Tag: Corbyn

  • Starmer is right to stop Corbyn standing for Labour at the next election – but he mustn’t purge dissent | Polly Toynbee

    Starmer is right to stop Corbyn standing for Labour at the next election – but he mustn’t purge dissent | Polly Toynbee

    [ad_1]

    The shame of the Labour party – the Labour party! – being put into special measures by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for racism shocked most members to the core in 2020. To be released from that disgrace now is hardly a moment for celebration, after the EHRC’s original finding that Labour acted unlawfully in failing to rein in antisemitism under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

    His refusal to accept the overall findings set Corbyn on an inevitable path out of the parliamentary Labour party. He maintains “The scale of the problem was dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media.” But a party can’t be a little bit racist: the damning findings had to be swallowed whole.

    Keir Starmer’s confirmation today that Corbyn cannot stand as a Labour candidate at the next general election is hardly surprising. Cleansing the party of antisemitism is deeply personal for Starmer, as his wife is Jewish and they keep Jewish festivals. But Corbyn’s obstinacy was convenient, too, his expulsion an opportunity to demonstrate Starmer’s mission to get a grip on the party. Rishi Sunak’s feeble jibes at Starmer for serving in Corbyn’s cabinet bounce off him now.

    Of course, as Starmer said yesterday today, it’s a job not quite done: when the Labour MP Kim Johnson got up at PMQs to call the Israeli government fascist, she had to apologise to the house promptly, under threat from the chief whip.

    Taking over the leadership during the Covid crisis, Starmer devoted his time to fixing the party internally as he slowly made progress with voters. Asked his mission, he declared it was “winning”. It has paid off handsomely as he soars in the polls. I am told that many reports from local meetings speak of the Corbynite influence fading, with some of his supporters leaving altogether or changing their mind as the party inches towards power. Starmer has been lucky in the total implosion of the Tories and lucky again with the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon: polling for all her likely successors is unimpressive, aiding Labour’s chances in Scotland.

    No opposition leader has ever scored as low in Ipsos’s polling as Corbyn’s -60 personal approval rating, with Michael Foot at -56, and Iain Duncan Smith and William Hague tied at -37. Corbyn benefited from his opponents’ disastrous campaign in 2017, though his personal rating trailed far behind both Theresa May’s and his own party’s popularity – Labour won 40% of votes to the Tories’ 42.4%. Yet there are those who still see him as a saviour rather than a drag anchor: as the one who brought flocks of enthusiastic new members into the party, and prompted delighted chants of “Oh, Jeremy Corbyn” at Glastonbury. He was betrayed by rightwingers in the party and brought down in 2019 by those who should have backed him, they say.

    The Guardian is often their chief villain. Whenever I write criticism of the government I am guaranteed Twitter and thread responses claiming that if only I, my colleagues and the paper had backed him, we wouldn’t be suffering this Tory era. A brief check in the archive would show that the only thing wrong with this analysis is that I, other columnists and the Guardian’s leader all urged voters to back Corbyn’s Labour party. How could we not, after a decade of brutal austerity, and given Boris Johnson’s unfitness for power? I backed just about every individual item in Labour’s 2019 manifesto: it was nothing like Michael Foot’s “longest suicide note in history”, which pledged to leave both the EU and Nato. Its obstacle was its implausible costings, with extra billions added during the campaign.

    But Labour’s worst problem was Corbyn himself, as voters feared his perceived lack of patriotism (prompted by, for example, his failure to sing the national anthem at a remembrance event) and told focus groups and pollsters they felt he was “not concerned about their issues” or “people like them”. Most voters never joined that misleading Glastonbury chorus.

    My own greatest anger with Corbyn him was over his refusal to campaign seriously against Brexit in the referendum. “Where is he?” I asked his advisers a couple of months before the vote. “He thinks the local elections more important,” was the unforgivable reply, when in truth he was a lexiter – a Bennite Brexiter.

    But because our monstrous election system offers only a binary choice, of course progressives of every hue had to back Labour against a nightmarish, sociopathic Tory leader. I never doubted that Corbyn would be a preferable prime minister to Johnson – the lowest of bars – but in 2019 he led Labour to its worst result since 1935. Now, Corbyn’s remaining believers cling to that last resort of all failed ideologues, the same refrain as the failing Brexiters’: we were betrayed.

    Corbyn seems likely to stand as an independent for Islington North, where Labour has an array of good would-be candidates. Groups within Labour such as Momentum may face a quandary, as they would automatically be expelled from the party if they campaigned for him against Labour. But in the present golden polling climate, it hardly matters who wins that one seat. What matters is that Labour has expunged the shame of the EHRC’s special measures. What matters, too, is that in its haste to escape the failure of Corbynism, Labour doesn’t overreach and purge anyone with anything original or interesting to say.

    Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

    [ad_2]
    #Starmer #stop #Corbyn #standing #Labour #election #mustnt #purge #dissent #Polly #Toynbee
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )

  • If you ever doubt the hateful effects of Tory migrant policy, go to Calais and see what I’ve seen | Jeremy Corbyn

    If you ever doubt the hateful effects of Tory migrant policy, go to Calais and see what I’ve seen | Jeremy Corbyn

    [ad_1]

    Hell is a teargassed scrubland crawling with infectious disease. Hell is toddlers scavenging to survive. Hell is a refugee camp in Calais.

    Each time I visit, I learn more about the diabolical conditions that human beings are forced to endure in the camp. Having fled the horrors of war, environmental disaster and destitution, refugees there have sacrificed everything to find safety. Instead, they die slowly in a hopeless wasteland. Muddied tents provide the only shelter from the freezing cold. Children beg for water contaminated by faeces, as rats scurry into people’s makeshift homes.

    The human shrieks of a rodent-sighting are nothing compared to the wails of infants longing for their mother’s embrace. One of the main sites of separation is Calais itself. Since the destruction of the “jungle” in 2016, the French police have enforced a policy of “zero-fixation points” to prevent refugees settling elsewhere. Evictions are carried out daily; tents, blankets, identity papers, mobile phones, clothes and medicines are confiscated or destroyed.

    During this campaign of harassment, refugees are regularly beaten, shot with rubber bullets and choked with teargas. Human Rights Observers – an independent watchdog in northern France – told me they’ve witnessed French authorities urinating on people’s belongings. In the melée, mothers are routinely separated from their children. It’s often the last time they see each other, at least alive.

    It may be French authorities who assault the refugees, but it is the UK government that gives them the batons and bullets. In 2021, the UK paid £55m for French border patrols to clamp down on border crossings; the money goes on barbed wire, CCTV and detection technology. Absolving itself of any international or moral responsibility toward refugees, the UK is paying France to criminalise them instead.

    The police have the same desire as the French and British governments: for refugees to disappear. Even before Suella Braverman took office, the UK had one of the lowest rates of asylum approvals in western Europe. Under Braverman’s plans, anybody who crosses the Channel would be banned from claiming asylum in the UK altogether.

    For most people, being told that their plans violate the 1951 UN refugee convention and the European convention on human rights might compel them to reconsider. Not Braverman. We need to breach these conventions, she says, to finally crack down on people smugglers. She knows the truth: by refusing to provide safe routes, the government forces desperate human beings to search for alternative, more dangerous means of transit. Far from taking on human traffickers, it is her policy that creates the market for them in the first place.

    Undeterred by international law, Braverman is determined to fulfil a dream: to witness flights sending refugees to Rwanda. On the plane to Rwanda is Britain’s colonial baggage; from this country’s previous role in the slave trade to its current role in the arms trade (most notably in arming the Saudi-led war in Yemen), Britain bears culpability for the economic and political roots of displacement.

    By criminalising the very refugees they create, successive governments have handed over their international responsibilities to the voluntary sector. Calais Appeal, an umbrella group encompassing eight organisations, provides humanitarian assistance to those in need. From Refugee Community Kitchen (which seeks to “serve food with dignity”) to Project Play (which provides displaced children with a space to rest, learn and play), dedicated staff and volunteers fill a gap that the French and British authorities have callously created.

    I asked how we can best support them. One is through donations. Another is to amplify what they’ve been saying all along: safe routes save lives. We can stop people drowning in the sea tomorrow – by enabling them to come here safely by plane, train or ferry. Instead of bankrolling the persecution of refugees trying to reach our shores, the UK should be playing a leading role in renewing international commitments to the rights of displaced people around the world.

    The only way we can defeat a politics of hatred is with a politics of compassion. The Tories’ assault on refugees must be opposed – not because it lacks fiscal prudence, but because it lacks a basic regard for human life. Refugees are not political pawns to be debated and disempowered. They are human beings, whose hopes and dreams should not be sacrificed in calculations of electability. When looking to justify an alternative policy toward refugees, surely their humanity is enough.

    We need an immigration system grounded in compassion, dignity and care. One that brings an end to the poverty, environmental collapse and wars that are displacing people around the world. One that stops spewing the hateful rhetoric of “invasions” and instead says loudly: refugees are welcome here. As Warsan Shire writes in her poem Home, “no one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land”. For some, a politics of pragmatism is more important than a politics of principle. Maybe a trip to Calais would change their mind.

    • Jeremy Corbyn MP is a former leader of the Labour party

    • Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

    [ad_2]
    #doubt #hateful #effects #Tory #migrant #policy #Calais #Ive #Jeremy #Corbyn
    ( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )