Success in politics in my opinion should boil down to three key elements. Firstly, a successful politician has a genuine, passionate desire to change society for the better, whether that be at a local level as a ward councillor or at a national level as an MP and whether that be as a member of a political party or as an independent. Secondly, a successful politician has at least a handful of ideas that they have analysed meticulously to determine that there is a reasonable of implementing those ideas should they find themselves elected into office (or they can at least advocate for when in opposition). Finally and most significantly in my view, a successful politician manages to engage with a diverse section of the electorate and imbue them with a sense of confidence and hope. I don't think it can be said of Jeremy Corbyn that he lacks any of these three elements (he has the third one in abundance). Listening to Corbyn's keynote speech on BBC Parliament I couldn't help but notice the strength of passion that he inspires in the majority of Labour party delegates; they genuinely believe that Labour, under Corbyn's leadership, can deliver the policies that will lift the spirit and improve the living and working conditions of the majority of UK residents. The slogan "For The Many, Not The Few" is far from meaningless for the Corbyn Crowd. I'm not someone who could be deemed a socialist and I certainly do not fashion myself out to be a socialist but even I cannot deny that the confident and positive spirit of the Labour party currently didn't have at least some impact on my voting decision back in the general election of June 2017 (although I must confess that I voted Labour to oust the Tory Super Brexicheerleader Karl McCartney and take the smug grin off his expenses guzzling face). So I listened to Corbyn's speech with much interest, so I could see what extra policies Labour will offer to voters should an snap general election be called before the Spring 2018 Conference (highly unlikely but you know the old adage, "fail to prepare, prepare to fail" still rings true regardless of the political party).
The picture that Corbyn paints of "Broken Britain" is a dispiriting one but sadly it is the reality for millions of people. The Conservative government who seem to have dedicated themselves to achieving Brexit "at any cost" and the in-fighting that has ensued following the weakening of PM May's position as a result of the General Election has meant that there have been few bold policy announcements. We need to address structural concerns, especially those relating to Housing and the delivery of sustainable and exceptional public services. The fact that PM May remains so stubbornly opposed to lifting of the 1% public sector pay cap, deciding to only do so for Prison and Police Officers has made her and the Tories deeply unpopular amongst entry level public service workers, many of whom are young or who have returned to work following a career break, injury or having overcome/learned to cope with mental health issues. As Corbyn noted in his speech: "20,000 police officers......and 11,000 firefighters" have lost their jobs since 2010, NHS waiting lists have been lengthened and homelessness has doubled, all under the Tories watch and all resulting from an ill-thought out anti-austerity agenda that penalises those who are the most vulnerable in our society whilst at the same time providing tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires who neither needed them or really asked for them. Whilst political parties do need to craft business-friendly policies (and I think that Labour needs to promote their business policies such as creating Regional Development and National Investment Banks to help encourage a spirit of entrepreneurship based on sustainability) there has to be sufficient balance; I still remain unconvinced that the Tory decision to slash Corporation Tax down to 17% by 2020 was the right decision to make back in 2016. Yes Britain must appear "competitive" so that business owners feel satisfied enough to want to expand their business and then offer jobs and apprenticeships but will the Corporation Tax cut really encourage more businesses to trade or invest in the UK, even post-Brexit?
Perhaps a Labour take on the Industrial Strategy where an Industrial Strategy will be created for each region as well as the establishment of Regional Development Banks will help to rebalance the economy; as Rebecca Long-Bailey pointed out in her speech, "40% of our economic output comes from London and the South East" currently and that means "we are the most regionally imbalanced economy in Europe". This has happened under the Tories' watch and yet they are deemed the party of economic competence. #SuperLOL.
Corbyn is right to ask for closer examination of automation to make sure that benefits of automation are "publicly managed- to share the benefits" so they can be "the gateway for a settlement between work and leisure". Corbyn also mentioned in his speech the need for investment in retraining and foster a sense of pride in lifelong learning so that we can respond to the challenges that we will face as a result of increased automation. Finally, Corbyn highlighted the 2017 manifesto commitment that Labour would establish a £250bn National Transformation Fund which will allow homes to be built as well as improving transport, energy and digital infrastructure. If only the mainstream media wanted to spend more time speaking to Ms Long-Bailey about such policies rather than bashing Corbyn based on antiquated stereotypes about socialism and denigrating all Momentum members?
Speaking of the mainstream media (MSM) outlets...Corbyn's criticism was rather scathing.
