The Sincerity of Jeremy Corbyn

I felt compelled to call LBC this evening because of the way that Nigel Farage (who has his own show on weekday evenings) was trying to portray Jeremy Corbyn as some kind of charlatan for saying he would do whatever it took to stop a no-deal Brexit, and the fact that most of the callers appeared to agree with him that Corbyn could not be trusted, since he has a history of being deeply sceptical about the European Union, and must therefore - according to Nigel and some of his callers -  be trying to take advantage of the situation to gain political power for himself (as if any politician would behave in such a cynical and manipulative manner!)
Click here to hear my conversation with Nigel, which begins at 37:37.

Free Trade, Brexit and the European Union

Throughout the EU referendum and the subsequent wranglings over what form Brexit should take, one of the arguments put forward by opponents of the European Union has been the assertion that the EU is an enemy of free trade. Tariffs that the EU imposes on certain types of goods imported from non-EU countries, eg. agricultural produce from African countries or clothing from China, are cited as examples of a protectionist policy that both helps to perpetuate poverty in the developing world and to punish European consumers by denying them access to cheap goods. The need for Britain to strike free trade deals with growing economies across the world has been pushed as one of the main arguments for Brexit, with cheaper food, clothing and footwear being touted by the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg as some of the tangible benefits that will accrue to the ordinary British shopper.
With the looming possibility of a ‘no deal’ Brexit, this depiction of the EU as an essentially protectionist institution seems to have grown in popularity, and I have heard it used frequently in recent weeks as a way of urging the complete disassociation of Britain from the EU’s single market and customs union. Outside of these institutions, it is claimed, Britain will be able to thrive by slashing or completely removing all tariff barriers with the rest of the world, to the benefit of consumers and, ultimately,the UK economy as a whole.
Just this morning I heard someone on the radio (I didn’t catch who he was, probably a spokesperson from some think-tank or other) putting the case for free-trade as a way of generating economic growth and national prosperity, and framing it as an argument for leaving the EU and not remaining a part of the EU customs union. In other words, an attempt is being made to use the powerful and persuasive economic arguments about why free trade is superior to protectionism, in the service of a hard-Brexit stance.
This approach is, in my opinion, either dishonest or mistaken. One of the reasons that I voted for Britain to remain in the EU, and that I would, even if Brexit happens, like us to remain in the customs union and, ideally, the European Economic Area as well,is the fact that I am a supporter of free trade. I’m sure this is true for many, if not most, of those who voted Remain in the referendum. And, of course, the party which is most strongly associated with the Remain position, the Liberal Democrats, is also the party which – both in its current form and as the Liberal Party - has historically been most strongly associated with advocacy of free trade and opposition to protectionism.
The European Union is the largest single market on the planet, and provides for completely tariff-free trade between all member countries. This freedom of trade is further assisted by a common regulatory regime which serves to minimise ‘non-tariff barriers’ such as differences in product standards, food safety regulations etc. It also provides a common minimum set of standards in workers' rights and environmental protections in order to prevent a 'race to the bottom' which could, otherwise, be a downside to the benefits of international free trade.
As well as freedom of movement for goods, services and capital, the EU guarantees the free movement of EU citizens across all internal European borders. This is crucial, because the same logic which demonstrates the harm caused by the erection of barriers to free trade in goods and services, and to the free movement of capital for investment, makes it inevitable that barriers to the free movement of that other factor of production, labour, will also be economically damaging. Yet many of those who ostensibly champion the benefits of free trade in order to bolster support for a hard Brexit are the same people who argue that Britain needs to 'take back control' of its borders.
As well as its internal free trade, the EU has free trade deals with many other countries, all of which will cease to apply to the UK after Brexit. And even if the UK were to unilaterally apply zero tariffs on imports after Brexit, this would not prevent other countries applying tariffs against Britain which would, of course, have a damaging effect on our exports and, therefore, on the British economy in general.
If Britain really is a champion of free trade then it would seem to be a very retrograde move to be about to leave such a gigantic and well established free trade block which also happens to be literally on our doorstep, while simultaneously opting out of all the existing free trade agreements hitherto negotiated on our behalf by that block, and having to begin again, from a much weaker starting point. To claim to be doing it in the name of free trade seems positively deluded.

