The Observer view on the Labour leadership election.
 |
Yesterday
morning, prior to the result of the election for the Labour party
leadership being declared, I wrote a piece under the heading of, "Has
the Guardian become converted to the tolerance and compromise idea?"
Today, in its disguise as the Observer, there is another piece of
"opinion", now masquerading as "Observer
editorial", which appears to have thrown the almost
reconciliatory editorial of yesterday, into the editors waste bin and
reverted to type in attacking Corbyn and seeking to undermine his
position by unquestioned support for the Parliamentary Labour Party.
It is hardly in the spirit of "Tolerance and Compromise" as
proposed by yesterday's editorial, to spew out, less than 24 hours
later (and noticeably after the election result), criticism of his
leadership using almost abusive phraseology such as "incompetence",
intolerance of dissent","unelectable", "encouraged
abuse of MP's and anti Antisemitism" and
the blatant distortion that Corbyn has "called
for the immediate triggering of article
50"
which is patently
untrue.
 |
The
Observer then excels itself in its support and encouragement for the
PLP by emphasising
that the Leader must change his style and policies to accommodate the
stated objectives
of
the PLP in exchange
for "some
space to try to succeed"
and to accede to their "proposals" for changes in Party
rules to allow elections to the shadow cabinet positions and for the
leadership position.
The
Observer does grudgingly concede that "Any
further attempts to undermine his leadership will be
counterproductive" and that,
"Labour MPs must hold off any manoeuvres against Corbyn. They
have a responsibility to contribute to the business of opposition,
whether from the shadow cabinet or select committees, and to do what
they can to recruit members to broaden out the Labour church."
Perhaps
we should consider for just a moment, what has actually taken place
over the last months.
Even
before Corbyn was first elected in September of 2015, there were some
MP's who publicly stated, even in the pages of the Guardian and
Observer, that in the event that Corbyn was elected leader of the
party, they would stage a coup to "remove him within days"
of the election result being declared. In June of this year, that
coup was triggered with the orchestrated resignation of a number of
MP's from the shadow cabinet. The expectation of those who resigned
and those elements of the media and television who encouraged and
supported them, was that Corbyn would resign as Labour party leader.
They were mistaken. Corbyn did not resign.
A vote of "No Confidence" in Jeremy Corbyn's
leadership
was arranged and when the result produced
some
172 MP's supporting the motion, it was again assumed that Corbyn
would resign, but yet
again
he refused to stand down. The last throw of these MP's to remove
Corbyn was to launch a leadership challenge, but even their selected
candidate for the task openly admitted that in his opinion, the
challenge was ill conceived and premature.
Yesterday,
24th September, marked the final defeat of this abortive coup, when
Jeremy Corbyn was returned as leader of the Labour party with an
increased share of the votes cast
to 61.8%.
 |
In
a perverse view of of reality and with logic scarcely understandable
to almost everybody except sections of the media and some MP's who
even now reject the democratic decision of more than 313,200 Labour
party members, there seems to be the belief that the side which has
lost
both the coup and the subsequent leadership vote can somehow dictate
"peace
terms"
to the side
which has clearly routed them. There is no other example, anywhere in
the world or at any time in history, where such a distorted scenario
has come about.
Jeremy
Corbyn has extended an olive branch to the disaffected MP's together
with an undertaking to "wipe the slate clean"
adding that " we are part
of the same Labour family",
while party members called for unity against the Conservatives.
Perhaps
the Observer today and the Guardian yesterday, are not, even now,
ready to accept that the Labour party today is not the same Labour
party of years past, no matter how much they and other sections of
the media and television may desperately desire it. The party and
just as importantly the people, have moved on and now have a
different view of how politics should be conducted.
The
Observer and the Guardian do their readers a grave injustice by
patronising customers with the view that only they and certain
members of the PLP have the answers to all the questions and everyone
else should bow to their superior knowledge without question or
dissent.
They
say that Corbyn and the Labour party are unelectable. We shall see.
Comments
Post a Comment