Yes Corbyn's statements reminded me a bit of Trump's speeches in the sense that like Trump, Corbyn has detected a genuine level of distrust in certain sections of the electorate of the MSM because they feel that they have been reporting in a biased manner. Research released back in January 2017 (The Edelman Trust Barometer) found that 53% of respondents did not trust the Government or Media and 59% "trusted search engines as an information tool rather than traditional news editors" (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/distrust-government-business-media-ngos-lack-of-trust-report-2017-trust-barometer-edelman-a7529261.html). I tend to use Google to research and follow-up on news stories I've heard via social media or on BBC News but there are many who believe that the BBC has rescinded its objectivity and become a "Tory mouthpiece". You only have to follow the Newsnight and BBC Question Time Twitter handles to see such expressions of distrust (from the right as well as the left I might add) on a daily/weekly basis. Corbyn said that the MSM including The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express and The Daily Telegraph ran a smear campaign against him and Labour which was orchestrated in order to please "their tax exile owners". Referring to The Daily Fail, Corbyn declared that "never had so many trees died in vain" as a result of the paper dedicating 11 pages to trash his campaign. Perhaps the era of the newspaper's opinion reporting dominating political thought is coming to an end; social media has democratized politicking to a large extent and I can't help but contend that having a plethora of tweeters and bloggers to refer to on political issues is a good development because it allows people from a range of social backgrounds and with a wide range of life experiences to have their say. However, I'm not entirely sure that waging battle against media bias on the right would win Corbyn many extra voters (who may usually vote Conservative but like bold policy platforms) and it certainly won't get the likes of Daily Fail or Breitbart Brainfart to change their minds about him. The only way Corbyn will do that is to continue developing his policy platform, including talking about the need for and benefits of a plurality of media whilst defending freedom of the press.
A key theme in the speech concerned the need for Labour to help "protect democracy". Corbyn identified two threats: "the emergence of an authoritarian nationalism that is intolerant and belligerent" and allowing "big decisions to be left to the elite". Corbyn understands that politicians can't expect to win voters to their cause just by lavishing 15 seconds of attention on them come election time. Instead, there has to be more of a conscious effort to listen to those who are trying to use their voice to fight social injustices and raise awareness of difficult issues. This includes social workers, sexual health workers and young people "especially working class young women" who were not believed when they disclosed to local police officers that they had been sexually and/or physically and/or emotionally abused. Increasing public accountability and encouraging further transparency from our public services is important but equally "making sure that everybody's voice is heard no matter who they are or what their background". If you are a young working class disabled person who has faced cuts to your disability benefits which has meant you can no longer afford to enjoy a decent standard of living because you have to make a choice between putting money in the electricity meter for two days or buying two days worth of food, you should be listened to by those who lead extremely comfortable lives. Then perhaps they may understand why Tory policy has been so incredibly damaging and why the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) needs to be incorporated into law and the 60 recommendations of the Report produced by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (including ensuring that mainstream schools provide "real inclusion" for disabled children which is required by Article 24 of the CRPD rather than increasing the number of segregated special schools and ensuring that disabled people have the funds and resources they need to live independently at home) and the Lords Select Committee report enacted as soon as possible. It's not right that disabled people are being "totally neglected" by this Government. And I want the next Government to do something concrete and radical about this neglect.
I was really impressed that Corbyn demonstrated true compassion and respect towards Grenfell Tower fire survivors in the speech, including praising the Grenfell Action Group who tried to warn their former landlords, Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation that a "catastrophic event" may occur because of their "ineptitude and incompetence" and mentioning the poem by Ben Okri, written just after the Grenfell Tower fire. Corbyn is right when he says that "a decent home is a right for everyone whatever their income or background". 120,000 children are homeless. Almost one million people who are renting their home "are in immediate danger of being made homeless as a result of the housing benefit cap" according to data recently released from Shelter (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/07/hammond-benefit-cap-homelessness-budget-housing). Action needs to be taken to prevent those renters from being evicted through no fault of their own. That means scrapping the housing benefit cap and reducing the time taken to receive housing benefit payments when claimants go onto Universal Credit (UC). A 6 week wait for benefits is too long. An advance payment may not be enough to cover the rent. Processing time needs to be reduced by half. To do that, the administrative system needs to be reviewed for effectiveness. The UC rollout should be halted whilst that review is undertaken. Yet PM May doesn't seem to care. There's no indication that UC will be reviewed let alone halted. Shame on her and shame on her Government.
Homes need to be safe, secure and fit for human habitation. I welcome the fact that Labour will be undertaking a review into its social housing policy: "We will listen to tenants across the country and propose a radical programme of action to next year's conference". Corbyn recognised the need to bring in housing regulation that will protect tenants in the future by bringing in rent controls and ensure that all tenants will be rehoused locally during the estate regeneration process. Tenants will also get a say on whether a regeneration project will go ahead (through a ballot) and must be given a home on the same site. Now of course some housing developers would be angry at such a policy (especially the ones who hope to be an exorbitant profit from the regeneration scheme) but we need to ensure that the number of affordable housing within an area does not drop further. Rent controls may sound draconian to some but have been successfully used in a number of cities, including Dublin, which introduced a 4% limit on the annual increase in rent in October 2016. I could see an issue of confidence occurring amongst developers and landlords if the rent control allowed for a freeze on prices across the board but a rent cap on increases is sensible and an example of a bold policy that puts the basic need for tenants to have a safe, secure, habitable home over the need for housing developers and landlords to make a profit. There should also continue to be a commitment to providing tenants in the private rental sector and social housing sector with access to longer, more secure tenancies.
