Skip to main content

Foolish to write off Jeremy Corbyn

As I mentioned in my last article, I did not support Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership of the Labour Party, but Jeremy Corbyn has already shaken the political establishment. He may not look like a Prime Minister in waiting, but he may change the face of British politics for the better - substance and passion may win out over spin.

He has an uphill task made more difficult by a hostile press and a puzzled media.  Here is a bloke who answers questions with some degree of sincerity.  When he doesn't know, he disarmingly says so. He has none of the slickness of the political elite. He is rough and ready in sound and appearance. Somehow, the political establishment have found themselves with an outsider.  Already they are writing him off, but I detect a bit of hedge betting.  Even the gainsayers have a niggling question - is he for real? The answer, of course, is yes.

Politics in Britain hasn't encountered a conviction politician at the helm of a major party since Margaret Thatcher.  It is worth remembering that Margaret Thatcher was rarely popular - more admired than liked by voters.  She won three general elections almost in spite of her own unpopularity.  In 1979 she had been consistently less popular than Prime Minister James Callaghan, yet her party won the election that year.

My feeling then is that Labour should not worry at this stage about a popularity contest with Prime Minister Cameron.  Leaders of the opposition rarely look 'like a Prime Minister in waiting' as the pollsters like to put it. How could they? What does a Prime Minister look like? Well, he/she looks like somebody who is prime minister.  Little wonder then that Leaders of the Opposition, unless they have been Prime Minister, are rarely judged to look Prime-ministerial.  The more this would be so for someone who bucks the trend and looks decidedly anti-establishment such as Jeremy Corbyn. No, he won't win on that kind of popularity contest. So what is the prospect?

The prospect for Labour depends I think on three things.  The first is whether  he can change the narrative of British politics.  The second is events.  For the first he can at least have a good try, and has made some progress in his first week.  The second he has little control over.  The third is party unity. He needs to develop a consensual approach which does not simply look weak. He will have to give up some of his positions to build that consensus.  His trick must be to do so without losing his unique strength.

I have warmed to Jeremy Corbyn. He appears to many as a genuinely nice bloke.  In these troubled times of politics that may be his greatest asset.  Just as many underestimated his ability to become leader of his party, so many might underestimate his resolve and strength of character to lead his party.  They would be advised to give him time and support.

The canvas of British politics has changed substantially since the financial crisis. A new picture is emerging. It would be foolish to write off Jeremy Corbyn.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha