I Wish That Corbyn Were Not Leader, But I Might Still Vote For Him, by Tom Bailey

I recently wrote an extremely vitriolic article for the Huffington Post blog in which I bemoaned the new Labour leader and mocked his chances of victory.

I’ll be honest, the article was not the peak of my journalistic career: I was frustrated, and I unfairly directed my frustration towards Corbyn and his followers. 

I attacked Corbyn for the reshuffle disaster, and I blamed him for all the problems facing his party. 

Though I do think Corbyn was partly to blame for the resignations, and though I am certainly suspicious about what went on in those “hostile briefings”, I realise my article was misled and, to an extent, unfair. 

I allowed my anger to overcome my reason, ignoring the fact that both sides in the reshuffle conflict were to blame – John McDonnell for his spiteful comments about a “right-wing clique”, for example, and Stephen Doughty for using his resignation to launch a public attack on his leader. 

However, that’s not to say my feelings about Corbyn have changed: I still think he is the wrong leader for the party, and I still think he will lead Labour to electoral oblivion. 

And that’s my main problem with Corbyn: his unelectability. 

YouGov polls show that, while many people agree that Corbyn is principled and honest (a defence constantly used by his supporters), they don’t think he is capable of running the country. 

And that is, of course, a problem, because the Labour Party doesn’t want to be in opposition. 

If it wants to change people’s lives for the better, and if it wants to make this country a fairer and more equal place to live, then it needs to be in government. 

So why is Corbyn so unelectable, and why do polls show his popularity falling? 

Well, not only does Corbyn have about as much charm and rhetorical skill as a drowned rat, he also lacks the ability to appeal to the general public.

As I said in my previous article, “Corbyn’s mandate can only go so far.” What I mean by that is this: Corbyn’s mandate came from Labour supporters and people who agree with his socialist agenda. 

But just because 59.5% of Labour members support Corbyn, that doesn’t mean the whole country does. 

I’m sorry to say this, but most people in this country feel alienated by Corbyn’s views: his decision not to kneel at the Privy council, his early refusal to sing the National Anthem and his branding the death of Osama Bin Laden as “a tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy”.

Corbyn supporters are constantly telling me that his honest decency will attract young voters and the large swathes of people across the country who are disillusioned with politics. 

But can he? Yet another elderly white male from the South who wants to be prime minister? I doubt it. 

In fact, whilst campaigning for Labour in Oldham, Abby Tomlinson (one of the key founders of the Milifandom movement) says she met nobody who was attracted to vote for Labour by Corbyn, “a LOT of non voters who won’t be persuaded to do so” and a lot of people who used to vote Labour, but won’t now because of Corbyn. 

So here’s my biggest dilemma: I don’t actually disagree with Corbyn on that many issues. 

Take the above three examples: like Corbyn, I see the monarchy as a symbol of systemic inequality; like Corbyn, I loathe our national anthem; and like Corbyn, I think every criminal ought to be given a fair trial (though I certainly wouldn’t, under any circumstances, call the death of a terrorist mastermind a “tragedy”).

However, I do realise that most of the British public don’t think like me, whether for bad or for good. 

Corbyn was elected, in my opinion, because of a lack of concern (on behalf of Labour members) for what the electorate actually think. 

Indeed, I recently spoke with a lady who helped to run Labour elections and who worked alongside Miliband. 

She told me that, in her opinion, Labour party members are the worst possible people to choose a leader simply because they vote for themselves, without considering the views and concerns of the general public. 

I also realise that for a politician to be credible, they need to be careful with their words: the press in this country will jump on anything, however unfairly. 

That’s why Corbyn shouldn’t have called Hamas and Hezbollah his “friends”, even though it was arguably the right thing to do in order to encourage peace in the region. 

But, as I have said before, Corbyn never expected to be in the spotlight, and that’s one of his problems. Oh, how I long for David Miliband to return. 

But, alas, instead we have a leader who is struggling to unite his party and struggling to present a credible alternative that can appeal to the electorate. 