Brexit and Proportional Representation

As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe that the main reason for the impasse we have arrived at in regards to the Brexit situation is Teresa May’s conviction that she has to deliver a Brexit that matches what she (rightly or wrongly) perceives to be the expectations of the majority of Brexit voters (ie. an end to Freedom of Movement and a withdrawal from the Single Market and customs union or, as she often puts it, “taking back control of our borders, our money and our laws”), rather than trying to find a compromise solution that honours the referendum result while taking into account the wishes of the majority of voters from both sides of the debate (eg. leaving the EU while remaining in the Single Market and customs union – the so called Norway option).
I believe this was a fundamental mistake on her part, but it is possible that it stems from the nature of our electoral system itself. We are used to a First Past the Post system of elections in which the winning side has complete power to implement it’s agenda. So a concern to establish, and act in accordance with, the views of the majority of the majority (rather than simply the majority of the electorate) on specific issues, comes naturally to a politician who is used to working within the First Past the Post paradigm.
This type of of ‘winner takes all’ mentality would, perhaps, be less likely to afflict politicians used to working within a system based on proportional representation, which is yet another argument for introducing PR for UK general elections, something that I have previously argued for on this blog.

We must have a second referendum

I've not posted on this blog for ages, as I became very busy finishing off the MA in History that I was studying via distance learning. Now that is finished, and we are facing probably the most tumultuous few weeks in British politics since the second World war, I feel I ought to post something about Brexit, starting with the political events of the last few days.
Last week, various parliamentarians, including the Speaker, Jon Berkow, were accused by elements in the media, as well as many on social media, of hatching a coup to thwart the "will of the people", when the Speaker allowed an amendment to be added to the government's finance bill which would force the government to come back to parliament within three working days, in the event of Teresa May's withdrawal agreement being defeated, with a statement about how they now wished to proceed. This accusation was utter nonsense. In a matter of such vital importance, it was quite right for the speaker to allow parliament (which represents the whole country) to put some pressure on the government (which, being a minority government, represents less than half of the electorate). During the referendum campaign, many brexiters opined that parliamentary sovereignty was the very thing which they felt was threatened by the UK's membership of the European Union, so it is hard to see why they would complain about parliament trying to exercise some kind of check over the executive in these circumstances. (Some brexiters even called this an unprecedented seizure of power by the legislature over the executive. I would suggest that Charles I, were he still around to comment, might not agree with them on that.)
Last night Teresa May's withdrawal agreement Bill was defeated, by 432 votes to 202, the largest defeat for any government in parliamentary history. Jeremy Corbyn has tabled a vote of no confidence in the government, which will be debated and then voted on today, although the government is expected to survive thanks to the support of the DUP. After last night's defeat, Mrs May said that she would reach out to other senior parliamentarians across the house to try to find out whether there was some form of deal that could be supported by a majority in the house, which could then be put to the the European Union.
However, in this afternoon's Prime Minister's Questions, she stated that any new deal must involve an end to freedom of movement. This shows that she is either in total denial, or is being completely insincere in her offer to listen to other parties. The EU have made it very clear that the current deal is the only possible deal on offer if the UK insists on leaving the single market and customs union, and there is no way that Britain would be allowed to stay in those institutions if it does not accept freedom of movement.
For the past two years, Mrs May has let herself be guided by the misguided notion that it is her duty to take Britain out of the single market, out of the customs union, and to end freedom of movement, because, apparently, that was what most leave voters wanted when they cast their vote to leave the EU. This was a fundamental mistake because, as I argued in this post shortly after the referendum, even though many Brexit voters may have been opponents of immigration, the fact that the leave vote was only 52% means that the anti-immigrant brexiters were undoubtedly only a minority of the those who actually took part in the referendum. There is, therefore, no mandate for insisting on an end to freedom of movement or membership of the single market or customs union. Mrs May's inability to see this could potentially lead this country to disaster.
There has been talk recently of a move within parliament to come together around a Norway style deal (something I argued for in the post just referenced), but if Mrs May is intransigent on this then there is no real possibility of it coming to fruition. If she survives today's no confidence vote, then we are left with only two options. Either a 'no deal' Brexit, which almost all forecasters say would be disastrous for the country, or no Brexit at all. Until a few weeks ago, I was opposed to the idea of a second referendum, but since these seem now to be the only two options (unless, against all predictions, today's no confidence motion succeeds) I have now become a supporter. I do not believe that there has ever been a majority for a 'no deal' Brexit. Indeed, the latest polling indicates that staying in the EU is now the "will of the people". It would, in fact, be an affront to democracy if the government were to take us out of the European Union with no deal, without first checking if that was what the majority of the British people wanted.

