The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    an open letter to Emily Thornberry... Archived Message

    Posted by Sergei Kirov on May 27, 2019, 12:39 pm

    Dear Ms Thornberry

    I feel I must write to you to express my extreme displeasure at your conduct on live BBC television earlier this evening, when you openly undermined the Labour Party’s stated position on the issue of Brexit.

    Contrary to mainstream media mythology, Jeremy Corbyn has in fact been commendably consistent on Brexit: throughout, he has stated that Labour’s position is to proceed with Brexit, thus implementing the democratic will of the British people as expressed in the 2016 referendum, and to advocate for the negotiation of a new customs union between the UK and the EU 27.

    This “Soft Brexit” position strikes a sensible balance and a reasonable compromise between, on the one hand, the expressed will of the British people to leave the EU and thus regain control over the power to make our own laws, including the power to renationalise vital industries, and, on the other hand, the need to protect our economy from the potentially damaging effects of an unplanned No Deal Brexit.

    We are often told that the secret of successful politicking lies in occupying the centre ground. Well I can think of no better example of how to occupy the centre ground on the issue of Brexit, than to take the sort of position that Jeremy has so sensibly, reasonably, and shrewdly taken on this issue.

    Of course, it is in the interests of those who seek to inflict maximum damage upon Labour’s chances at the next general election - those such as the BBC and the mainstream Establishment media as a whole - to portray Jeremy’s centre-ground positioning not as an inspired attempt to unify the country around a compromise position we can all agree on, but rather as, variously, a slap in the face to both Leavers and Remainers.

    Thus the clear aim of the Establishment media has been to crush Labour’s electoral prospects between the hammer of Hard Brexit, and the anvil of Hard Remain. This was no better illustrated than by the sight of two recent newspaper front pages side-by-side: the right-wing Daily Mail claiming Corbyn to be a secret Remainer, while the liberal Guardian simultaneously claimed he was a secret Leaver. The point was, of course, that the headlines together expressed the united view of both wings of the UK Establishment, which really could not be any clearer: “Jeremy Corbyn MUST NOT be allowed to become prime minister”.

    As a barrister, and a clearly very gifted political operator, I find it hard to believe you are not aware of all this. Which makes it all the more difficult to fathom why on Earth you would think that it could possibly be helpful to Labour’s electoral prospects to blurt out your opposition to the leadership’s carefully crafted position on Brexit, on live television, and in front of senior BBC journalists who have a proven track record of seeking to bring down Jeremy Corbyn. In fact, when Laura Kuenssberg - whose level of open personal animus to Corbyn almost defeats satire - actually asked you to clarify your opposition to the agreed Party position, you seemed only too happy to oblige her...

    There are two points to address here: the first is that, actually, I think your expressed view that Labour must take up a Hard Remain position in order to maximise its electoral chances, is arrogant, indulgent, and wholly undemocratic, as well as being, in any case, just plain wrong.

    Though I’m sure that in your world there are plenty of upper-middle class professionals who are simply furious that the cost of hiring a good nanny or cleaner might be about to go up in the event of a No Deal Brexit, and ready to throw their rattles out of the pram by voting for the LibDems in protest, meanwhile, out here in the real world beyond the M25, in the forgotten wastelands of provincial Britain, the working class (remember them?) have been systematically screwed over by 46 years of Tory-initiated pro-EU neoliberal policies that have gutted industry, driven down wages, and caused widespread impoverishment.

    Having reached voting age only in 1998, I could never bring myself to vote Labour for as long as it was led by war criminals like Tony Blair, or even uninspiring estate agent clones like Ed Miliband. Hence the 2017 election was the first time I voted Labour, and I voted Labour *only* because of Jeremy Corbyn. I suspect there are many others like me, which might explain why Corbyn in 2017 got over three million more votes than Blair got in 2005. I would vote Labour again in a general election - provided Corbyn (or McDonnell, or perhaps Long-Bailey or Burgon) was leader - although I voted for the Brexit Party in this European election. Again, my feeling is that there are many others like me (the great George Galloway, for one).

    But again, the second - more fundamental - point, is that even if you truly believed that Labour’s electoral interests would best be served by adopting a Hard Remain position, announcing this on a live BBC broadcast, thus openly undermining the leadership of the Party in full view of its sworn enemies, is absolutely unacceptable. The kindest that can be said about such an act is that it represents incredibly poor judgment. I do hope that poor judgement is all that it was, since the alternative does not bear thinking about...

    I hope that you will reflect on your conduct earlier this evening, and offer a full retraction and, to Jeremy Corbyn, a full apology.

    Yours sincerely

    SK

    Message Thread: