A Related Article

We'd like to bring readers' attention to this article by Matthew Turner, which is along similar lines to our last post. It is recent, dating to Monday the 6th of March. It deals with ways that Jeremy Corbyn can clarify the Party's message and consolidate the position of their politics by dispelling the prominent 'moderate' dissenters. While all of this sounds harsh, due to the risk of continually being undermined by their own Party it is merely an attempt to restore some direction to the organisation. This is especially the case where the Party can be held hostage by notable financial backers and those more reluctant who fund other Parties, who see an opposition to Corbyn that might often attempt more to placate them. While this is merely an obvious manner in which money can easily dominate 'politics,' and Parties are punished for avoiding this, it does nonetheless allow even an often scattered opposition to take on a locus of strength and act to threaten the leadership. When Hamlet fought Laertes, even if it was an even fight Laertes had only to prick him at some point to kill him. Hamlet would have a more difficult time killing Laertes, if they attacked without poison. Likewise, Corbyn's campaign can easily come up against a 'wall' of sorts - despite resisting opponents within the Party, this dissent can easily rear its head again and expects to regain control of the Party as well. Hence, their opponent can seem to simply appear 'unscathed' every time it is mown down. As such, the article's suggestion, that of preventing the opposition to Corbyn from establishing firm footholds in the Party, need not be taken as that left-field if you like.

The 'wall' that the Corbynites have encountered has played an important part in recent coverage and reception of them. Coverage of the Corbynites has continually assumed that a negative remark - say attacks on his position on Israel and the Queen - would be taken further and extrapolated into damning statements by members of his own Party. The Conservatives have generally just sat back and taunted Corbyn about the disunity and so on, hoping to encourage anti-Corbyn talking points within his Party. Outside of this they have been remarkably 'placid' around a radicalism which they should be going out of their way to denounce, suggesting that they might be too shaken by their own internal divisions to put up a serious political front. If their politics are different from Corbyn's, they don't seem to feel like mentioning it or caring. Hence, it seems necessary that these voices within the Party certainly not be given further influence, but also that they be removed from the spot-light they currently occupy. In an economic system which is hostile to such a political trend, especially as it is fragile after years of being attacked, it would hence be important to not allow for hostility to easily surround the Party leadership. From there, the task is simplified as the Party can at least present itself in a clear manner.

Turner urges the following to ensure coherence in the Party:

"For the first time during Corbyn’s tenure, Labour would have a bold, unified and coherent party message that isn’t being contradicted every other hour by figures from their own party. The harsh reality is that the only way this will be possible is by replacing the right wingers in the Labour Party."

This is supplemented by measures such as the following:

"In short, Corbyn must fight back. He needs to take control of the party before he can take control of the country, otherwise he is nothing but a sitting duck. One of the ways this can be achieved is through enabling the democratic right of CLPs to reselect and deselect their parliamentary candidates, and organising in order to ensure that young, up and coming, “fire in the belly” left wingers replace those who are actively seeking to undermine the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn."

While attempting to saturate the Party with people who will attempt to further their political strand would be worthwhile, and give them a further advantage in organisation, some of the means suggested by the article could of course be potentially double-edged. Relying on approaches which draw too much on circumstances is dangerous, as it could endanger their political trend if these alter. Nonetheless, the general policy of trying to ensure further influence through the Labour Party is by all means a decent one. In addition, the recent Labour Party election set in process things which should be continued despite the lack of such elections, such as using the Labour Party apparatus to win the rank-and-file over and hence further secure the Party. While the opposition, which we may call the 'Blair Witch Project' after two of its major participants, can be loud, ultimately Corbyn's Labour can attempt to under-cut them by presenting a picture of politics in which that known as 'Corbynism' plays an integral role. If it is hard to see a politics without them, then they gain an ability to more easily under-cut their opponent. Corbyn framing his views in terms of opposition to a 'rigged economic system' does go in this direction, however it also leads to the more troubling portrayal of a Party where other members work in harmony with this 'rigged economic system' - a treacherous position to be sure. Nonetheless, it does display the ability of Corbyn's movement to take on current political themes and use them for a more radical agenda, which suggests that they have little reason to not continue the movement.

Hence, the aim of unifying the Labour Party in Corbyn's situation is in the right direction. However, we do have a few qualms with the article. Firstly, while it claims that Corbyn has not shown strict or authoritarian trappings, their stubbornness during the resignations saga leading up to their re-election would seem to suggest otherwise. They could stand to act in a more authoritarian manner over their Party, in certain aspects, but it isn't something that they have neglected. They have often allowed others to leave or be removed if they don't comply with the direction of the leadership and movement. Further, the focus of the article is more immediate than the movement need expect: while Corbyn's movement are reviving from a highly hostile political climate, and continue to experience issues with this, their aim should hence be consolidation rather than fanfare. They must attempt to avoid further episodes of political relegation so far as they are given space to do so. Having gained time, they can certainly look to various events - but the risk of staking too many expectations on an event and then experiencing troubles is a looming danger. The Mahabharata famously involves gambling things away in a distinctly uneven context - this is something that the movement should avoid. Hence, clarifying the Party's stance is not only a question of immediate 'momentum,' but a policy that is by itself advisable by this point.

The article is hence worth reading for those interested in this issue or in Britain. Alternatively, you can turn to the Daily Mail for exciting news on Theresa May, and Prince Harry's (no relation to certain others called Harry) relationship with Meghan Markle. You would assume that whether or not Harry is indeed a bespectacled character from a novel, Meghan Markle sounds eerily similar to recent reality show drop-out Megan Marx. Does this confirm a secret Marxist plot to rule England? In any case, as in the elections, you can really figure out whom you'd rather focus on.