The defence of Jeremy Corbyn – a study in rank hypocrisy

Tribal loyalty does nobody any favours. This proves it

Goodness me this is a tedious one. As ever, the context: during today’s session of PMQ’s, following a particularly bellowing broadside from the Prime Minister in the direction of the Leader of HM Opposition, the Right Honourable Jeremy Corbyn was caught on camera mouthing what appeared to be an unflattering term. While the words are disputed (sigh…I’ll come back to that), he called her a ‘stupid woman‘.

And before anyone starts, of course this is a ridiculous thing for us to be talking about and focusing on, but it has thrown up so many wider talking points. And those are what I want to discuss.

Because of course, it isn’t about the words. It’s about the person, the target and the fanatical, almost religious, tribalism that now dominates our public discourse. I wrote early on in my blogging life that you can tell someone’s opinion on one subject with a horrifyingly high degree of accuracy, based purely on their opinion on another, entirely separate matter. And here we are again.

To paraphrase the American comedian Bill Burr, all that matters is whether you wear a blue tie or a red tie. That’s it. That’s all you need in order to know what you think about this. Corbynite? Well it’s not a problem. Hate the guy? He must be punished, end of story.

What is particularly depressing has been the responses from the followers of the new Messiah. These range from the absurd (he didn’t say ‘woman’, he said ‘people’), to the deflective (look at what else is going on in the country!), from the downright evasive (Why are we even talking about this?) to the ridiculous (the guy is in trouble for saying something accurate!). What a horrible shame.

Firstly, the absurd. He said ‘people’, guys! No…no he really didn’t. If this is where you are then there really is no hope for conversation. I’d recommend you navigate away from here. I’ll even give you a link to something you’ll like. Go on.

‘We’ve got experts that said categorically…‘ Yeh and so have the other side. Stop being so dense.

Secondly, the deflective. Which would be a perfectly fair argument if it wasn’t for the fact that you wouldn’t be deflecting had a Tory done this. It is simply inconsistent to give JC a free pass on something that another would not. You’d be screaming ‘STRAIGHT WHITE OLD MALE CALLS POOR WEAK WILLED OPPOSITION MEMBER A STUPID WOMAN!!’ Of course there are worse things going on and this obviously doesn’t matter, but it would in reverse. Have some pride – be consistent.

The evasive. Yes ok it happened, but why are we talking about it? You know perfectly well why we’re talking about it. Had he just owned up and either apologised or defended his words, then we wouldn’t need to carry on talking about it. But he hasn’t, he’s lied and covered himself up in the face of blatant evidence – that’s worth talking about.

And finally, the ridiculous. The squalid, creepy defence of the Dear Leader. The backing from those who are quickest to jump on poor taste language, ‘microaggressions’, tiny hints of racism and sexism, the trawlers of social media histories, the petition signers.

‘But…but she is a stupid woman! He was only being accurate!’

Indeed. The problem with this becomes clear with a moment’s thought. To be entirely fair, I did see one or two of my friends come against this line furiously, maintaining their dignity. But come on…this is a slimy and quite shocking thing to do.

Again, had a Tory done this, you would be queueing up to explain why ‘stupid woman’ is different to ‘stupid man’, why their ‘privilege’ disallowed them from making any such statement, that any apology would not be accepted, such was the high cost of the offence.

Let’s take the argument and apply it. It was an accurate statement apparently. Ok, putting aside that it’s an opinion and not a fact, let’s say he was technically accurate to call her a ‘stupid woman’. She’s a woman, and she’s stupid, right? Stupid woman.

Well Diane Abbott is black. She’s demonstrably overweight and seems to have a flimsy grasp of numbers. So it would be totally fine for a Tory to be caught on camera following a statement from Ms. Abbott muttering ‘stupid fat black woman’. Wouldn’t it? Those are all technically accurate words, no?

Perhaps Emily Thornberry could be referred to as a ‘fat, snobby woman’ without fear of recourse? Or maybe Ed Miliband could be called a ‘conniving, backstabbing Jew’? Still accurate, individual words?

These are obviously pejoratives in their context, and nasty ones at that. It is easy to see that, as long as you are willing to. And I don’t claim that these are on the same level as ‘stupid woman’ because they aren’t, but why does that make ‘stupid woman’ ok?

I simply do not understand party tribalism. This is what you get from it and it’s pathetic. I remember wondering what to call this blog when I started it and had a few ideas – I’m so glad I went with Off the Party Line. That’s where we need to be – thinking, allowing for doubt, criticising your own side and praising the other whenever required. How can you have a moral purpose if you stick to party lines? I’ve praised and defended Corbyn in the past, several times, despite the fact I don’t like him or his ideas. And everyone makes mistakes, nobody can be perfect. But defending him even when he does something wrong?