The transgender question

Yesterday, on LBC radio, I listened to an interview with a woman who is involved in helping schools to deal with the question of transgender students. I began listening after the interview had started so, unfortunately, I don’t know who she was. Apparently, she has recently been vilified by the Daily Mail for “telling teachers not to use the words ‘boy’ and ‘girl’”. The reality, as she explained, was that she advises teachers to address large groups of students as “people” rather than by using gender specific terms, since there might be some present who would feel excluded by such terms.

The presenter (James O’Brien, of course) opened up the phone lines to callers who might have questions they wished to put to this woman about her field of expertise, or areas of confusion she might be able to clarify for them. Unfortunately, I was listening from work so was not able to call the show, but had I been at home I would have been very tempted to call, since transgenderism is an area that I do have some confusion about and I would appreciate being able to discuss my questions with someone who knows more about it than I do. In the event, I had to tweet my question, which was, “If there were no socially prescribed gender roles, would there still be people who felt they were trapped in the wrong body?” Unfortunately, JO’B did not read out my question, but I did receive a number of “likes” and “retweets”. On investigating the twitter profiles of my likers and retweeters I found that the majority of them were women who identified as feminists and considered transgenderism as a threat to the safety, privacy and rights of women. My tweet, however, was not meant to be a condemnation of transgenderism. It was a genuine question which I have never heard properly addressed and would very much like to know the answer to so that I can formulate my own stance on transgender issues, particularly now that such issues have become so topical and politically relevant, with the government considering making it easier for people to legally change their gender.

If the answer to my question is 'yes, there would still be people who felt they were trapped in the wrong body even in the absence of socially prescribed gender roles' - in other words, if the reasons for people being transgender are not predominantly related to their identification (or lack of identification) with societal expectations of masculine or feminine behaviour - then what that would appear to indicate is that transgenderism is not actually about 'gender' at all. Rather, it is about biological sex and the straightforward desire to have a body of the opposite biological sex to that with which one was born. If that is the case, then what does it mean to be a man trapped in a woman's body, or vice versa? Wouldn't that seem to imply that being male or female is an ontological reality that goes beyond mere physical 'plumbing'? That there is something like a male or female 'soul' - a kind of gendered "ghost in the machine" - completely unrelated to either socially defined gender roles or to ones biological reproductive equipment, that resides within each one of us and occasionally finds itself residing in a body of the 'wrong' sex?

In other words, if transgenderism is something more than just people reacting to societal pressures for men and women to behave in certain ways (by changing their own bodies instead of trying to change society's prejudices), then it follows that the distinction between femaleness and maleness, far from being merely skin deep, must exist at a level that is deeper and more fundamental than mere physical differences in body shape or even brain structure.

It would seem, then, that when someone born female claims to be male, or vice versa, anyone who agrees with that claim is effectively taking the view that there is a real difference between a female and a male on a level which is far more fundamental than the obvious differences in bodily organs.

To put it another way, if someone with a female body is actually male, what part of him is it that makes him male? His soul? His mind? His personality? Is there a gene that determines someone's gender? (This seems plausible to me. Animals seem to have gender roles which, presumably, are genetically determined.) Is there such thing as a male brain and a female brain? (I have read that there are structural differences between 'female brains' and 'male' ones but, if true, I assume these are just rough differences between the 'average' female and male brain, rather than a genuine binary distinction). This question of what it is about a transgender person that makes them the opposite gender to that of the body into which they have been born is one to which I do not, currently, know the answer - but I would genuinely like to understand this issue.

The issue of transgenderism, what it means and how it should be accommodated by society has certainly thrown up a number of interesting questions. While I would in no way support any policy that denied someone the right to identify themselves in whatever way they please, I'm not ashamed to say that there are many aspects of this sensitive and nuanced subject about which I do not yet have a clear and fully worked out view.

