Thursday 30 May 2019

Labour and Brexit (3)

Just in case any more evidence is required to support the arguments put forward by Polly Toynbee (Remainers won these elections. They`d win a referendum too, 28/05/19),and Paul Mason (Corbynism is in crisis. Labour will have to oppose Brexit, 28/05/19), for Labour to "unite around the strategy of remain and reform", the latest email to Labour members has arrived. "With parliament deadlocked", it says, the issue of Brexit "will now have to go back to the people, whether through a general election or a public vote". Avoiding a "disastrous No-Deal Brexit" is clearly crucial, but what is still missing is the essential ingredient: its policy on Europe, given today`s circumstances.
 Winning a general election has become a much more remote possibility since 2017, and the reason is clear; Labour`s remain supporters will continue to leave until there is a clear commitment from Corbyn! Further delays and, as Mason says, officials like Milne and Murphy will have to go. Even Theresa May had the courage to sack Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill after her 2017 fiasco!

Your editorials have frequently and rightly warned against plots by the Labour right, which is why McCluskey was right to say that no notice should be taken of the "phoneys" like Blair and Mandelson who obviously would "sooner have a Tory government than a Corbyn government". That does not mean, however, that every criticism of Labour`s leadership should be viewed as an anti-Corbyn plot, or as Sunday`s editorial put it, a "revolt against Jeremy Corbyn" (Morning Star, 216/05/19). The fact is Labour`s approach to a second vote has been "mealy-mouthed", as Watson says, and it did cause disaster in the European polls, as it would in a general election.
      Corbyn`s leadership was supposed to be based on change, including a pledge to listen to the membership, giving them "a greater say in decision-making", as he himself said after his leadership election victory in 2016. Supporters will only, to use McCluskey`s words, "stick with Corbyn" if he does what he promised, because the thousands of us who support him do so because of his principled stance on all issues.If there is, as your editorial implies, some confusion about what Labour members actually want, a ballot is vital!
   Having "overwhelmingly popular policies" sadly will not win a general election if they are accompanied by a refusal to fully commit to remaining in the EU, given the awful consequences of the No-deal departure arranged by the next right-wing Tory leader.

As your editorial rightly said, the expulsion of Alastair Campbell questions whether Jeremy Corbyn "has thought carefully about the message from the voters" (Purging Alastair Campbell is a vindictive distraction from more serious issues, 29/05/19). Indeed, the whole issue highlights once again the lack of joined-up thinking in Labour`s leadership team. If the expulsion is supposed to distract from the latest anti-semitism problem, Brexit  or the European election fiasco, Labour is as guilty as the Tories for treating  the electorate as mugs, regarding them as unable to see what is really happening. If the decision was taken "not because of what Campbell did, but because of who he was", didn`t anyone think of what the consequences might be, of what the media would make of it, and how many others would admit to the same offence? Shouldn`t someone have pointed out the effects on the voters who need to be persuaded of Corbyn`s leadership qualities if an election victory is to become possible?
Rather than feeding the right-wing press continuously with anti-Labour propaganda, the party`s leadership team should be concentrating on ways to win the next election. At the moment they seem determined to lose it! 

Monday 27 May 2019

Observer letter on private schools playing exam system

Any reforms which tackle the problem of state schools "playing" the examination system, and "end the incentive for schools to rid themselves of pupils who could depress their overall exam results" are to be welcomed, but they also beg an obvious question (Schools told to stop using exclusions to boost their results, 05.05.19). Why are there no measures to prevent schools in the private sector "playing" the system? They enter their pupils for Cambridge Assessment`s IGCSE exams, which have not been subject to the changes which have made GCSE examinations, compulsory in state schools, more rigorous? These exams are clearly employed to "boost results", just like the Pre-U exams, where coursework still figures prominently in the final assessment, are being used by most independent schools instead of the highly regulated and newly reformed A-levels.

Similarities with Weimar

As Martin Kettle says, there exist in the UK at the moment far too many “similarities” with Weimar Germany for comfort (A new exhibition in Berlin highlights how quickly a loss of respect for democracy can end in catastrophe, 16/05/19). It does not require rocket science qualifications either   to notice the falling “out of love with parliament”, the lack of cooperation between parties, and the far right`s repeated message of “national betrayal”, or to link them with a possible surge in support for a right-wing autocracy.
It is worth mentioning, however, that Hitler`s rise initially was through democratic votes in general elections, with the Nazis becoming the biggest party in the Reichstag after the 1932 June election. It was after the November election of that year when they actually lost ground, when it was decided to  offer Hitler the chancellorship, leading to the Enabling law and the destruction of opposition parties. Divisions on the left, with the inevitable lack of viable policies to challenge the promise of a strong Germany coming from Hitler, were an important factor in the rise of fascism, and must not be repeated here. The Labour leadership has a duty to provide a united opposition to the threat from the right; if Labour  loses the support of its “remain” voters, and their votes shared around smaller parties, a really significant and dangerous  “similarity” could be created, “with terrible consequences”!