And yet, despite my qualms, I might still vote for him in 2020. 

Why? Because he seems to be the lesser of two evils. Yes, it’s true, I don’t think he can win, and that’s why I wish he wasn’t leader: but I’d still prefer him over Cameron, or worse, Osborne. 

Though I can’t hold a seemingly staunch pacifist stance like Corbyn does, and though I am very uncertain about Corbyn and McDonnell’s economic capabilities, I think I can trust the Labour party far more than I can trust the Tories. 

What is more, with the Lib Dems seemingly resigned to becoming a protest party, voting Labour could be the safest way to ensure that the poorest in society are represented; that the NHS is protected; and that equality and fairness are promoted throughout the UK. 

I feel now that I ought to give some words of advice for Corbyn and Labour if they want to win in 2020 (listen up Jezza). 

Firstly, they need to work on appealing to everybody in the country, particularly the middle classes.

Secondly, Corbyn needs to be more careful with what he says and how he says it. Honesty alone won’t win an election, I’m afraid.

And finally, Labour need to hammer home its message over, and over, and over again until its adages are perpetually haunting the thoughts of the general public.

I can’t tell you many times I’ve heard how, “If we want a strong NHS, we need a strong economy” – it’s annoying, but it works.

Perhaps, with a lot of work, there can indeed be a Labour victory in 2020.

@TomBaileyBlog

On Balance, Better Off Out, by Roger Godsiff MP

I do not take a hard line position either in favour of the UK’s leaving the European Union, or in favour of the UK’s remaining in the European Union.

The last time the British people were asked whether Britain should stay or leave was back in 1975 when the European Union was then a ‘Common Market’, which Britain had entered under the Heath Government in the early 1970s. 

The Common Market was essentially a free trade area and in the 1975 referendum I voted for Britain to remain as a member of the Common Market. 

Since 1975 the Common Market has evolved, radically, into a European Union, and this was cemented when Mrs. Thatcher signed the ‘Single European Act’ around 1986. 

According to her memoirs, and according to her political advisor at the time, John Whittingdale, who is now the Secretary of State for Culture, she was told by Foreign Office officials and European Commissioners that this was merely a tidying up exercise to bring to a conclusion the creation of the Single Market and had no other significance. 

Subsequently, once again according  to her memoirs, she realised that what she had done had much more significance and she openly admitted that she bitterly resented having allowed the legislation to go through the UK Parliament. 

At the same time, in the mid-1980s, the Trade Union movement and Labour Party, which had, until then, been sceptical about the whole concept of a European Union also signed up to it after the European Commission President, Jacques Delors, went to the TUC and told the Trade Union movement that the only way they could protect themselves against the ravages of Thatcherism, and her attacks on working people, was to seek the protection of the European Union.

Almost overnight, the majority of Trade Unions switched from being sceptical or anti-EU to being supportive of the institution. 

The coming into being of the European Union was a massive step away from the Common Market.

From being just a free trade area, this was a huge step towards the creation of a United States of Europe, modelled on the way America was governed, which was always the intention of the founding fathers of the European Coal and Steel Community which was a precursor to the Common Market. 

The two most prominent advocates of the setting up of the European Coal and Steel Community were called Monet and Schumann, and they knew, as their biographical histories acknowledge, exactly what they had in mind which was, eventually, a United States of Europe modelled on America.

But they were also aware that this would take time and could only be done step by step. Most importantly they were aware that it had to be achieved by stealth, because if the people of Europe were asked, on a regular basis, whether they wished to be part of a European superstate, then it was highly likely that the proposal would have been rejected.

This principle of never, unless in the most extreme circumstances, consulting the people of Europe, has been something that the Federalists have stood by ever since.

Whenever a new treaty has been signed by Governments and there have been objections amongst the electorates of member-states, the whole paraphernalia of the Brussels bureaucracy has then been mobilised to ‘rubbish’ such criticism, and vehemently to deny that what was being proposed was in any way a movement towards the creation of a European superstate modelled on America. 

Because any criticism of the direction that Europe has been going has always been belittled by the Federalists, a massive amount of resentment has been built up and what we are seeing now in various parts of Europe.

What I think will happen in the UK, is that a lot of people will vote against the European Union because they have never been told the truth about what the real intentions were and, to put it bluntly, they feel that they have been conned. 

If this did happen in the referendum in the UK, then the only people to blame would be the Federalists fanatics who had deliberately not made the arguments for why they believed that a European superstate, modelled on America, should be created, with most political power residing at the centre in Brussels and with the individual member-states relegated to being component parts of the superstate like American states.

Turning back now to the specific arguments which will arise in the referendum, I think that the first thing that needs to be said is that what the Prime Minister ‘achieves’ in his negotiations will have very little relevance to the debate that takes place.

From day one, he set out with minimalist agenda because he had very little flexibility, and what he will finally ‘achieve’ will hardly figure in the referendum debate at all.

The argument as to whether we should stay or leave is going to centre around whether we were economically better off in or out.

And around whether having control over who we allowed into this country – and how many people we allowed into this country – was preferable to the current situation whereby any of the 503 million people living in the 28 countries of the European Union have an absolute right to move to any country within the Union, and to settle and work there without the national government’s being able to place any restriction on them. 

The question of the mass migration of populations from Syria should not be part of the debate, because these are genuine political refugees fleeing for their lives. But I suspect that it will figure in the thoughts of many people who do not favour unrestricted movement of people within the 28 countries of the EU.

As I said right at the beginning, I do not have a hard and fast position and I have a great deal of respect for people such as Ted Heath and Denis Healey who, as serving soldiers in the Second World War, saw the destruction of Europe and dedicated their political careers to ensuring that such a thing did not happen again.

They considered that if that involved binding the countries of Europe so closely together, then that was as a price worth paying.

This idealistic argument has never been properly articulated by the Federalists who, as I have said, have tried to achieve the establishment of an United States of Europe by stealth and, in doing so, have denied what the so-called ‘project’ was all about.

People are not stupid, and many people have become increasingly angry – aided and abetted, it needs to be said, by elements in the press This anger has simmered below the surface for a long time.

The European Union has all the basic ingredients of a superstate – a flag, an anthem, European citizenship, and its own currency, the Euro, as well as its own Parliament to which people in this country, and in many other parts of Europe, do not relate at all.

Nevertheless, to have the basic building blocks of a state, but to deny the real intention of the European Union, is just disingenuous, and causes cynicism and frustration in many people. I suspect that this is going to show itself in the referendum.

On balance, therefore, I believe that the United Kingdom would be better off out of the European Union.

The UK is the second largest contributor to the EU budget, giving £50 million every day, which amounts to £19 billion every year. 

Less than half this money comes back to us, and when it does, it is Brussels that determines what it can be spent on, and not the Westminster Parliament. 

The Common Agricultural Policy swallows £43 billion a year, 40% of the entire EU budget. Yet agriculture is just 1.6% of the EU economy, and the £3 billion a year in subsidy that goes to British farmers is heavily targeted towards the richest land owners, including multinational agrobusinesses. 

Our fishing industry, which used to be a major source of employment and sustained communities along the shores of the United Kingdom, has been destroyed by the EU’s Fishing Policy.

Furthermore, I am totally opposed to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) which is a secret agreement being drawn up between the US Government and the European Commission, driven by the American Chamber of Commerce.

TTIP will not only open up our public services, such as the NHS, to encroachment by US corporations, but will also allow those corporations to sue governments. Such as ours, if a future Labour Government were to reacquire public assets such as the railways into a form of public ownership which resulted in a loss of ongoing profits by the corporations owning them. 

There is one other factor which needs to be considered.

The European Union is huge organisation, with six thousand people employed in Brussels alone. Its budget is over £100 billion a year, but its accounts have not been signed off by the Commission's own auditors for over 15 years. 

No other organisation with such a huge budget – whether governmental or private – could operate in this way and not have its accounts audited yearly and signed off by their auditors.

I hope that the referendum will allow plenty of time for these important issues to be discussed and for people to make up their own minds.

I think that the Government will be making a great mistake if it thinks that by rushing through a referendum in a couple of month’s time, it will necessarily get the result it wants.

If the decision of the British people is to remain as part of the European Union, then such a decision will of course be respected by me.

But if the decision of the people is to leave the European Union, then I don’t think it will be the end of the civilisation, as some people are predicting.

Roger Godsiff is the Member of Parliament for Birmingham Hall Green.

@RogerGodsiff

Listen Very Carefully, I Will Say This Only Once, by James Doran

The workers’ movement in the UK has faced years of defeats. Legislative and industrial change has reduced the collective bargaining power of workers through their unions, to the advantage of capital.

The composition of the working class has changed – there are more workers who are sole traders, and the nature of the workplace has been transformed as information-communication technology has proliferated. 

The workers’ party, the main political organisation of the labour movement, has also faced defeats – but after an unprecedented period of success.

The nature of that success is hotly contested, both its causes and what led it to end in defeats (narrowly in the 2007 Scottish parliamentary elections, then in the UK general election of 2010).

Undoubtedly, something went badly wrong. Recent events have brought to the forefront a number of concerns.

For example, how are differences of opinion to be expressed? What are the forums for debating areas of disagreement?

These are democratic questions for the whole of the workers’ movement as it undergoes a legislative and industrial assault by the British ruling class.

Civil war or broad church?

Understanding people’s fears means imagining their best self. If you were in their position, what would be your hopes and how might these be threatened?

From the perspective of those that won the Labour leadership contest, the fear has been that those who lost were not and are not going to accept defeat.

The concern is that their view of what constitutes electoral success will not be heard because a losing faction was seeking a re-run of the leadership contest.

From the perspective of those who lost the Labour leadership contest, the fear is that being dropped from the shadow cabinet is the beginning and not the end.

The concern is that their view of what constitutes electoral success will not be heard and that Labour is on course for another general election defeat as a consequence of elements of the leadership platform.

As an observer watching from a distance, it seemed unlikely that a broad-based cabinet could last given these fears.

There was not acceptance from some that there could be an organisation to advance the platform of the leader, just as there were organisations to advance the platform of previous leaders.

If Labour is described broad church, then it makes sense to think of there being a division by an aisle.

Seated on one side, members whose perspective is closer to Momentum and Open Labour, and on the other, members whose perspective is closer to Progress and Labour First.

Faith is something that we trust that others possess – we cannot see the ideas people have in their heads, their hopes and fears. So, this takes time to be established.

Losing streak or learning curve?

It is fair to say that the congregation has swelled in the past year. This poses challenges for those who lost the leadership – how to organise at the grassroots where previously this was perhaps not thought as necessary outside of party conferences? 

Labour First have taken the lead, to some degree, and this perhaps reflects the organisation’s origins in the broader labour movement. And Progress is now organising meetings across the country.

Regardless of their origin, activity, or funding, it is the case that both Progress and Labour First represent traditions within the workers’ movement which – like Momentum and Open Labour – can only find effective representation through the Labour Party.

For those of us who were active in supporting the election of the party leader, the main challenge is not just sustaining and developing participation of new and returning members, supporting and developing activism which will deliver election victories.

We are also having to sustain and develop the approach taken in the leadership contest, where the candidates focused on policy and campaign ideas in a series of comradely hustings.

In the coming period, we will have to listen carefully to the voices of those who lost – not just those who lost the leadership contest, but the people whose support for Labour was lost and those whose trust has never been gained.

We must listen to the concerns of people losing out under the Tories, and work hard to learn and win trust.

Things can change. Let’s start with a renewed focus.

@doran_j