By Max Musson:
Most people from all political persuasions are both surprised and bemused by the election of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party, not knowing quite what to think.
There are those members of the public who are of a more radical left-wing persuasion who will no doubt be rather pleased by Corbyn’s success and the prospect of being able to vote for a decidedly left-wing prime ministerial candidate at the next general election, although the brighter ones will no doubt be asking themselves how such a prospect came to drop in their laps so suddenly, and so unexpectedly?
Furthermore, those of us who have for some time watched the ways in which electoral politics is so often cynically manipulated by political power brokers and the mass media will be asking much the same question but from a distinctly different perspective.
Jeremy Corbyn has been a Labour Member of Parliament (MP) at Westminster for more than thirty years, but he has not been in any sense a prominent politician, playing any kind of leading role, and in fact, prior to his recent nomination as a candidate in the Labour Party leadership contest, he was virtually never mentioned in the news and was regarded by most Labour Party members and supporters as a marginalised character of little consequence. How is it then that this apparent nonentity has suddenly been catapulted from obscurity into one of the highest profile positions in British politics?
For some years now the political establishment have been increasingly aware of a declining public interest in politics, as has been indicated by falling political party memberships and falling turn-outs at election time. There has been a growing realisation that increasingly, members of the public have come to regard all of the establishment political parties and politicians as so similar that it is difficult to differentiate between them and therefore difficult to maintain any real enthusiasm for any of them. There has been a growing perception that all politicians are self-seeking and career driven — more interested in occupying lucrative political positions and exercising political power for the benefit of themselves and generous party donors, than in serving the interests of our nation.
When Tony Blair resigned the leadership of the Labour Party in 2007, there was already a perception that some of the ‘chickens’ from his foreign policy exploits; from his drive to privatise public services; and from his ‘demographic vandalism’, were already starting to ‘come home to roost’.
During the late 1990s and the decade that followed, Blair and to a lesser extent Gordon Brown had initiated a major departure from traditional left-wing Labour policies, moving the party to what media pundits like to believe is the ‘centre-ground’ of British politics – effectively out-Torying the Tories – and establishing ‘New Labour’, which later came to be seen as ‘Blue Labour’.
Once the public began to see through Blair’s naked ‘snake-oil salesmanship’ however, Blair had effectively ‘queered the pitch’ for those who were to follow and so when he vacated the Labour leadership in favour of Gordon Brown, it was something of a poisoned chalice and Brown predictably lost the 2010 general election.
When Ed Miliband then won the subsequent Labour leadership contest, pushing aside his brother David who had been the favourite to win, it was as the result of a growing reaction within the Labour Party against the Blairite and Brownite New Labour project — a reaction largely driven by the largest trade unions, who were beginning to reassert themselves and replace Lord Levy’s predominantly Jewish business friends as the Labour Party’s most influential donors. It was also a reaction in response to the jaded public opinion that I have already described.
However, while his policies were a little more in keeping with ‘traditional’ left-wing Labour thinking, Ed Miliband was such a poor prime-ministerial candidate that he blew his golden chance to make his mark in British politics in the general election earlier this year. Not only had Miliband moved slightly off the ‘centre-ground’ that the media and our political elite like the winning party to occupy — one of liberal-conservatism, come social-democracy — but his ‘alien’ appearance and geeky demeanour did little to endear him to the British public either.
Although he had been the eventual beneficiary of the previous Labour Party leadership election process, in which there was an ‘electoral college’, in which 33⅓rd of the vote was reserved for each of: the party members; the elected MPs and MEPs; and the trade unions, Miliband was cognisant of the resentment felt by many Labour MPs, that the unions had too much influence and in 2014, in keeping with the Collins Report into this issue, he introduced reforms including a new process for electing the party leader giving one vote per member of the party.
What no-one within the parliamentary Labour Party ostensibly appears to have realised however, is that in moving to diminish the future influence of the trades unions, the recommendations of the Collins Report would also remove the 33⅓rd of the vote reserved for MPs and MEPs, placing the destiny of the party entirely in the hands of its individual members and activists, many of whom are enthusiastic trades unionists and Labour’s most traditionally minded left-wingers.