On finding one's 'political home'

I listen to LBC Radio a lot, mainly to the shows of James O’Brien, Maajid Nawaz and Iain Dale. One thing I’ve noticed that crops up in a lot of calls lately is the idea of people searching for a political home. Many callers are essentially socially or economically conservative but are not comfortable with the Tories’ approach to Brexit, or feel that austerity has ‘gone too far’. Others may be of a centre left political stance but might not feel very enamoured of Jeremy Corbyn or the more ‘hard left’ elements which seem now to have become the mainstream of the Labour party. Then there are the hard core Brexiteers who are angry at the perceived dithering of the government over the issue of the UK leaving the European Union. And, equally, the unrepentant Remainers who don’t feel that the Labour party, as the official opposition, are doing enough to fight for the pro-EU position. These people often say that they feel they have no political home. But, sometimes, a caller will announce, like an enthusiastic religious convert, that he or she has, at last, found his/her political home, perhaps in the Liberal Democrat party or, more often, as a member or supporter of UKIP.
This idea of needing to find one’s political home seems rather pointless and, to be honest, somewhat self-indulgent to me. Political parties exist essentially for the purpose of gaining power in order to enact the policies that they promote. I don’t see the point in joining a political party in order to be amongst people who have views that are as near as possible to one’s own, if there is no real prospect of getting a chance to put those views into practice. For some people, it even seems as if their party affiliation is worn as a kind of intellectual fashion accessory, in order to let people know at a glance - particularly on social media - what type of views they hold and what viewpoints they disdain, which politicians they feel an affinity for and which ones they hold in contempt.
I am a member of the Labour party, not because I believe in everything that party stands for - in fact they are not even the party whose basic views are most similar to my own at the moment – but because, of the two parties which have any real chance of coming to power in Britain at the moment, they are the one I would most like to see in government. Their policies in regard to funding the NHS and lifting the public sector pay cap, and their concerns about the cost of living and, in particular, of housing, are more in accord with my own, and relevant to the life circumstances of myself and my family, than those of the Conservatives. But politics is not sport and should not operate on the basis of tribal loyalties. Should the day come when it makes more sense to vote, say, Liberal Democrat (as I have done in more than one general election in the past) in order for more of the policies that I believe in to have a better chance of being implemented, then I will gladly jump ship and support the Lib Dems. That is the only way in which the idea of finding one’s ‘political home’ makes any sense to me.

Trump's stance on Afghanistan could prove counterproductive

President Trump - who seems to have abandoned the isolationist stance he appeared to adopt during his election campaign - announced last night that there will be a further 4000 American troops sent into Afghanistan, and he has called on the UK and other NATO countries to follow suit. This time, though, the remit of the US forces will not involve any attempt at 'nation building'. Their purpose, he says, is simply to kill terrorists.
There is a real danger, in my opinion, that this will turn out to be an extremely counterproductive move. With the US military mission being told specifically to not concern itself with 'nation building', there is a potential to slip into an attitude of disregard for the safety and well being of afghan civil society and, indeed, afghan civilians, altogether. Consequently, the US could end up making a lot more enemies in the region than it already has, thus ultimately increasing the threat to American interests and American security far beyond its current level.

First thoughts on the election result

This is a good outcome for those of us (like myself) who are opposed to a 'hard brexit'. A weakened Theresa May will be presiding over a Tory parliamentary party many of whom are surely opposed to the headlong rush to leave the single market that has been May's policy up until now, and facing a strengthened Labour/SNP/Libdem opposition. At this point I think there is hope for the possibility of the UK remaining within the European Economic Area. Indeed, that would surely be the only sensible thing to do, when the alternative is to be recklessly led out of the single market by a demonstrably weak and wobbly Tory administration in charge of negotiating an acceptable 'divorce' settlement in a limited time frame, beginning in 11 days time. Also, in terms of things like the future of the NHS, social care, workers' rights etc, it's obviously less scary to have a Tory minority government than one with an unassailable five year mandate to wreak as much havoc as it likes.

Leaving Labour? My plans regarding party membership

For some weeks now, I have been on the verge of leaving the Labour party. I became a registered Labour supporter through Unison in 2015, before the general election and rejoined the party (I had previously been a member in the late 80s/early 90s) as a full member at the beginning of 2016. I got involved with the party again because I felt that they were the only party that had a chance of defeating the Conservatives – who, in my opinion, were guilty of unfair and unnecessary systematic and ideologically based underfunding of essential public services - and until fairly recently I still believed Labour were the only party that could stop the Tories in the next general election, whether it comes in 2020 or sooner. However, it is now pretty clear that Labour have no chance of winning the next general election under Jeremy Corbyn who, while very good at Labour leadership campaigns, seems to be quite inept at being leader of the opposition. Labour have consistently been a long way behind the Tories in the polls (the two most recent ones, here and here, put them 18 percentage points behind, with the one on 29th March putting Corbyn’s personal popularity 40 points behind that of Theresa May).
Rather than leave now, however, I have decided to remain in the party and to take part in the campaigning for the County Council elections which are due to take place on 4th May. If Labour defy expectations and do well in these elections then I shall take it as a sign that the tide is turning and that Labour still stand a chance of clawing their way back to a position of being able to mount a serious challenge to the Tories by the time the next general election comes around. If, however, as seems much more likely, Labour suffer serious losses then, unless Mr Corbyn resigns his position as leader, I shall resign from the party. Corbyn failing to stand aside after a disastrous performance in these elections will be, to my mind, a clear sign that he puts his loyalty to that large majority of Labour members and registered supporters who twice elected him as leader of the party, before his loyalty to that far larger number of people who rely on the Labour Party to be in a position to effectively oppose the Conservative government and to be able to take power themselves at the soonest available opportunity.
If Jeremy Corbyn does stand down in the wake of a drubbing on 4th May then I shall, for the time being, remain a member of the Labour Party. His most likely replacement, according to most commentators, will be either Clive Lewis or Keir Starmer. I would prefer Starmer, but even if Clive Lewis takes over I will stick around and see how things go under his leadership. It’s hard to imagine that the situation for the party can get much worse than it is now. Should Labour’s share of the vote tank in the elections next month and Mr Corbyn do the decent thing and resign then hopefully, whoever succeeds him, to quote a song once popular with a previous Labour leader, "things can only get better!"

Has Brexit brought a united Ireland closer?

According to Wikipedia the population of Northern Ireland is 45.6% protestant and 40.2% Roman Catholic. I realise that not all protestants are unionists and not all Catholics are nationalists, but the history of each of those two communities is deeply intertwined with those respective political traditions. An Ipsos MORI poll in 2013 found that 38% of Catholics wanted Northern Ireland to remain a part of the United Kingdom, compared to 35% who supported a united Ireland.
In the EU referendum, the electorate in Northern Ireland voted by 56% to 44% to remain in the European Union.
In Thurday's Northern Ireland assembly elections, the results of which were announced last night and in which the turnout was 65% compared to only 54% last year, the Democratic Unionist Party's majority over Sinn Fein was reduced from ten seats to only one seat, with Sinn Fein's over all vote increased by 4%.
I don't live in Northern Ireland and neither am I particularly informed about Northern Ireland politics but, taking the above facts into account, I can't help but wonder whether the looming 'hard Brexit' has made the prospect of a United Ireland (and hence the six counties that currently comprise Northern Ireland being able to stay in the EU) more palatable to voters, particularly those from among that 38% of Roman Catholics who, in 2013, supported remaining a part of the United Kingdom. In other words, could it be that the UK vote to leave the European Union has brought the prospect of a United Ireland a lot closer than it was before June 23rd 2016.

My reluctant conclusion: Jeremy must go

It's now been five months since Jeremy Corbyn won his second Labour leadership contest. The dissenters within the PLP have been pretty quiet, but still Labour's dire opinion poll rankings refuse to shift (at least not upwards) and Corbyn's personal ratings are even worse than the party's. I voted for him twice (pretty reluctantly the second time) and have tried to stay positive about his leadership (my post of 31st December was written more to try and convince myself than anyone else) but I have finally come to the conclusion that Jeremy Corbyn has to go, or Labour will have absolutely no chance of winning the next general election and we will be condemned to five more years of the Conservatives, this time with a vastly increased majority.

