In 2009, British newspapers revealed that Conservative MP Sir Peter Viggers had invoiced taxpayers for the ornamental duck house he’d erected in his personal pond, just as his fellow parliamentarian Sir Michael Spicer had charged the public for costs he’d incurred hanging his chandeliers.
These and the other excesses uncovered during the British expenses scandal (with 389 out 752 current and former MPs caught making illegitimate claims) will sound depressingly familiar to Australian readers, a prefiguration of Bronwyn Bishop’s helicopter antics, Tony Burke’s family holiday to Uluru, and George Brandis’ gondolier rides.
But here’s another straw in the wind. In 2010, a newspaper searching for Britain’s lowest-claiming MP identified that paragon as a certain Jeremy Corbyn – the same Jeremy Corbyn now leading the race for the Labour leadership.
Until recently, the evolution of Labour with a ‘u’ paralleled that of its antipodean cousin, with Tony Blair, in particular, pioneering the media-savvy, market-driven politics increasingly embraced by social democrats throughout the world. The conventional description of Blair as a ‘moderniser’ reflects the perception of his ‘New Labour’ model as a necessary, even inevitable, adaption to the norms of the 21st century.
That’s why, if the difference between social democracy and its opponents has narrowed almost to non-existence, many commentators blame the electorate. The apathetic, non-unionised voters of the social media age care nothing, we are told, for big ideas; as a result, contemporary parliamentarians have no choice but to obsess over focus groups, eschewing policies that might alienate the readers of the Murdoch tabloids.
Or, to put it another way, we get the politicians we deserve, with the be-suited hollow men dominating Western parliaments an accurate reflection of the public’s indifference to (or outright hostility towards) conviction politics.
But the extraordinary reaction to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership bid suggests a quite different analysis.
“The Labour party is in danger more mortal today than at any point in the over 100 years of its existence,” thundered Tony Blair, in one of the anti-Corbyn polemics emanating almost daily from Labour heavyweights.
Thus Gordon Brown claims Corbyn would align Britain with Hamas and Hezbollah; Blair’s former media manager Alistair Campbell urges people to join Labour just so they can vote ‘ABC’ (that is, ‘Anyone but Corbyn’), even as Neil Kinnock blasts new recruits as ‘Trotskyites’ and representatives of the ‘Telegraph right’.
Many liberal pundits are taking a similar line, with Suzanne Moore denouncing Corbyn as ‘an unbecoming exercise in self-flagellation that is curiously indulgent’; Martin Kettle claiming Corbyn’s rise shows Labour turning to ‘the classic denial mechanisms of the politically traumatised’ and Jonathan Jones implying he represents Soviet-style communism.
Here in Australia, the reaction’s been similar.
“The prospect of Corbyn as British PM is utterly horrific,” writes Greg Sheridan. “It is a sign of the widespread derangement in Western politics today. This derangement is now a serious problem. It is having truly perverse and increasingly dangerous consequences.”
What’s Jeremy Corbyn done to deserve all this?
You’d never know from these fulminations that Corbyn’s simply an old-fashioned Labourite, advocating a set of policies once commonplace in both Labour and Labor parties.
Yes, he’s a vegetarian with a beard; yes, he belongs to the Socialist Campaign Group, and was once arrested for protesting apartheid during the 1980s. But, in 2015, neither whiskers nor vegetarianism nor opposition to racism are quite as crazy as Corbyn’s opponents would suggest.
In fact, as Ian Sinclair points out, most of Corbyn’s supposedly controversial positions are, in fact, entirely in line with popular sentiment – often far more so than his ‘mainstream’ opponents.
Corbyn wants to keep the National Health Service publicly run; so, too, does 84 per cent of the population. He advocates nationalisation of the railways – and surveys show that 66 per cent of voters agree. He backs rent controls, along with 60 percent of the public. Even on the abolition of Trident nuclear weapons – a stance for which Corbyn’s regularly derided – most studies show a slim majority supports Corbyn over his critics.
As a result, the polls simply do not reflect the oft-asserted claim that Corbyn is electoral poison. The Evening Standard recently carried a survey showing that, in London, Corbyn had garnered more support than his two nearest rivals put together, while another poll suggested he was more popular throughout the country as a whole than any of the other candidates.
The title the Guardian gave Blair’s attack on Corbyn revealed the peculiar dynamic unfolding. It was headlined: ‘Even if you hate me, don’t take Labour over the cliff.’
For, of course, the enthusiasm engendered by Corbyn also reflects a deep disdain for Blair and his legacy.
As Prime Minister, Tony Blair facilitated the Iraq war, an intervention that left hundreds of thousands dead and set in train the chaos that continues to wrack the region. Though many media figures supported the invasion, the public never did – which is why Corbyn’s role in the Stop the War Coalition is an electoral plus.