This sort of episode makes Corbynism look more and more like a cult where the leader cannot be criticised, and it’s creepy. Watching perfectly sane and rational people claim he said ‘people’ is frightening, and the double standards are case studies in rank hypocrisy.

Defining antisemitism – why is Labour still fighting this?

What is there to be gained from not accepting the IHRA definition?

It has been weeks now since the Labour Party refused to accept the full definition with examples of the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism. This is a definition accepted by everyone else without a problem, yet Labour has decided to alter or remove some of the examples. This was called out as, to put it mildly, a strange thing to want to do, particularly when it hasn’t gone unnoticed that there has been a little bit of an issue with antisemitism in recent times.

To do this in the first instance is odd and counterproductive. To maintain it in the face of criticism is…well let’s call it ‘bold’ for now. But to dig your heels in and refuse to budge in the face of widespread anger and rage, from groups who are not going to back down any time soon and who are only getting wider and wider support is utterly bewildering.

The issue at hand, the definition of antisemitism, is up for polite discussion in my opinion, in the sense that anything and everything should be up for discussion. That much I don’t object to. I have no particular wish to disagree with Jewish people’s definition of what is antisemitic on any level, but if some do then that is their right. It all looks fair and above board to me, but I’m not Jewish and don’t pretend to know anywhere near enough about the subject. What I do object to is the party machine rejecting the official and widely accepted version, amending it and then not saying why it has done so.

This is the crux of the matter – if you have a point of view, then defend it. If you think those examples are bad, say why. If you think wording needs tweaking, explain yourself. But don’t just change it and hope everyone will be fine with it.

It just looks and feels entirely suspicious. Why not just accept the whole thing and be done with it? Why not explain why it doesn’t accept it all and lay it out in a reasoned and measured way? Why leave the narrative to be written by its opponents? Why, of all things, does the party want to have this fight? It should be preparing for government, touring the country persuading us of its policies and slamming the government. Instead it wants to indulge in a ridiculous theatre of an internal argument. It makes no sense. Do they not want power?

Not a week goes by without some Corbynist higher-up saying something stupid and reigniting the flames. It’s like watching UKIP when they were in the spotlight – every week another activist recorded saying the word ‘nigger’ or ‘paki’ or sharing photos of their gollywogs. It was self defeating and idiotic – but they just couldn’t help it. Now you only have to open a newspaper to see some pillock equating Nazism and Zionism or intimating Jews are part of the whole conspiracy. All of this whilst they are disciplining members of the PLP for raising their concerns – not a great look.

One explanation is simple incompetence. This is the generous interpretation. The other is more chilling, and that is that the party wants the fight and simply does not care about anybody who may have any concerns. It smacks of deliberately provoking Britain’s Jews into anger, and that is a shocking thing to do. They’re not backing down and they’re not explaining, so what else are we supposed to draw from it? What on earth is there to be gained from all of this?

What an absolute shambles. And those are words which are currently being used about Her Majesty’s Government. How dreadful that we must also apply it to Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition.

I’d say they need to fix this, and quick. But something in me suspects they actually don’t want to. Something just isn’t right.

A chilling thought.

Do people really still care about the Oscars?

Are they really choosing the ‘best’? How can we know? And who are ‘they’ anyway?

I’ll be totally honest up front – I’m not that much of a film buff. Sure, I like films. But I’ve always been more of a book and TV series person. I go to the cinema maybe once a year and rarely pay attention to the latest films. When they’ve been out for a while, then maybe I’ll watch them, but otherwise I don’t feel the need to queue up for the latest Star Wars or see Les Mis on opening weekend. That isn’t a judgement on those that do, I should point out, it’s purely a personal preference.

This does mean that watching any awards shows pertaining to film, such as the Oscars or the BAFTAs, would never really interest me. I wouldn’t know what was going on, I wouldn’t have a horse in the race and I can think of more interesting ways to spend an evening. Again, personal preference.

What I can’t understand is why those who genuinely do love films and really do have favourites and want to watch a contest between heavyweights winning properly big awards would still watch the Oscars. If that is what you want, the Oscars surely isn’t that anymore? It’s like people who like music and want to see a load of singers perform to see who is the best that year watching Eurovision – you realise that isn’t the basis of the contest, right?

Of course, Eurovision has long been seen, even by its most dedicated supporters, as just a big load of fun, a political and televisual pride parade. There may be some groaning and whingeing that the truly best performers aren’t being properly recognised, some may even feign ignorance as to why this could even happen. But they all know that Greece has only voted for Austria because German finance ministers have crushed their economy and they want to spite them in some way – and Eurovision is their democratic outlet. It’s completely transparent – we all know what’s going on, and so being upset that some Estonian metal/grunge band are higher than a Spanish singer who can actually hold a tune would be patently absurd.

But with the Oscars, they still try to pretend that it’s all about being the best. ‘Best Actor/Actress’, ‘Best Film’, ‘Best Soundtrack’. Have we not already realised that it’s nothing of the sort? It’s purely a night for political propaganda, virtue signalling, pointing out institutional racism, sexism and the like, and maybe making a first pitch to be President. I’m not even saying this is a bad thing, but that’s what it is. Fine if that’s what you want, but is it not just tedious now? How can you sit through it? It used to be seen as bad form – now, if you don’t stand up to the latest oppression craze, you’re done for.

Being much more into sport, watching competition is still exciting. Yes some teams have more money, some teams have better players, there’s plenty of unfairness, but the unfairness is there for all to see. But, take football – it’s still 11vs11 (men, natch) on a pitch and whoever scores the most goals wins. Simple as that. We all know the rules, we can all see the difference in talent between the two teams, and off we go. As far as the sporting competition goes (forget the finance and the boardrooms), as long as we can be sure that nobody is cheating and there’s no match fixing, it’s transparent.

Who decides what the best film is? Based on what criteria? Can we trust them to be impartial? How? Apparently they are 91% male and 76% white. 

Already Hadley Freeman in the Guardian is talking about something that sounds to me like ‘not picking what you think is the best’.

“After a tumultuous year for the film industry (and the wider world) the Academy will face ridicule unless it starts giving prizes to the truly important films.”

Important films? Not the best films?

It all looks to me like a census taking exercise. The awards given should reflect society in general – even splits between male and female winners, an appropriate slice of winners who are black, latino, any other race you want to include exactly according to their population split.

Again, fine, if that’s what you want. But will you be able to really trust that the ‘best actor’ or ‘best film’ has been chosen? And does it even really matter, with it being so apparently subjective anyway? Arguably, the fact that this doesn’t naturally happen anyway would suggest that there is intrinsic bias, but with a process so shrouded in mystery and so subjective, how do you correct that without rankling one tribe or another? We’ve probably never had awards that have genuinely been given to the best. I’m more than willing to concede that the apparent whiteness or maleness of the history of the awards probably points to exclusion of some sort or another. I get that, and I can completely sympathise with the view that it looks very much like an old guard carrying on with the status quo. But doesn’t that just drive home the point? It will never, and can never be fair if it is subjective. If we’re saying that in the past, people have just been chosen because they’re white and male, then it’s never been fair?

There are suggestions that unless the Oscars moves into line with this sort of thinking, it will die. That may very well be true. But in getting there, it may kill itself anyway.

I’ve always tried to stay away from identity politics as a matter of principle. It’s so much more interesting to hear what people think and why they think it than base it all on their skin colour or their chromosomes. But this seems to be an increasingly naive view. As someone who wouldn’t care less if the whole Academy, or Houses of Parliament, or boardrooms were completely full of black, M-F trans disabled immigrants, as long as they have a diverse range of viewpoints, I seem to be in the minority.

What that does mean is that as soon as we start agitating for equality of outcome, I get bored and give up watching. I can’t trust the outcome, so who cares? I know what my favourite film is, why do I need that validated by a load of over-remunerated victims of one sort or the other banging on about the plight of their favourite thing that week? I’d have no problem making 100% of the decision makers black women. Let them all choose the best film. Not a white guy in sight, if that’s what you want. It’s subjective anyway, they can pick whatever film they like.

A system like the one that chooses the Oscar winners, so visible and so powerful can never survive a collision with identity politics. The two are currently powerful, and only one can remain standing. I know which one my money’s on. There can never be a system that everyone would be happy with.

It would be great if there were a system to be able to choose who or what was genuinely the best, but I don’t know of one. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point one out – I’ll gladly listen. Maybe it would produce a whole roster of white winners one year, or all black winners, or all female winners, or all male winners. But applying quotas, whilst giving the diversity that is desired, would always leave questions to be asked.

Last weekend, Manchester City beat Arsenal to win the English Football League Cup. Cool. Nobody can argue with it. City are richer and have better players, but they played on the same pitch with the same referee with the same rules. They won the trophy and nobody whinged. Maybe my simple mind needs these simple rules. But why anyone can still be bothered with film award shows is beyond me. Least of all getting upset about the outcomes.

I just can’t see how you could enjoy yourself when you’re just ticking off diversity sheets and not being interested in the actual art. It seems a pointless waste of everyone’s time and effort when you’ll all just end up at each other’s throats anyway. Just assign the awards based on population splits and be done with it. That way, it’ll be transparent and we can all get on with our lives. Let that be the criteria from the start, and let’s drop this facade that we’re choosing the ‘best’. If black people have already won three awards, then no black person can win the next one – it has to be a latino. Would that not make it simpler and fairer?

Or see which actor can score the most baskets from the free throw line and give them the little golden statue. If it helps, I can all but guarantee you more black winners if you do.