Friday, 12 August 2016
Westminster manoeuvres v public appeal
There is just time to listen again to an enlightening interview with Vince Cable on
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07mxgx6..
Sir Vince (as he now is, and probably the only one of our lot to deserve it) seems pretty pleased with himself, and I've no quarrel with that. He's rightly proud of several ways in which as Business Secretary he was able to introduce a few Liberal ideas, and also prevent the Tories from implementing a few bad ones.
Unfortunately the way politics is conducted these days that is not enough. People are simply not prepared to look at the small print (or even, sometimes, the large print, as the EU Referendum result shows). In terms of public impact, Cable's successes were minor compared to the major gaffe of conniving at the raising of student tuition fees when the party was pledged not to do so. It's student fees that pulled the rug from under Liberal Democrat support and it will be years before we regain the public's trust.
I think there's a lesson here for the Labour Party in their leadership election. Jeremy Corbyn has "lost the confidence" of his parliamentary party (PLP) for allegedly bad management, failure to work with his colleagues and inept performances at Prime Minister's Questions. Well, maybe so, and maybe his challenger, Owen Smith would do a better job of it. Maybe if Smith wins and does, the PLP will "hold the government to account", win a few minor victories and the Labour MPs will feel pleased that they're serving their purpose and earning their salaries.
But, as with Cable's little victories, will anyone notice?
These parliamentary manoeuvres may make a big impact in the Westminster bubble and associated media, but do not resonate with he public. I've observed that much the same happens with local government councillors, who get very excited over various tactical successes, of which the minority who read the local paper may have some inkling but the vast majority are indifferent.
Jeremy Corbyn's advantage is that he does have the ability to communicate successfully with a vast swathe of the public that the others don't reach. No other current politician is able to draw and enthuse crowds as he does.
I strongly suspect that if Smith wins the Labour leadership (which at present seems unlikely) then the PLP will be heartened, our politicians will continue their semi-private game and the Tories will continue with what they take as their God-given right the rule and remain in power at the next election and beyond.
One positive message we can take from the Referendum result is that the electorate is fed up with
"the mixture as before."
True, supporting Corbyn is a chance but it is just, just, possible that, under his leadership, and if he and his party recognise the necessity of working with others on the left (Liberal Democrats, Greens, SNP) then the disgraceful xenophobic right wing hegemony could be defeated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe Corbyn will have to suffer defeat (2020) before he will ask for 'assistance' from others. Remember he can boast a large number of members for his party even if they are not for him.
ReplyDeleteI believe Corbyn will have to suffer defeat (2020) before he will ask for 'assistance' from others. Remember he can boast a large number of members for his party even if they are not for him.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's sad but understandable that Labour toys with the idea of a Rainbow Coalition when it's down in the dumps (eg with Ashdown before 1997) but abandons it once it thinks it can win on its own. If Corbyn, or whoever wins, waits for yet another defeat, we are condemned to endure the present destructive policies for another five years beyond 2020
DeleteSounds like proportional representation - a great idea when you're in opposition, but what's the point when you're in power?
DeleteJeremy Corbyn's advantage is that he does have the ability to communicate successfully with a vast swathe of the public that the others don't reach
ReplyDeleteBut his big disadvantage is that he is totally unable to be persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with him, and there aren't enough people who agree with him (in raw numbers, or especially in the right seats) to win an election.
Why would anyone who voted Conservative in 2015 ever switch their to a Corbyn-led Labour party?
[Which is good, as the man is morally repulsive — he cheers on people who kill MPs, something that after Jo Cox should surely have made him PNG in any decent company — and it would be shameful for the country to have him as Prime Minister. It's bad enough that he is leader of Hr Majesty's Loyal Opposition]
Remember that only 25% of those entitled to vote in 2015 voted Conservative, and a slightly smaller percentage Labour. If Corbyn can persuade even half of those "left-inclined" who normally stay at home to turn out and vote for a progressive alternative we could be home and dry. It's a gamble I know, but the alternative is another "Tory -light" opposition which won't enthuse anyone.
DeleteI'm sorry you think Corbyn is "morally repulsive." I think most people take the opposite view, which is what makes him attractive: not in it for the money or position, but actually believes what he says.
If Corbyn can persuade even half of those "left-inclined" who normally stay at home to turn out and vote for a progressive alternative we could be home and dry
DeleteBut the problem — well, one of the problems — is that those left-inclined non-voters pretty much all live in constituencies that already voted Labour in 2015. So he could persuade not just half but three-quarters of them to turn out and it still wouldn't win a majority of seats in Parliament.
Add to that the fact that Jeremy Corbyn is a very particular kind of Labour, a very Islington, metropolitan, liberal Labour, and that a lot of those he would be trying to appeal to are rather more traditionally socially-conservative Labour — the kind of Old Labourites who voted 'Leave' in the north, who aren't necessarily on-board with things like nuclear disarmament, gay rights, multiculturalism, and all the other things by which Corbyn defines himself, and it starts to look doubtful that he does have the same appeal in Labour's old heartlands than he obviously does (going by his rally attendances) in the metropolitan centres.
And finally, this strategy requires increasing turnout differentially — research shows that non-voters are broadly reflective of those who do vote, so if you increase turnout among non-voters as a whole then you don't gain anything. You have to motivate the non-voters who, if they did vote, would vote for you, while not motivating those who, if they did vote, would vote against you.
But Corbyn is such a polarising figure that it seems quite easy to imagine the Tories running a 'do you really want to let this Trident-scrapping terrorist sympathiser and his Mao-quoting shadow chancellor into Downing Street? If not, you better get tot he polling station!' campaign, and so actually motivating those who didn't vote in 2015 but if they had, would have voted Conservative, to turn out, and so cancelling out Corbyn's 2015-non-voter boost.
I'm sorry you think Corbyn is "morally repulsive." I think most people take the opposite view, which is what makes him attractive: not in it for the money or position, but actually believes what he says.
That's what makes him so repulsive: when he praises those who murder MPs, he really, honestly means it.
Again, you'd think after Jo Cox, if not before, people would look askance at someone who supports murdering MPs, but apparently we're fine with it as long as it's Jeremy.