Tag Archives: Corbyn

Labour and Article 50

Jeremy Corbyn is coming in for a lot of criticism over the three line whip on MPs to vote for the Government motion on Article 50. But what was the alternative? Corbyn has stood by the democratic principle that Parliament should honour the result of the Referendum from the beginning. The type of Brexit has been the subject of debate. Here some of Corbyn’s critics in the Labour Party have been making conflicting demands. On the one hand they understand the importance of the Single Market. But they are also trying to appease the anti-immigration feeling that has helped UKIP make inroads in the Labour heartlands.
Corbyn’s consistent response has been to oppose immigration controls. He argues that the important thing is for UK to continue to have unfettered access to European markets to defend jobs in this country. Free movement of goods presupposes free movement of labour. But free movement of labour should not be used to undercut wages and conditions in this country. Nor should communities that take a disproportionate number of migrant labourers suffer because of pressures on local infrastructure. You could argue that he has been ineffective in getting this message across. It would have been easier perhaps if he did not always have to answer media questions about splits in Labour’s ranks over immigration whenever he was interviewed on the subject
Labour is facing by-elections in two constituencies where the core Labour vote is overwhelmingly pro-Brexit. These by-elections were prompted by the resignation of two high profile Labour remainers, Tristram Hunt in Stoke and Jamie Read in Copeland. UKIP are the main challengers in Stoke and the Tories are hoping that a similar UKIP surge in Copeland will split the Labour vote and let them in. For Corbyn to be seen undermining the referendum result now would spell electoral disaster.
There are a lot of Labour MPs in a similar position in Labour’s heartlands. Many of them are from the centre and right of the party and have been highly critical of Corbyn throughout his leadership. This three line whip lets them off the hook over Article 50. Just asking MPs to vote to trigger Article 50 would have given the nod to a rebellion that would be seized upon by Labour’s critics to exploit their divisions on Europe. A free vote would have given them all the dilemma of following their principles at the risk of alienating still further their electorate or else appearing hypocritical. Even Labour MPs whose constituencies favoured remain are not immune to these pressures. The Lib Dems have an open strategy of appealing to Remain voters. They do not expect to get any Brexit voters any time soon. Labour MPs need both because the Labour electorate is divided on this issue and at present UKIP presents a greater existential threat to Labour than the Lib-Dems.
Now Corbyn has given them all a way out. Without a massive rebellion by Tory MPs Article 50 is going to be invoked anyway. Why split the party for the Tories’ benefit when a united Labour Party is needed to push for the best possible deal that defends jobs and living standards in a post-Brexit world? I find it ironic that the MPs who once accused Corbyn of gesture politics want a gesture of their own now that he is trying to practice some realpolitik.

Corbyn’s critics plumb new depths

On Sunday Nick Cohen wrote a column in the Observer: Extremism thrives because of cowardly collaborators.  It was fairly run of the mill. Republican politicians who pride themselves on their desire to emulate Churchill and compare Obama’s rapprochement with Cuba to Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler are showing cowardice and hypocrisy by refusing to condemn Donald Trump whom Cohen describes in these terms:

I don’t throw the word “fascism” around, but can we at least accept that Trump follows the Führerprinzip? He has no colleagues, only followers. He is a racist. Not a closet racist, or a dog-whistle racist, but a racist so unabashed that the Klan endorses him. Above all, he has the swaggering dictator’s determination to bawl opponents into silence with screams of “loser”, “dummy”, “fraud”, “puppet,” “biased”, “disgusting”, “liar” and “kook”.

Cohen believes that Trump is unfit to hold office and that any Republican worth his or her salt should come out and say so. But most are staying silent or openly endorsing him, either out of fear or self-interest. This is unremarkable stuff. Many American commentators are making similar points, going so far as to say that Trump is destroying the GOP. This might be expected from The Washington Post but a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush is saying the same thing.

Now, I imagine the last person most people would compare to Trump is Jeremy Corbyn. Yet Cohen does just that in his final paragraphs.

