorrect with the wish to protect the Welfare State and wrong with your inference that the Labour Party is the preferred party of choice to protect it.
The Welfare State is under threat from 2 directions. Firstly it has to be paid for - with an ageing population and more sophisticated treatments available this cost is rising. If interest payments on our National debt exceed what NHS funding is, some politicians have made mistakes.
Secondly, there appears to be a hardening of opinion from the electorate against using the Welfare State as a lifestyle choice. This was not what it was designed for but to protect the disadvantaged and people in temporary hardship.
Phil, the drive to privatise the Welfare State is more ideological than financial. The drive against the NHS comes from Tory politicians who adhere to the theory of monetarism, which seeks to reduce the state's involvement in society by savage cutbacks in public sector jobs and services. Quite what you mean by using the Welfare State as a "lifestyle choice" is not clear, but cuts in public sector jobs mean that public sector workers who lose their jobs will have no choice but to seek help from the welfare system for which they once worked.
Delete