Skip to main content

The significance of being neutral

Being 'neutral' in any people's vote may be a game-changer.

We suspect there is a nervousness creeping into the Tory party election HQ.   They have, it seems, a commanding lead in the opinion polls.  It should see them through.  Could Jeremy Corbyn's Labour pull it back?

If you set out to paint your opponent as 'unfit' to be prime minister, this creates a problem when the more voters see him, he comes across as eminently reasonable.   This is what happened with Jeremy Corbyn in 2017.  It could happen again, and the next week will indicate whether this is happening.

Since the election was called,  Labour has been closing the gap, slowly.   Their manifesto launch went well, and Jeremy Corbyn has performed well in both the head-to-head debate with Boris Johnson and on  BBCQT.   Boris bumbled his way through.  There wasn't exactly a knock-out blow, but focusing on Brexit is wearing thin when voters are beginning to express concern about other pressing issues.

No doubt, Corbyn will be attacked for announcing he would be 'neutral' in a new Brexit referendum.  "How could a leader be neutral on such a big issue?"

Yet, it is a perfectly reasonable position.  Labour in this election is reaching out to both sides of the Brexit divide.  Corbyn is adopting the Harold Wilson strategy.

If Labour forms a government under Jeremy Corbyn, then they would negotiate a customs union with the EU and alignment with the single market to protect jobs and standards.  This deal would then be put back to the people to decide if it is what they want.

There is every indication that such a deal could be negotiated reasonably quickly.   During the three years of Tory failure to find an acceptable settlement,  Labour also has been talking to EU counterparts.  A customs union would be a reasonable way forward.  It solves the problem of Northern Ireland without separation from the rest of the UK.

But when faced with the choice between that and remain, voters may well decide that the UK is better off in than out.  At least they will have that say.

This reaches across the divide and has at least some chance to begin pulling the UK back together.  It is in all our interests.

For those who have called for a People's Vote, the choice is now simple.  Only Labour can deliver it. For those who wish to remain and revoke article 50, then they also will have a chance to put their case.  For those who want to leave, they will also be able to make their case.

If Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister remains 'neutral' it would mean that the massive civil service machine will also remain neutral.

It will not seek to influence the decision with figures or claims on either side.  It could only provide the details of any deal.  That is reasonable.  The so-called 'scare' tactics evident in the 2016 referendum where the treasury was producing figures that appeared off the cuff would not happen again.

This is why being 'neutral' is so vital in reaching a result that the country could accept and move forward with.

But Labour would negotiate a deal that could reasonably be put to the British people.  It must be one that we could live with and which does not further divide the country.

The reasoned choice on Brexit in the election became clearer by Jeremy Corbyn's clear declaration on BBCQT that he would remain neutral on any deal put back to the people.

The significance of that is more than a personal position.  It speaks to the heart of fairness in any people' vote.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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