Compare them to the British Labour MPs fighting Jeremy Corbyn. They are everything that conservatives despise: hand-wringingly PC, eco-conscious, emotionally literate, bleeding-heart do-gooders every last one of them. Christ, some of them may even read the Observer. But after the killing of Jo Cox by an alleged rightwing extremist, Angela Eagle, Jess Phillips and all the other anti-Corbyn MPs who are speaking out know that the death and rape threats from left-wing extremists may not just be bluster.

They are showing true courage. Not just moral courage but physical courage. A courage that those American conservatives, who are so loud in the determination to fight the threats of the past, and so silent before the dangers of the present, entirely lack.

By extolling the courage of Labour MPs who stand up to Corbyn and denigrating the cowardice in the GOP is Cohen implying that Corbyn is no better than Trump? And having already compared Trump to Hitler is he suggesting a similar parallel with Corbyn? Perhaps he is harking back to the furore about alleged anti-Semitism in Labour’s ranks and laying that at Corbyn’s door.

And note the not so subtle reference to the “alleged” right wing extremist who murdered Jo Cox that is set against the unequivocal “left-wing extremists” who are blamed for the anonymous online abuse being aimed at Corbyn’s opponents. You can almost hear the subtext.

“They say he was rightwing but just you wait until the left-wing extremists start making good their threats of violence. He may turn out to be not so rightwing after all.”

I happen to agree with Cohen about the craven hypocrisy of Republican politicians. But conflating that with the death of Jo Cox to imply that Labour MPs are more at risk of violence than their American counterparts in the GOP is taking the campaign against Corbyn to new depths. And it is not true. Apart from the IRA bombing campaign against Britain very few UK politicians have been the subject of political violence. By comparison, thirty-four US politicians and senior officials have been assassinated since 1825, including four Presidents of the United States. The most recent was a federal judge, John Rolls in 2011. Sixteen have been killed since the assassination of JFK in 1963. Following his assassination seven US presidents have been the subject of assassination attempts including Barack Obama. The plot to kill him was thwarted at the planning stage in 2008. You can read the full list here.

But in Cohen’s book the Left are all potential murderers and rapists unless proven otherwise. When allegations are raised about conduct within our ranks we are expected to condemn them out of hand whether they are true or not. Remember Angela eagle’s constituency office window that was never broken?

Perhaps he should reread his column, particularly the part where he says,

Latinos have to explain why they are not rapists and murderers or shut up and give up. Muslims have to explain that they are not terrorists or they lose the right to a hearing. At every stage, the argument is shifted on to the troll’s terrain of ethnic and religious loyalty tests. Except here the troll could become the world’s most powerful man.

We know how they feel. Except that here the troll writes a weekly column for the Observer.

Cameron Blew it Over Brexit. So Lets Blame Corbyn

One narrative that is emerging to explain the outcome of the EU Referendum hinges on the claim that the Labour Party did not deliver the vote in its traditional northern heartlands. Or rather, Corbyn did not deliver because his brand of metropolitan socialism did not resonate with the concerns of traditional, socially conservative labour voters, in particular around the impact of largescale immigration from the EU on their communities.

And younger city dwellers who are fast becoming the natural demographic for Corbyn supporters are alleged to have failed to vote in sufficient numbers. According to a tweet by Sky Data that quickly gained acceptance on social media only 36% of 18 – 24 year olds voted.  Writing in The New Statesman, Barbara Speed was not convinced.

Sky isn’t claiming this is collected data – it’s projected, and a subsequent tweet said it was based on “9+/10 certainty to vote, usually/always votes, voted/ineligible at GE2015”. I’ve asked for more information on what this means, but for now it’s enough to say it’s nothing more than a guess.

On Sunday the Observer provided some more reliable data from Opinium, the polling agency that came closest to predicting the outcome of the EU Referendum.

OPINIUM Poll published on June 22nd

graphgraph 1

According to the Observer, Opinium pollsters, working for the LSE after the referendum

found turnout among young people to be far higher than data has so far suggested. “Young people cared and voted in very large numbers. We found turnout was very close to the national average, and much higher than in general and local elections.