It's time to get behind the leader

In 2015 after Ed Miliband resigned following Labour's defeat in the general election, I had been planning on voting for Andy Burnham as the new leader. However, after watching Burnham's slickly produced campaign video, with cheesy music and liberal sprinklings of the latest focus group inspired buzzword, "aspiration" (Yvette Cooper was equally guilty of this) and comparing that to Corbyn's straightforward and guileless performances at the hustings, I was quickly won over to the Corbyn cause (I admit there was an element of Old Labour nostalgia involved as well) even though his views are further to the left than mine and I don't share his unilateralism or his republicanism.
By the time of the 2016 Labour leadership contest I was far less sure about whether to cast my vote for Corbyn again. Labour were tanking in the opinion polls but it was difficult to say how much of that was due to lack of support for the leadership among the parliamentary party. I dithered for a while and I actually voted for the pro-Owen Smith slate in the National Executive Committee elections. In the end, two things made me decide to give Jeremy another chance. Firstly, I disagreed with Owen Smith's policy of wanting to hold a second EU referendum, and believed this could potentially alienate a large number of voters in a forthcoming general election. Secondly, I felt that the outcome of the EU referendum and the inexorable rise of Donald Trump in America showed that we were in a period of 'anti-establishment' politics whereby large sections of the public - often those who hadn't previously taken much of an interest in politics - were intent on confounding the media and bucking the opinion polls by supporting positions that went against the perceived 'script'. I felt that, in this kind of political environment, Corbyn's unpolished style and consistent track record of conviction politics might just be what was needed to strike a chord with voters and, like Brexit and Trump, defy the expectations of the bookies and the pollsters.
Since the leadership election I have tried to remain positive about Mr Corbyn's leadership despite the fact that Labour have not made much headway in terms of opinion polls. He occasionally does a good interview and seems (sometimes, at least) to be getting better at Prime Minister's Questions. As for those reasons why I voted for Jeremy Corbyn in the last leadership election, well, neither of them seems to be quite so applicable any more. Firstly, I now believe we should have a second referendum - not on whether to leave the European Union but on whether or not to remain within the European Economic Area. I believe the result would show that there is no mandate for a so-called 'hard Brexit'. This is not really that different from Owen Smith's position that we should hold a second referendum on whether or not to accept whatever deal is on offer at the end of the government's Brexit negotiations.
Secondly, what I now realise is that the current anti-establishment mood among large sections of the public is a very specific form of anti-establishment politics; it has an anti-globalisation, anti-'elite' element which might chime in with some of what Corbyn stands for but it is also essentially very much a reaction against political correctness and mass immigration and it regards the left and those who, like Corbyn and those around him, call themselves socialists, as brainwashed stooges of the hated liberal 'political class'. This may be an era of anti-establishment politics but, unfortunately, in some ways at least, Jeremy Corbyn is simply the wrong kind of anti-establishment. (I'm not suggesting Labour should pander to this populist mood, it's just that I no longer think it's something that Jeremy Corbyn can necessarily benefit from significantly.)
With an unelected, authoritarian Prime Minister apparently intent on taking the UK out of the single market without a proper mandate, and NHS and social care services struggling simply to stay afloat, I can't help feeling that the Tories are getting far too easy a ride at the moment. It's essential for those of us who value the NHS, good quality state funded education and the welfare state in general that the Labour Party functions as a strong parliamemtary opposition to the current Tory regime. It's even more essential that, when the next general election is called, Labour is in a position to take votes from all sections of the public including a significant number of those who have previously voted Conservative or Liberal Democrat.
My intention, however, is not merely to be negative and I'm certainly not arguing that there should be another leadership challenge. Jeremy Corbyn may not be the finished article yet, and a leadership team made up of the likes of Corbyn, John McDonnell, Diane Abbott etc. is probably not best calculated to appeal to floating voters, but the blame for Labour's current predicament cannot be laid entirely at the feet of Corbyn and his supporters. Tony Benn once likened the Labour Party to a bird, pointing out that it relied on both its wings to be able to fly. If those on the centre left and the 'right' of the party would have another crack at working with Corbyn - however difficult he may be to work with - for the good of the party and, more importantly, the good of the country, then I believe the situation can be salvaged and the Labour Party could once again become both a formidable opponent to the current government and a viable, credible government in waiting.

