With Corbyn September 27, 2016Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
Thanks to the person who sent this analysis from Tim Stanley in the Telegraph [!] in. Ignore the source and one will find it, I think, actually pretty good in relation to the dynamics extant across the last year. It notes that:
I started to feel, dare I say it, sympathy for the militants? They have spent generation after generation languishing on the backbenches – carrying the torch for an ideological socialism that Labour has pledged itself to but never actually delivered in government. Throughout all that time, they’ve caused trouble. But comrades like Corbyn have stuck with the party and worked for its candidates. Broadly speaking, they have accepted the principle of democratic centralism – that the party disagrees internally but speaks with one voice at election time. The Blairites insisted upon this to the point of authoritarianism.
But once they lost control… they:
…suddenly started to squeal about the importance of dissent. Cabinet members must be free to ridicule policy; MPs must be able to slag off the leader. Having done everything within their power to force Corbyn from office by making his position untenable, the moderates finally decided to launch a leadership bid against him – in the name of unity!
And this is particularly good.
They cried havoc and unleashed the Chihuahuas of War. Owen Smith. Owen. Smith. A good man, no doubt, and an intelligent one, certainly. Flashes of self-depreciating wit were obvious. But Owen Smith? As leader? As prime minister? His only definitive stance throughout the race was his insistence that Britain should stay in the EU even if the British people don’t actually want to. He managed an astonishing feat: he made Corbyn sound not only more democratic but more patriotic.
Whatever one’s views on the referendum outcome it is clear that a ‘re-run’ isn’t on the cards for a decade – and frankly nor should it be. So there’s some degree of truth in that. Moreover the lack of support for Smith from those who had started that ball rolling – well as Ed put it on this site, one would almost be sorry for him. Almost.
Here’s an interesting set of points.
What hurt the poor man more than his general air of inauthenticity was the impression that Corbyn has quietly grown in stature. In debates, Smith was supposed to come off as the moderate making a rational case for electability. But the more he ranted about racism and extremism, the more Corbyn – calm and often quite funny – came across as an elder statesman being unfairly traduced. That is this campaign’s greatest, most ironic legacy. It has helped Corbyn hone his skills. It has lent him authority.
Again let me quote (at this rate too many times) Michael White who predicted precisely this, albeit against a different Tory ‘team’. That Corbyn could well look like the quiet English town bank manager come in to clean up the Tories mess. I’ve no particular optimism that Corbyn will win the next election – never did (and I don’t think that that is his fault, I think that politically and demographically that would be an impossible task for any LP leader), but you know, perhaps the events of the last few weeks and months have closed the gap a little.
And what’s interesting is the way the following is framed:
Which makes him impossible to dislodge this side of a general election. Labour is now stuck with a leader who could do “this” or “that” and could benefit from “one thing” or “another” – and tiptoe into the orbit of potentially winning an election with a bit of luck. But millions of Britons just can’t vote for him under any circumstances. Why? Take your pick. For me, it was the day he commemorated dead IRA terrorists. Good grief, why couldn’t the moderates even beat that?
Good point in terms of the specific. But… there’s a problem with it too. Just as this polity has discovered it’s a lot more difficult to ignore people once they’ve laid down arms than might be imagined. And for those who argued some sort of engagement was necessary. Well, that’s not necessarily a minus.