Jeremy Corbyn has Blair Running Scared
By Lindsey German
August 15, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" -
Running
scared. That is the only explanation for the increasingly desperate
and angry denunciations from the right wing of the UK's Labour
Party, as Islington North MP Jeremy Corbyn's campaign looks more and
more likely to win him the party’s leadership on 12 September. The
mass grassroots support for the anti-war and anti-austerity
candidate has taken most Labour politicians by surprise. Their
horror at this development only indicates their sense of entitlement
to their own positions, their undimmed arrogance in the face of
political failure, and their paper-thin commitment to any form of
real democracy.
This week war mongering multi-millionaire Tony
Blair published a second article attacking Corbyn. Blair warns of
“annihilation” for Labour if Corbyn becomes leader. In the
Guardian he wrote: “The party is walking eyes shut, arms
outstretched, over the cliff’s edge to the jagged rocks below. This
is not a moment to refrain from disturbing the serenity of the walk
on the basis it causes ‘disunity’. It is a moment for a rugby tackle
if that were possible.”
His fellow warmonger, former Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw, told Channel 4 News on 13 August that elections cannot
be judged on the basis of the Iraq war. Alastair Campbell, the
spin-doctor who spun the 45 minutes WMD
claim, has
argued that a Corbyn victory would be a “car crash” for Labour.
It takes a supreme level of arrogance and
insensitivity for those who were the architects of one of the most
disastrous modern wars, whose consequences are still being played
out across the Middle East with devastating outcomes for the people
there, to feel that their pronouncements should be listened to.
Jeremy Corbyn has the advantage over them in that he always opposed
this war, and indeed the whole War on Terror since 2001, and he has
been proved right.
His view is much more in tune with public opinion,
on this and many other issues. How many people supporting Jeremy in
this election are doing so because of his position on the Iraq war?
Blair, on the other hand, lost the party a million votes in the
election of 2005 (generally accepted to be largely as a result of
the war), saw membership shrinking, again often for the same reason,
and was forced out of office in 2007 again partly because of his
enthusiastic
backing of Israel in the Lebanon war of 2006.
Families of servicemen and women who died in Iraq
this week
launched the threat of legal action against Sir John Chilcot,
demanding he set a date for publication of the Chilcot Inquiry into
the Iraq war, an inquiry which took its final evidence four years
ago but still has been not been released to the public. Blair, Straw
and Campbell are all likely to be at the least highly criticised.
Much of the decline in support for Labour can be
dated to the war and its aftermath. Of course there are many other
issues that are now persuading many Labour members and supporters to
back Jeremy Corbyn: opposition to government austerity, a sense that
levels of widening inequality need to be halted and reversed,
opposition to the scapegoating of migrants and Muslims. The anti-Corbyn
candidacy hysteria stems from support for a neoliberal consensus
that has led to this inequality.
The potency of Jeremy’s campaign is precisely that
it breaks the dominant political consensus in the UK and elsewhere,
and puts forward a real alternative. While the right of Labour claim
that the Conservatives will welcome a Corbyn victory, this is by no
means the case among the more intelligent of them. The neoliberal
pro-war consensus needs a supine and weakened Labour leadership,
dragged increasingly onto the centre ground in the vain hope that it
can implement a slightly more humane set of what are in essence
barbaric policies. A Corbyn-led party will put on the agenda a range
of policies that the Conservatives would rather were not given much
airing.
There is also the small issue of democracy here.
Labour’s electoral system was changed expressly to weaken trade
union influence, and was accepted at a party conference by all
sides. It ended the electoral college system where MPs got one third
of the vote, trade unions another third, and individual members the
final third. Perhaps least remarked on but most galling to Blair et
al is that the MPs have no more say in the election than anyone else
(although they do have the power to prevent candidates getting on
the ballot paper).
The new system has worked to benefit the left,
which certainly was not the intention. That the individual members
and supporters, and union affiliates, have the temerity to vote for
a left candidate is something that the Blairites thought they had
put a stop to. They cannot believe how wrong they were.
Now they are desperately
claiming that there are thousands of "entrists" with their own
agenda, and combing through lists to disqualify anyone they can.
This is a negation of democracy. It is the same negation of
democracy that we saw over Iraq. Then millions marched but were
ignored, treated with contempt by a leadership that relied on the
passive support of millions but did not see it as important to
listen to their views.
What is happening with Corbyn's campaign is that
many people are waking up to the fact that there can be an
alternative political manifesto and that the dominant neoliberal
agenda can be fought. Perhaps what frightens the Blairites most is
that, far from the myth that this will lead to annihilation, such
policies can win elections. The onslaught the Conservatives are
planning in this government will meet widespread opposition: there
has already been one mass anti-austerity
demo since the election, called by the Peoples Assembly, and in
October there will be mass protests at the Conservative Party
conference in Manchester.
The Corbyn campaign is one expression of that
movement: the fear of mainstream politicians is that it lights a
fire of opposition to their policies.
- Lindsey German
is convenor of the Stop the War Coalition and co-author of A
People's History of London.