On Saturday 12th September, the Labour party announced Jeremy Corbyn as their new leader. The run up to this announcement has seen one of the most entertaining political debates in recent years that has been taken up by all and sundry. For some, Jeremy Corbyn is seen as the messiah, and for others, the antichrist. As a member of the Labour party, I did get a vote in this election, and I did use it to vote for the marmite politico that is Mr. Corbyn, and I would like to say why.
In July, the government passed the Welfare Reform and Work bill which would see welfare spending cut by £12bn, and subsequently affect thousands of families across the UK, primarily for the worse. The bill could only be passed if it won a majority vote from all MPs. For this vote, Labour MPs were asked by their Chief Whip to abstain. Not oppose and vote against, as opposition parties usually do, but abstain. A bill that defies the welfare state that Labour supposedly stands for, that will affect families that Labour supposedly represent, and they were asked to sit back and let it happen.
After the general election, I signed up to the Labour party because I felt it would represent me, and a vast portion of society, to oppose the vicious implications of Conservative politics that we have seen over the past five years, and in its first opportunity to do so, the party chose to abstain. No matter how much of a cliché it sounds, the party weren't just letting me down, they were letting themselves down. After the crushing defeat in May, it was clear that they needed to rebuild, needed to find themselves, and most importantly, distinguish themselves against the Tories, and this is the first action they take to do so? Instead of standing up to Iain Duncan Smith's reign of terror, they remained passive. Their 'opposition' to the bill was so much so that it led an SNP MP to ask for the Speaker to change the seating arrangements to represent who the real opposition party was. Labour MP Diane Abbott, who went against the Whips orders and actually voted against the bill, accurately retorted: "We weren't sent to Parliament to abstain."
Fortunately there were 47 other Labour MPs alongside Diane Abbott. Out of these 48, the only leadership candidate was Jeremy Corbyn. This made it clear to me, that it was imperative I voted for Jeremy Corbyn, as he was the only candidate that did not succumb to the cowardly demand of the Whip, and was willing to stand by his principles. It seemed that this was not just a turning point for me either as in the following weeks, 'Corbynmania' ensued...
Thousands cramming city halls to hear him speak, young and old. Youths climbing onto window ledges to see him. The support increasing day by day. Naturally, along with support, came the media vitriol. Fanatical headlines stating how Corbyn would ruin and isolate the party, how he was going to debase the party to something not too dissimilar from Stalin’s central committee. Despite, the disdain, there was a much more serious debate at heart - a debate that has been present since Tony Blair’s decision to revise clause IV in 1995.
This revision was a paradigm shift in the history of the Labour party; a (successful) attempt at catching up with the Conservative party by drifting from its socialist roots. Many believe that this was a good move, and I do not question that, it was an effective response to capture the interest of society at the time and return the party to prominence. However, due to various unfortunate circumstances, it has also eventually led to a resurgence in quasi Thatcherism in the form of David Cameron. I believe it was this ‘pragmatic’ approach led the Labour party to fall at the last election - most people could not understand the Labour party, or what they stood for, and therefore based their decision on sandwich eating skills.
It is now time for a response from the Labour party, another shift, similar to that of 1997, which is where Jeremy Corbyn comes in. Initially, this man was not supposed to be the victor of the contest, but was merely supposed to remind members of the party of their roots - and perhaps as a little joke for snide Conservatives. However, in the wake of events such as the Welfare Reform Bill, we have found that this is not a time for pragmatism, but in fact for a return to a more left stance in the Labour party to represent those who will suffer and to call out these actions. Jeremy Corbyn will certainly define the somewhat dubious position of the Labour party, and distinguish them from their opposition. Many people believe that this return to the left will isolate them further, but considering Westminster’s current position on the political spectrum, where else is there for the party to go? Moving further right will only aggravate the crisis of the disillusioned youth and working classes who have gravitated towards UKIP or Conservative. If Corbyn directs them more left it will help to challenge this view of the Eton mess, and provide a solid voice for people like me, as well as attracting Green voters who have effectively stood unrepresented in previous years. For me Corbyn is a beacon of hope, to fight for a portion of society who have suffered over the years, and bring about true democracy to the Commons.
