With banners unfurled and red flags cracking in a stiff breeze the Corbyneers, knuckles dragging on wet tarmac as the sun glints on their enamelled International Socialist badges, march along the high road towards oblivion. Strangely this view of certain destruction is shared by Labour Party members, many of whom endorsed Jeremy Corbyn to run as leader in the first place. One of them, the former Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, later described herself as a “moron” for nominating Corbyn. Something I find hypocritical because when others have referred to her as such, she has vehemently denied it.
Tomorrow, Andy Burnham, one of Jeremy Corbyn’s opponents in this race ( I say race, more a pedestrian stroll which at times has seemed to take as long as the Chilcot Enquiry to reach a conclusion), will give a speech in which he will lay out his vision for the future of the Labour Party. He will tell us that he is the only person in the leadership race who can stop Mr Corbyn.
I find this very hard to believe seeing as this is the same Mr Burnham who failed to stop 1200 patients dying needlessly at South Staffs Hospitals when he was the Health Secretary. The fact that he still holds the position of Shadow Health Secretary speaks volumes about Labour’s choice of candidate for leader.
“A vote for me is a vote for the future of the Labour Party and for the people of this country.”
You can almost picture him saying it can’t you? Standing at his Dias and flanked by stern-faced Party activists who exude Lenin-like menace. He, suited and booted, freshly showered, devoid of his usual five o’ clock shadow, hair coiffed and eye brows threaded to masochistic perfection. It’s unfortunate therefore that he feels he has to take questions after his speeches. He’s about as convincing as Ed Miliband taking tea in his kitchen.
Even the ‘one-eyed man o’ the manse’ has seen fit to come out against Mr Corbyn. In his usual cowardly style he didn’t actually name Jeremy Corbyn but as he is the only candidate espousing far left views, little was left to the imagination. Mind you I am not surprised that Gordon Brown saw fit to criticise Corbyn. During Brown’s time as Prime Minister, Jeremy Corbyn defied the Whips 238 times, in other words he did this for 25% of all of the votes put through by Browns government.
So, why are the Labour Party luvvies of the Blair era so afraid of this little trotsky with no policies and only a vague idea of how government should be run? Mainly it is because he has struck a chord with all the disaffected Labour voters who were sickened by Blair and Brown’s attempt to claim the Centre Right ground. He is a traditionalist who wants to take Labour back to its Chartist roots.
One can imagine that he sees himself as a latter day Robert Owen, although I cannot see Corbyn running off to far away lands with the sole intention of setting up some form of Socialist experiment. This doesn’t stop the BBC and the “Third Way” politicians of the Blair era ridiculing and accusing Corbyn of seeing the future through utopian spectacles because he blames the ‘haves’ for the ills of the ‘have nots”. Which, to be fair to him, is not far from the truth. When we have the super rich, conglomerates and hedge fund syndicates buying property purely for speculation and profit with no intention of allowing anyone to live in them, you can understand why he gets a bee in his red bonnet. There are other examples whereby the average voter would agree with Corbyn, low wages, high utility charges, chaotic transport system to name but a few.
While Labour’s other three contenders are pussyfooting around, giving vague promises about this and vague promises about that, Corbyn is telling it as he sees it. He says he will renationalise the railways, bring utilities back into the public domain, scrap Trident, reinstate Clause 4. These are the things which traditionalists want to hear and Corbyn knows it. He also believes that he can deliver on these promises.
I cannot see Jeremy Corbyn losing this contest which, contrary to Tory belief, will be a bad thing for the government but a good thing for democracy. He, with his radical Left-Wing views, will form a real opposition to Cameron. In fact, I believe that for the first time in nearly six years it will be the only time that the Tories will have faced any real Opposition.
I see no reason why, at the next GE, people would vote for Corbyn. His policies, such as they are, have no substance and in the main are ill-conceived. They appear to be borne more out of envy than well thought, well costed rationale. However it would be folly to dismiss him as he has the weight of the unions behind him and is therefore well financed and well supported through membership.
My big fear is the return of “Third Way” Socialism under the ubiquitous David Miliband. A prodigy of Blair and an astute political animal. For him to reappear Corbyn would have to take a big and humiliating fall from grace. Perhaps this is what the Labour Grandees have planned for the next GE.
Meanwhile the revolution gathers pace, the knuckle-dragging Neanderthals shield Jeremy as he strolls down the streets and roads of Britain in his attempt to grab the vacant leaders position. Freshly laundered red flags adorn Labour working mens clubs, town halls wait patiently for a visit from the man of the people and Corbyn and his team try not to disappoint.
Its like going back to the days of Springer as the crowds chant “Jerry, Jerry, Jerry” at the first sight of their idol. However, preaching to the brain-dead and converted is one thing but trying to get the message across to well-informed people, people who can think for themselves will be a different matter.
Labour’s experiment with real Socialism is doomed, much like Robert Owens experiment in America. Corbyn is a reactionary, someone who sees the negative before the positive. He has a dangerous naivety about him which can only bode badly for Britain.
Is he the better of the four candidates? In my opinion he is and I base this purely on political thinking. He believes fervently in Socialism and his ability to sell it to the people of Britain. The other three only believe in the result. They want to be leader because they are suffused with their own importance.
Would he make a good PM? No! Emphatically no, in my opinion. He is too temperamental and too inflexible to be PM. Of the other three, not one of them is good enough to lead the Labour Party. I know the bar is set low but honestly can you see Cooper in the job or, God forbid, Burnham?
For the moment the Corbyneers march on that is, until someone tells them to stop. Bless!