Aside from all the xenophobia and misogyny...

...Trump's policies will be bad for the US (and consequently the world's) economy. Protectionism can create jobs in the protected sectors but because those goods will then be more expensive, consumers have less to spend on other items, which means job losses for those who produce those items, as well as poorer consumers. Protectionism is robbing Peter to pay Paul and then robbing Paul as well! The markets are already reacting badly.

How Nigel Farage and Donald Trump persuaded me to vote for Jeremy Corbyn

I've been flipping backwards and forwards on the question of who to vote for in the Labour Leadership election ever since Owen Smith threw his hat into the ring but today my vote finally arrived and it was burning a hole in my email server, so I decided that today would be decision day. I would finally choose which side I am on. And, for a couple of reasons, I have found myself swinging back towards Jeremy Corbyn lately.
Firstly, as a member of the Labour Party I intend to help with campaigning in the run-up to the next General Election. That means that if Owen Smith becomes leader I would find myself campaigning on a manifesto which includes the staging of a second referendum on EU membership, something I am opposed to on principle as I believe to hold another EU referendum without ever implementing the decision of the first one would seriously undermine many people's faith in the democratic process in this country. Such a policy might well also alienate a lot of so-called 'traditional Labour voters'.
Secondly, while the main reason I have been seriously tempted to vote for Owen Smith is the belief that he's more likely to beat the Tories in a general election - a belief largely generated and fostered by the media and backed up by opinion polls - I can't escape the nagging feeling that maybe I'm allowing myself to be misled. After all, neither the media nor the pollsters foresaw a Tory majority in the 2015 general election and the polling companies and even the bookies were confident that the Remain campaign would win the EU referendum. Last night, in fact, Nigel Farage was in America giving a speech about "the Brexit story" to a rally of Donald Trump supporters - another politician who was initially given very little chance of success by the media, in his bid to win the Republican Party presidential nomination. 'Anti-establishment' politicians (of which, surely, Corbyn is one) seem to be doing better than expected at the moment. Perhaps the type of people who vote for such candidates and causes are less likely than others to respond to opinion polls. Jeremy hasn't been given much of a chance yet and I think he probably deserves at least one decent crack at a general election.
Maybe I'm guilty of letting my heart overrule my head, but - taking all the above points into consideration - at 9.40pm this evening I cast my vote for Jeremy Corbyn to remain as leader of the Labour Party.

Why I'll (probably) be voting for Owen Smith

I don't agree with all of Jeremy Corbyn's views and policies. I am not a Republican (at least not in the British context), I'm not sure about unilateral disarmament and I'm certainly dubious of his (past?) support for organisations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Nor do I agree with all of Owen Smith's proposed policies. I don't, for example, support a second referendum on the U.K.'s membership of the European Union. But, although I haven't made up my mind 100 percent yet (there are still over three weeks to go), I am increasingly coming to the view that in the Labour leadership election I am going to vote for Owen Smith. This is for one reason and one reason only. I think he is more likely to win a general election than Jeremy Corbyn is. That belief is based partly on intuition about who is more likely to win over vital swing voters, and partly on evidence such as this poll.
As a low paid, public sector worker and council tenant with children, some of whom are unemployed (between zero hour contracts) and some in state education, perhaps one day to go on to university, and various family members who suffer from chronic illness and are dependent on the NHS and social care, I need there to be a Labour government. I have worked for the National Health Service for 15 years and I have never seen it as on its knees as it is right now in terms of staffing levels. The NHS badly needs there to be a Labour government ASAP.
Corbyn may have a more ideologically pure political history but that counts for nothing if Labour cannot win power. Whatever happens, there will be a mountain to climb but I increasingly believe that Owen Smith is Labour's best hope of winning the next General Election.
At one of the recent hustings, the candidates were asked what they listened to on their iPods. Owen Smith mentioned some pop or rock group whose name I can't even remember. Corbyn (who I like to think doesn't own an iPod) professed to be a lover of classical and folk music. Clearly Jeremy Corbyn has much better taste in music than Owen Smith (in my opinion, anyway). Sadly, however, if, as a musician, you want to get to number one in the charts you're probably going to be better off with a catchy, slickly produced and well marketed pop song. That's just the nature of reality.

Paul Weller knew a thing or two about old Etonians

"What a catalyst you turned out to be. Loaded the guns then you ran off home for your tea." (Eton Rifles, The Jam)

Brexit and the Irish Civil War

The pro and anti treaty debates and subsequent civil war in Ireland redefined the whole landscape of Irish politics for at least 70 years (in some ways they are still a defining factor today). The way the recent referendum has split our country into two opposing camps around a single issue has, in a small (and thankfully less bloody) way, helped me (as someone who is interested in early 20th Century Irish history) to understand how such a lasting re-entrenchment could have occured.

The new divide in UK politics

I've long been uncomfortable with the distinction in politics between the traditional categories of 'left' and 'right'. In the aftermath of the referendum it seems to me that a new political divide is becoming apparent, one that is perhaps more visceral or emotional in character yet in many ways more relevant to the current political scene. I would characterise the two camps on either side of this divide as follows.
On the one hand there are those who believe representative democracy is superior to direct democracy (which is really just a vehicle for populism); who tend to - as Michael Gove might put it - trust 'experts' to make the right decisions and who believe strongly in the importance of international and intergovernmental cooperation.
On the other, there are those who believe that the public as a whole is more qualified to make political decisions and judgements than any individual or select group, however apparently well qualified; who are more likely to question the opinions of experts however well educated or well established in their fields they may be and who are mistrustful of people or institutions weilding large amounts of power.
Although I think that most of the people who voted the same way as me in the referendum probably fall into the first category, I have to admit that I am not sure which of the two groups I would most readily place myself in.

My thoughts on A.C. Grayling's letter to Parliament

A friend today drew my attention to this article by the philosopher A.C. Grayling. Below are my comments on the article:

Interesting article but I would want to question a few of Prof Grayling's premises, eg.
1) Is membership of the EU actually a term of the UK constitution (such that we have one)?
2) Should the judgement of elected representatives be given superior weight over that of ordinary citizens even when those citizens have had months to independently study the relevant facts? If so, what does this imply about the intellectual capabilities of 'ordinary people'?
3) The fact that a majority of the electorate didn't vote for Brexit is a good point but people have a right to abstain from taking part in the decision making process and to trust those with stronger views to make the decision on their behalf. Does this really invalidate the decision of the majority of those who did vote?

I did not want our country to leave the European Union but, now that the majority have voted to do so, I think that to ignore their wishes would set a dangerous and highly divisive precedent. Far better, in my opinion, to try for a post-EU deal that sees the UK retain free movement and membership of the single market, thus keeping the best aspects of EU membership while assuaging the concerns about sovereignty held by many of those who voted to leave.

A possible way forward for our divided country

Here's my humble suggestion for a possible way forward for our rather bruised and divided country post-referendum: With the tory brexiters apparently rowing back (at least a bit) from the pre-referendum anti-immigrant rhetoric (and the, admittedly remote, possibility that the tories might not even be in power in a few months) it seems very possible that we could end up with the so-called 'Norway Option' - membership of the European Economic Area (EEA), which is basically the single market, without full membership of the EU. Rather than agitating for a 2nd referendum or for the government to simply ignore the referendum result - which will only lead to further division and bitterness - perhaps the best thing would be for those who voted remain and those who voted leave (apart from those whose leave vote was purely motivated by anti-immigrant feeling which - Jeremy Kyle-esque news interviews with white van drivers in pie and mash shops notwithstanding - is undoubtedly nowhere near all of them) to push for EEA membership as a compromise. Remain voters would surely be pleased that we would get to retain the EU's 'four freedoms' (freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and people) - at least to the same extent that the remaining 27 EU member states do - and those on both sides of the divide with concerns about sovereignty or the so-called 'democratic deficit' would surely be pleased by the fact that the UK would no longer be under the direct jurisdiction of Brussels. True, we would no longer have a vote in the Council of Ministers and we would have no MEPs, but we would undoubtedly still have a pretty significant influence over EU policy due to the size of our population and (once it gets back on its feet) our economy. Those who are obsessed with keeping immigrants out of the UK would not be happy but, considering the leave vote was only 52%, such people are without doubt only a minority of the electorate. I would, therefore, argue that the referendum result does not have to be interpreted as a mandate to reject freedom of movement.