By Rob Francis
This is a cross post from the author’s Medium blog, reproduced with kind permission. This post is Part 1 of a series by the author.
In May 1987, eight members of the Provisional IRA launched an attack on the police station in Loughgall, County Armagh. Three men drove a digger through the perimeter fence with a Semtex bomb in the bucket, while the rest arrived in a van and opened fire. However, the British Army had received a tip-off about the plans, and ambushed the IRA unit, killing all eight men.
In London, a short while later, Jeremy Corbyn joined others in a minute’s silence for those killed whilst trying to murder police officers. He explained that he was “happy to commemorate all those who died fighting for an independent Ireland”.
The next couple of months will see a Labour leadership election which will test Jeremy Corbyn’s support in the party. My expectation is that he will win in September and remain in post; however, I very much hope for him to be defeated.
As I write, the news is covering Owen Smith, one of the potential candidates. Smith is discussing Corbyn in terms familiar to anyone who follows Labour politics; that Jeremy is a decent man, but he is not meeting expectations as leader and so must be replaced.
I suspect that it ultimately will be his performance that denies him his leadership of the party, either via the members deciding he isn’t up to taking the fight to the Tories, or by a crushing general election defeat. And in the second part of this piece, I will set out why I believe Corbyn will not be electorally successful.
But to focus on electability, as Smith does, is to sidestep a very serious conversation that Labour and the left need to be having. In this blog I will argue that it is his politics that should preclude him from leading the Labour movement. That Corbynism is an immoral politics, which the left should wholly reject. That Jeremy Corbyn is not the “decent man” he is often professed to be.
As with almost everything in contemporary Labour politics, it goes back to the Iraq war. Part of Jeremy Corbyn’s rise is undoubtedly due to his uncompromising opposition to the invasion, and already, his supporters are making much capital out of comparing Corbyn’s supposedly prescient stance against the war with Angela Eagle’s support.
I opposed the war. Yet I also recognise that the decision facing Blair and Bush in 2003 was a choice between two terrible scenarios. The brutal crimes of Saddam Hussein’s regime are well documented. To not go to war was to acquiesce in leaving Iraq in the hands of a monstrous tyrant.
None of this seems to trouble Corbyn or his acolytes; for them, the war was wrong and that’s it. Jeremy Corbyn has no answer as to what the world should do about future Saddam Husseins, nor does he seem to care.
Still, any decent person who opposed the Iraq war should, at the least, have hoped for a quick end to the fighting, a rapid overthrow of Saddam, minimal casualties, and a successful transition to a stable, democratic Iraq. Regardless of your position, you should surely hope for the best possible outcome to the situation, the least bloodshed.
But in 2004, the Stop The War Coalition, of which Jeremy Corbyn was a founder and one of its leading members, said
“The StWC reaffirms its call for an end to the occupation, the return of all British troops in Iraq to this country and recognises once more the legitimacy of the struggle of Iraqis, by whatever means they find necessary, to secure such ends”
Jeremy Corbyn in 1987 held a minute’s silence for people whose aim was to slaughter police officers. Jeremy Corbyn in 2004 was part of an organisation which urged jihadists to kill British soldiers. Why?
To unpick Corbynism, it needs to be understood that everything is viewed through an anti-western prism. The “West”, typically America, Britain and Israel, are seen to be at fault for all that goes wrong in the world, the source of all problems. Everything else is subservient to this premise.
This explains why Corbyn so often forms alliances with toxic people. For him, anti-western politics is the focus of his energies; the character, words or actions of any allies he makes in the struggle become secondary or unimportant.
This is why, despite professing to be a staunch defender of human rights, he can be paid to appear on Iranian state television, on a channel that filmed the torture of an Iranian journalist, and which acts as a mouthpiece for a regime that executes gay people.
This is why he speaks at Cuba Solidarity events, in support of a regime that has an appalling human rights record, one with a long history of jailing gay people and trade unionists.
This is why he finds friends amongst people such as Raed Salah (jailed for inciting anti-Jewish violence in Israel, and found by a British judge to have used the blood libel), Stephen Sizer (a vicar who shared an article on social media entitled “9/11: Israel Did It”), Paul Eisen (Holocaust denier), and of course, Hamas and Hezbollah.
Is it any wonder that the Israeli Labour Party is extremely concerned? Do we not owe our solidarity to them, as our sister party? Do we not owe our solidarity to gay people facing persecution in Iran, or trade unionists in Cuba? Why would anyone on the left seek to side with their oppressors instead? These alliances are made because Corbyn places anti-western ideology above all else. His enemy’s enemy has become his friend.
So, is Jeremy Corbyn a decent man?
One way out of the above could be to argue that he is not bad, but instead hopelessly naive; a foolish man who romanticises revolutionaries. That should in itself be enough to prevent him holding any real authority, but let’s take some recent examples to test the decency claim.
Following the launch of Shami Chakrabarti’s report into Labour antisemitism, Marc Wadsworth, a Momentum activist, stood up and accused Ruth Smeeth, a Jewish Labour MP, of colluding with the media. Wadsworth says he didn’t know Smeeth was Jewish. Perhaps not. But Jeremy Corbyn did. And accusing Jewish people of controlling the media is a classic antisemitic trope. So, confronted with this, what did Jeremy Corbyn do? He stood there and said nothing.
Except it was worse than saying nothing. Because later, Corbyn was caught on camera apologising to Wadsworth, and saying that he’d sent him a text message. Smeeth now understandably believes Corbyn has made Labour an unsafe place for Jews.
As a further example, consider his actions at the recent NEC meeting, which was to decide whether Corbyn needed MPs’ nominations in order to stand in the leadership election. Some committee members pleaded for the vote to be conducted in secret. One member was in tears as she explained her fears of intimidation, bullying and worse. Ignoring the distress of members, Corbyn voted against a secret ballot. He was not prepared to intervene to protect his colleagues.
After the NEC decision, Jeremy Corbyn went to a rally, and shared a stage with people who referred to senior members of the party as “fucking useless”, a “disgrace to Wales”, and told Labour MPs to leave the party. Corbyn said nothing, save for some laughable platitudes about being against abuse.
Every time, Corbyn puts himself and his ideology above people that he owed a duty of care to. Wadsworth was a comrade, an ally, so Corbyn had texted him before he’d even left the building. No such treatment for Ruth Smeeth. On the NEC, Corbyn’s priority was getting on the ballot, and he was happy to put other committee members in harm’s way to get there. Jeremy Corbyn saw no need to defend his MPs from the abuse at the rally. It was enough for him to disown abuse in general terms. His hands were clean.
Is he a decent man? Is this how decent people behave?
The problem of placing abstract ideology above real people is a facet of not just Corbyn but Corbynism. Witness Diane Abbott explaining how Chairman Mao is revered because “on balance, he did more good than harm”. Or George Galloway’s consistent support for tyrants. Or John McDonnell supporting theIRA bombing campaign. So committed was McDonnell, in fact, that during the negotiations leading to the Good Friday Agreement, Sinn Fein had to ask Tony Blair to keep him quiet, as he was discouraging hardliners from accepting a deal.
The Labour Party Rule Book is explicit; we are committed to deliver people from the tyranny of prejudice, and to work with international bodies to secure peace and freedom for all.
If your allies execute homosexuals, or imprison trade unionists, or bomb shopping centres, or murder people who dissent, or hold deeply antisemitic conspiracy theories, I don’t see how you can claim to be upholding these aims. If you say nothing whilst members of the party you lead are insulted in public, are you living by the Labour values of solidarity, tolerance and respect?
None of this is a left I want to be a part of.
The left now needs to decide what it stands for. An anti-western, anti-American, self-righteous strand of thinking, nurtured by the Iraq war, is gripping the party ever tighter. We cannot let the Labour Party fall prey to people who believe that every brutal dictator who opposes America is to be venerated. We cannot let the terrible errors of Iraq turn us away from supporting those who suffer at the hands of tyrants; this road leads to Srebrenica and Nyarubuye.
There is an internationalist left, which does not rely on knee-jerk anti-westernism. Which believes in alliances with other liberal democracies and showing solidarity with those being persecuted rather than their oppressors. There is also a left which genuinely believes in those values of solidarity, tolerance and respect; not just in the abstract or in platitude, but in how we conduct ourselves, and the examples we set for others.
The Labour leadership election isn’t just about whether Jeremy Corbyn can beat the Tories. It’s about salvaging a morality that has gone desperately missing.
Just seen the idiot Burgon comparing Corbyn to Attlee – who was everything Rob outlines Labour should be in the last few paragraphs. Another facet of Corbynistas is the rewriting (or ignoring) of history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So the option to go to war in iRAQ and cause the death of millions was worth it ?? Shame
Before I say anything, I just want to say I hate nasty Youtube comment-style internet debates, and I am commenting out of genuine curiosity and desire to be educated.
A lot of this article is news to me – I’m 23 years old, I’ve been a strong Corbyn supporter since his election as leader, and I’ve been trying to read as much as possible into the situation. Until now, I’ve not actually found a single article with any better reason for not voting Corbyn than ‘he’s unelectable’. I just want to address a couple of points you’ve made, as I’ve read some things that contradict them.
To myself, and many supporters, his grieving for controversial characters – the Osama Bin Laden ‘tragedy’, the minute’s silence you for the IRA members – seem to be more a regret at any loss of human life, in the same way that one might mourn the loss of life all across the world during the Second World War, rather than only particular countries.
Another point I’d like to question is Corbyn’s appearance on Iranian television. I don’t know the purpose of his appearance on the channel. Could you clarify? It’d help give a more round picture – I’ve really had it drilled in recently that one missing detail can alter an entire story (hello, EU referendum).
I’d also like to refer to several interviews with Corbyn during which he has spoken about his referring to various nefarious individuals and organisations as ‘friends’, or sharing a stage with them. When asked for his reasons, he has stated that for peace it is necessary to hold talks with all parties – something which I can’t find fault with. Surely, in order to end the violence of Hezbollah and Hamas, it is necessary to speak? I’m willing to admit my knowledge of the conflict in Israel is limited.
Apologies for the massive comment. If you’ve time to answer I’d be really interested to read your response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Dan, I’ll jump in on this one.
The issue with Corbyn saying he ‘holds talks with all parties’ is that he isn’t being truthful. His relationship with Sinn Fein and the IRA in the 80s was not mirrored by similar communications with the Unionist side. He now tries to present mourning for IRA dead as his contribution to the Irish peace process, which is dishonest. He played no role whatsoever in the peace process. It was the Labour goverment of the late 90s that made that happen. Tony Blair devoted most of his first term to fixing a deep division that had troubled this country for decades and yet you will struggle to find Corbyn acknowledging that anywhere ever.
While most people would agree that any loss of human life is a tragedy, it is quite hard to find people who would concede there were any circumstances in which the uniquely evil mass-murderer Osama Bin Laden’s death could be referred to as such. I am against the death penalty but in this particular case OBL had freely owned up to organising one of the worst terrorist attacks of all time and I think it’s legitimate to think of him therefore as an enemy combatant not a civilian. It is the fact that Corbyn chose to speak up about this that is interesting, and goes to Rob’s point that he reflexively sides with the anti-Western minority, even then when that takes him to some pretty nasty places.
The final point about unelectability. You will probably hear this from other older Labour voters. I’m 43 and grew up in the 80s. I remember what Labour was like then – supported by peope like Billy Bragg, relegated to singing the Internationale at folk festivals in Haringey while the Tories ruled over us for 18 years. And I remember the blaze of brilliant policies that were brought in the minute Labour took power in 1997 and how refreshing it felt that *finally* sensible people were in charge of the country. Electability matters, and anyone who thinks that a thrice-married vegetarian unilateral disarmer who attended IRA funerals and has got nothing to show for 30 years on the backbenches can make PM is just wrong. If you think it’s ok – as many Corbyn supporters do, and indeed the man himself – that his role is to act as a principled opposition and never actually take power then we’ll never agree.
What’s interesting about this post is that none of the objections to Corbyn are to do with his views on domestic economic and social issues. Rather, the objections are to do with Corbyn’s stance on foreign affairs – Israel, the Middle East and Ireland (I lumping the issue of a united Ireland under foreign affairs) – and with whom this has led him to associate. Even the issues arising from Labour’s inquiry into anti-Semitism stem in large part from the obsession with Israel evident in certain sections of the Left.
I’m entirely sympathetic to objections to Corbyn’s stance of foreign affairs. But as leader of the Labour Party, most of Corbyn’s focus is now on domestic issues. And he seems to draw relatively little criticism for his views on domestic issues. He certainly seems to have drawn criticism for being unable to translate his views into a meaningful policy agenda but not so much on his views themselves.
I just think it’s interesting that what motivates a significant section of those opposed to Corbyn – and I include myself here – is Corbyn’s view of foreign rather than domestic affairs.
‘The brutal crimes of Saddam Hussein’s regime are well documented. To not go to war was to acquiesce in leaving Iraq in the hands of a monstrous tyrant.’ Ok so by your logic we should be invading North Korea and Burma. Also Saddam was put there and propped up by the west who were happy to sell weapons when it suited them.
Pingback: The Unelectability of Corbyn | The Gerasites