By Andrew Stuttaford
Thursday, June 01, 2017
Two years ago, in a vivid reminder of why Mensheviks have
a way of losing out, Jeremy Corbyn was handed the chance to run for the
leadership of Britain’s Labour party by some soft-headed members of the soft
Left. To be eligible, Corbyn needed to be nominated by 15 percent of Labour’s
parliamentary party. That was a problem. Corbyn was far to the left of most of
his fellow MPs and had made little effort to build bridges to those who failed
to show the ideological purity he expected — and that was almost all of them.
There was also the small matter of his appeal to the broader public, which was
then considered — happy days — to be minimal. The necessary 35 nominations
looked beyond reach, but growing grassroots pressure and some deft work on
social media persuaded a handful of MPs to “lend” Corbyn their support by
agreeing to nominate him. Their justification for doing so was that it would be
healthy if the hard Left were allowed to play its part in the debate over the
party’s future direction. Corbyn received 36 nominations, one more than he needed.
Pandora’s ballot box was now primed. On September 12, 2015, Corbyn became
Labour’s leader. If some recent polls are correct, he now has an outside
possibility of becoming Britain’s prime minister after the general election set
for June 8.
Margaret Beckett, a former deputy leader of the Labour
party, later described those MPs who “lent” their nominations to Corbyn as
“morons.” She confessed that she had been one of them. She was right: They had
thrown a lifeline to someone who, given the opportunity, will strangle them
with it.
Brought up in a left-wing family that was reasonably
well-off, Corbyn could easily be mistaken for one of those 1960s student
radicals who breathed in whatever was in the campus air and never got over it.
Sadly this — how to put it — less than academic individual (he left the
equivalent of high school with two Grade ‘E’ A levels — ask a Brit what that
means, and he or she will tell you once the laughter subsides) was only able to
stick with “Trade Union Studies” at the Polytechnic of North London for a few
months.
Never mind: Family tradition, the spirit of the times,
and the peculiarities of Corbyn’s personality were enough to do the trick.
Before long, he was a hardworking and effective member of his neighborhood
Labour party, austere, consumed by politics, a union organizer, an activist on
his way up, a true believer on the march. He eventually arrived in Westminster
in 1983 as the MP for Islington North, a part of the city being gentrified by
the educated, metropolitan Left; Corbyn’s radicalism played well there.
It was also a part of London that hosted a prominent
Irish diaspora, something that may have reinforced Corbyn’s focus on the
conflict in Northern Ireland as the “anti-imperialist” struggle closest to
home. It may have been an era of terrorism and sectarian violence in the
province and of bombings on the U.K.’s mainland, but support for the Republican
cause (Troops Out and all that) was nothing out of the usual in the redder
corners of the British Left. Nevertheless, a number of Corbyn’s associates took
it further than most, and Corbyn then took it further still. It was Corbyn who
invited two convicted IRA members (one of them convicted for explosives
offenses) to the House of Commons (to discuss, it was said, prison conditions
in Northern Ireland) shortly after the 1984 IRA bombing of the Grand Hotel in
Brighton that killed or seriously injured a number of leading Tories, while
narrowly missing its main target, Mrs. Thatcher. It was remarkably tactless of
John McDonnell, a longstanding friend of Corbyn’s with intriguing connections
to the IRA himself, to joke publicly in 2010 that he wished he could go back in
time to the 1980s and “assassinate”
Mrs. Thatcher. (McDonnell will be chancellor of the Exchequer if Corbyn wins.)
He apologized for the quip, but in 2014 he “jokingly” returned to his earlier
theme, saying that there had been “massive
support for actually assassinating Margaret Thatcher.” McDonnell was
Corbyn’s campaign manager in the Labour leadership contest.
Corbyn’s association with the IRA was more than a matter
of one meeting in the House of Commons. For years, he had dealings with leaders
of Sinn Fein, the party often labeled the “political wing” of the IRA — a
distinction, despite denials, without much difference, at least at its highest
ranks. In Comrade Corbyn, her
excellent biography of Labour’s new leader, Rosa Prince describes the reaction
of Kevin McNamara, Labour’s “shadow” Northern Ireland secretary (the party was
in opposition at the time), and a supporter of Irish reunification himself, to
Corbyn’s decision to invite Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams to speak to a
meeting at the annual Labour-party conference in 1989. Speaking of Adams,
McNamara said that, as far he was concerned, “there is no place for people who
defend murderers at the Labour-party conference.”
And yet, years later, Margaret Beckett was prepared to
“lend” her support to the man who thought that there was.
Corbyn now maintains that his actions helped pave the way
for the peace process, an argument (Rosa Prince notes) dismissed by the
Catholic Northern Irish writer Eilis O’Hanlon, a fierce critic of Sinn Fein:
When they [Corbyn, McDonnell, and
the rest] were out defending the IRA . . . [they] didn’t know when, or if, that
campaign would end. They still happily supported, or had an ambivalent attitude
towards, Republican violence. They knew exactly what they were doing, and how
their solidarity was used by the Republican movement to paint its murder
campaign as part of some wider campaign for social justice.
To call them useful idiots is to be naïve.
To “lend” one of them a nominating vote was, yes,
moronic, but something worse than that, too.