I thought Corbyn recommiting Labour to a policy to tax undeveloped land held by developers for too long (landbanking) and to give councils the power to compulsorily purchase that land back was an interesting one, provided that the money raised from such tax would be put back directly into local council amenity services such as rubbish collections or the running of swimming pools, that the price paid for the land was fair to the taxpayer and that housing developments would commence within 6 months of the land having been repurchased.
Another great policy announced by Corbyn (that's now been adopted by Theresa May and the Tory Government) is to change the organ donation law in England (it was already changed in Wales in 2015) so that people are presumed to consent to having their organs donated after death unless they sign an opt-out register. For me as a Lutheran Christian, I believe that organ donation is one of the most selfless act of compassion a person can perform which follows in Jesus' vein. As Matthew 7:12 states: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law". The Lutheran Church passed a resolution in 1984 which stated that "donation contributes to the well-being of humanity and can be an expression of sacrificial love for a neighbour in need" (http://www.donorrecovery.org/learn/religion-and-organ-donation/). There will be some of course who are afraid to donate because it may affect their own health or because they think they can be cryogenically frozen and then come back when death has been eradicated but I feel that the opt-out rate will be extremely low and that means there will be a greater number of organs made available on the transplant list.
I also believe that our foreign policy must be one with human rights and compassion at its heart. Corbyn was quite right to call out Aung San Sui Kyi for not taking action to help aid the violence against Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State and completely agree with his plea for her to "allow the UN and international aid agencies" entry into the state to help alleviate their suffering. We need to stop the flow of arms to Saudi Arabia so they cannot use weapons made in this country in Yemen and the UK does need to support the establishment of a new state of Palestine as a way of trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, with a condemnation of illegal settlements and discrimination against Palestinians as well as maintaining a friendly relationship with Israel and fighting against the rise of Anti-Semitism in the UK and abroad. There are those who wish Corbyn had been clearer about the need to fight Anti-Semitism in his speech but it was good that Corbyn did state there needed to be a zero-tolerance approach to abuse in the Labour Party: "Yes we will disagree, but there can never be any excuse for any abuse of anybody".
Brexit:
There remains (unfortunately) one policy area where it seems I may disagree with Corbyn to an extent; that is (quite predictably) Brexit. Let's start with the positives. I agree with Corbyn's critique of the Tory negotiating team (I too have started to see them as "hopelessly inept" and "posturing for personal advantage" rather than acting in the national interest). I am grateful for a change in direction regarding the nature of the transitional deal; it makes perfect sense to remain in the Single Market and Customs Union whilst British businesses and organisations prepare for trading outside the Single Market and Customs Union as that's what PM May and her Brexshiteers want to happen but it seems PM May is now willing to accept a "status quo" transitional deal to avoid a cliffedge situation economically which she suggests should be for 2 years whereas Corbyn doesn't specify the length of time necessary. I am pleased that Corbyn has reiterated his plea for PM May to guarantee the rights of ALL 3.2 million EU citizens living in the UK including the right to stay and work here. I agree with Corbyn that the UK should not become a bargain basement "low wage", deregulated tax haven for millionaires and billionaires.
That being said, I remain unconvinced by the suggestion being put forward by Lexiteers that Britain's future remains brighter without membership of the EU- that a progressive Brexit is needed to implement a new Industrial Strategy. I've seen no comprehensive evidence provided by the Leave side to back up such a claim. I can sympathise with the need for a bold Industrial Strategy and yes, I can understand the desire to ensure that if Brexit happens, any funds that are saved as a result of no longer being a member of the EU should be spent on improving the lives of ordinary people- it's akin to all other Corbynite promises. I am sure that there would be an attempt by Labour to ensure that employers respected the rights of migrant workers post-Brexit and take action to stop undercutting of pay and any pandering to racism or xenophobia. Yet I really am not convinced by the arguments that have been advanced by Lexiteers that leaving the EU can be a progressive dream. The comment Corbyn made that Labour is "the only party that brings together Leave and Remain voters" is an extremely bold one to make. Whilst it is true that Labour did manage to secure votes from both Leave and Remain voters back in June, I can say from my own experience that my final decision to vote for Labour was predominantly because of anti-austerity policies and a fear of an implementation of a
Tory Hard Brexit and the hope that there may have been a more significant change in direction regarding Brexit rather than voting for a "progressive Brexit". I'd personally love to see Labour throw its weight behind a referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal as is currently being offered by the Lib Dems and the Greens, with 16 and 17 year olds, EU citizens resident in the UK and British citizens resident overseas all getting a chance to have their very important say. As I have previously pointed out, a recent Survation poll found that 52% of respondents now favour the possibility of participating in such a referendum, which is up from 50% two months beforehand. Labour should certainly be monitoring such polls to see whether support increases beyond the 55-60% mark and then consider making an adjustment to their Brexit policy as a result of a demonstrable change in opinion.
It appears that Labour will not back a referendum under any circumstances and instead will rely on Sir Keir Starmer's tests for the Brexit deal to decide whether to accept or reject it. As of yet I am still unsure of what Labour would do in the event of MPs rejecting the Brexit deal; this may be because Labour MPs may be so afraid of the UK leaving without any deal that they will accept the Tory one being offered on the table. I certainly don't agree with PM May's assertion that "no deal is better than a bad deal" but I am equally uncomfortable with Labour MPs potentially waving a deal through and then hoping they get a chance to try and amend the deal prior to the end of the transitional deal by winning a snap election in early 2019. For me, when it comes down to a choice of whether to deliver a deal based on some vague Brexit notion of "true Parliamentary sovereignty to control immigration" or safeguarding import and export opportunities within the Single Market by remaining permanently in the Single Market, the choice is very clear. I'd love to see Corbyn in the future actively on a policy to remain and reform the Single Market and Customs Union or perhaps, even more controversially, recommending to the British people that we remain in the EU following a positive result from a referendum on the terms of the deal.
It's certainly true that Remain voters such as myself have to be prepared for the possibility of the Tories implementing an Extreme Brexit (with trade based on World Trade Organisation rules) as a result of failing to secure a satisfactory deal from the EU. Should such an event occur, it's probable to assume that I'll be voting based on which party can prevent the country's structural problems from becoming any worse rather than voting on a "progressive Brexit vision".
Conclusion:
One of the most controversial comments made by Corbyn in the speech was that he believed that mainstream political opinion was shifting away from the centre ground towards an acceptance of a Labour form of socialism rather than Labour having moved towards the centre ground. I ran a Twitter poll on this (not that scientific I know) but the results demonstrated how stark the divide is: when asked "Do you agree with Corbyn that Labour is now the mainstream in British politics?" 46% agreed, 45% disagreed and 4% were not sure. 46% is not really a decisive figure by any means and I think indicates to me that Corbyn still has work to do to convince voters that Labour's bold policy platform will be truly "for the many and not the few". I myself, as of yet, remain undecided as to how I would vote if a snap general election were called in the next few months. I may have voted Labour back in June but I can't say that I agree with the entirety of Labour's policy platform and I still wonder whether some of the policies are truly deliverable. I can understand a move towards renationalisation of the railways but I don't think all political energy and public money should be expended on chasing total renationalisation of all public utilities. The Government certainly won't be able to renationalise the majority of utilities services within a 5 year period, let alone renationalise the majority of railway networks. I completely agree with the reinstatement of university maintenance grants, training bursaries for nurses and the Educational Maintenance Allowance for sixth form and further education college students. It'd be amazing to abolish tuition fees in their entirety and make college courses free to all students regardless of their age or the type of course being studied but is such a policy truly deliverable over one 5 year term? Many voters want to see an end to PFI contracts but is it truly possible to pay off the existing debt within one 5 year term without borrowing vast sums of money to do it? I think Labour needs to prioritise and make clear which policies can be delivered within the first 5 year term of a Labour Government, drawing upon existing policy to do it. This could include banning fracking, reinstating EMA, university maintenance grants and nursing bursaries, lifting the 1% public pay cap, beginning the renationalisation process for the railways, introducing a Child Health Strategy and increasing the number of rural bus services. In terms of Labour's Brexit approach, if Labour moved towards permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union (perhaps as members of the European Economic Area and signatories of the European Free Trade Agreement) I may be more swayed to vote Labour. But then again, surely the best option for us would be to be able to help reform the Single Market and Customs Union and in order to do that, we would need a seat at the EU table, which means retaining membership of the EU. Corbyn has demonstrated no desire for that to happen and continues to use language akin to PM May about "unimpeded access" to the Single Market and Customs Union.
Whatever you may think of Jezza Corbyn, as a person, as a political figure and as a leader of a movement (well some believe he's only the leader of Momentum Labour Party members but actually Momentum members are individuals who decided to support Corbyn during and as a result of following his leadership campaign and not all of them have yet joined the Labour party and Momentum is not yet affiliated), Corbyn has injected a sense of energy into the Labour Party. He's imbued most Labour Party members with a sense of hope for a brighter future. There's an argument still to be had as to whether the future should be one completely outside the EU and there's still a level of disagreement over how deliverable some of the key policies on the platform would be, not least concerning renationalisation of public utilities and taking back ownership of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts and staff by bringing them back "in-house", with "shareholders compensated in the form of government bonds, exchanged for shares" (https://www.ft.com/content/0161cc52-a1e9-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2). I think Corbyn is sensible to state that Labour wouldn't sign any more PFI contracts but the cost of the compensation offered remains unclear (although the Nuffield Trust estimates it could be as high as £50bn).
