Skip to main content

Time to back Jeremy Corbyn?

Boris Johnson is accused of using divisive language and stirring up hatred.  He doesn't care, because the division is precisely the current Tory strategy.   The Johnson strategy is the country will divide on Brexit lines; yes, he could lose some soft-Brexit Tories, but they hope to sweep up those who voted for The Brexit Party.  It is a strategy of going for broke.  What they lose on the swings they hope to gain on the roundabouts.

The LibDems have also gone for broke.  They hope to gain from the division on Brexit lines, with Remainers deserting Labour.   Labour it is feared will be squeezed in the middle.

Labour's only hope in a general election is that a sufficient number of remain voters will see that the only way to stop Brexit is to have a people's vote.  For that, a sensible and credible deal is needed.

So, currently, the proposition for voters is:

Vote Tory for a no-deal Brexit; vote LibDem to stop Brexit; or vote Labour for a negotiated deal and a people's vote.

Yet, no such choice exists.  Boris Johnson can't get an election immediately because that would mean by default we could exit the EU on 31st October.   The best strategy for those wishing to thwart that outcome is to bring down the government and support a caretaker Prime Minister to ensure Brexit is delayed until the people have decided.   Such a strategy looks increasingly likely to mean Jeremy Corbyn will enter Downing Street as that caretaker.  With the SNP  warming to the idea, it now needs the LibDems and a sufficient number of the ex-Tory MPs to back it.

Whether that occurs depends on the realisation that it is now the best strategy to prevent a Johnson no-deal Brexit.  How ironic it would be that the very cliff-edge strategy of the current Prime Minister should end up rallying MPs behind Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn.   My advice is not to rule that out.

No amount of bluster from Boris Johnson can hide the fact that for three years the Tories have failed on Brexit. At the last general election,  they went to the country "strong and stable" and came back "weak and shaky".  Boris now shakes his fist and blames everyone else, even the Supreme Court.  He pits his "conviction" that he is right against the unanimous verdict of eleven of our brightest and most senior Law Lords.  They were wrong, and he is right.  Sadly, many will agree with him.  Brexit trumps everything. "Let's get it done!"  Boris Johnson's message is a powerful one.

By seeking to silence, or stymie, parliament, Johnson created a constitutional crisis.  But he won't apologise.  He shouts from the dispatch box, sounding like a ham actor playing Winston Churchill.  This is not Boris Johnson's finest hour.  Nor is it the Tory Party's finest either.

Where once Boris hailed the supremacy of our parliament pumping out the message of "taking back control" with justice determined by "our" courts, and decisions made by "our" parliament. Boris now leads the attack on Parliament and the Judiciary.  His game is to turn the people against parliament and against the judges. His game is a dangerous one, and that danger is reflected in his language.  It is the language of insult, where those who disagree with him are called "traitors" and "cowards".  His bellicose ranting might have appealed to the hard right, but it certainly shocked many in his own party.  He didn't need lessons from Mr Trump.

Tory failure on Brexit is not the fault of the Leader of the Opposition. Yet, Boris Johnson has the temerity to accuse the opposition of "stalling" Brexit.   What has prevented Brexit is Tory incompetence and division.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the great pretender, makes a remarkable bombastic statement to the House of Commons about the Supreme Court decision finding his action in proroguing parliament to be unlawful.  It was great fun in the sort of student union kind of way, although I have certainly heard more thoughtful debates from students.  It pleased at least some of his backbenchers who applauded.

In his statement, he challenged the opposition benches to vote for a general election.  He points to the opposition benches and accuses them of stopping Brexit.  Yet it was his supporters on the government benches who consistently voted against a deal that would have taken the UK out.   That Mrs May's deal was not acceptable to parliament is not the fault of the opposition benches.

The Tory party made this mess, but they are unwilling and in no fit state to clear it up.

It is time now for the opposition to call Boris Johnson's bluff.  They should move a no-confidence vote and be willing to back a caretaker Prime Minister.  This could be Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition, but if they cannot agree on that, then they should rally behind someone like Margaret Becket.

The caretaker Prime Minister would then ensure that article 50 is extended to give sufficient time for a general election and prevent a default no-deal Brexit.




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

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

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