A move designed to emasculate union influence over the Labour Party and to reduce the possibility of radical elements saddling the parliamentary party with a too extreme, ‘lame-duck’, leader appears to have produced the opposite effect.
It is claimed that Jeremy Corbyn was only nominated as a leadership candidate by his parliamentary colleagues in order to create the impression that party members had a wide range of choice of candidates, but as a consequence of the three largest trade unions throwing their support behind the most decidedly ‘old Labour’ candidate, Corbyn was transformed from rank outsider, to hot favourite and as we know, much to the apparent horror of the establishment and the parliamentary Labour Party, he has now been elected Labour Party leader.
When I first heard news that Corbyn was the front runner in the leadership election, I was rather suspicious. I am always suspicious when previously obscure individuals are suddenly catapulted from nowhere into the leadership of one of the main establishment political parties. Tony Blair was catapulted from obscurity — albeit with different window dressing — and so was David Cameron, and both of these men have been shown to have been men ‘cut from the same cloth’ — smooth-talking, ‘snake oil salesmen’ who can fake sincerity until the cows come home. Clearly, Blair and Cameron are establishment insiders and I was suspicious that Corbyn might be also. However, after much searching, and in light of the evident hostility towards Corbyn emanating from certain quarters, I am inclined to conclude that Corbyn probably is an establishment outsider, over whom our political elite fear they may have little or no influence.
This does not mean however that I regard Corbyn as any less dangerous regarding the welfare and future survival of the British people, far from it, but he is a new element that serendipity has thrown into the mix.
There has been a mixed response from the media to Jeremy Corbyn and his team, with the traditional Tory supporting newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, together with the UKIP supporting Express and most of the television channels featuring fairly caustic accounts of everything he does, criticising his appearance, his dress sense, and digging up stories of things he said an did many years ago.
Interestingly, one of the most vitriolic sources of attack upon Jeremy Corbyn has come from Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, in an article on the Daily Mail website, entitled, “Enemies of Britain… but friends of Corbyn: How new Labour leader appears to hate this country”. In this article, Pollard states, “It has become a cliche to say that Jeremy Corbyn is not fit to be the leader of the Labour Party …
“But it’s worse than that. He is barely fit to be an MP. Corbyn doesn’t just hate America, Nato and the West. He appears to hate Britain itself …
“Some things are beyond parody. And one of them is now leading the Labour Party.”
Few of the general criticisms levelled at Corbyn by Pollard, however, could not also be levelled at most other prominent Labour Party politicians. In earlier articles also published in the Mail, Pollard derided all of the potential candidates for the Labour Party leadership, declaring “Burnham’s a joke, Yvette’s a whimper: Labour’s hopefuls are a hopeless bunch”, and that “… after 115 years, the [Labour] Party’s over!”
The one specific criticism, which in the eyes of organised Jewry clearly separated Jeremy Corbyn from the other Labour Party leadership contestants, and which separates him from past Labour Party leaders, is Corbyn’s past association with certain advocates for Arab and Palestinian causes who have been described as anti-Semitic or as Holocaust deniers, and it is clear that this one issue overrides all other considerations in the eyes of many Jews. The Jewish Chronicle presented Jeremy Corbyn with seven questions recently to which they demanded a reply, which Jeremy Corbyn endeavored to answer, however despite a number of Jewish activists within the Labour Party stating their support for Corbyn, Stephen Pollard and his staff do not appear to have been placated.
The Jewish Chronicle have even gone to the extent of commissioning an opinion poll of British Jews in order to establish their views regarding Jeremy Corbyn and interestingly, while the poll results showed that 67% of Jews are concerned by the prospect of Corbyn as Labour leader, the poll also revealed that when Jews hear politicians describe themselves as ‘anti-Zionist’, 44% of Jews stated that they ‘always’ assume the politician is actually ‘anti-Jewish’; a further 27% stated that they ‘often’ make that assumption; and a further 19% said ‘sometimes’.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Jeremy Corbyn’s views and the impact they have upon the writers for and viewers of the Jewish Chronicle, it is clear that Corbyn can be differentiated from political leaders like Blair and Cameron, who have in the past been catapulted from obscurity, in that he does not appear to have the financial support and sponsorship of a cabal of prominent Jews, and appears to have attained the position of leader of the Labour Party without overt support from such a source.
While it will be interesting to see how this situation plays out, it would be wrong for us to assume as I have already stated, that Jeremy Corbyn is likely to be significantly better for Britain and the British people should he ever be elected prime minister. Some of Corbyn’s aims such as the re-nationalising of our utilities industries and our railways and the use of printed banknotes rather than the issue of loan stocks to finance public works may elicit approval from most nationalists, and are a step in the right direction, but a Corbyn government would in addition to a continuation of open door immigration and the promotion of multiracialism and multiculturalism; give us more political correctness; run down our armed forces to even more laughably inadequate levels than they have reached already; create a bonanza for benefits claimants; abolish private medicine; keep us in the European Union (it is a Marxist entity after-all); and would facilitate the break-up of the United Kingdom, granting Scottish independence and the cessation of Ulster to a united Ireland.
So, how should we White nationalists view the Corbyn phenomenon?
Ostensibly, it would appear that Corbyn’s attainment of the Labour leadership is to some extent the result of the result of serendipity of misadventure, depending upon which way you view it. I am always reluctant however to accept a version of events that does not involve scheming on the part of somebody. I am reminded of the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt when he said, “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
I cannot believe that in drawing up the new rules for the election of Labour Party leaders, no-one realised that this would play into the hands of the unions rather than limit their influence, and if we look to see who drafted and first recommended the changes, it was Ray Collins, Baron Collins of Highbury, a man who was until his appointment as General Secretary of the Labour Party in 2008, the Central Office Manager of the Transport & General Workers Union, a position he had held for twenty-four years. Furthermore, Collins’ recommendations were accepted and sold to the parliamentary Labour Party in part by Ed Miliband, a man who owed his own ascent to the Labour Party leadership to the support he had received from the trade unions.
Most interesting however is that Tony Blair gave his strong personal backing to Ed Miliband’s internal Labour reforms when they were introduced in February 2014, and while Tony Blair may be many things, I don’t think he is a fool. Therefore, despite Blair’s high profile denunciation of Corbyn during the leadership election, one can only assume that he was aware of the consequences of the changes introduced with his blessing.
In fact, Tony Blair must have known of the yearning among grass roots Labour activists and trade unionists for a authentic, hard-left, ‘Old Labour’ leader for the party, and he must have been aware of the great loathing with which he is regarded by those same rank and file Labour members. Surely he will have known that his denunciation of Corbyn would have the opposite effect of that which one would expect if taken at face value. Far from dissuading Labour Party activists from voting for Corbyn, Blair’s plea would have them queuing up to support Corbyn, which is precisely what happened.
With the election of Corbyn as Labour leader there is considerable disquiet among the MPs and MEPs of the parliamentary Labour Party and there have been rumours that this unhappy situation could end with a split in the Labour Party and with a sizeable number of their MPs leaving the party and either standing as independents, or joining the Liberal Democrats in a repeat of the ‘Gang of Four’ defection of the 1980s.
The effect this would have on British politics is quite interesting in that we would then have establishment political parties as follows, from political right to left: UKIP, led by authentic conservative leader, Nigel Farage; The Conservative Party, a liberal-conservative party, led by David Cameron; the newly renamed Social-Democrats (LibDems plus Labour defectors) , led by Nick Clegg or some Blairite placeman; and the Labour Party, led by an authentic socialist leader, Jeremy Corbyn with the support of the SNP led by Nichola Sturgeon.
The effect of this would be to reduce to the minimum the possibility of any one party having an overall majority in the future. It would almost guarantee perpetual coalition politics in future, along the lines of most other European Union member states, a situation that prevents strong national government and which would prevent any likelihood of a maverick member state ever leaving the union.
A further effect would be to create the illusion of choice in elections between decidedly ‘right-wing’ characters such as Farage, and decidely left-wing characters such as Corbyn and Sturgeon, with more moderate ‘left/right of centre’ parties led by the likes of Cameron and Clegg. There would be the illusion of choice with which to keep the ‘punters’ happy, while at the same time, no one party would ever be able to take decisive action and all parties would consequently be forced to defer to the EU over major policy issues.
By Max Musson © 2015
# # # #