In defence of Jeremy Corbyn.
This may be the most important election in decades; a unique opportunity for genuine change is finally being offered — don’t throw it away.
Corbyn has faced an uphill battle from the moment he was propelled into the public eye nearly 2 years ago. Since he was elected leader of the Labour Party in September 2015, he has faced unrelenting criticism from a largely hostile right-wing media; ridicule, misrepresentation, and under representation of his allies contributed to the systematic smearing of the unexpected new leader of the opposition. Immediately, this biased messaging was ingrained into the public consciousness. We were told he’s unelectable, that he’s dangerous, that he’s a communist radical who could never possibly lead a country like Britain — and the public started to absorb these lines of attack. This is the nature of a 24 hour news media and within months, the narrative of Jeremy Corbyn had already been told a thousand times.
You may disregard this as a typical leftist conspiracy, but such allegations of journalistic bias against Corbyn are rooted in evidence: a study carried out by LSE found 75% of coverage misrepresents him and his platform, with the project director writing in The Independent that “the majority of the press did not act as a critical watchdog of the powers that be, but rather more often as an antagonistic attackdog.” Furthermore, a letter published in The Guardian, signed by over 100 intellectuals including Prof. Noam Chomksy of M.I.T, who wrote the most significant analysis of the media’s role in defending the establishment and disseminating propaganda in his 1988 book ‘Manufacturing Consent’, denounced the ‘most savage campaign of falsehood’ being carried out by the mainstream press. Even our vehemently impartial BBC has been caught out: the independent Media Reform Coalition’s report detailed a clear bias against the Labour leader, giving twice as much air time to critics than supporters and discussing Mr. Corbyn and his surrogates in a notably pejorative manner.
An openly antagonistic press is enough to make the most experienced, slick politician take pause, but Corbyn certainly isn’t that. His supporters cannot point solely to the media as the source of all Labour’s issues. The hostility could have been diffused if they had employed a more savvy media stategy, but failures of message discipline and general PR have cost Labour dearly. Part of Corbyn’s charm to those on the left — his scruffy style; outsider credentials, and a propensity to tell the truth and answer questions directly rather than the skillful avoidance employed by most career politicians — do not receive the same degree of admiration from the wider public. The very advantages that led him to secure two handsome victories over his centrist rivals for Labour leadership appear now to be hindrances to his hopes of becoming PM on the 8th June. Similarly counter-productive, the coup mounted by the Parliamentary Labour Party following the Brexit vote represents a catastrophic lapse of judgement on their part. The importance of the moment following our vote to leave should have emboldened the opposition, taking a chance to rally against the Conservatives whilst they were in the midst of a civil war over who will take the reigns of the government tasked with casting us free from Brussels. Instead, Labour proceeded to tear itself apart in a pointless rebellion against the democratically elected leader who commanded overwhelming support among their party base, preventing them from providing the robust opposition the nation needed at a moment of deep division. The result of the shamble was obvious: Corbyn would be re-elected, and the whole debacle would only serve to corroborate the Tory narrative of the party’s incompetence and lack of stability. Responsibility for his disastrous approval ratings can be placed as much at the feet of Labour itself as the billionaire-owned press.
The significance of this routine de-legitimisation of Corbyn and his platform cannot be ignored. The range of diverse opinion being expressed is a key measure of the health of a democracy, and we can see in the case of Corbyn that the media, rather than exercising its role as a mouthpiece for alternative ideas and holding power to account, has chosen instead to attack him. Corbyn’s political stance sits firmly outside the accepted window of debate; it threatens the neoliberal status-quo that has dominated the western world since the Thatcher/Reagen era, and he is openly discredited and vilified as a result. Those who benefit from the current order stand to lose if Corbyn’s ideas seeped into the mainstream, so they castigate him instead, preserving the established system in an effort to protect themselves. But the past cannot be changed, the damage has been done, and we must set our sights firmly to the future.