Endorsing Blair’s attack on Corbyn, the rightwing Telegraph explained that, “more than 10 years since he last contested an election, [Tony Blair] remains the party’s most eloquent advocate of a more sensible approach to business and wealth.”
Actually, since his retirement from politics, Blair has devoted himself to shameless self-enrichment, working on behalf of some of the world’s most authoritarian regimes. Seamus Milne noted the former PM’s close support for the dictators of Egypt after their violent overthrow of a democratic government, as well as the $13 million he was said to have earned in the employ of the repressive government in Kazakhstan, even as it cracked down on pro-democracy protesters.
In that context, Corbyn’s refusal to join his colleagues in the scramble for parliamentary lurks and perks seems both personably admirable and indicative of an ‘approach to business and wealth’ far preferable to Blair’s naked greed.
To put it another way, Labour Party members are backing Corbyn precisely because they want an alternative to Blairism, even as the Labour hierarchy and its media backers declare no alternative to be possible.
That’s why for so many senior Labour figures, the real nightmare is Corbyn’s popularity, not his lack of it – and why they’re doing everything to sabotage a fair election.
Recently, in the London Review of Books, the academic David Runciman floated the prospect of fixing the ballot to prevent a Corbyn victory. That might seem like a literary provocation – except now we learn that Lord Mandelson, a key New Labour personality, has been trying to convince the other candidates to pull out of the race en-masse so that the party would be forced to suspend the election.
Meanwhile, Labour MPs have announced they’ll start plotting against Corbyn from the first day he’s installed – if not before. “Am I going to put up with some crazy left wing policies that he is putting forward,” said one, “and traipse through the voting lobby to support him? It's not going to happen is it!”
Indeed, two shadow cabinet ministers have, apparently, already formed a group dubbed ‘the Resistance’, working to bring Corbyn down before he’s even elected.
In the face of such internal opposition – and what will be an unremittingly hostile media – a Corbyn-led Labour Party may well struggle.
But that’s a point quite different from the argument many pundits are making.
Actually, it’s quite clear that, all over the world, people crave a fundamentally different kind of politics. It’s the politicians and the media, not the punters, who are committed to the status quo.
No-one expresses this as overtly as Greg Sheridan.
“Corbyn’s positions are,” he tells us, “at once antique, bizarre, ideological, extreme left-wing and absurd.”
(Again, let’s remember that these ‘absurd’ positions are generally shared by most of the electorate).
Sheridan concludes: “For all his sins and failings, it is by no means clear that any other figure on the centre-Right could hold the fissiparous electoral coalition together in Australia as well as Tony Abbott has. At the moment, there is no Corbyn on our horizon. Thank God. But we shouldn’t be complacent. We are often just a few years behind the trend, in this case a truly awful trend.”
What does that mean? Sheridan is urging the political class to rally to Tony Abbott (one of the most unpopular leaders in Australian history) on the basis that, if the voters have other options, they might vote for ideas they actually like.
And we all know how terrible that would be.
To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.
mrtrivia
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 11:20
Greg Sheridan's "derangement" nonsense is pure neo-con reaction. The people want the state to run things? SIgns of mental disorder! Thirty five years of neoiberalism have been fanstastic at sucking up public monies for corporate welfare and impoverishing the majority of voters and taxpayers. Sheridan might be happy to cheerlead for his Lord Rupert but many of us want to do something about the plutocrats and their lapdogs (Labour, ALP, Democrats, Tories, LNP and Republicans) who are busily reducing our democracies back to Feudalism. (Thank you SIr Tony).
As this story points out, the Lefty establishment is shit-scared that a Corbyn or a Sanders might energise young voters who will agitate for the kinds of things the Blairites and their equivalents in other Liberal Democracies hoped would be scrubbed from history. Check out the Guardian if you want to hear bleating from centrist Lefties. Sheridan is at least dancing to the organ grinde'rs usual tune, but what the hell does the Guardian imagine it is playing at?
This user is a New Matilda supporter. nobody456
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 11:24
Abbott is "centre right"? How funny is that description. The rest of the article is just depressing because of its truth. Everytime Labor attacks the Greens it becomes obvious that humanity has deserted politics.
worrierqueen
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 12:56
Sheridan is an embarrassing fossil who past his used by date some time in the last millenium. But it is passing strange for Sheridan to be criticising Corbyn. As a card carrying tory Sheridan should be enthusiastic in Labour electing antique, bizarre and absurd Labor leader as it should mean it keeps Sheridan's people in power for a generation.
Methinks Sheridan doth protest too much. He sounds as if he is beginning to suspect he has lost a handle on his certainties and secretly worries that this is the beginning of the end of his comfortable existence of corporate oppression.
Cracklier
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 13:55
It's strange that Blair seems to believe he is still even relevant....
I'm sure if anyone polled Labour voters in that country he would be mainly remembered for dragging the Brits into the illegal invasion of Iraq , & of course his very close relationship with Rupert Murdoch....the chief media owner cheer-leading for that war.
Which of course brings us round Greg Sheridan...SO-called "journalists" like Sheridan are pretty much just the lick-spittle around the mouths of the the very rich & powerful. It was not surprising to see Sheridan lunching with Rupert the Sun King & the Daily TerrorGraphs' Miranda Devine.
The main topic at the lunch was probably when was the best time to cut & run from Phony Tony & choose another Coalition horse....???
Grace57
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 15:27
all in all ....the conservative and the Labor Right in Britain are scared..because the people have had enough and Jeremy Corbyn is speaking on their behalf...good article...
This user is a New Matilda supporter. NewsGooJake
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 15:52
As Jeff Sparrow and other commenters point out, the soft Left commentariat of the Guardian has its collective knickers in a twist over Corbyn's popularity.
Oddly, though, most of the paper's economic writers have spent the last few years explaining the intellectual bankruptcy of the austerity policies espoused by all his rivals: Stiglitz, Ha Joon Chang, Will Hutton etc. As the latter has pointed out, Britain has been calculating its public sector deficit ever since it emerged as an industrial power in the 18th Century. And for about 200 of those 250 years, the deficit has been higher, in percentage terms, than it is now.
Corbyn is no slick salesman: he would never be able to win by adopting the Blairite method of formulating policies in focus groups and think-tanks, then advertising them to electoral consumers.
Instead, he is making policy by engaging and activating a broad-based progressive movement for change. And developments in Spain, for one (Podemos) show the kind of electoral earthquake that can result from that. If Greg Sheridan was worthy of the title of 'foreign editor' he would make a similar parallel - but then the Australian long ago relinquished any claim to be anything but a neo-con outrider.
Vern Hughes
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 16:08
Corbyn will be electoral suicide for Labour, not because of half a dozen selected set-piece policies, but because of the underlying assumptions about society that Corbyn and the Left harbour but keep hidden most of the time. As party leader, these assumptions will be exposed mercilessly by a hostile media.
Corbyn is a statist, while most 'punters' avoid state bureaucracy if they can possibly help it. Corbyn is a managerialist; while most punters aspire to not be managed by a case manager or council housing official. Corbyn is an internationalist, and will allow more job-seeking EU immigrants and African asylum seekers; while most punters want restrictions. Corbyn will restate welfare dependence in working class communities; while most punters want to escape it.
Corbyn's views on these matters are close to Labor members; but are anathema to the voters who decide elections. A party split is highly likely if Corbyn is successful.
MJoanneS
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 16:08
One thing for sure, Sheridan knows a bit about derangement as his own is increasing by the day.
Tony Blair, John Howard and George Bush the younger should be in the Hague for war crimes, mass murder and other heinous crimes yet roam free making their millions out of spouting total nonsense.
The only thing Blair has done in years is to unite the Palestinians and Israeli's in one thing - they both hated his guts, Dubya has done nothing and Howard occassionally swipes from the sidelines after his aborted attempted to be president of the corrupt ICC.
MJoanneS
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 16:08
One thing for sure, Sheridan knows a bit about derangement as his own is increasing by the day.
Tony Blair, John Howard and George Bush the younger should be in the Hague for war crimes, mass murder and other heinous crimes yet roam free making their millions out of spouting total nonsense.
The only thing Blair has done in years is to unite the Palestinians and Israeli's in one thing - they both hated his guts, Dubya has done nothing and Howard occassionally swipes from the sidelines after his aborted attempted to be president of the corrupt ICC.
This user is a New Matilda supporter. John Passant
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 16:58
I wrote about this in similar terms in a letter to The Australian which I published on my blog En Passant, under the title Greg Sheridan, The Australian and Jeremy Corbyn. I called his article an unhinged rant and pointed out the support Corbyn was getting for putting pre-Blairite Labor views. I assume they did not publish it. They would not run something critical of their Saint Greg.
calyptorhynchus
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 17:01
If I lived in Britian I'd register and vote just to vote the other way to Blair.
John G
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 17:22
Vern Hughes. The British public certainly don't want Libertarianism so how you feel qualified to channel what they do is a mystery.
calyptorhynchus
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 17:28
Vern Hughes
The British people don't like the apparatus of state when it is used to oppress and control as the current welfre system is, they do, however, like a fully-funded, fair and functioning welfare system as used to exist in the 1960s. (And they are very faithfull to the NHS).
As the Tory majority is so small and as their programme is basically class warfare, I think Corbyn would as Labour leader only be a few bye-elections away from being PM in this 5 year term.
This user is a New Matilda supporter. denislh
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 18:38
We need a Jeremy Corbyn here in Australia. I would certainly vote for such a person. The political system here in Australia has been hijacked by big business and multinationals.
