Along with many other British people, I retired to bed on Thursday evening having just seen news channels intimating that the UK looked to have decided to remain in the EU. It's a brave man who predicts the winner in a two horse race. It's been quite a week and already the aftermath is being felt. The nastiness and personal attacks which characterised the recent period of campaigning has since moved in to overdrive. But is the UK really as divided as we are led to believe?
During my school years, one of the highlights of my week became the debating society. There is nothing quite like the passionate views of youth being expressed with such energy and conviction. Of course, I would be the first to admit that many of the views and beliefs of my youth are now thankfully distant memories. But the feeling of winning a debate was like no other. I can remember debating whether Nelson Mandela should still be in prison (I'm showing my age now). I can recall a particularly dull debate on dictatorship of the Proletariat. To say it was dry was an understatement but my desire to win was such that I went through the pain barrier and read voraciously around the subject to formulate my arguments. I'm bound to say that winning the debate proclaiming Enid Blyton to be a facist and a subversive was infinitely more rewarding. But what I really loved about debating was that both sides were given space to present their arguments before the house divided for everyone to cast their vote.
In a way, the very public process of casting that vote always used to put me in mind of a children's television quiz show called "Runaround". It was hosted by the late comic turned actor, Mike Reid. In the show, ten children were asked a series of general knowledge questions. Two schools each provided five children to make up the ten and the audience was filled with people from both schools. When they were read a question, the children then had to choose to stand in one of the three big circles in front of the three panels featuring each of the available answers. After they had all chosen their circle to stand in, Mike Reid would then shout, "Runaround now!" and as the lights dimmed, the children were allowed to change their minds if they wished not least if they thought other children were just copying their choice. The parallels with recent voting has not escaped me.
But back to debating for a minute. At a very young age, it did teach me a valuable lesson; you can't win them all and as with sport, it is seemly to show magnanimity when ceding defeat. As a point of interest, my old school was Adams' Grammar School in Newport, Shropshire. By coincidence, it is also the old school of one Jeremy Corbyn although I'm bound to say he was long gone by the time I arrived. I've often wondered if Jeremy took part in debates and like to imagine that he did. I learned how to win a debate and how to lose one. To lose one was really easy. Throwing any personal attacks against the opposition invariably guaranteed the debate would be lost irrespective of intellectual merit. I'm bound to say that since assuming the Labour leadership, Jeremy has behaved admirably.Instead of descending to the gutter and throwing cheap jibes at his opponents, he has instead stuck to his point like glue and ceaselessly questioned the opposition in a refreshingly respectful manner. It would seem that in the case of Jeremy Corbyn, the people really did know best. Let me explain.
Here is a true conviction politician who sticks to his principles while at the same time being respectful to the views of others both in his own party and far beyond. He was elected as Labour leader by just shy of 60% of the members. That was and remains an extraordinary mandate to lead. But the key here is that he was easily the preferred candidate of his grass roots membership. It was also true that he barely scraped together the requisite 35 MPs to back him in the first place. The decision of Shadow Cabinet members to resign today merely serves to underline how unpopular he remains in the Westminster bubble. And that surely is the most important point in the week when the UK voted to leave the European Union by a margin of over 1,269,000 votes. In the end, any true democracy has to remain subservient to the views of the people - not the elected representatives. As with the election of Jeremy Corbyn which continues to enjoy the support of the grass roots membership, arguing about the outcome of the EU referendum will have little success.
One of the really attractive features of Jeremy Corbyn is that he is possibly the least stage managed politician I have ever seen. Along with his anti-austerity left wing stance, I suspect that this is what people have gravitated to at a time when so many people in the UK have never had it so bad. The parliamentary Labour party must have taken leave of their senses with their blatant attempt to force his resignation. Why would you want to be rid of the man who has just received the biggest mandate in recent British political history? By any measure, that is political suicide. If they continue with this nonsense, they will be clearing the way for another SDP scenario. The fracture of the Labour Party in 1981 ensured Tory majorities until Blair came to power in 1997. That is precisely the scenario which faces Labour today and it is perhaps no coincidence that two of the sons of the class of 1981 are at the forefront. Granted, Corbyn might not be Mr. Charisma but he remains the overwhelming choice of the Labour public who will choose the next Prime Minister. What is so hard about that?
