The Guardian reports Jeremy Corbyn’s interview with Andrew Marr. It seems like good news and a welcome breath of the new politics:

“Jeremy Corbyn says he would repeal Thatcher’s sympathy strikes ban

Labour leader says walkouts in support of workers from another industry are legal in most countries and should be so in UK”

And it is a welcome breath of the new politics, of course. But isn’t it typical that someone should immediately use a method based on the old politics to undermine the new and spoil our dinners? According to the report Len McCluskey, the Unite union’s General Secretary, quickly waded in to insist that Jeremy didn’t mean anything of the kind (how old politics that is). He claimed that when Corbyn said he would repeal Thatcher’s laws against solidarity action it didn’t mean “tube drivers going out in support of other workers.” Oh, yes it did, Len: according to the Guardian,

“On whether that meant he would repeal the legislation imposing bans on these [solidarity] measures, [Corbyn] said, ‘Of course.'”

I’m not sure what part of the phrase “Of course” Len doesn’t understand. But to me it means that Jeremy “would repeal the legislation imposing bans” on solidarity action.

Well, thank Gawd for that! And if solidarity action was legal now, not only tube drivers but other workers too could strike in support of, say, the junior doctors. Now that would get them their contracts, and protect patients, doctors and the future of the NHS.

So what would be wrong with that, Len?