The seemingly inevitable huge Tory majority will, I believe, change the direction of this country for the worse — and the prospects do not look promising. This is an undeniably significant election, not only are we electing a government for whom we want responsible for crafting and implementing a coherent vision for post-Brexit Britain, but we are also, for the first time in a long time, offered a genuine choice between the two major parties. This is not the ‘two sides of the same coin’, this isn’t a choice between centre-left and centre-right, between which version of incremental change we want that really has no impact on the trajectory of our nation. No, this is fundamentally important, and we for once, at least in my life time, have a prospective government, and a devoted leader, that is committed to a positive transformation of our society. If you are disillusioned, disenfranchised or dispossessed; angry over social and economic injustices, if you wish to use your vote for real change, Labour are your only real choice.
CHARACTER & VALUES
With Lynton Crosby at the helm, Theresa May’s campaign is a masterclass in Machiavellian cunning. The notorious strategist who was the architect of Cameron’s win in 2015, and the disastrous London mayoral campaign of Zac Goldsmith, which used dog-whistle racism to smear Sadiq Khan as an Islamic extremist, returns once again as campaign manager. Carefully choreographed, a unified Tory party churns out identical soundbites, with the script most obviously adhered to by the Prime Minister herself. Like clockwork, she carefully avoids giving substantive answers to any difficult questions, instead relying on her rhetorical staples: the already infamous lines “strong and stable”, “in the national interest”, “coalition of chaos”, etc. Her delivery is clunky, perfectly suited to robotic repetition rather than eloquent responses. Tight stage management and the refusal to take part in televised debates, were both decided so as to avoid any possible gaffes. Theresa May is not great at thinking on her feet, and the more the Conservative strategists can shield her from the public and the critical eye of the media, the less chance there is of their lead shrinking. Some may object that this is their job; that parties are cynical vote winning machines, they shouldn’t care for democratic traditions like providing the public with genuine information and opening themselves up for scrutiny by the people who elect them. I’d argue this is part of the problem with modern politics; it’s become a game, disconnected from common reality in the Westminster bubble, instead focused solely on the pursuit of power. Parties and politicians are self serving, they do what they can to protect their career and the brand, so the public interest must take a back seat to private ones. They are less concerned about constructive debate and more about scoring political points — this is not what the role of representatives should be.
May and her campaign exemplify this disingenuous, cynical electioneering. Voters up and down the country proclaim they’re “sick of being lied to” of politicians “saying one thing and doing another” — this is obviously applicable to the Prime Minister herself; after promising multiple times she wouldn’t trigger a general election before the next term of 2020, she, of course, has. In her speech calling for the general election, she claimed the opposition was trying to thwart her in carrying out Brexit. Again, an obvious lie, as Corbyn deployed a three-line whip to get his MP’s to vote to pass Article 50. Before she was a hard-Brexiteer, she was a Remainer, albeit a deliberately quiet one, who gave a speech to Goldman Sachs communicating her stance on the economy, arguing Brexit would hamper prosperity. A cross-reference of her leadership speech against her voting record again signifies a politician who will say anything if they believe it will give them votes. Her public persona is totally malleable, adaptive to anything the electorate wants to hear, and demonstrates a gulf between her real values and what she wants you to think they are. As a result, you cannot trust a word the woman says. Yet it’s clear Crosby framed the campaign towards a more presidential style as a political calculation that should benefit May. They hope to exploit the public dislike of Corbyn to the Tory advantage, utilising messaging that prioritises Theresa over her party, turning the central question of the election away from which party do you want governing, towards who do you want as Prime Minister. Capitalising on Corbyn’s failures whilst simultaneously distancing herself form the toxic perception of the ‘nasty party’ is smart play by Crosby as the Tories set their sights on working class Labour heartlands.
But this personal battle may backfire on the Conservatives. May’s exemplification of the negatives of career politicans; their lies, their fakery, their elitism, is a stark contrast to the honesty, consistency, and authenticity of Jeremy Corbyn, throughout not only his time in leadership, but his entire life as a member of Parliament.