Fast-forward a few decades, and Britain is again facing a
terrorist threat, this time from Islamic extremism. Corbyn’s response has been
instructive. He condemned the Manchester bombing but didn’t neglect the
opportunity to connect it to “wars our government has supported or fought in
other countries,” a claim that might have had more force had it not come from
someone who so frequently blames Britain or, more generally, the West, for the
world’s evils.
On other occasions, he has just taken the other side.
Thus Corbyn opposed the Falklands campaign as a “Tory plot,” the war to stop
Serbia’s attack on (a touch ironically) Muslim Kosovars, and (naturally!) the
invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. (He was, however, pleased to write for the
Communist — and pro-Soviet — Morning Star
newspaper while the USSR was fighting in Afghanistan.) He was against the Iraq
War, a respectable enough position, but not so much when coming from him.
The crisis over Ukraine showed that little had changed.
Writing in the Morning Star (itself
little changed) in 2014, Corbyn repeated Kremlin smears about the new “far
right” Ukrainian government and described Moscow’s adventurism in Ukraine as
“not unprovoked.” Three years later, Corbyn (no
friend of NATO during the Cold War or now), argued that no more British
troops should be sent to the Baltic States and, undermining notions of
deterrence still further, refused to commit to the principle of collective
defense enshrined in NATO’s Article 5 (a principle, while we’re talking about
it, that President Trump should do more to affirm).
Long antagonistic to the United States, Corbyn seems to
have a softer spot for Iran, using the 35th anniversary of that country’s
Islamist revolution to call for an end to the “demonization” of its regime by
the West and for the immediate lifting of sanctions. (This was before Obama’s
nuclear deal — such as it is.) It would be reassuring to think that the cash
Corbyn received (up to £20,000) for appearances on Iran’s propagandist Press TV
between 2009 and 2012 had helped shape those views, but unfortunately they appear
all too sincere.
Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that he
has also referred to Hamas and Hezbollah as “friends,” something he now says he
regrets. He has also said that he regrets the remark he made to a parliamentary
committee investigating anti-Semitism in the Labour party (it’s come to that):
that Jews were “no more responsible for the actions of Israel” than Muslims
were for the “various self-styled Islamic states or organizations.” Quite a few
read that as an attempt to equate Israel (a nation for which Corbyn has — shall
we say — scant affection) with ISIS. This, explained Corbyn, was a
misinterpretation: “It would have been better . . . if I had said Islamic
countries rather than states.”
It might also have been better had he not compared the
U.S. with ISIS, but in 2014 (in other words before
Labour MPs “lent” him those nominations) that’s what Corbyn did. In the course
of one of his many interviews on RT (the rebranded Russia Today) he explained that what was needed was a “political
compromise” with the Islamic State. Some of what ISIS has done was “quite
appalling,” he conceded, but the same could be said of “some of what the
Americans did in Fallujah and other places.” The following year, Corbyn told
Press TV (them again) that the American “assassination” of bin Laden was a
“tragedy”: There had been no real effort made, you see, to put Osama on trial.
Beyond Corbyn’s attraction to Islamism (a movement with
far-from-Islington views on women, gays, and just about everything else) as an
ideology that can be portrayed as “anti-imperialist,” there is also some
old-fashioned political calculation at work. Britain has plenty of Muslim
voters, and they tend to favor Labour. Corbyn’s foreign-policy positions may go
too far for quite a number of them, but they still help lock in the idea of
Labour as a pro-Muslim party.
There’s also something else. Looking back over Corbyn’s
career, it’s difficult to miss the way that he appears to be drawn to the hard
men, the killers and the thugs — the IRA, Castro (whom he called “a champion of
social justice”), Chávez (“he made massive contributions to Venezuela & a
very wide world”), Trotsky, or, indeed, Islamists. In person, Corbyn may be
quiet, shy, and courteous, but there is steel there, too. (He split with his
second wife over her insistence on an ideologically inappropriate selective
school for their eldest child) as well as a whiff of sulfur, whether in his
fan-boy enthusiasm for those hard men, or in choosing to surround himself with
an entourage of inquisitors, enforcers, and commissars-in-waiting, not least
the clever, sinister McDonnell and strategist Seamus Milne, a somewhat
incongruous Stalinist among all the Trots.
There is also the nastiness he clearly inspires in some
of his followers. In Comrade Corbyn,
Rosa Prince recounts the role that Corbyn played in edging out moderate
Labour-party members in a constituency where he was active early in his career.
Corbyn himself was “never confrontational,” but one of his contemporaries
recalls that “he would be part of whipping up an atmosphere of hostility.”
Three decades later, Prince explains how “the tendency for political discourse
to turn ugly is writ large in Corbyn’s Labour party.” His social-media
followers have shown themselves more than capable of bullying, sometimes purely
political, sometimes including threats of physical violence, and, sometimes,
when it comes to women at the wrong end of Corbynista wrath, disturbingly
misogynistic. Prince adds that “some of those who have found themselves on the
receiving end of such treatment feel Corbyn and his allies have failed to do
enough to address it.” I am shocked, shocked to hear that intimidation might
have been going on.
Labour’s manifesto promises tax-and-spend, heavy-handed
intervention in the economy, some nationalization, and various other
stupidities too depressing to mention. That’s all bad enough, but if Labour
were to win and Corbyn and his team tightened their grip more, what follows
would be much, much worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment