Complaint to Channel 4 News
I sent the following complaint to Channel 4 News tonight:
“On Channel 4 News tonight Matt Frei claimed that there was not going to be a debate on Trident at this week’s Labour Party Conference because Jeremy Corbyn “shied away from it, apparently. The unions backed him up.” No evidence was presented for this claim, and the rest of the report seemed to demonstrate the opposite of both those statements. For one thing, on arrival at the Conference Corbyn is interviewed showing no signs of “shying away”, and he clearly expects a debate and wants it. He says:
“There will be a debate on Trident, of that I’m sure. Conference will come to pass a decision, possibly they’ll refer this to elsewhere – to be quite honest, at this very moment I don’t know.”
But Matt Frei was determined to present him as “shying away” from a debate at Conference and says, “The unions backed him up.” However, Gary Gibbon, momentarily singing from another hymn sheet, blamed the vote against a debate on two unions with members in the defence industry: they “wouldn’t back Jeremy Corbyn”. That, presumably, is the Jeremy Corbyn who wanted a debate not the mythical “shying away” figure conjured up by Matt Frei. Gary Gibbon, however, seems to have been given Matt Frei’s hymn sheet in the end and declared of Corbyn: “He’s avoided a bloody fight here he really didn’t want” – presumably “avoided” is slightly more polite than “shied away”.
Perhaps this might be explained by the rough-and-tumble of journalists trying to piece together a complicated story which has to be edited to fit the very short Sunday-night edition of the programme. Unfortunately for such a generous explanation, Matt Frei, in the comfort of the studio, pursued his theme in his interview with Lisa Nandy, still without producing evidence for his claims. He stated as fact that Corbyn had “shut down” the debate on Trident. He then went further, saying that “shutting down the debate on Trident … was surely doing what Labour used to do, which was trying to control things from the top.”
It’s difficult not to conclude that the aim of Channel 4 News in this report was to set up Jeremy Corbyn as a fixer of the old school and a hypocrite. If Corbyn ever became those things you would have a duty to report it. But don’t cynically assume it from the start and doctor the evidence.”
They promise to reply. I’ll let you know.
We must be brave – and not just leave it to Jeremy
Jeremy Corbyn has resigned as Chair of Stop the War. In his statement he says:
“I am sure you all understand the reasons – it is now my job to lead the Labour Party, including in the struggle for peace and international justice, and that is demanding my undivided attention.”
We can certainly understand that. And he also says:
“In stepping down as Chair, I want to make absolutely clear my continuing solidarity with the Coalition and its work against wars of intervention.”
We would certainly expect no less from him.
But if we recognise the demands of the Labour leadership on Jeremy’s time we must also recognise the pressures on him when it comes to Labour Party policymaking too, and that maybe those pressures are also a factor in his decision to resign. For the pressures are arguably having an impact. Although he is still against the renewal of Trident missiles he nevertheless has to, as he has said, have a debate in the Labour Party and try to persuade them of his case. Naturally, he recognises the dangers involved and, if he loses, he says he will submit to that defeat because, as he told Jon Snow, “I’m a democrat.”
Likewise, though he is still against NATO, he is not now arguing for leaving it but for making it democratic. When Owen Jones suggested that the UK should develop a “constructive role” within NATO, Lindsay German (Convenor of Stop the War) mocked the idea on Facebook: “A constructive role for Britain in Nato? Please!” Her comment is also surely appropriate to the notion that there could be a democratic NATO.
Likewise again: there are reports that people are urging him to allow a free vote on airstrikes on Syria to avoid open warfare in the parliamentary party. This, however, would enable Labour’s old guard to rally support for any Tory proposals in the next few weeks to join airstrikes. And then there would be airstrikes. What to do?
What he clearly wants to do on all the issues raised during the past few months is widen the debate and decision-making, so that it’s not just Labour MPs that make policy decisions but the wider Labour Party – including all the new members who joined during the leadership campaign and afterwards. Let’s hope he can do it, and let’s hope it works.
Whatever he does, of course, he’s damned by somebody. And he’s a brave man for starting down this road. And I want him to succeed – to win the arguments and the battles and become prime minister in a government that changes the face of British politics. I certainly don’t want him to end up like the left-wing hero of Chris Mullin’s novel, who became prime minister but then became the victim of “a very British coup”![1] But neither do I want him to be trapped into making so many concessions that in the end there’s no sign of the reasons we voted for him in the first place.
So in the afterglow of the leadership election result we dare not underestimate the forces against him: the Tories, of course; but also Labour’s old establishment knocked off their perches for now, but eager to clamber back up; the media; the security agencies; and any number of dirty-tricks departments. And he needs our active support.
So here’s an idea: perhaps all of us who paid our £3 to vote for him should now bite the bullet, refuse to be couch potatoes, and instead become full Labour Party members and be the counterweight to the forces against him.
Now, there’s brave for you.
Here’s Jeremy’s statement: http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/jeremy-corbyn-statement-to-the-stop-the-war-conference-19-september-2015
[1] Mullin, Chris (2006), A Very British Coup, Politicos (Methuen), London.
Answering the question asked – a new approach in British politics
This exchange took place last night on Channel 4 News between Jon Snow and John McDonnell, Labour’s newly appointed shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. It had a slightly odd start because Snow had been asking about economic questions. He said that trust (by the electorate) would be important. “The last Labour government”, Snow said, “left Britain with the worst deficit since the Second World War.” MacDonnell nodded. Snow continued, “And establishing trust is difficult.” Then without any warning he changed the direction of the interview:
“Snow I mean, if we take your case, for example, if we take something like what you said about the IRA, people will find that very hard to understand …
McDonnell [nods] Yes.
Snow … Why would one honour the IRA with their guns and bullets? – to quote you.
McD Yes, I need to explain quite a bit, and I’ll do it briefly if you don’t mind. This was 13 years ago at a time when the peace process was extremely fragile, and we were worried at that stage that, if elements within the IRA, or the Republican movement, thought they were going to be humiliated and defeated, there’d be a major split, and that way the bombings and the military campaign would continue on. So some of us had to go out there – I might not have chosen the right words – but actually explain to them that they could stand down with dignity, they weren’t being defeated, they were standing down, they could put their weapons all aside – and I was saying that to both sides. Now, I know as a result of that I got attacked, but actually it worked, and if it saved one life it was worth it.”
Two things: it’s interesting that by this account people like McDonnell (Republican sympathisers, who had for a long time been accused of being IRA apologists) were absolutely essential to keep the peace process going. It wasn’t just Blair and Clinton, and Senator this and Representative that, the great and the good who all got medals. Nevertheless the McDonnells and the Corbyns have been vilified and sidelined ever since.
Secondly, Corbyn’s approach to Hamas and Palestine/Israel seems similar: “We have to talk to Hamas, we can’t just ignore them.” He’s been criticised for saying that and for meeting Hamas but reckons that everybody knows it’s true, including Israel, and says, “Blair has spoken to Hamas more times than I have.” But it seems that Blair, our ludicrously named “peace envoy”, had little success in bringing the several sides together. There’s no surprise in that. It needs someone with a bit of form to get in there.
Vilified and sidelined, did I say? Well, until now. Because now, Corbyn has proved himself electable. And McDonald had a fairly optimistic take on the future in the interview:
“Snow … why is it that so many of your colleagues think that you are so far out as to be unfit to be Chancellor?
McD Well, it’s because in this place [the House of Commons] I’ve had to oppose a lot of things and sometimes that’s meant swimming against the stream, and that has meant Jeremy and I have been isolated. But actually we were right on many of these issues – we were right on Iraq, we were right to vote against the privatisations, we were right to vote against the cuts that even New Labour introduced to benefits. So I think we’ve been proven right. And I think the tide is now with us.”
And I, for one, hope you’re right, John.
Babe-in-arms
But for the grace,
Put down your
Fearful vanity
Rise up
Reach out
With Love
Embrace
In every face
Your own Humanity
~
Life’s Hope captured
In the tiny stillness
Of immeasurable sorrow,
Be not in vain,
Else here, then, lies
Where all the World’s tomorrows die.
~
Aylan Kurdi, Galip, Rehan, may your Light shine in the darkness.
Bob Mouncer's blog 