It seems to me that most Politicians work for the top end of town and basically ignore what most Australians want and what is in our long-term best interest.
This user is a New Matilda supporter. Bilal
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 18:26
The Blairites, those Tory "New " Labour people we know well here in Australia, are now trying to smear Jeremy with anti-semitism, which is the kiss of death for any progressive politician. It is usually the below the belt hit when all else has failed. It is very unlikely to stick however as the method of attack is well understood. Jeremy challenges the neo-con free market indoctrination beloved of the 1% and if he succeeds, the whole false structure of socking it to the poor in the name of "a balanced budget" could come tumbling down. Europe and it seems the USA, is sick of the neo-con punishment of the less well-off. If British Labour is restored, then we might even see the NSW Right here wiped off the political map. That would really send the IPA and its "Labor" mates into a tail-spin.
Screaminkid
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 18:35
How insidiously INSANE is the idea that a man like Corbyn might actually work towards the policies we as voters Really want ? UK Labour& Sheriden seem determined that we should remain in this Fascist wasteland the market & its destructive legions of self interested Corporations are frantically creating before we all burn on the global climate change pure?
What do Australians think? Should we all rally around the most DETERMINEDLY useless PM we hav ever had in order to keep the status quo? LOL!
This user is a New Matilda supporter. MattQ
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - 00:52
Here's thanks to the neo-con/liberals who protect us from Aristotle's 'tyrrany of the masses'.
For the worthy, a fulfilled life should include a daily opportunity to watch and snigger at the masses. It's entertaining to see them struggle and compete against each other in meaningless and bloody competition in a race to the social bottom.
Cigars, champagne and class chauvinism is the stuff of life, just not yours.
RonaldR
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - 02:39
Jeff Sparrow does not understand how honest Jeremy Corbyn policies are OR He is just a Liberal /Bankers stooge trying to mislead the readers ,He makes this publication look like another Murdoch Bullshit rag.
If you like Corbyn's policies have a look at www.cecaust.com.au
Youriyuri
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - 07:55
great article! I highly suggest people also read these two articles by the fine British media critc/watchdog site 'Media Lens' on the corporate press and BBC's response to Corbyn. The establishment in the UK and US are doing everything in their power to make sure Corbyn and Bernie Sanders don't get far, using all kinds of smears, McCarthy tactics, and suppression of them as well as whitewashing the New Labor and New Democrat cults that have destroyed any meaning alternative to market fundamentalism.
do read on! http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2015/797-corbyn.html
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2015/798-the-guardian-readers-editor-responds-on-jeremy-corbyn.html
njsharp
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - 09:16
Thanks for that Jeff, not least for quoting Sheriden's use of 'fissiparous' which of course I had not read in The Australian as I neither buy it nor subscribe online. I wonder how many TA readers either skipped that word or Googled it? It's actually quite appropriate to describe today's federal Coal-ition:
adjective: fissiparous
inclined to cause or undergo division into separate parts or groups
I like it, but I wonder at the sense of using vocabulary that probably 1% of the population understands.
And now the $64K question: "Who could be Australia's Jeremy Corbyn"
Pass
Megpie71
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - 12:23
Of course, the genuine point underlying all of this is that Mr Corbyn actually represents the views of the majority of people in the UK, rather than the views of the political elite. Terrifying thought, because one of the core components of the new class structures we're seeing put into place is the good, old-fashioned notion that the lower classes (i.e. anyone who isn't part of the political/economic elite) don't know what's good for them, and can't be trusted with the decision. In the same way, the political elites here in Australia aren't actually willing to represent the views of the majority of their constitutients because that would mean actually listening to the ordinary people, rather than to the echo chambers of their party meetings and policy think-tanks. So we get things like the decision not to introduce non-heterosexual marriage.
Oddly enough, when the majority of public opinion swings in a manner which complies with their poor opinion of their constituents (such as the recent business with "stopping the boats", in which the voices of the lumpenproletariat were prioritised over the voices of the more open-minded) they'll cheerfully follow along where the public leads, especially when this allows for greater authoritarianism, more centralised control, and more restrictions on the actions of the public.
This user is a New Matilda supporter. Mercurial
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - 15:05
njsharp, Sheridan and others at the OO love to use arcane words and impress their ever-diminishing readership.
animalogic
Posted Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - 19:25
Oh ! The Horror, the Horror !
Imagine ! The gaul, the sheer insanity of even intimating an alternative to the neo-liberal consensus !
Sheridan is right about "derangement": western democracy is deranged to the point where it runs around screaming the "sky is falling".at the mere possibility that a very-very mild alternative to the reigning ideology might be entertained. The ideology that has encouraged trillions in systemic debt, enviromental degradation, illegal wars and mass unemployment....
How will history judge us ? Assuming our future contains the possibility of a history.
Human, all too human.....? I wonder whether that excuse will be adequate ?