He is the antithesis of what people have come to hate about politics; his imperfect humanity is undeniable, and his principles, rather than egoistic ambitions, is what drives him. If Corbyn was in it for the fame or similar selfish motivations, he wouldn’t have spent 30 or so years fighting passionately for equality and justice against the tide of political opinion. In 1984, Corbyn was arrested outside the South African embassy for demonstrating against the Apartheid regime. After being taken to court, his band of rebel protesters were exonerated and given compensation, of which he immediately donated to the ANC and the anti-apartheid movement. On LGBT rights, Corbyn has been a vocal advocate since the early 1970’s, consistently voting in favour of legislation that strengthened their rights in every opportunity to do so. He campaigned against the dictator Augusto Pinochet of Chile, an ally of Thatcher’s Conservative government, who murdered and tortured political opponents. What these anecdotes show is that Corbyn as a man is not only consistent — a quality which is severely lacking from politics — but also strong in his principles. It would have been far easier for him to spend 30 years staying quiet as a backbench MP, towing the party line and keeping himself out of controversy, making decisions, not on the basis of what he believed was just, but for what was politically expedient for him to do so. This strength is apparent in his resilience. He’s fought against the mischaracterisation and belligerence of the press, who wished to see him fall at every step of the way. And through two leadership campaigns, the first of which many believed he had no chance in winning. A lesser man would have chosen to walk away and leave it all behind in the face of unfair vilification. His principled resilience demonstrates Corbyn is committed, not to his own interests, but to the interests of change and justice, in Britain and elsewhere.
A common criticism is that he’s a member of this ‘metropolitan elite’, with the media pointing out his constituency, Islington North, is home to sky high house prices for champagne socialists who populate Georgian townhouses. Yet, to no surprise, they fail to mention that its one of the most unequal places in Britain, with 40% of children and older people living in poverty. It is the 16th most deprived boroughs in London, yet this stereotype of elitism has served to fuel the absurd narrative that Corbyn is totally out of touch with the interests of the working people. This is pure propaganda: it just isn’t true. You may accuse Corbyn of a lot of things, but being an elite is not one of them. A quick glance at his voting record can confirm his commitment to ordinary people. Compare his record to Theresa May’s, however, and you can see her empty rhetoric about supporting the (rather patronisingly named) JAM’s — the ‘just about managing ‘— really is just that. Moreover, if Corbyn doesn’t represent the interests of ordinary people, then who does? Is it Prime Minister May, whose husband is a senior executive at one of the most powerful investment funds in the world, which profits from tax avoiding corporations like Amazon and Starbucks? I very much doubt it. I think Crosby’s calculation may prove detrimental to the Conservatives, as more and more people see May for what she is, and start to regard Corbyn’s humanity as an asset for a world leader, rather than a liability. Corbyn is deemed unelectable because he is not the same carbon-copy politician our nation is used to. But wouldn’t you prefer a Prime Minister who is reserved, noble and authentic, over more empty platitudes dressed up in sharp suits.
FOREIGN POLICY & NATIONAL DEFENCE
It is a sad indictment of our times that the man dedicated to peace is labelled an extremist. Just recently, Corbyn was attacked for not saying he’d use our nuclear deterrent, Trident, in a first strike. May didn’t bat an eye when when she confirmed she would launch a preemptive nuclear strike that would level an entire city. I think all humans would find his answer the more comforting one. The sensationalism of both the Tory party and the tabloid press is staggering on defence matters. No, he won’t scrap Trident. No, he isn’t actually friends with Hamas. And yes, there will be a fully funded military under his Labour government. The Tory hypocrisy on this last point is often overlooked; whilst they maintain our military is not safe in Corbyn’s hands, Treasury cuts have stripped our army, navy and air force of key capabilities, with retired head of Joint Forces Command, Gen. Sir Richard Barron, arguing our defence is being “dangerously squeezed”. Corbyn is not strictly a pacifist, arguing that intervention is legitimate in certain cases, but he is anti-war, and has been instrumental in the Stop The War Coalition and the Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament. In his Chatham House speech on foreign policy matters, he heavily criticised many of the western military interventions carried out in recent years; the bombing of Syria, Cameron’s catastrophic air strikes in Libya, which has now been unilaterally condemned by the Foreign Affairs select committee as leading to even more instability and chaos, and of course, the Iraq war, which destabilised an entire region and caused the deaths of around a million Iraqi’s. This destabilisation unleashed as a consequence of Western military aggression in the Greater Middle East has threatened our national security, fuelling extremism not only in the region itself but abroad too, and this sentiment has been echoed by two former heads of the MI5. Corbyn, and indeed Shadow Chancellor McDonnell, made the right call on all of these matters, so perhaps more reservation and nuanced assessment could prevent similar “shit shows”, as Obama bluntly put it. In the wake of the horrific attack at Manchester arena, the Labour leader should get the credit he’s due for being one of the few major politicians to bravely admit the war on terror has been a categorical failure, and to assert the need for a new strategy, both foreign and domestic, in dealing with the threat posed by these Jihadi cowards.