“After correcting for over-reporting [people always say they vote more than they do], we found that the likely turnout of 18- to 24-year-olds was 70% – just 2.5% below the national average – and 67% for 25- to 29-year-olds.

The original Opinium poll published on the eve of the referendum also demonstrated the extent of the split in the Labour and Conservative parties. And the split was more pronounced for the Tories.

graph 2

The figures suggest that the Labour vote for Remain held even in the North, where their core vote was already under pressure from UKIP. This is borne out by post a Referendum poll by Lord Ashcroft.

Remain % Leave %
Conservative 42 58
Labour 63 37
Lib Dem 70 30
UKIP 4 96
Green 75 25
SNP 64 36

Source: Ashcroft polls Get the data

TO SUM UP

The Tories, not Labour promised a referendum on Europe.

The Tories, not Labour negotiated the new terms to keep Britain the EU.

The majority of Tory voters voted to leave.

The majority of Labour voters voted to remain.

But it is Labour, not the Tories who are to blame because they did not deliver a big enough vote for Remain. The Parliamentary Labour Party have accepted this and decided that they are going to blame Jeremy Corbyn. That is the justification for their leadership coup. There may be good political reasons to question Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. But the Referendum Campaign is not one of them.

Brexit? Blame it on Corbyn!

_89974521_mps_declare_eu_stance_14_06_16_624gr

I am very angry with David Cameron. If the Remain camp is right and Brexit would be an unmitigated disaster for the UK why is he risking all our futures with this referendum? The only reason I can find is that he has put his party first and his country second. Last year with a general election approaching, the euro-sceptic wing of the Conservative Party was threatening to defect to UKIP in large numbers. Cameron did not believe he could win the election and so  made a manifesto pledge to renegotiate the terms of UK membership of the EU and hold a referendum if the Conservatives formed the next government. He never expected he would have to deliver on this promise but he calculated that it would serve to keep the Conservative Party together. So when he won the election what was he supposed to do?

  1. Break the election pledge on the grounds that he would not lead this country into the abyss, and carry on as Prime Minister?
  2. Break the election pledge on the grounds that he would not lead this country into the abyss, and resign as Prime Minister?
  3. Engage in a cosmetic “renegotiation” with our EU partners (Help me out here, guys!) and proclaim a great victory that fools nobody?

Cameron chose the third option and the result has been a Blue on Blue campaign within a divided Conservative Party. Remain is using the politics of fear: economic disaster if we leave. Brexit reciprocates with the bogey of unlimited immigration if we stay. Whether right or wrong both these arguments are about narrow self interest. The Labour campaign to remain has not received the same level of publicity but, as far as I can make out, they are saying that the EU is a flawed institution in need of further reform. Nevertheless it remains a positive force and Britain should remain and lead the campaign to improve the EU.

There has been a constant, nagging element to media coverage that Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn is lukewarm in his support for the EU and if Brexit wins it will be his fault for not delivering the Labour vote on Referendum Day. Never mind that he has been touring the country delivering a pro EU message throughout the campaign with very little media coverage. What media coverage there is focuses on confusion among Labour voters about where their party stands in relation to the EU. Of course they are confused. Unless you live in one of the towns where Corbyn and his team visits and delivers the pro EU message you have to rely on the national media for your news. And, with rare exceptions, they are not reporting his contribution to the debate, preferring the drama of the “blue on blue action” in the Conservative Party. “Politician says something sensible and people support him,” is not a newsworthy headline.

But if we do leave the EU it will be down to Cameron, not Corbyn. Consider the evidence.

  1. Tory MPs are split 4 to 3 in favour of the EU. Labour split is 20 to 1 in favour of the EU.
  2. The Cabinet is divided. The Shadow Cabinet is united.
  3. Conservative voters divide equally between Remain and Exit. Labour are between 60% and 70% for Remain.

Whatever the outcome  of the Referendum, Cameron should resign. Any notion that a victory for Brexit is down to Labour equivocation has no justification in fact. If not for Cameron’s cowardly retreat in the face of his euro-sceptic opponents in the Conservative Party we would not even be in this plight.