Sorry Not Sorry
Lorna Finlayson
Reporters and political commentators have been lining up since the election to tell us they are sorry: they were wrong about Jeremy Corbyn, wrong about the move to the left which is both cause and consequence of his leadership of the Labour Party, wrong about 'the public'.
For months, journalists have been attacking and undermining Corbyn's leadership and the leftward move of the Labour Party. The election result has made it difficult for them to continue in quite the same vein. Why risk looking like a bad loser, when you can be magnanimous in defeat? You get to show that you are humble, courageous, gracious. You keep your position on the platforms that might more properly be yielding space to some of the many whose voices have not been heard but who have long seen things more clearly.
And then, pretty soon – in the same breath, if you’re impatient – you can get onto the ‘but’, explaining how despite the ‘shock’ result, you were right about the Central Point: Corbyn may have done better than ‘we’ (or ‘everyone’) thought he could, but he still can’t actually win a general election. Or: he can win only if he and the party are prepared to change in the ways you’ve always said they should.
In other words, you get to carry on with business as usual. This is more or less the opposite of real humility or remorse. The mark of a genuine apology is a subsequent change in behaviour: you turn over a new leaf, try to compensate for harms caused; maybe you shut up for a bit, and reflect on what went wrong. You don’t milk your apology for all it’s worth and then do the same thing again.
The latest round of apologising was prompted by a hopeful turn in a long, grim story. But it fits a familiar pattern. Who nowadays isn’t against the Iraq War, for example? How many of the politicians who now admit that it was a ‘mistake’ opposed the invasion at the time? How many of them had learned enough not to cheer on the bombings of Libya or of Syria? Such belated confessions aren't just ‘too little too late’. They're part of the process by which mistakes, crimes and tragedies are repeated.
Comments
The Tories increased their vote by 2.3 million, so to describe it as a "poor campaign" isn't entirely accurate. The point is that Labour did even better, and it did so nationwide. The area where the PLP (not the party) most disassociated itself from Corbyn, namely the North, is where the Tory swing was greatest. Stop being a dick.
The turn around in the space of 8 weeks is incredible. When the next election comes around an increased Labour membership will be ready to fight it on the doorstep and on social media. Another increase in turn out is perfectly attainable. The media will have to actually address the policies in the Labour manifesto rather than divert discussion to the IRA or Trident or electability.
He seems to be a immensely decent and likeable man, and his humiliation of May’s political ambition has been a delight, but all this pales into insignificance when put against his failure to fight Brexit. And now that we have seen just how good he is at campaigning when his heart is in it, that failure becomes even less excusable.
The best historical analogy I can think of is with the peace treaties that were drawn up in the nineteenth century by those diplomats who fulfilled the role now held by the much traduced Eurocrats. Those treaties were often absurd and grotesque: the powers they gave and the details of borders, the ruling elites carving up the land in their interests and no one else’s; but whatever their faults, those treaties were massively better than their alternative - war. In the same way,the EU is massively better than its alternative (let’s, please, not find out how unpleasant that will be: Cameron was mocked during the campaign for his assertion that the EU has kept the peace in Europe, as if he was suggesting Brexit would mean a return to the Hundred Year’s War, but in the Balkans it has been a significant force for good and if the EU were to collapse, all bets are off). It’s all too easy for those of us on the left to decry the EU as a capitalist conspiracy. Those who think like that should reflect on the fact that to the 1%, it is a nest of socialism and workers’ rights: that’s why Murdoch, Harmsworth et al devote such massive resources to trying to destroy it. Corbyn’s reluctance to fight for the ‘austerity inflicting’ EU, might still lead us to the low-tax low-regulation ‘Hong Kong of Europe’ that was always the true Brexotic goal - the austerity we would experience then will make the EU now look Scrooge when he woke up on Christmas morning.
If the left hasn’t got the guts to fight for the boring truth; if, like the populist right, it can only get excited by delusions and dreams, then we are finished. We are meant to be about truth, and the truth is that what works ain’t exciting. Fantasies of a golden tomorrow that can he handed to us on a plate are for children, it’s time we grew up.
If he’d come out fighting and explained the real agenda of Brexit (‘they want to get rid of the NHS and the welfare state’ said John Major, but no one believed him); if he’d enthused us with the idea that it is only by left wing parties coming together across Europe and cooperating through the EU that we can hope to build a force powerful enough to stand up to the global mega-companies; if he’d told us that the future is about continents not countries, and that we must unite with like minded people across first Europe and then the world; if he’d done all this he might have come out massively strengthened, but that’s pure speculation - like your imagining. There is only one thing we can be confident of: we wouldn’t have invoked Article 50.
Unless you believe that there was some sort of predestined necessity to the Brexit result, it's very hard to see how his enthusiastic support would not have made enough of a difference.
That's certainly how the country's leading psephologist John Curtice sees it. He also concludes, on the basis of the polling data in the months leading up to the referendum, that: "There is little evidence that Mr Corbyn's campaigning efforts - or those of any Labour politician - made much difference either way to the willingness of Labour supporters to vote for remain."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/04/evidence-blame-jeremy-corbyn-brexit-remain-labour-conservative
Isn't that precisely the point? He could have made a difference, he decided not to try.