Yesterday I made a 20-minute video outlining my opinions on the fallout as a result of last week's EU vote. Towards the end, I touched on how Labour are blaming Jeremy Corbyn for this, but this row has dominated so much of the news for the past 24 hours that I felt I should devote a full blog to discussing this subject.
Today there has been a non-binding vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn by his Labour MPs, which came out 172-40. This follows a string of resignations from around two thirds of the shadow cabinet, who have concluded that he is not the right person to lead the part to victory. (Exactly why they think this is a bit of a mystery to me, but I will come to that.) One of the shadow cabinet who has resigned is shadow culture secretary Thangam Debbonaire, MP for Bristol West and my local MP. In her resignation letter, Thangam wrote that she and Corbyn 'agree on so many things', that she 'genuinely admire[s] [his] honesty and strength of conviction' but that 'much more could have been done by [Corbyn] in order to argue for Remain.'
Many words have been thrown about with relation to Corbyn. The first and most notable is 'unelectable'. This word seems to suggest that Jeremy Corbyn is not capable of taking the Labour Party to the place it needs to be in order to gain the votes needed to defeat the Conservative Party. Given that he has been re-elected as the MP for Islington North for more than thirty successive years and was last elected by the general public as Leader of the Opposition by a vote of 59.5% despite huge opposition from leading members of his party, I cannot agree with this 'unelectable' assertion at any point. It would seem to come less from the belief that it is impossible for Labour to be elected under his leadership, and more the assertion that MPs have no wish for Labour to be elected this way. I need to stress that this is just my personal opinion, but I cannot understand how he is considered 'unelectable' in the circumstances.
I need to come on to the 'Brexit' (I still hate that word) discussion, even though I clarified most of my thoughts on this in yesterday's video, because it is hugely relevant to this coup. The idea being spread seems to be that Jeremy Corbyn was not passionate enough about the Remain vote, and I have even heard it said by personal contacts that they believe he was actually more in favour of the Leave side, and was covering it up by being as dispassionate as he could be. If by 'being more passionate', they mean that Jeremy Corbyn should have engaged in the political game-playing reminiscent of the likes of Farage and Cameron, I cannot help but feel quite personally insulted by that. I'm 22 years of age, I am by my own admission pretty independent-minded and I made my decision to vote Remain based on my own personal opinions of the EU and my fears that the Leave campaign was turning into a movement fuelled by racism and xenophobia (a suspicion which from people's reactions has proven to be pretty based in reality). I am able to acknowledge and accept any flaws that the EU might have, and I cannot guarantee that I would always advocate remaining, but on this occasion I feel that we benefit from it a lot more than we suffer. This is the approach that Jeremy Corbyn took - he wasn't overly dramatic, he didn't predict the end of the world and the rise of Armageddon, he spoke eloquently and calmly about the potential dangers of leaving without suggesting that the EU is a magical fairy palace. The media did not report his campaign well, but when have they ever painted Jeremy Corbyn in a good light? From my own personal experience campaigning and flyering, I came across a lot of Labour members who were very much in on the campaign, and that is Corbyn's doing.
Frankly, I think that Jeremy Corbyn spoke to people as rational adults rather than as gullible fools believing every half truth and misplaced statistic. The fact that this did not work with regards to actually keeping us in the EU is heartbreaking and perhaps goes to emphasise the mentality of your average Brit, but I do not that this is something that he can be condemned for. Where have we come in our society when the person who is talking the most intelligently is the person who has handled things badly? This is not just an issue with Corbyn; it is also something that I have come across. When I was at University, I was told by my tutors that I explain things too formally, using too many long words without an understanding of who my audience is. I'm not willing to speak to people as though they're stupid; I feel that doing that encourages disengagement, which is quite possibly an element of why the public did not listen to Corbyn on this occasion (though I do not think this is the main reason - I believe it to be far more down to the media under-reporting what was actually being said, whilst continually giving a platform to right-wing politicians spreading discord and fear of our neighbours). I read an article in the Guardian today saying that 'the young voted Corbyn in, and now they should push him out because he has betrayed them'. I can truthfully say as a young person who did vote him in, I do not feel betrayed. I feel far more betrayed by the BBC, which allows the likes of Laura Kuenssberg to pursue a witch-hunt against the leader of the opposition, by the advertising standards authorities which allowed a blatantly racist poster to be produced to rally up the sort of hate which caused the death of Jo Cox, and by my local MP Thangam Debbonaire, who is participating along with many of her colleagues in a disgraceful and undemocratic coup against Jeremy Corbyn.
I admire the way that Jeremy has responded to this. He has made it plain that he has no intention of stepping down. Actually if he did I would feel betrayed by him, because I paid to vote him in in the hopes that he would stand by his convictions and he ought to respect that. Not that I would be able to completely condemn him with the amount of hostility that he has faced. I feel strongly that this coup has been orchestrated by people who have been against him from the moment he was elected as leader - they were the very people who this time last year were assuring the public that Jeremy Corbyn had no chance of being elected as leader. These people have found a point to scapegoat him on and are doing their hardest to do just that. From personal experience I know how hard it is to have to steer a ship from beneath a tide of opposition, and I think Corbyn is doing it well. What I do worry about is what will happen if another leadership election is forced. I think that if something is said enough times people start to believe it - I know anecdotally of people who are dissatisfied with Jeremy Corbyn whilst unable to explain exactly why beyond saying 'he can't command the respect of his party'. My response to that is that if the individuals involved refuse to have their respect commanded, it is their doing, and not Jeremy Corbyn's, that the Labour Party is at war with itself. The MPs should not get to decide what qualities they wish their leader to have - this is down to the party members. I have no intention of joining the Labour Party because my independent political stance precludes me from joining any political party, but if there is another leadership election and it is opened to the general public outside of the party again (which I very much doubt) I will vote for Jeremy Corbyn again, and in any case will encourage others to do so. Fortunately, Corbyn has the backing of certain high-profile Labour individuals, including Diane Abbott (who I have always had a great deal of respect for) and Andy Burnham (who I haven't, and whose support has caused me to be pleasantly surprised).
Thank you for reading, I will continue to update with more current affairs.