Let us also not forget that the Tories are routinely silent in the face of immorality; they refuse to stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, which funds and exports Islamic extremism all over globe, promoting the terrorism that threatens British lives here on our shores, and which uses British-made weapons to commit atrocities in Yemen. They were quick to grant the demagogic, imbecile-in-chief Donald Trump a state visit, a courtesy they wouldn’t extend to Obama until his second term, whilst staying mainly silent on his blatant xenophobia, sexism and total disregard for the truth, so as to appease him in the hope of securing a trade deal. Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, has claimed “shared values” between the UK and brutal leader of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, who has encouraged the extrajudicial killings of any suspected of being involved with the drugs trade. Isreal, Turkey, Bahrain— the list goes on. It appears there is no backbone to British foreign policy, instead a cynical, amoral opportunism masquerading as pragmatism. We are the second largest arms dealer in the world, and have sold weapons to all but 8 of the 30 countries on our human rights watch list, a Labour government have already been vocal in saying they will block the sale of weapons to repressive regimes, ensuring the British are not exporting horror across the globe. And Corbyn has been consistent for many years about his support for the Palestinian people, who are under illegal occupation at the hands of the Isreali government, and the desire to see a peaceful, two state solution to the war that has raged far too long must begin with the recognition of the Palestinian state.
Their stance is one of humanism; dedicated to preventing unnecessary violence, committed to discussion and diplomatic resolutions where possible, and also to unilateral disarmament of nuclear weapons in time. A careful foreign policy, that prioritises the lives of our servicemen and those of civilians often caught in the crossfire, will only use military force as a last resort, aiming to deescalate in the name of peace, could bring about dramatic positive change on a global scale. The positive influence of a United Kingdom that doesn’t carry out its interventions at the whim of an erratic United States, that places world peace as a goal for which we should all aim, could provide a beacon of morality for the modern world, revitalising the role of diplomacy. The Tories are the real extremists, who show no backbone when it comes to foreign policy, and its hard not to be ashamed of our nation when confronted with the reality of what our government is complicit in. Under Corbyn’s Labour, we could regain a sense of agency and patriotism, guided by humanist principles standing up for justice in an increasingly volatile world. We can use our privileged position on the world stage to bring about a paradigm shift in international relations, away from violence and toward prioritising peace and cooperation above anything else.
FUTURE OF BRITAIN
The seismic shift in British politics that is Brexit has reconfigured the political landscape. UKIP now is a redundant political force, with ex-Tory voters who were attracted by Farage’s vehement, charismatic brand of euro-scepticism coming home to a Conservative party that isn’t afraid to lambaste migrants and Brussels bureaucrats. Labour’s typical voting base is split between pro-EU metropolitan liberals, and the Brexit voting working-class in the North, hit by the negative effects of economic globalism. The danger for Labour in this election is that the Remainers will be attracted to the Liberal Democrats, who have found a new electoral mission in representing the losers of last June’s referendum, and the Brexiteers will be wooed towards the Conservatives by May’s tough rhetoric on Brexit.
I, too, was on the side of remain, so I am totally receptive to the arguments against our exit. I believe it was in Britain’s best interests to stay within the European Union, for issues ranging from trade, education, continental integration, to the preservation of our creative and scientific industries. But we’ve had the vote. The die has been rolled. And the people have answered: 52 % voted to leave, and we must respect the will expressed. Embittered remainers point to decisions being made on the basis of untruths and misinformation stemming from the Leave side, and the lack of a definitive majority, as reasons for a second referendum. Yet these arguments carry little weight; the leave campaign was filled with toxic lies, but the Remain campaign also had it’s fair share of dishonesty; there were uninformed voters on both sides, singling out those who disagreed as not knowing why carries a whiff of political elitism. As with the narrow majority, perhaps Cameron should have set a threshold to ensure it was a more conclusive decision, or perhaps he shouldn’t have held the referendum at all. But he did, and it’s been and gone. It may not have been a suitable majority, but it was a majority nonetheless. Voting for the Lib Dems on the basis of a second referendum sends a message, whether you mean it to or not, that the British public were too dumb to make the right decision last time, so lets give it another shot. That’s not how democracy works, and my worry is that it would only exacerbate social divisions in this country between the working class and the progressive middle classes. As much as some would like to, we cannot go back and rehash the decision, instead we must focus on securing the best Brexit possible. The Liberal Democrats are looking backward, whilst Labour looks forward. This desire for the most beneficial Brexit is where the interests of both Labour’s liberal cosmopolitan base and its working base intersect.
Labour, under Brexit secretary Keir Starmer — a legal expert and former head of the Crown Prosecution Service — have announced that their vision for Brexit Britain includes negotiating access to the single market, whilst enabling sensible control of immigration in line with our economic needs. Freedom of movement will end once we leave the Union, but healthy migration in order to remain economically competitive. The Tories have been promising immigration cut to tens of thousands for years, and have never once delivered, yet the manifesto pledge once again reappears. It appears implausible at best, impossible at worst, that they would be able to reach this target – Net migration figures for 2016 place the levels of non-EU immigrants, which is controlled, higher than that of EU immigration, at 196,000 and 189,000 respectively . Even if May’s government drastically cut EU immigration, they would still be well above their pledge. We currently have an ageing population, with a dwindling level of economically active citizens and more elderly people dependent on the state for care. Immigration is necessary for combating the negative effects of our population levels; hard-working taxpayers will contribute to the public purse and increase economic activity, man our understaffed public services, ensuring they stay afloat as more retirees require attention.
Yet it’s important not to dismiss the worries many have surrounding the current rate of immigration. The Remain campaign failed to confront these issues head on, instead attempting to move the conversation away from social and cultural matters and towards the economics. The Brexit vote was mainly the result of two phenomena; the historic Euro-scepticism among our affluent middle classes, and the protest vote of a downtrodden working class, angry over the failed promise of globalism and anxious as to the speed of change occurring in their hometowns and cities. Anti-immigrant sentiment is a symptom of economic insecurity; a sense of being “left behind”, witnessing the culture and demographics of some areas change rapidly, with already strained services, starved of funding and opportunity, attempting to manage the increased demand. A Labour government would ensure our infrastructure, NHS and education system is adequately funded, tackling the root issues which allow cultural anxiety and xenophobia to permeate. Labour have committed to reintroducing the Migrant Impact Fund to assist integration and stability in communities with high rates of immigration, and in their manifesto, have outlined a radical economic vision that will — if I may borrow the notorious line from the Leave campaign — take back control, allowing our society to be run in the interests of the majority of working people, rather than serving to appease corporations, banks and those in power. A Labour win will, just like the vote for Brexit, give a bloody nose to the establishment, and reaffirm the power of democracy.
Plenty newspapers have decried ‘Comrade Corbyn’ will take us back to the 1970’s, (whilst they overlook the double standard of the Conservative proposals to bring back grammar schools and fox hunting) making his manifesto out to be the lunatic ravings of an hopelessly idealist socialist leader. The great irony of this response is that Corbyn’s radical manifesto is barely radical at all; nationalisation of key public utilities is the norm in most major European countries, whilst we suffer the highest ticket prices of all railways across the continent. Just look to Scandinavia, with their stable economies and high standards of living, where Corbyn’s proposals would make him a run of the mill social democrat. But we must look at this public perception in context — Labour’s vision is claimed untenable as it breaks from the current economic orthodoxy of neoliberalism, and they face a public that doesn’t believe they are economically credible. The narrative that Labour’s borrowing under Blair and Brown caused the financial crash of 2008 and the proceeding great recession is historically illiterate, ignoring the root causes of a global deregulated financial market who’s reckless pursuit of short term profits led to a collapse in the system. The myth of Tory competence hides a total failure to meet their targets on the economy; with an eliminated deficit always five more years away. After attacking Labour on how they will fund their proposals, the Conservatives have failed to fully cost any of their manifesto, and the same media crucifixion of Diane Abbott over her terrible display of innumeracy failed to materialise when Chancellor Phillip Hammond was £20 billion out on the cost of HS2.
Between 2015 and the financial crash, real wages have fallen in the UK by 10.4%. Out of 29 countries in the OECD, this kind of drop is matched only by Greece, and is the most dramatic since records began in 1964. Coupled with a rising cost of living, fuelled mainly by skyrocketing house prices, British workers face an unprecedented squeeze in living standards. Gains in productivity has not translated to rises in earnings for workers, instead over the past few decades, the share of the wealth has shifted to the wealthiest. The average pay of FTSE 100 bosses is 129 times their workers, earning £1000 hour, allowing them to surpass the average income of £28,000 in three days. In the United States and the United Kingdom, 70% of the total wealth is owned by the richest 10%, and this trend of rising inequalities is found throughout much of the developed world. Instability has become the norm in modern capitalism; since the financial liberalisation of the 70’s, the IMF has ‘recorded 124 systemic bank crises, 208 currency crises, and sixty-three sovereign debt crises’. It is clear that there are systemic issues in the current capitalist model, ones that tear at the very fabric of our society; pervasive inequalities that compound feelings of disillusionment and damage prosperity; excesses that irrevocably damage our environment, and things must be changed. Alternative thinking is required to meet the demands of the economic landscape. Fiscal austerity is not a solution, nor is further tax cuts to the wealthiest. Greece, saddled with a mountain of debt after the largest loan in history, employed years of severe austerity, finishing with a debt and deficit larger than before, and the neoliberal doctrine of low taxes, privatisation, and lack of state intervention, faith in the invisible hand of market forces to self-regulate, is responsible for our current crisis. Labour’s vision of fiscal stimulus, investing in our much needed infrastructure and the health and skills of citizens whilst interest rates are low, should boost innovation and productivity, thus stimulating growth. Progressive taxes, like the Robin hood tax on the City, corporation tax increases to 26% from 19% (the lowest amongst the G20, by far), and modest income tax rises on the richest 5% of the population, are a distinct break from the current societal paradigm of our institutions working to appease the most privileged and powerful, towards a more egalitarian system that prioritises the collective production of wealth and that distributes it fairly. What Labour offers is a strategy that will modernise Britain, one that addresses structural imbalances in pursuit of a stable, sustainable and innovative economy that is fit for the challenges of the 21st century, with an honest leader who will do everything in his power to deliver on their promises.
A victory for Corbyn’s Labour come June the 8th would be momentous— arguably the greatest political upset of British history, and one that indicates a huge, positive change of direction in terms of foreign, economic and social policy. Utilise tactical voting in areas where the Liberal Democrats are the best chance of the Tories losing a seat, a progressive alliance is our best shot at securing a majority, but do not defer from Labour in key marginals. The Tories continue to reveal their true colours with nasty policies like removing free school lunches and the controversial ‘dementia tax’, which, in a grand show of their own incompetence, has immediately resulted in a U-turn away from the short lived social care proposals. Meanwhile, Labour benefit from a balanced media as general election broadcast rules kick in establishing impartiality and due weight of views, as the party faithful mobilise to communicate their popular policies. Recent polls show Labour have slashed the Conservative lead, with YouGov figures placing Corbyn within 5 points of May, and a 16 point swing put them now 10 points ahead of the Tories in Wales. It seems momentum is firmly on our side. I hope the electorate decides to reject the callous and brutal efficiency of Tory rule, who’s cuts have forced disabled people into destitution, children onto the streets and our indispensable nurses using food banks. We don’t have to carry on this way, and Labour under Jeremy Corbyn offers an alternative to the status-quo, a chance for genuine, seismic change. We’d be foolish not to take it.
