Steve Richards is absolutely correct to say that
Corbyn`s popularity can be explained by the fact that his supporters "have ached
for a voice that questions the stifling consensus in England about economics"
(Independent, 11/08/15). Why should inequality continue to increase, why should
private tenants have to pay 50-60% of their disposable income in rent to greedy
landlords, why should the state subsidise private business to the tune of £93bn
a year in "corporate welfare, why should tax avoidance and evasion go
unpunished? The list appears endless!
As Richards also says, the Blairites
emphasise Blair`s three election victories as if they "provide precise
navigation towards the future", but fails to mention that this rider also
applies to the 1983 election, which all anti-Corbynites use as so-called
evidence to prove a left-wing Labour party cannot win elections. Past election
results cannot be used in this way, especially when some important factors are
ignored: a study of post Stresemann Germany`s elections would suggest coalition
governments there would never be successful; elections in the States in the
1960s would never point to a black or female president. When history is used
irresponsibly, it is little better than blatant propaganda!
That is why Richards is mistaken in his belief
that Labour`s selectorate "must opt for another candidate" as Corbyn would
inevitably "disappoint those cheering now". There is no need for a "schism" in
Labour ranks, simply a requirement for Labour MPs to grasp what exactly the
people are telling them, that centrist tinkering to ameliorate Tory policies is
not enough, when transformation of a grossly unfair society is urgently
needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment