Saturday, 19 September 2015
A wind for change
The late great Richard Wainwright, doyen of Yorkshire Liberalism and Liberal MP for the Colne Valley 1966-70 and 1974 - 1987, compared politics to sailing. You could be in the Doldrums for ages, seeming to be getting nowhere, but when "the wind" came along, you needed to be alert to catch it and forge ahead.
Jeremy Corbyn has released a wind for change and, rather than catching it, our Liberal Democrat leaders seem poised to miss it. An article in today's Guardian headlined "Cable: Lib Dems and moderate Labour can take centre ground" reports Vince Cable himself, and fellow ex-coalition ministers Ed Davey and Norman Lamb, all urging that we unite with "moderate" Labour MPs unsettled by Corbyn's victory in order to occupy the "vast space space between Cameron and Corbyn."
This is completely to ignore the reasons for the Corbyn victory. To me it signifies a desire for an end to triangulation, timid moderation, the unfairness of making the poorest pay for the errors of the financial sector, dogmatic privatisations, and craven fear of doing anything that might frighten the bankers or upset the rich.
It is call for a challenge to the " market forces rule OK" Establishment dogma (as described in the previous post) and for genuinely radical change.
On the letters page of the same Guardian is a selection of indignant protests from Liberal Democrat activists (including one from me) pointing out to our leadership that we "have had enough of the party establishment seeking equidistance. We are a left-leaning party of the centre left."
I hope Tim reads these and recognises his isolation from the main-stream of the party before he delivers his speech tonight. If not I fear we shall hear denigration of the"hard left" (only "hard" because the centre has moved so far to the right), siren calls to worried Labour MPs to join us in the centre and a recipe for decades in the wilderness.
There is a danger that Corbyn's wind may not blow for very long - Gleggmania barely lasted a week - but while it does last we need to identify ourselves with it with a profound "me too" for those of his policies which overlap with ours: economic expansion rather than damaging austerity to reduce the deficit; non-replacement of Trident (I hope), fairer taxation, a social security net that treats people with dignity; house building; green energy, constitutional reform; and a humane attitude to refugees and the many still poverty-stricken nations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lib Dems should support Corbyn's opposition stances. He is the only one who can defeat the wretched Tories. All these silly references to his dress and his choral tastes merely show the paucity of the Tory propaganda machine. Corbyn does at least have some principles and ideas in contrast to the 'pragmatism' or opportunism of Cameron and Osbourne.
ReplyDeleteRather than trying to temps "moderate" (ie timid, or even, as Mrs Thatcher might have said "frit" ) Labour MPs away from their party, Liberals should be giving vigorous support to the Corbyn poicy issues on which we agree. Go for the "ishooos" (Tony Benn) not the man
ReplyDeleteAll these silly references to his dress and his choral tastes merely show the paucity of the Tory propaganda machine
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how his support for unilateralism, his support for the IRA and his anti-Americanism are 'silly references' or aren't 'issues'.
I think Anonymous (1) means the silly references to relate solely to Corbyn's dress and choral tastes. Such ridicule, though totally irrelevant to policies, can be very damaging, as Ming Campbell (wearing suspenders to hold up his socks), Michael Howard (something of the night) and Ed Miliband (inelegantly eating a bacon sandwich) found out. Even Cameron doesn't deserve "piggate."
DeleteCorbyn supports British unilateralism and I'm sorry that the Liberal Democrats have, though not overwhelmingly, (579 to 447), failed to do so. As far as I know Corbyn was in favour of talking to the IRA, which is not quite the same as supporting them, and certainly not their methods. Being critical of "loyally" following all American foreign policy initiatives is not the same being anti-American.
I think Anonymous (1) means the silly references to relate solely to Corbyn's dress and choral tastes
DeleteIf by 'choral tastes' you mean not singing the anthem, see comments passim about how that is relevant to his policies (ie, his anti-monarchism, his unilateralism, and his being anti-army).
As far as I know Corbyn was in favour of talking to the IRA, which is not quite the same as supporting them, and certainly not their methods
No; he supported them and he believed their violence and murders were a justified reaction to what he saw as an illegal occupation of Northern Ireland by British troops. He has never denied this and when given an opportunity to condemn IRA violence (in an interview with Stephen Nolan) he failed to do so and then hung up.
I'm pretty sure the reason he's avoiding Andrew Marr is that he will be pressed on this issue, and he cannot give an answer with is both acceptable to the public, and compatible with his principles.
Being critical of "loyally" following all American foreign policy initiatives is not the same being anti-American.
No, but asserting moral equivalence between American foreign policy and the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre (which he is on camera doing) is far beyond 'Being critical of "loyally" following all American foreign policy initiatives' and well into anti-Americanism.