I've always loved the book 1066 and All That. Sellars and Yeatman's categorisation of (chiefly medieval) kings into these categories A Bad Man but a Good King (That must have been Edward I?) etc always amused me and I've found it useful for political leaders.
When I supported Jeremy Corbyn and voted for him, I felt he was a Good Man and that we needed a change and I disliked all the other candidates. However, during the Referendum campaign, I kept wondering where he was - he was almost invisible. Apparently he was travelling the country meeting people and speaking, but apparently he never said anything worthy of quoting etc. Of course,. this could all be due to the media failing to report anything interesting, and being obsessed with the Tory party's attempts to rend itself. But I fear that our system, much as we dislike it, thrives on conflict and confrontation. Unless JC was spitting blood and thunder, he would not be covered. This brings us back to the PMQ's issue. JC's policy of reading out questions from the public for the PM to answer was interesting, but he seldom seemed to have the invective that made his responses in PMQs very memorable. I had heard him speak last year and hoped that this quiet measured style would bring people over. I think to some extent it has, an improvement in the Labour vote in the Local Authority elections in May, and quite good support from the Daily Mirror.
However, I do not feel in any way inspired by him. I did sweet FA about the referendum, but frankly, if he'd been loudly urging people to do this, I might have pulled my finger out. I feel passionately about Europe, the economic side is important, but it's a much more visceral, cultural thing - about social values, open societies, civil societies made up of CITIZENS - this is our contribution to the world. I wanted to hear that, and I wanted the Brexiteers to hear that most of the decisions they were complaining about, the austerity, the shortage of housing, poorer NHS services were not European decisions, but the Tory government's own, quite independent decisions, and I wanted to hear a strong message that immigration would not change because we have to have freedom of movement to trade with Europe. SO! Occasionally we heard this, but not strongly enough, not loudly enough.
There is much to blame the media for. The papers have their agendas and loyalties, but the BBC has been pretty disgraceful - we are almost going back to the forelock tugging days of the 1950 "thank you very much minister for your gracious granting of an interview" - Brexiteers were given a luidicrously easy ride, their lies left unquestioned. Most of the BBC staff must have been remain people, but either the journos weren't properly briefed, or else they felt that the arguments were too openly ludicrous to bother to engage with them. Or what? I'm not a conspiracy theorist. It is clear that there was insufficient coverage of the LP's campaign during the Referendum, because of the focus on the Tory leadership.
However, there is this article http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-allies-sabotaged-labour-in-campaign-and-fuelled-brexit_uk_576eb1b5e4b0d2571149bb1f which I've only just read. Is it true? Since I posted it, it has been removed, but it is suggesting that JC's office removed a lot of the more hearty remain rhetoric from speeches. I have subsequently heard that none of them ever went to the weekly Remain campaign meetings with Alan Johnson et al. Some of this stuff is coming out via Laura Kuensberg who is a notorious anti-Corbyn journo, so what do we believe? If it's true, then it's appalling and frankly he loses my vote. Membership of the EU is more important to me than his leadership. I knew he wasn't stretching every sinew to keep us in, I knew he was ambiguous, but this is pretty unacceptable.
This is where it's a definite disadvantage having all this "integrity" - keeping totally true to yourself is not possible in politics. You need to sway people's emotions, to work them over until they think they agree with you. Reasoned argument isn't enough, balanced and nuanced arguement are a waste of time when something major, such as EU membership is at stake... If JC won't do it himself, he has to put up a big articulate beast (John McD - Tom Watson - someone...) to make the argument, to sway the country, to slog the message out. And it would have been helpful if the LP had reminded its members that every vote counted, We could not rely on the big cities voting for us. But this is just the benefit of hindsight.
Now what?
There appears to be strong support for JC amongst the LP membership, no doubt there are a few waverers like me. My vote will depend upon who's standing. I dread the party falling back into the claws of the Blairites. But I think JC will tough it out - despite the mass desertion of the shadow cabinet. And then win the popular vote of the members. Another wave of people are joining - to protect him I suppose. And I do believe that his tortoise like progress was beginning to make inroads in the popular mind. If he sticks it out it can only enhance his reputation - although I suppose the Daily Mail will be busy blackening everyone's names. If he's still leader in 3 months time, what will his approach be to the negotiations for brexit? However, my gut feeling is, he will have to go. It's unsustainable. But a lot of people will leave the party. And if that milksop Angela Eagle, who's an even less inspiring speaker than JC, wins, I will be horrified.
When I supported Jeremy Corbyn and voted for him, I felt he was a Good Man and that we needed a change and I disliked all the other candidates. However, during the Referendum campaign, I kept wondering where he was - he was almost invisible. Apparently he was travelling the country meeting people and speaking, but apparently he never said anything worthy of quoting etc. Of course,. this could all be due to the media failing to report anything interesting, and being obsessed with the Tory party's attempts to rend itself. But I fear that our system, much as we dislike it, thrives on conflict and confrontation. Unless JC was spitting blood and thunder, he would not be covered. This brings us back to the PMQ's issue. JC's policy of reading out questions from the public for the PM to answer was interesting, but he seldom seemed to have the invective that made his responses in PMQs very memorable. I had heard him speak last year and hoped that this quiet measured style would bring people over. I think to some extent it has, an improvement in the Labour vote in the Local Authority elections in May, and quite good support from the Daily Mirror.
However, I do not feel in any way inspired by him. I did sweet FA about the referendum, but frankly, if he'd been loudly urging people to do this, I might have pulled my finger out. I feel passionately about Europe, the economic side is important, but it's a much more visceral, cultural thing - about social values, open societies, civil societies made up of CITIZENS - this is our contribution to the world. I wanted to hear that, and I wanted the Brexiteers to hear that most of the decisions they were complaining about, the austerity, the shortage of housing, poorer NHS services were not European decisions, but the Tory government's own, quite independent decisions, and I wanted to hear a strong message that immigration would not change because we have to have freedom of movement to trade with Europe. SO! Occasionally we heard this, but not strongly enough, not loudly enough.
There is much to blame the media for. The papers have their agendas and loyalties, but the BBC has been pretty disgraceful - we are almost going back to the forelock tugging days of the 1950 "thank you very much minister for your gracious granting of an interview" - Brexiteers were given a luidicrously easy ride, their lies left unquestioned. Most of the BBC staff must have been remain people, but either the journos weren't properly briefed, or else they felt that the arguments were too openly ludicrous to bother to engage with them. Or what? I'm not a conspiracy theorist. It is clear that there was insufficient coverage of the LP's campaign during the Referendum, because of the focus on the Tory leadership.
However, there is this article http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-allies-sabotaged-labour-in-campaign-and-fuelled-brexit_uk_576eb1b5e4b0d2571149bb1f which I've only just read. Is it true? Since I posted it, it has been removed, but it is suggesting that JC's office removed a lot of the more hearty remain rhetoric from speeches. I have subsequently heard that none of them ever went to the weekly Remain campaign meetings with Alan Johnson et al. Some of this stuff is coming out via Laura Kuensberg who is a notorious anti-Corbyn journo, so what do we believe? If it's true, then it's appalling and frankly he loses my vote. Membership of the EU is more important to me than his leadership. I knew he wasn't stretching every sinew to keep us in, I knew he was ambiguous, but this is pretty unacceptable.
This is where it's a definite disadvantage having all this "integrity" - keeping totally true to yourself is not possible in politics. You need to sway people's emotions, to work them over until they think they agree with you. Reasoned argument isn't enough, balanced and nuanced arguement are a waste of time when something major, such as EU membership is at stake... If JC won't do it himself, he has to put up a big articulate beast (John McD - Tom Watson - someone...) to make the argument, to sway the country, to slog the message out. And it would have been helpful if the LP had reminded its members that every vote counted, We could not rely on the big cities voting for us. But this is just the benefit of hindsight.
Now what?
There appears to be strong support for JC amongst the LP membership, no doubt there are a few waverers like me. My vote will depend upon who's standing. I dread the party falling back into the claws of the Blairites. But I think JC will tough it out - despite the mass desertion of the shadow cabinet. And then win the popular vote of the members. Another wave of people are joining - to protect him I suppose. And I do believe that his tortoise like progress was beginning to make inroads in the popular mind. If he sticks it out it can only enhance his reputation - although I suppose the Daily Mail will be busy blackening everyone's names. If he's still leader in 3 months time, what will his approach be to the negotiations for brexit? However, my gut feeling is, he will have to go. It's unsustainable. But a lot of people will leave the party. And if that milksop Angela Eagle, who's an even less inspiring speaker than JC, wins, I will be horrified.
No comments:
Post a Comment