Showbiz

Before I start today's blog and apropos of what I was saying yesterday here is a link to a radio 4 programme which I heard just after I had posted my contribution. It is about how the whipping system works in Parliament. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07lfrjz#play

But back to business. On my walk through the woods this morning I was shouted at by a Jay from a tree as I passed underneath it.  It sounded quite angry and I wondered if it was a Corbyn supporter, a sub species say Garrulus glandarius corbynius.

I must say I am getting more and more frustrated as Labour parliamentarians find an excuse not to support their elected leader.  They all seem to fail to grasp one essential truth. They say they want a leader to unite the party so they are switching allegiance or at least supporting a previously unknown politician with a questionable track record who claims to be left wing.  His voting record is certainly quite encouraging, but it is what he did before becoming an MP which concerns many of his detractors.  He is from South Wales and was educated in a comprehensive school, although given that his father was at one time chair of the Arts Council of Wales he is scarcely working class. He also work as a lobbyist for Pfizer.

The truth that they are failing to grasp is that this is not about Jeremy Corbyn the man, it is about the ideals he espouses. I would guess that most of those who joined or rejoined the party after he became leader did not do so because they admired his leadership skills.  He probably didn't have many at the time, never having been a leader before.  They signed up in significant numbers, and I was one of them, because here was a man who seemed to believe in arguing his case rather than ridiculing those with an opposing point of view, who addressed the electorate as if they were adults, and most important of all espoused policies which might roll back some of the horrendous damage wrought on our society by a Tory government hell bent on selling everything off in the name of austerity.

That he has, I suspect without really wanting to, become a rallying point for so many people, tells us just how much some people felt the need for change. The political rallies he has been addressing up and down the country are on a monumental scale.  I struggle to remember rallies of such passion size which were in support of something positive, rather than protesting against government policies of one sort or another.

Much has been made of his performance during the referendum campaign.  Let's examine the facts.  Through a quirk of fate he found himself sharing a cause with the man who week in week out stood across the floor of the House and did his best to humiliate and bully him, cheered on by the baying members of the Tory Party in full voice.  Is it any wonder that he refused to share a platform with him?  He worked instead to put forward an alternative reason to remain in the EU, an institution which he acknowledged is flawed, but which is nonetheless vital for our future prosperity. He did this in a measured and reasoned way but, according to his critics, failed to persuade large numbers of working class voters who saw the referendum as nothing more than an opportunity to stick one on the Tories.  Cameron's pleas that this was all about protecting business will have done nothing to change their minds.  What did they care about fat cats?  Life was already pretty bad, how could it get any worse? Sadly they may well be about to find out.  I suspect that Corbyn thought he had done enough, as indeed did all the remain campaigners and many of the leave campaign as well.  The result seemed to come as much of a surprise to them as it did to everybody else.

In the end nearly twice as many Labour voters voted remain than stay, something which could not be said about the Conservative supporters of whom a majority voted leave. Nevertheless it was still Corbyn's fault. 

We live in a world of mass media today, where television and the internet are king and queen. Politics has become showbiz.  We have once again taken a cue from the other side of the Atlantic and turned what should be a serious and considered matter into a three-ring circus. Of course there must be passion, although I for one won't miss the sight of Cameron, declaring how 'passionate' he was about every single bloody topic he was called upon to discuss.  'This is something about which I am passionate...' give us a break.  All passion spent now though eh, Dave? 

I am beginning to think that allowing cameras or even microphones into the Houses of Parliament wasn't an altogether good thing.  Mostly it's unbelievably tedious stuff with hardly anybody in attendance.  In the Commons in theory there only needs to be the Speaker and one other member there for a debate to continue, and the quorum for a division is 40 including the Speaker which means that legislation can proceed with as few as 20 votes.  The quorum in the House of Lords is even smaller at 30.  

Every Wednesday the show comes to town, everybody troops in there is a lot of yahing and booing and then everybody buggers off for lunch. 

Parties need good orators, Michael Foot was a great speaker, also stabbed in the back by his right wingers.  Jeremy Corbyn can be quite impressive when he speaks in public, but not all the great orators in a party can be or need to be leader.  Both Bevin and Bevan were considered great speakers, Attlee was not.  I am not making a comparison, I am just pointing out that there is no single way to lead a party and each leader must adopt their own style.  And must be allowed to lead.  Democracy must be a the heart of this and Corbyn won the position with a ringing endorsement.

Take Care

Love Tim xx