There’s something sad about the latest episode in Jeremy Corbyn’s story, his suspension from membership of the Labour Party he led until a few months ago. But then, there’s been something sad about his relationship to Labour for quite a time, culminating in the disastrous defeat to which he led the Party last December.
 |
| Starmer, left, beginning to rebuild Labour Corbyn, right, still stuck in denial |
I was sorry to see people from the right of the party, people like Luciana Berger or my local MP Gavin Shuker, leaving last year to set up a doomed alternative party, which lasted less than a year and disappeared into the depths leaving barely a ripple to mark where it once existed.
I shall be equally sorry if Corbyn’s supporters on the left now carry out their threat to leave the party. Many other Labourites say they’re happy to see them go, with some even calling for expulsions to hurry the process along. I especially dislike the talk of expulsions because that was precisely the kind of language Corbynites used when they were in charge, and I’d like to think we were better than that.
Besides, losing the far left would only narrow our broad church. It would especially weaken the party, since these are often the most active supporters we have. It would be far better to keep them as members.
That doesn’t mean we should let them anywhere near the top of the party. In 1983, under the nominal leadership of Michael Foot and the real leadership of hard-left Tony Benn, Labour had its worst electoral result since 1935. In 2019, Jeremy Corbyn managed to perform even less well than in 1983.
We ignored the lesson of where hard left leadership gets us once, let’s make sure we don’t ignore it twice.
 |
| An important report, intelligently received by Keir Starmer Not so much by Jeremy Corbyn |
Keir Starmer, current leader of the Labour Party welcomed the report and committed to implement all its recommendations. He made it clear that there would be no tolerance for those who persisted in denying the importance of the charges against Labour, or in continuing to proclaim that they were inspired by political opposition.
How might Corbyn have reacted? He needed to say as little as possible. He needed to make a brief and anodyne statement, perhaps welcoming the publication of the report and fully supporting Keir starer’s commitment to implement the recommendations. He could have finished with something he actually did say, that he saw no place for anti-Semitism in Labour.
While he didn’t have to, he might have added that he regretted any slowness in dealing with complaints of anti-Semitism while he was Leader. Not, however, that he would ever do that, because it would have meant admitting responsibility for a failure. That’s not something Corbyn can do, with denial at the heart of his approach to politics, as he and his supporters have repeatedly shown in their refusal to accept that he had anything to answer for in December’s defeat.
So he expressed no regret. To make things worse, he declared:
One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.
In other words, Corbyn did exactly what Starmer said would not be tolerated. He tried to play down the problem. And he claimed complaints had been inflamed by political opponents.
Corbyn often makes me think of a line of Tom Cruise’s, as a Navy lawyer, in the film A Few Good Men: “my client’s a moron. That’s not against the law.”
Corbyn’s not particularly bright. Nor, as he shows in his refusal to accept responsibility for any action, is he particularly courageous or honest. Those are excellent reasons for keeping him as far away from a leadership position as possible.
But those failures are not, in themselves, a cause for expulsion. No rule requires members to be smart. For the sake of the broad church, it would have been good not to suspend him, and for his supporters not to leave.
On the other hand, a direct breach of a clear instruction from the Leader is a disciplinary offence. That can’t be accepted in anyone, not even a former leader. That made Corbyn’s suspension inevitable.
But it’s still a sad development for Labour’s future.
2 comments:
I am not alone in wondering what was the anti-semitic behaviour that started the whole thing off. What was the "tipping point"?
When does it become illegal to comment on a religion and/orderogatory or otherwise?
It reminds me of the joke:
A man goes to a Moscow police station and reports; "A Swiss soldier has stolen my Russian watch"
The desk sergeant replies; "Surely you mean A Russian soldier has stolen your Swiss watch?"
The man replies; "Well you said it, not me!"
These days, with Scotland's increasing desire to leave the no-so United Kingdom, the English insults directed at the Scots, who just want their country back and to be free of this corrupt cesspit called Westminster (even more so these days, as Boris and his chums milk the UK "treasury" for everything they can, so far a sum in terms of tens of billions and rising), are vilifying, if directed towards Jews would cause international condemnation, but as it's Scottish people, that's okay!
The human being has an insatiable appetite for slagging each other off, for race, religion, creed or country, that it seems foolish to deny its expression.
I think the history of Europeans towards Jews is so murky that we have to be careful how we behave towards them (well, towards us, I should say, since while I've never practised, my mother was Jewish, so to Jews I can enter the faith without having to go through conversion, while to the Nazis, I would certainly have been gas chamber fodder). In my view, Europe failed dismally with its Jewish population, and sought a frightening solution to the problem by handing over Palestine, which should never have been theirs, to a Jewish state. That puts us, as Europeans, in a tough position that makes it more dubious to attack Jews than to attack Scots.
That being said, I don't tell anti-Scots jokes and entirely sympathise with their desire to be free of English domination.
Post a Comment