Should we celebrate Jeremy Corbyn’s victory? The radical left speak of an “earthquake”. For others, however, it is a political suicide. In fact it all depends how one views Jeremy Corbyn. From a purely economic angle, shared by most newspapers, his victory is encouraging and shows that in England there is still a left which can defend the welfare state. The new Labour Party leader is firmly opposed to austerity policies. He is even calling for renationalization of energy and the railways. After so many years of deregulation and privations under Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair it is refreshing.
Corbyn’s election can be seen as the death of Blairism, the sign that after Syriza and Podemos it is possible to dream of a Great Britain which is not only obsessed with scuppering political Europe, but on the contrary favours a real European recovery policy. If such were the case it would indeed be heartening. But this victory is misleading.
The election of Jeremy Corbyn will not be the death of Blairism, but will plunge the left in England into a very long coma, for with him as Labour leader, as soon as the public becomes aware of his policies, the Conservatives are sure to remain in Downing Street for many long years.
Support for victims of…. anti-terrorism
The Conservatives are already looking forward to confronting him given his accumulation of questionable positions over the years, and we are not referring here to his economic position. Corbyn’s alternative and ambitious economic policy, which does not have the favour of many English people, merits a debate and being defended. No, we are referring here to his positions on international policy, freedom of expression and terrorism, subjects which are sometimes minimized by political commentators, but which are in no way minor subjects.
For example, certain associations are concerned by Corbyn’s frequentations in conspiracy theory and anti Semitic circles, those he calls his “friends”: leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah, with whom he has the “pleasure and honour” of addressing meetings.
Corbyn’s entourage defends him by explaining that he was unaware of the negationist convictions of two of his friends and that anyway he refers to everyone as “his friends”. Yet the fact remains that Corbyn has offices with his friends at Finsbury Mosque (“a wonderful community asset” according to Corbyn), one of the most radical mosques in Europe and which the Muslim Brotherhood took over from the jihadists.
He also supports CAGE, an association founded by Islamists not, as incredible as it seems, to support victims of terrorism but victims of anti-terrorism! A question of priority.
The “inclusive” left alongside the extremists
Still on the subject of questionable positions, Corbyn is always happy to give interviews on Iranian TV and Russia Today, the propaganda channel of the Russian regime, which is his favourite channel. He even described it as the most “objective” channel in the audiovisual landscape. Which speaks volumes for his vision of the world.
In 2006 he demonstrated against the publication of the drawings of Mahomet, alongside English fundamentalists, compared to whom our Islamists look like protesters from the 60s and 70s. Apart from that he was really and truly sorry about what happened on January 7.
To summarize, his rebellious streak and elementary anti Americanism make Jeremy Corbyn a pure product of the radical left which flirts with the worst extremists in the world.
His priority is not so much to reduce inequality as to promote an “inclusive” multiculturalist policy, a seductive expression which can be translated as the Anglo-Saxon communitarian model, which encourages competition between communities for fundamentalist derogations, to the detriment of gender equality and secularism.
It is alarming that such unsavoury positions did not scupper his chance to be elected leader of Labour. But one thing is certain, they will be dragged up and seen by the British public at the next general elections as fatal for the country.
Jeremy Corbyn will never convince a broad public
If the Labour left wanted to remain in opposition, they could not have made a better choice. For some of their sympathizers it doesn’t really matter. For someone who is a leftist through and through and not a progressive, the objective is not to convince a majority to sign up for progress but to be right, standing alone against the world. This way they remain pure.
In this respect those who defend an alliance between the radical left and the fundamentalists and tyrants of the world can rest assured. Until they can demonstrate their ability to propose an economic alternative and rid themselves of their indulgence, blindness even, towards fundamentalists and dictators there is no risk they will dirty their hands by governing the country.
In spite of the crisis and all they could have going for them the radical left will never attract the democratic left. During the past decade, marked by the risk of terrorist attacks, all the radical left has done is contribute to the progression of the far right. They have absolutely no influence on the future of Europe, except as a fear factor.