Corbyn has the vision and a snazzy set of policies that will help address some of the UK's key issues. Now he has to continue to demonstrate economic competence by ensuring he keeps highlighting why borrowing to invest and slightly higher taxes on businesses is needed to help all regions of the UK and how Labour's existing policy platform will benefit rural voters. Labour only managed to win 30 out of 199 rural constituencies in the 2017 General Election. Whilst speaking out against foxhunting, promising to ban fracking and giving more powers and resources to local planning authorities are all good policies, Labour has to talk more about tackling rural crime, encouraging local authorities to keep streetlights on in villages and hamlets and about their radical policy to change funding formulas and business rate schemes to ensure rural local authorities get the help they need to maintain efficient public services. Labour mentioned in their manifesto that they will be "rural proofing" their laws, policies and programmes when they get into power yet this was not mentioned once by Corbyn in any of the national election debates. Labour mentioned in their manifesto they would require utility companies to "return roads to a condition no worse than when they started digging". Such a policy would be broadly popular with Lincolnshire constituents who want to see further investment in transport infrastructure which will ensure that pot holes etc are fixed long-term rather than just for a few months. If Labour shadow ministers and MPs can gear their conversations towards rural issues when interviewed, they will be able to promote such policies and may start convincing rural voters that Corbyn and Labour want to live up to their slogan. If Labour is going to be the "party of the many, not the few" and build on their electoral success, it's time to take account of rural voters with Corbyn visiting rural constituencies, taking an interest in rural tourism and farming and uniting the whole of the country through the ambitious policy platform. Then perhaps, Corbyn can say that his party is truly the political mainstream in the UK.
The picture that Corbyn paints of "Broken Britain" is a dispiriting one but sadly it is the reality for millions of people. The Conservative government who seem to have dedicated themselves to achieving Brexit "at any cost" and the in-fighting that has ensued following the weakening of PM May's position as a result of the General Election has meant that there have been few bold policy announcements. We need to address structural concerns, especially those relating to Housing and the delivery of sustainable and exceptional public services. The fact that PM May remains so stubbornly opposed to lifting of the 1% public sector pay cap, deciding to only do so for Prison and Police Officers has made her and the Tories deeply unpopular amongst entry level public service workers, many of whom are young or who have returned to work following a career break, injury or having overcome/learned to cope with mental health issues. As Corbyn noted in his speech: "20,000 police officers......and 11,000 firefighters" have lost their jobs since 2010, NHS waiting lists have been lengthened and homelessness has doubled, all under the Tories watch and all resulting from an ill-thought out anti-austerity agenda that penalises those who are the most vulnerable in our society whilst at the same time providing tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires who neither needed them or really asked for them. Whilst political parties do need to craft business-friendly policies (and I think that Labour needs to promote their business policies such as creating Regional Development and National Investment Banks to help encourage a spirit of entrepreneurship based on sustainability) there has to be sufficient balance; I still remain unconvinced that the Tory decision to slash Corporation Tax down to 17% by 2020 was the right decision to make back in 2016. Yes Britain must appear "competitive" so that business owners feel satisfied enough to want to expand their business and then offer jobs and apprenticeships but will the Corporation Tax cut really encourage more businesses to trade or invest in the UK, even post-Brexit?
Perhaps a Labour take on the Industrial Strategy where an Industrial Strategy will be created for each region as well as the establishment of Regional Development Banks will help to rebalance the economy; as Rebecca Long-Bailey pointed out in her speech, "40% of our economic output comes from London and the South East" currently and that means "we are the most regionally imbalanced economy in Europe". This has happened under the Tories' watch and yet they are deemed the party of economic competence. #SuperLOL.
Corbyn is right to ask for closer examination of automation to make sure that benefits of automation are "publicly managed- to share the benefits" so they can be "the gateway for a settlement between work and leisure". Corbyn also mentioned in his speech the need for investment in retraining and foster a sense of pride in lifelong learning so that we can respond to the challenges that we will face as a result of increased automation. Finally, Corbyn highlighted the 2017 manifesto commitment that Labour would establish a £250bn National Transformation Fund which will allow homes to be built as well as improving transport, energy and digital infrastructure. If only the mainstream media wanted to spend more time speaking to Ms Long-Bailey about such policies rather than bashing Corbyn based on antiquated stereotypes about socialism and denigrating all Momentum members?
Speaking of the mainstream media (MSM) outlets...Corbyn's criticism was rather scathing.
Yes Corbyn's statements reminded me a bit of Trump's speeches in the sense that like Trump, Corbyn has detected a genuine level of distrust in certain sections of the electorate of the MSM because they feel that they have been reporting in a biased manner. Research released back in January 2017 (The Edelman Trust Barometer) found that 53% of respondents did not trust the Government or Media and 59% "trusted search engines as an information tool rather than traditional news editors" (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/distrust-government-business-media-ngos-lack-of-trust-report-2017-trust-barometer-edelman-a7529261.html). I tend to use Google to research and follow-up on news stories I've heard via social media or on BBC News but there are many who believe that the BBC has rescinded its objectivity and become a "Tory mouthpiece". You only have to follow the Newsnight and BBC Question Time Twitter handles to see such expressions of distrust (from the right as well as the left I might add) on a daily/weekly basis. Corbyn said that the MSM including The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express and The Daily Telegraph ran a smear campaign against him and Labour which was orchestrated in order to please "their tax exile owners". Referring to The Daily Fail, Corbyn declared that "never had so many trees died in vain" as a result of the paper dedicating 11 pages to trash his campaign. Perhaps the era of the newspaper's opinion reporting dominating political thought is coming to an end; social media has democratized politicking to a large extent and I can't help but contend that having a plethora of tweeters and bloggers to refer to on political issues is a good development because it allows people from a range of social backgrounds and with a wide range of life experiences to have their say. However, I'm not entirely sure that waging battle against media bias on the right would win Corbyn many extra voters (who may usually vote Conservative but like bold policy platforms) and it certainly won't get the likes of Daily Fail or Breitbart Brainfart to change their minds about him. The only way Corbyn will do that is to continue developing his policy platform, including talking about the need for and benefits of a plurality of media whilst defending freedom of the press.
A key theme in the speech concerned the need for Labour to help "protect democracy". Corbyn identified two threats: "the emergence of an authoritarian nationalism that is intolerant and belligerent" and allowing "big decisions to be left to the elite". Corbyn understands that politicians can't expect to win voters to their cause just by lavishing 15 seconds of attention on them come election time. Instead, there has to be more of a conscious effort to listen to those who are trying to use their voice to fight social injustices and raise awareness of difficult issues. This includes social workers, sexual health workers and young people "especially working class young women" who were not believed when they disclosed to local police officers that they had been sexually and/or physically and/or emotionally abused. Increasing public accountability and encouraging further transparency from our public services is important but equally "making sure that everybody's voice is heard no matter who they are or what their background". If you are a young working class disabled person who has faced cuts to your disability benefits which has meant you can no longer afford to enjoy a decent standard of living because you have to make a choice between putting money in the electricity meter for two days or buying two days worth of food, you should be listened to by those who lead extremely comfortable lives. Then perhaps they may understand why Tory policy has been so incredibly damaging and why the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) needs to be incorporated into law and the 60 recommendations of the Report produced by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (including ensuring that mainstream schools provide "real inclusion" for disabled children which is required by Article 24 of the CRPD rather than increasing the number of segregated special schools and ensuring that disabled people have the funds and resources they need to live independently at home) and the Lords Select Committee report enacted as soon as possible. It's not right that disabled people are being "totally neglected" by this Government. And I want the next Government to do something concrete and radical about this neglect.
I was really impressed that Corbyn demonstrated true compassion and respect towards Grenfell Tower fire survivors in the speech, including praising the Grenfell Action Group who tried to warn their former landlords, Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation that a "catastrophic event" may occur because of their "ineptitude and incompetence" and mentioning the poem by Ben Okri, written just after the Grenfell Tower fire. Corbyn is right when he says that "a decent home is a right for everyone whatever their income or background". 120,000 children are homeless. Almost one million people who are renting their home "are in immediate danger of being made homeless as a result of the housing benefit cap" according to data recently released from Shelter (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/07/hammond-benefit-cap-homelessness-budget-housing). Action needs to be taken to prevent those renters from being evicted through no fault of their own. That means scrapping the housing benefit cap and reducing the time taken to receive housing benefit payments when claimants go onto Universal Credit (UC). A 6 week wait for benefits is too long. An advance payment may not be enough to cover the rent. Processing time needs to be reduced by half. To do that, the administrative system needs to be reviewed for effectiveness. The UC rollout should be halted whilst that review is undertaken. Yet PM May doesn't seem to care. There's no indication that UC will be reviewed let alone halted. Shame on her and shame on her Government.
Homes need to be safe, secure and fit for human habitation. I welcome the fact that Labour will be undertaking a review into its social housing policy: "We will listen to tenants across the country and propose a radical programme of action to next year's conference". Corbyn recognised the need to bring in housing regulation that will protect tenants in the future by bringing in rent controls and ensure that all tenants will be rehoused locally during the estate regeneration process. Tenants will also get a say on whether a regeneration project will go ahead (through a ballot) and must be given a home on the same site. Now of course some housing developers would be angry at such a policy (especially the ones who hope to be an exorbitant profit from the regeneration scheme) but we need to ensure that the number of affordable housing within an area does not drop further. Rent controls may sound draconian to some but have been successfully used in a number of cities, including Dublin, which introduced a 4% limit on the annual increase in rent in October 2016. I could see an issue of confidence occurring amongst developers and landlords if the rent control allowed for a freeze on prices across the board but a rent cap on increases is sensible and an example of a bold policy that puts the basic need for tenants to have a safe, secure, habitable home over the need for housing developers and landlords to make a profit. There should also continue to be a commitment to providing tenants in the private rental sector and social housing sector with access to longer, more secure tenancies.
I thought Corbyn recommiting Labour to a policy to tax undeveloped land held by developers for too long (landbanking) and to give councils the power to compulsorily purchase that land back was an interesting one, provided that the money raised from such tax would be put back directly into local council amenity services such as rubbish collections or the running of swimming pools, that the price paid for the land was fair to the taxpayer and that housing developments would commence within 6 months of the land having been repurchased.
