Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn faced the threat of crucifixion by his own MPs in the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum. But this was not due to his "lacklustre" pro-remain campaign, as his fellow Remainers and the media claimed.
After all, the 67-year old Labour leader hardly exhibits great "lustre" at the best of times, even over issues close to his heart The fact is that most Labour MPs What happened during the referendum campaign And a post-referendum survey quoted by the Guardian newspaper settled the question. It found that 65% of Labour supporters had actually voted to remain. Only 24% voted to leave, while 9% did not vote at all. So, it was neither Corbyn, nor Labour voters who done it, guv! In fact, Corbyn came out of this campaign looking much better than most, even if his own MPs today persist in condemning his "lack of leadership potential" and "inability to be a prime minister" apparently based on his performance. He was certainly more honest than all the others. Having campaigned for leaving the EEC, the EU's forerunner, in 1975, and having opposed subsequent treaties like Maastricht in 1992/3, he was obliged to convince his audience this time round that he was genuine in his support for Remain. Which he did, quite competently, without resorting to empty (or potentially poisonous) rhetoric. Although this meant he had to square a circle in order to avoid condoning Cameron's policies. And unlike even his closest allies like John McDonnell, he never hinted that Labour should or would adapt its policies as a result of the anti-immigrant discourse which was kept at the forefront of the debate. In fact he refused consistently to join the anti-migration chorus or give ground to any kind of xenophobia. For this, he deserves credit. This was not the case for Labour MPs who supported "Remain" and even less so, of course, when it came to the small but very vocal contingent who were for Brexit. The statements from both sides, including from Corbyn, help to expose the true nature of all of these beasts. This is how Corbyn replied when quizzed by the BBC's Andrew Marr on the Sunday before the vote, over immigration: he said that contrary to Brexit claims, "There is no uncontrolled immigration. There is free movement of people across the EU, which goes both ways... The far-right have been allowed to grasp the agenda. Farage for example puts up that appalling poster, which has a picture of a lot of desperate people fleeing from war saying 'they are coming to threaten us'... (But) we have to play our part in dealing with the refugee crisis. All of us. It is a humanitarian crisis." He went on to say: "There can be no upper limit on the number of people coming into the UK while there is free movement of labour in the EU." This was stating the obvious, as opposed to the claims made by many from his own party and certainly Tory "Remainers", saying that they could do a deal whereby immigration was limited, while still remaining in the single market. Corbyn rightly blamed deliberate government policies for the social problems which people are experiencing, rather than "the EU"! He said it was the "failure of our government to provide housing for people and its attacking of school budgets" and that "people should turn their anger towards Conservative austerity instead". As to leaving the EU, he added that "If we leave as a country, exactly the same arguments are going to be made about housing, about jobs, about social security. All those issues are going to be the same on Friday as they are on Thursday". In other words there was really not much to choose between the two camps He continued: "The only thing is Not half-hearted, in fact, just half-realistic. It is also important to mention that Corbyn consistently refused to share a platform with Cameron during the Remain campaign. This is probably one reason why he faced a worse-than-usual barrage of insults from Tory benches and Cameron himself in the Commons after the result. But the same principle was not adhered to by Labour "Leavers"... While 10 Labour MPs supported Leave, the "Labour Leave" campaign itself comprised 8 of them. But already in January this year with the launch of the so-called Grassroots Out (GO for short) several pro-leave Labour MPs happily sat aside Tory MP Liam Fox, Nigel Farage from Ukip, Democratic Unionist Sammy Wilson among others in a joint platform As the saying goes "by their friends shall ye know them". Besides, it is worth noting that these rebels were going against the Labour Party's line. Yet it is Corbyn, not they, who came and still come, under fire. This is how the opportunistic Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, Gisela Stuart, the chair of Labour Leave, played the anti-migrant card: "The In campaign have no answers how we can control immigration if we stay in the EU. They have no plan for how we will fund the NHS so it can cope with the extra pressures that staying in the EU will create. They have no plan for where we will build the extra houses and they have no plan to help people who will see further pressure on their pay packets. The only way to get a fairer immigration policy and bring in an Australian style points-based system is to vote Leave on June 23." What is the difference between this and the arguments of Ukip's Nigel Farage The Labour Leave group included the bizarre and somewhat crazy libertarian Kate Hoey, MP for Vauxhall, who claimed leaving the "fascist" EU would be a "left-wing" move, (like some British far-left groups). In the end, her constituents begged to differ The fact of the matter is that Jeremy Corbyn has never had the political support of the Parliamentary Labour Party. He would never have received the 35 nominations needed last year if hostile MPs like Margaret Beckett and Frank Field had not nominated him "for the sake of the contest" It was only a matter of time before these MPs would try to scalp him. Everything about him upset them. From his plain dress, habit of not wearing a tie, his mild, understated ways, to his references to soft, Bennite "socialism". (Never mind that the media calls the poor man "hard" left!). These traits were (and are) an embarrassment to them, and ironically, especially to Hilary Benn, who was sacked by Corbyn after Benn telephoned him on the 26th June, just after the Brexit vote, to tell him he must resign and make way for someone like Angela Eagle who can "win" an election for Labour... Hilary Benn is certainly the true son of his father According to him, Corbyn was opting for "appeasement" of ISIL, and in fact he almost brought the equally ignorant House down, so delighted were MPs on both sides, with his latter-day jingoism. No matter that this parallel between ISIL Misfit Corbyn has been a target not only of Cameron, who has consistently tried to humiliate him in the Commons with schoolboy insults, but also by a majority in the PLP. His unexpected (even by him) clear majority win in the leadership election last September thanks to OMOV (One Member, One Vote) was a real blow to them. It is worth recalling how this works because they could quite possibly try to tinker with it at the next party conference so as to avoid such an aberration in the future. One Member One Vote was brought in by Ed Miliband But Milliband's reform in 2014 was not really about democracy. It was his reaction against being branded as the trade unions' man. It was aimed at diluting the trade union college, by only giving a vote to trade union members from affiliated unions who joined individually as associate members. This associate membership was also extended to the general public creating a new category of registered members, with the idea of even further diluting the trade unionist vote. Thus, OMOV. The vote of an ordinary member was now equal to that of an MP. The cost of membership being just £3, left-wingers found they could recruit easily All of this only goes to show that the post-EU-referendum no-confidence motion signed by 172 out of 231 Labour MPs on the 28th June, calling on Corbyn to resign forthwith, should, in itself, have been no surprise. That the deed was done In the eyes of Labour's supporters, MPs should surely have been making the most of the mayhem in the Tory party, precipitated by Cameron's sudden resignation and the subsequent fight for leadership between the pro-and anti-EU Tory factions. Instead, the PLP was creating its own, far worse, mayhem. But never mind, political careers certainly take priority over politics for these parliamentarians. For sure, the anti-Corbyn MPs Indeed, a general election at this time could have put MPs in big trouble, as exemplified by the decision of Wallasey constituency of Liverpool to petition to get rid of their MP, the right-winger, Angela Eagle, and a prime instigator of the anti-Corbyn coup. She resigned from her shadow cabinet business position and immediately pushed herself forward as the "strong leader" Labour needed! At the time of writing, Eagle is pursuing her challenge to take the leadership from Corbyn A quick leadership coup was thus needed, in the first instance, to prevent constituency parties from organising support for Corbyn among ordinary members. But it seems the protagonists against Corbyn may already have waited too long. Within two weeks of their no-confidence motion, over 100,000 new members were signed up, pushing Labour Party membership over the 500,000 mark! This time, however, both pro- and anti-Corbyn factions are claiming the new members for their own, even if, in reality, most have rallied in order to protect Corbyn from "the Eagle" and her fellow predators. The only problem is that they cannot vote in a leadership contest until they have been members for 3 months... A measure of how desperate these Labour MPs are to protect their own seats is the fact that they decided to go as far as risking a split in the party. And naturally, they are using the threat of a split to further blackmail Corbyn into resigning Another factor in this haste to stick the knife in, by the Blairites in particular, was the immanent publication of the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war This report was going to remind everybody of "B" liar Tony Blair's worst legacy It was quite incredible to see how the Labour machine sprang into action to try to get Corbyn to go as quickly as possible! By the 28th of June, 40 of his frontbench team (the shadow cabinet) had resigned, claiming that he could not possibly win a general election for them. And then a further number among those who were appointed to replace them resigned too, once briefed by Corbyn's would-be assassins. "Resign now" sang the loud chorus and louder whispers were circulated as to his "minders" (like former Guardian columnist Seumas Milne) not allowing anyone to go near him, including Tom Watson, his deputy. As far as these anti-Corbynites were concerned, Corbyn should under no circumstances be in the Commons on the day Chilcot came out, because he was among the very few politicians whose record on this issue was unblemished and could thus, very credibly, take the high moral ground. Corbyn had been against the Iraq war. He was also against British military intervention in Libya and after becoming leader, in Syria, sticking to his position against the arrogant betrayal of his own shadow cabinet So Corbyn's contribution over Chilcot, on the contrary, could only increase his political stature, if only by demonstrating his greater consistency and integrity. It would potentially be "his" day. And of course this is precisely what happened. He proceeded to make a very strong, speech against Blair's decision to go to war, against the war itself, and against its consequences, correctly identifying this catastrophe as giving birth to ISIL. In a meeting immediately afterwards attended by victims of this war he apologised for the action of his party and more importantly He thus fended off the latest attempt to get rid of him. He said he was "not going anywhere" and he has not gone. Yet. One person who played a big part in this attempt at a coup (mocked in the media as a "chicken coup") against Corbyn, is Neil Kinnock, Labour grandee, now Baron Kinnock, and in the House of Lords since 2005. Famous for his successful witch-hunt against left-wing entrists in the Labour party in the 1980s This miscalculation was a product of his egotism; Kinnock never had much insight as to his own failings and his unpopularity. So objectively, the man was and is, a bit of a buffoon. But of course, his right-wing anti-working class stance and later support for Blair has meant he is often hauled out by the media to comment and to set the tone of debates. This time it seems quite appropriate that the man who the grassroots had no time for at all, should be the one to tell Corbyn, whose grassroots support remains overwhelming, what he should do. After all, the world is upside down. Accordingly, after the referendum result, Kinnock became the unofficial spokesperson of the coup attempt by pro-Trident Blair admirer, Angela Eagle. She tearfully resigned on 27th June from Corbyn's frontbench, explaining that she really didn't want to, but that Corbyn really should listen to her and others in the PLP and stand down himself, because unlike herself, he just didn't have the right qualities or grassroots support to win the next election for Labour. That said, for several days various potential new leaders then stuck their heads up, while Kinnock waved the Labour Party rulebook, citing the fact that anyone entering a new leadership race had to have at least 20% of the Labour MPs' and MEPs' support. If only the PLP was taken into account, Corbyn had 23% Of course, if the polls are right, even if Corbyn heeded their calls and then decided to stand again, he would be likely to win, because he retains the grassroots majority on his side. Even workers who are not enthusiastic about him still support him for lack of anyone better. Anyway, despite being besieged daily by the media and the PLP, Corbyn has not budged. In the first Prime Minister's Questions after the referendum, he was even told by Cameron But Corbyn's grassroots supporters have continued to rally round, staging demonstrations and meetings and telling him to "hang on in there". That said, many of the activists involved in organising these rallies come from the far-left around groups like the SWP and its Counterfire twin, Peoples' Assembly, Socialist Party, CPB, etc. This is apart from the "party within a party" known as "Momentum" which, according to the media is run by "hard left" Trotskyists and the like. No wonder Baron Kinnock is so upset For the duration of the discussions around Chilcot, the bids for a new leader died down That was not how it worked out. The only compromise the PLP spokespersons would accept was Corbyn's resignation. So while Corbyn was away in Durham addressing the annual Miners' Gala, Tom Watson, his always ambivalent and self-serving deputy leader walked out of the talks with McCluskey. At the time of writing, the situation is back to square one However, there is a question mark over this: apparently last November after the shock the PLP got when Corbyn became their leader, some MPs sought legal advice, which suggested that a sitting leader would need to receive at least 50 nominations from MPs and MEPs in order to stand again. This happened in 1988, when Neil Kinnock himself was challenged by Tony Benn. Kinnock had to be endorsed by members of the PLP in order to get on the ballot Angela Eagle may well also capitalise on the fact that Cameron has decided to call for a vote on Trident renewal before the parliamentary summer recess. Given that disarmament, whether multi- or unilateral is an unpopular minority cause in Westminster and in the trade union machineries, it is likely that Corbyn will not come out of this debate well. All the more so, since last year at Labour Party conference he bottled out of insisting upon a decision to amend Labour Party policy to opposing Trident renewal. He has already stated that he will allow a "free vote" on this. But whatever Labour MPs do in the end, whether they vote for Trident, change the internal party voting system, rewrite the rule book, or whatever, they will not give up until they have purged the party of Corbyn and his supporters. Only time will tell whether this will result in a split in the party, or not. But that is certainly not Corbyn's wish. On the other hand, if the Corbynistas, as some call them, are really genuine in their belief in "democratic socialism", they hardly belong in such a party. Where is the space for any kind of left reformism in a society in the grip of declining and decrepit capitalism? And given that the political system is a mere reflection of the social and economic system, it too, can only be degenerate. As such, its politicians, have shown time and again, just how degenerate they are As for those who want to see real social and political change, it is time they took a reality check and buckled down to building a party which represents the interests of the only class in society with a future Yes, a "disjunct" exists between the "political class" and the exploited working class Unfortunately, in the absence of an alternative, Corbyn and his supporters have managed to rebuild illusions in Labour's version of reformism 10 July 2016Only 75% in favour...
Strange fruits
They were just biding their time
They go in for the kill, but misfire
Blood on their hands then
As the pot said to the kettle...
A New, New Labour?