By Andrew Stuttaford
Friday, November 15, 2019
Britain’s general election campaign trundles along, with
the Conservatives still comfortably ahead in the polls, although I continue to
think that the Tories are far more vulnerable than is generally understood —
and, of course, as was entirely predictable (and indeed was predicted), the
contest is turning out to be ‘about’ much more than Brexit.
Meanwhile, over at The
Atlantic, Tom McTague makes some intriguing comparisons between Jeremy
Corbyn, the leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party, and Donald Trump, a
comparison that will enrage supporters of both. If nothing else, however, it
reflects the reality that ours is an age of rising populism on the left as well
as the right. I have long wondered what the 2016 result would have been had the
Democrats run Sanders, not Clinton.
While there’s plenty to disagree with in McTague’s piece,
this strikes a chord:
Take away Brexit, and Johnson is a
run-of-the-mill conservative whose policy agenda, instincts, and world view, as
opposed to his personality, verge on the dull; a member and defender of the
establishment whose wish is to climb atop it, not rip it down. Corbyn is the
opposite: a populist who believes in the inherent corruption of the established
order, at home and abroad; a man who sees conspiracy and injustice everywhere.
Only one of these descriptions comes close to the U.S. president…
Most interesting of all, however, are some of the
observations contained in McTague’s analysis of Corbyn, and, in particular,
this:
This individual and others close to
Corbyn who spoke to me were clear that the grassroots Corbynite campaigning
organization, Momentum, is not merely a pressure group to win power. It is
meant to act as the Labour leader’s sword and shield once in power,
specifically to ensure that the party’s project is not watered down after it is
put through the institutionally conservative bureaucratic machine in
Westminster. Indeed, according to one recent report, Labour are already
thinking about how to stop this from happening, examining ways to force the
civil service to deliver manifesto commitments. This should not be a
surprise—such thinking has long formed a central tenet of the radical left in
the U.K., and was set out by Corbyn’s political hero, Tony Benn, in his 1993
book, Common Sense, calling for a new
constitution for Britain.
This, I think, is key. In the space of just a few years
Corbyn’s team have, by installing the right people in the right parts of the
Labour Party’s machinery (whether at the local or national level) ensured that
Labour will remain a party of the hard left for the foreseeable future, whoever
may lead it.
Given the chance, Labour will do the same to Britain.
Corbyn may be a mean-spirited dimwit, but, if there’s one thing his infinitely
smarter handlers understand very well, it is how power works.
In the course of
an article a couple of years ago on John McDonnell, Corbyn’s clever and
capable deputy (and Britain’s finance minister in the event that Labour
prevails), I noted this:
In 2016, the left-of-center New Statesman unearthed an interview
McDonnell had given to, appropriately enough, the Trotskyist Alliance for
Workers’ Liberty ten years before. Asked to name the “most significant”
influences on his thought, McDonnell replied: “Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky, basically.
Marx was, for the most part, nothing more than a
millenarian crank, but what Trotsky, and, even more so, Lenin understood was
power. So just today we hear that:
Labour has promised to give every
home and business in the UK free full-fibre broadband by 2030, if it wins the
general election.
The party would nationalise part of
BT [the former British Telecom] to deliver the policy and introduce a tax on
tech giants to help pay for it.
Shadow chancellor John McDonnell
told the BBC the “visionary” £20bn plan would “ensure that broadband reaches
the whole of the country”.
…A new entity, British Broadband,
would run the network, with maintenance – estimated to cost £230m a year – to
be covered by the new tax on companies such as Apple and Google.
What could possibly go wrong?
No comments:
Post a Comment