Another great policy announced by Corbyn (that's now been adopted by Theresa May and the Tory Government) is to change the organ donation law in England (it was already changed in Wales in 2015) so that people are presumed to consent to having their organs donated after death unless they sign an opt-out register. For me as a Lutheran Christian, I believe that organ donation is one of the most selfless act of compassion a person can perform which follows in Jesus' vein. As Matthew 7:12 states: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law". The Lutheran Church passed a resolution in 1984 which stated that "donation contributes to the well-being of humanity and can be an expression of sacrificial love for a neighbour in need" (http://www.donorrecovery.org/learn/religion-and-organ-donation/). There will be some of course who are afraid to donate because it may affect their own health or because they think they can be cryogenically frozen and then come back when death has been eradicated but I feel that the opt-out rate will be extremely low and that means there will be a greater number of organs made available on the transplant list.
I also believe that our foreign policy must be one with human rights and compassion at its heart. Corbyn was quite right to call out Aung San Sui Kyi for not taking action to help aid the violence against Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State and completely agree with his plea for her to "allow the UN and international aid agencies" entry into the state to help alleviate their suffering. We need to stop the flow of arms to Saudi Arabia so they cannot use weapons made in this country in Yemen and the UK does need to support the establishment of a new state of Palestine as a way of trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, with a condemnation of illegal settlements and discrimination against Palestinians as well as maintaining a friendly relationship with Israel and fighting against the rise of Anti-Semitism in the UK and abroad. There are those who wish Corbyn had been clearer about the need to fight Anti-Semitism in his speech but it was good that Corbyn did state there needed to be a zero-tolerance approach to abuse in the Labour Party: "Yes we will disagree, but there can never be any excuse for any abuse of anybody".
Brexit:
There remains (unfortunately) one policy area where it seems I may disagree with Corbyn to an extent; that is (quite predictably) Brexit. Let's start with the positives. I agree with Corbyn's critique of the Tory negotiating team (I too have started to see them as "hopelessly inept" and "posturing for personal advantage" rather than acting in the national interest). I am grateful for a change in direction regarding the nature of the transitional deal; it makes perfect sense to remain in the Single Market and Customs Union whilst British businesses and organisations prepare for trading outside the Single Market and Customs Union as that's what PM May and her Brexshiteers want to happen but it seems PM May is now willing to accept a "status quo" transitional deal to avoid a cliffedge situation economically which she suggests should be for 2 years whereas Corbyn doesn't specify the length of time necessary. I am pleased that Corbyn has reiterated his plea for PM May to guarantee the rights of ALL 3.2 million EU citizens living in the UK including the right to stay and work here. I agree with Corbyn that the UK should not become a bargain basement "low wage", deregulated tax haven for millionaires and billionaires.
That being said, I remain unconvinced by the suggestion being put forward by Lexiteers that Britain's future remains brighter without membership of the EU- that a progressive Brexit is needed to implement a new Industrial Strategy. I've seen no comprehensive evidence provided by the Leave side to back up such a claim. I can sympathise with the need for a bold Industrial Strategy and yes, I can understand the desire to ensure that if Brexit happens, any funds that are saved as a result of no longer being a member of the EU should be spent on improving the lives of ordinary people- it's akin to all other Corbynite promises. I am sure that there would be an attempt by Labour to ensure that employers respected the rights of migrant workers post-Brexit and take action to stop undercutting of pay and any pandering to racism or xenophobia. Yet I really am not convinced by the arguments that have been advanced by Lexiteers that leaving the EU can be a progressive dream. The comment Corbyn made that Labour is "the only party that brings together Leave and Remain voters" is an extremely bold one to make. Whilst it is true that Labour did manage to secure votes from both Leave and Remain voters back in June, I can say from my own experience that my final decision to vote for Labour was predominantly because of anti-austerity policies and a fear of an implementation of a
Tory Hard Brexit and the hope that there may have been a more significant change in direction regarding Brexit rather than voting for a "progressive Brexit". I'd personally love to see Labour throw its weight behind a referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal as is currently being offered by the Lib Dems and the Greens, with 16 and 17 year olds, EU citizens resident in the UK and British citizens resident overseas all getting a chance to have their very important say. As I have previously pointed out, a recent Survation poll found that 52% of respondents now favour the possibility of participating in such a referendum, which is up from 50% two months beforehand. Labour should certainly be monitoring such polls to see whether support increases beyond the 55-60% mark and then consider making an adjustment to their Brexit policy as a result of a demonstrable change in opinion.
It appears that Labour will not back a referendum under any circumstances and instead will rely on Sir Keir Starmer's tests for the Brexit deal to decide whether to accept or reject it. As of yet I am still unsure of what Labour would do in the event of MPs rejecting the Brexit deal; this may be because Labour MPs may be so afraid of the UK leaving without any deal that they will accept the Tory one being offered on the table. I certainly don't agree with PM May's assertion that "no deal is better than a bad deal" but I am equally uncomfortable with Labour MPs potentially waving a deal through and then hoping they get a chance to try and amend the deal prior to the end of the transitional deal by winning a snap election in early 2019. For me, when it comes down to a choice of whether to deliver a deal based on some vague Brexit notion of "true Parliamentary sovereignty to control immigration" or safeguarding import and export opportunities within the Single Market by remaining permanently in the Single Market, the choice is very clear. I'd love to see Corbyn in the future actively on a policy to remain and reform the Single Market and Customs Union or perhaps, even more controversially, recommending to the British people that we remain in the EU following a positive result from a referendum on the terms of the deal.
Conclusion:
One of the most controversial comments made by Corbyn in the speech was that he believed that mainstream political opinion was shifting away from the centre ground towards an acceptance of a Labour form of socialism rather than Labour having moved towards the centre ground. I ran a Twitter poll on this (not that scientific I know) but the results demonstrated how stark the divide is: when asked "Do you agree with Corbyn that Labour is now the mainstream in British politics?" 46% agreed, 45% disagreed and 4% were not sure. 46% is not really a decisive figure by any means and I think indicates to me that Corbyn still has work to do to convince voters that Labour's bold policy platform will be truly "for the many and not the few". I myself, as of yet, remain undecided as to how I would vote if a snap general election were called in the next few months. I may have voted Labour back in June but I can't say that I agree with the entirety of Labour's policy platform and I still wonder whether some of the policies are truly deliverable. I can understand a move towards renationalisation of the railways but I don't think all political energy and public money should be expended on chasing total renationalisation of all public utilities. The Government certainly won't be able to renationalise the majority of utilities services within a 5 year period, let alone renationalise the majority of railway networks. I completely agree with the reinstatement of university maintenance grants, training bursaries for nurses and the Educational Maintenance Allowance for sixth form and further education college students. It'd be amazing to abolish tuition fees in their entirety and make college courses free to all students regardless of their age or the type of course being studied but is such a policy truly deliverable over one 5 year term? Many voters want to see an end to PFI contracts but is it truly possible to pay off the existing debt within one 5 year term without borrowing vast sums of money to do it? I think Labour needs to prioritise and make clear which policies can be delivered within the first 5 year term of a Labour Government, drawing upon existing policy to do it. This could include banning fracking, reinstating EMA, university maintenance grants and nursing bursaries, lifting the 1% public pay cap, beginning the renationalisation process for the railways, introducing a Child Health Strategy and increasing the number of rural bus services. In terms of Labour's Brexit approach, if Labour moved towards permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union (perhaps as members of the European Economic Area and signatories of the European Free Trade Agreement) I may be more swayed to vote Labour. But then again, surely the best option for us would be to be able to help reform the Single Market and Customs Union and in order to do that, we would need a seat at the EU table, which means retaining membership of the EU. Corbyn has demonstrated no desire for that to happen and continues to use language akin to PM May about "unimpeded access" to the Single Market and Customs Union.
Whatever you may think of Jezza Corbyn, as a person, as a political figure and as a leader of a movement (well some believe he's only the leader of Momentum Labour Party members but actually Momentum members are individuals who decided to support Corbyn during and as a result of following his leadership campaign and not all of them have yet joined the Labour party and Momentum is not yet affiliated), Corbyn has injected a sense of energy into the Labour Party. He's imbued most Labour Party members with a sense of hope for a brighter future. There's an argument still to be had as to whether the future should be one completely outside the EU and there's still a level of disagreement over how deliverable some of the key policies on the platform would be, not least concerning renationalisation of public utilities and taking back ownership of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts and staff by bringing them back "in-house", with "shareholders compensated in the form of government bonds, exchanged for shares" (https://www.ft.com/content/0161cc52-a1e9-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2). I think Corbyn is sensible to state that Labour wouldn't sign any more PFI contracts but the cost of the compensation offered remains unclear (although the Nuffield Trust estimates it could be as high as £50bn).
Corbyn has the vision and a snazzy set of policies that will help address some of the UK's key issues. Now he has to continue to demonstrate economic competence by ensuring he keeps highlighting why borrowing to invest and slightly higher taxes on businesses is needed to help all regions of the UK and how Labour's existing policy platform will benefit rural voters. Labour only managed to win 30 out of 199 rural constituencies in the 2017 General Election. Whilst speaking out against foxhunting, promising to ban fracking and giving more powers and resources to local planning authorities are all good policies, Labour has to talk more about tackling rural crime, encouraging local authorities to keep streetlights on in villages and hamlets and about their radical policy to change funding formulas and business rate schemes to ensure rural local authorities get the help they need to maintain efficient public services. Labour mentioned in their manifesto that they will be "rural proofing" their laws, policies and programmes when they get into power yet this was not mentioned once by Corbyn in any of the national election debates. Labour mentioned in their manifesto they would require utility companies to "return roads to a condition no worse than when they started digging". Such a policy would be broadly popular with Lincolnshire constituents who want to see further investment in transport infrastructure which will ensure that pot holes etc are fixed long-term rather than just for a few months. If Labour shadow ministers and MPs can gear their conversations towards rural issues when interviewed, they will be able to promote such policies and may start convincing rural voters that Corbyn and Labour want to live up to their slogan. If Labour is going to be the "party of the many, not the few" and build on their electoral success, it's time to take account of rural voters with Corbyn visiting rural constituencies, taking an interest in rural tourism and farming and uniting the whole of the country through the ambitious policy platform. Then perhaps, Corbyn can say that his party is truly the political mainstream in the UK.
No comments:
Post a Comment