Of Salmond and Corbyn

POLITICS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND POLITICS

I'm back to having a rant again, this time about two aspects of current political discourse which are really getting my goat.

Yes, Alex Salmond did, quite clearly, say that last year's Indy Referendum was a 'once in a lifetime opportunity'.  A fact which gets trotted out by unionists again and again as evidence that there should be no further reference to the matter for at least twenty five years, and that Salmond and other SNP leaders suggesting a further Indyref appears inevitable within a much shorter timescale shows them out to be the most pernicious of liars and totally untrustworthy.

How many of those same people have been quick to condemn David Cameron for stating that there will be no Indyref before 2020, despite Ruth Davidson saying, in the run up to GE2015, that she had consulted with her Westminster leader and could say categorically that the possibility of a future referendum would not be ruled out at any point?  Do I here shouts of "liar, liar" from those self same unionists?  Apparently not.

It turns out that politicians, whenever they are seeking our votes, will often indulge in a practice known as 'hyperbole'.  Leading to, post ballot, another phenomena known as 'broken promises'.  Apparently politicians, and not just from the SNP, have been found exaggerating a wee bit, or even telling outright porkies, just to convince us to vote the way they'd like us to.  Who knew, eh?

So maybe it's best if people try not to draw too deep an inference from a single sentence uttered up by a single politician on one particular single occasion. Because if that's how you gather evidence to back up your opinions then there's a fair chance that you'll end up sounding like a complete arse.

And on to rant part two, again focusing on a phrase that seems to be doing the rounds of all those with a singular fixation. In this case, on the electoral chances of one Jeremy Corbyn. The man who has been the surprise hit of the Labour leadership campaign, despite having been included either to demonstrate the breadth of opinion within the party, or as a token to keep the more left thinking elements in their place.

But Corbyn and his supporters haven't read the carefully prepared neoliberal script that was supposed to anoint the coming of the second Blair. Far from being the token entry he has suddenly become the bookies favourite to win, and the Red Tory faction of the party are furious. "Corbyn is unelectable" they say, appearing to forget that he's looking a strong possibility to win this thing they're having called an election....

But no, this time they mean he couldn't lead the party majority in a Westminster election, because he's too 'left wing' for the electorate. And here's the bit that inspired this rant. "Look what happened in '83" they'll say - that proves it. Really?   So '83, '83, '83 is being trotted out everywhere.

If a week is a long time in politics what does that make three decades? The world is a very different place to the one that saw off Michael Foot.  Who, even five years ago, would have predicted the rise of Syriza and Podemos?  Who, less than twelve months ago, would have predicted the landslide SNP victory in May which returned the 56 MPs who appear to be having to act as the opposition in Westminster, since Labour have all but given up?

The SNP campaigned on anti-austerity platform, similar to Mr Corbyn, and did very. very well out of it, thank you very much. To the point where there were many voters in England wished they had the chance to vote for the party. And let's not forget who was the star of the party leaders' debates, and the only one of the bunch to have positive personal approval ratings going into the election. One Nicola Sturgeon of course.  OK, so Jeremy may lack the First Minister's charisma, but much of the public would warm to a conviction politician who knows what direction he wanst to take and speaks up on behalf of the oppressed classes.

If Corbyn is genuinely unelectable it isn't because of his policies. A huge proportion of the population support rail renationalisation for instance. No, the real enemy he would be fighting isn't voter opinion as such. It's the ways in which that opinion will be twisted against him by an almost entirely right wing press. I couldn't put it any better than Frankie Boyle does : "It’s worth remembering that in the press, public opinion is often used interchangeably with media opinion, as if the public was somehow much the same as a group of radically right wing billionaire sociopaths."

You can see it happening already. Even the Guardian feels a need to mention that Corbyn has been seen wearing a 'Lenin Cap'. Wasn't that the same cap the Beatles wore on an early album cover? Why isn't it a Beatles cap? Or, more to the point, what's his bloody cap, whatever shape it might be, got to do with his politics? Nothing is the answer, so why does it get a mention? Because sneaking in words like Lenin or Marx, however inappropriate the context, is the media version of going "look out or the bogeyman will get you" and hoping the children are scared into being good. Except that we're supposed to be the children....

If Jeremy Corbyn is considered unelectable, as they put it, doesn't that highlight the most serious flaw in our political process? The main stream media is the greatest democratic deficit we face. In Scotland that's been partially overcome through the development of online news and opinion sources that cover a wider spectrum of views. England could do with much the same.

Turns out this rant had three targets to go for!