It is widely reported that Hilary Benn was sacked from the Shadow Cabinet for claiming that Jeremy Corbyn was unelectable. It would appear that his views were at odds with the tens of thousands who elected Corbyn leader. Stephen Kinnock is also getting in on the act. Kinnock has said that Corbyn's mandate belongs to a different era. With respect, Corbyn's mandate belongs to the present. To Benn and Kinnock, I would refer them to the five democratic questions of Benn senior; What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? How can we get rid of you? Enough said. If MPs wish to leave the Shadow Cabinet, they are doing him a favour as he will clearly be better off without them.
The recent behaviour of Labour MPs in Westminster is nothing less than an abuse of the democracy they pertain to espouse. If they truly represent the people (and they keep repeating that they do), they would do better to listen to the people. Had they done so, they would now be in day 5 of properly holding the Government to account. I assume they are aware of this. They are in the fortunate position of knowing that their current leader has the backing of 60% of the grass roots Labour party. That frees them up to concentrate on the job in hand safe in the knowledge that they are being led by the man chosen by the people. As it stands, they seem more interested in self destruction. That is a gross insult to the 260,000 people who gave the thumbs up to Jeremy Corbyn last summer. It is an approach with which we have become all too familiar on a local level. County councillors make decisions without properly consulting the views of the very people who elected them. If my view of democracy seems awfully old fashioned, then I plead guilty as charged.
But back to the EU referendum result. I have seldom seen so much venom being directed between rival factions even after the result was beyond doubt. The levels of recrimination have been shocking. What is the point of democracy if we can't abide by it? I don't see it as a victory for one side over the other. I just see it that the people have made their views known. It is no more complicated that that. Even the turnout was pretty impressive. At a time when voter apathy is in the ascendency, a staggering 72.2% of the eligible electorate engaged and voted.
But it also instructive to consider why we had a vote in the first place. Had there been no desire for the referendum, we would not have had one. This had been brewing away for 41 years. As far as I can see, there were splits on this issue in most of the main political parties. This illustrates a very important point. On a single issue such as European membership, you will seldom see blanket agreement throughout an entire political party. This is probably why I am not a member of a political party. I like parts of what they all have to offer but have yet to find the one which reflects accurately my own beliefs and views. I suspect that there are a great many people just like me who cast their vote on the day based on the least offensive choice.
A few interesting points have emerged from the result though. Labour strongholds like Barnsley showed 70% support for the leave campaign. A similar picture emerged from the Welsh valleys and other industrial heart lands. The young have publicly condemned the outcome of the referendum and yet they showed the lowest turnout. That is the point. Effecting the change we most desire in a democracy entails us casting our vote. Had the youth voted more widely, the result might have been rather different. But it now seems highly likely that by the end of the year they will have a chance to put the record straight and come out en masse to vote for the future they want. It really is that simple. Choosing to leave Europe and having a forward thinking, moral socialist government are both possible. One down, one to go.
But there will sadly always be arguments over outcomes. In recent years, we have seen far closer outcomes than that for the EU referendum - irrespective of people's true motive for voting. In particular, the Welsh referendum of 1997 springs immediately to mind. That vote only attracted a 50.2% turn out but the result could scarcely have been closer. 50.3% voted in favour and 49.7% voted against. Nearly 20 years later, recriminations sadly continue and yet it would now be difficult to imagine Wales without the National Assembly. In time, attitudes warm.
It was in 1997 that an up and coming Conservative candidate failed to win the Clwyd South seat at the general election which swept Tony Blair to power. Boris Johnson now stands on the threshold of realising his long held dreams. That will be the easy bit. The real challenge will be galvanising a divided electorate on a new road for a Kingdom united or otherwise and a Britain great or not. As it stands, it's hard to know if British democracy has ever been in a bigger mess than it is today.
During my school years, one of the highlights of my week became the debating society. There is nothing quite like the passionate views of youth being expressed with such energy and conviction. Of course, I would be the first to admit that many of the views and beliefs of my youth are now thankfully distant memories. But the feeling of winning a debate was like no other. I can remember debating whether Nelson Mandela should still be in prison (I'm showing my age now). I can recall a particularly dull debate on dictatorship of the Proletariat. To say it was dry was an understatement but my desire to win was such that I went through the pain barrier and read voraciously around the subject to formulate my arguments. I'm bound to say that winning the debate proclaiming Enid Blyton to be a facist and a subversive was infinitely more rewarding. But what I really loved about debating was that both sides were given space to present their arguments before the house divided for everyone to cast their vote.
In a way, the very public process of casting that vote always used to put me in mind of a children's television quiz show called "Runaround". It was hosted by the late comic turned actor, Mike Reid. In the show, ten children were asked a series of general knowledge questions. Two schools each provided five children to make up the ten and the audience was filled with people from both schools. When they were read a question, the children then had to choose to stand in one of the three big circles in front of the three panels featuring each of the available answers. After they had all chosen their circle to stand in, Mike Reid would then shout, "Runaround now!" and as the lights dimmed, the children were allowed to change their minds if they wished not least if they thought other children were just copying their choice. The parallels with recent voting has not escaped me.
But back to debating for a minute. At a very young age, it did teach me a valuable lesson; you can't win them all and as with sport, it is seemly to show magnanimity when ceding defeat. As a point of interest, my old school was Adams' Grammar School in Newport, Shropshire. By coincidence, it is also the old school of one Jeremy Corbyn although I'm bound to say he was long gone by the time I arrived. I've often wondered if Jeremy took part in debates and like to imagine that he did. I learned how to win a debate and how to lose one. To lose one was really easy. Throwing any personal attacks against the opposition invariably guaranteed the debate would be lost irrespective of intellectual merit. I'm bound to say that since assuming the Labour leadership, Jeremy has behaved admirably.Instead of descending to the gutter and throwing cheap jibes at his opponents, he has instead stuck to his point like glue and ceaselessly questioned the opposition in a refreshingly respectful manner. It would seem that in the case of Jeremy Corbyn, the people really did know best. Let me explain.
Here is a true conviction politician who sticks to his principles while at the same time being respectful to the views of others both in his own party and far beyond. He was elected as Labour leader by just shy of 60% of the members. That was and remains an extraordinary mandate to lead. But the key here is that he was easily the preferred candidate of his grass roots membership. It was also true that he barely scraped together the requisite 35 MPs to back him in the first place. The decision of Shadow Cabinet members to resign today merely serves to underline how unpopular he remains in the Westminster bubble. And that surely is the most important point in the week when the UK voted to leave the European Union by a margin of over 1,269,000 votes. In the end, any true democracy has to remain subservient to the views of the people - not the elected representatives. As with the election of Jeremy Corbyn which continues to enjoy the support of the grass roots membership, arguing about the outcome of the EU referendum will have little success.
One of the really attractive features of Jeremy Corbyn is that he is possibly the least stage managed politician I have ever seen. Along with his anti-austerity left wing stance, I suspect that this is what people have gravitated to at a time when so many people in the UK have never had it so bad. The parliamentary Labour party must have taken leave of their senses with their blatant attempt to force his resignation. Why would you want to be rid of the man who has just received the biggest mandate in recent British political history? By any measure, that is political suicide. If they continue with this nonsense, they will be clearing the way for another SDP scenario. The fracture of the Labour Party in 1981 ensured Tory majorities until Blair came to power in 1997. That is precisely the scenario which faces Labour today and it is perhaps no coincidence that two of the sons of the class of 1981 are at the forefront. Granted, Corbyn might not be Mr. Charisma but he remains the overwhelming choice of the Labour public who will choose the next Prime Minister. What is so hard about that?
It is widely reported that Hilary Benn was sacked from the Shadow Cabinet for claiming that Jeremy Corbyn was unelectable. It would appear that his views were at odds with the tens of thousands who elected Corbyn leader. Stephen Kinnock is also getting in on the act. Kinnock has said that Corbyn's mandate belongs to a different era. With respect, Corbyn's mandate belongs to the present. To Benn and Kinnock, I would refer them to the five democratic questions of Benn senior; What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? How can we get rid of you? Enough said. If MPs wish to leave the Shadow Cabinet, they are doing him a favour as he will clearly be better off without them.
The recent behaviour of Labour MPs in Westminster is nothing less than an abuse of the democracy they pertain to espouse. If they truly represent the people (and they keep repeating that they do), they would do better to listen to the people. Had they done so, they would now be in day 5 of properly holding the Government to account. I assume they are aware of this. They are in the fortunate position of knowing that their current leader has the backing of 60% of the grass roots Labour party. That frees them up to concentrate on the job in hand safe in the knowledge that they are being led by the man chosen by the people. As it stands, they seem more interested in self destruction. That is a gross insult to the 260,000 people who gave the thumbs up to Jeremy Corbyn last summer. It is an approach with which we have become all too familiar on a local level. County councillors make decisions without properly consulting the views of the very people who elected them. If my view of democracy seems awfully old fashioned, then I plead guilty as charged.
But back to the EU referendum result. I have seldom seen so much venom being directed between rival factions even after the result was beyond doubt. The levels of recrimination have been shocking. What is the point of democracy if we can't abide by it? I don't see it as a victory for one side over the other. I just see it that the people have made their views known. It is no more complicated that that. Even the turnout was pretty impressive. At a time when voter apathy is in the ascendency, a staggering 72.2% of the eligible electorate engaged and voted.
But it also instructive to consider why we had a vote in the first place. Had there been no desire for the referendum, we would not have had one. This had been brewing away for 41 years. As far as I can see, there were splits on this issue in most of the main political parties. This illustrates a very important point. On a single issue such as European membership, you will seldom see blanket agreement throughout an entire political party. This is probably why I am not a member of a political party. I like parts of what they all have to offer but have yet to find the one which reflects accurately my own beliefs and views. I suspect that there are a great many people just like me who cast their vote on the day based on the least offensive choice.
A few interesting points have emerged from the result though. Labour strongholds like Barnsley showed 70% support for the leave campaign. A similar picture emerged from the Welsh valleys and other industrial heart lands. The young have publicly condemned the outcome of the referendum and yet they showed the lowest turnout. That is the point. Effecting the change we most desire in a democracy entails us casting our vote. Had the youth voted more widely, the result might have been rather different. But it now seems highly likely that by the end of the year they will have a chance to put the record straight and come out en masse to vote for the future they want. It really is that simple. Choosing to leave Europe and having a forward thinking, moral socialist government are both possible. One down, one to go.
But there will sadly always be arguments over outcomes. In recent years, we have seen far closer outcomes than that for the EU referendum - irrespective of people's true motive for voting. In particular, the Welsh referendum of 1997 springs immediately to mind. That vote only attracted a 50.2% turn out but the result could scarcely have been closer. 50.3% voted in favour and 49.7% voted against. Nearly 20 years later, recriminations sadly continue and yet it would now be difficult to imagine Wales without the National Assembly. In time, attitudes warm.
It was in 1997 that an up and coming Conservative candidate failed to win the Clwyd South seat at the general election which swept Tony Blair to power. Boris Johnson now stands on the threshold of realising his long held dreams. That will be the easy bit. The real challenge will be galvanising a divided electorate on a new road for a Kingdom united or otherwise and a Britain great or not. As it stands, it's hard to know if British democracy has ever been in a bigger mess than it is today.
Comments
Post a Comment