Jeremy Corbyn's Labour pains

The leader of the Labour party is now a man who describes terrorists and religious fundamentalists as "friends", who wants to "compromise" with murderous fanatics, who shares a platform with antisemites and donates to their causes, who speculates on wild conspiracy theories, and whose new Shadow Chancellor wants to "honour" IRA bombers.  His supporters can shout as much as they like that these are "smears" – but it's hard to see things that way, when these are things the man himself has actually said or done.  Quoting somebody's own words is not "smearing" them, and these issues will not go away.  In spite of all of this, Labour party members and supporters voted for Jeremy Corbyn in droves.

But twenty-four hours into his tenure as Labour leader, it was quickly becoming clear that Corbyn's bungled Shadow Cabinet reshuffle; his absurd decision to "crowd-source" his lines for Prime Minister's Questions (as if Labour still haven't learnt that opening things up to the general public – especially on the internet – is just asking for the system to be abused); his description of journalists' questions as "people bothering him" (as if he expects just to be able to do whatever he likes without any scrutiny, like he did when he was a backbencher – it is the job of the press to hold politicians to account, not simper and genuflect to them as in places like North Korea); and so on were only the tip of the iceberg.  Jeremy Corbyn's position as Labour leader is surely completely untenable.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if senior figures within the party were already planning how to depose him.

His fans will shout and scream that he was "democratically elected" as leader, and that he "has a mandate" which needs to be respected.  They will call for "unity", and expect other Labour MPs to be "loyal" to their leader.  But this is all nonsense…

Jeremy Corbyn doesn't give a fig for democracy.  Not if it doesn't fit his predetermined agenda, anyway…  Corbynites on Twitter are incensed at the idea of Labour MPs not supporting their leader, and rebelling against his "principled" stance on a variety of issues – but this is exactly what Corbyn has been doing for over thirty years, during which time he has rebelled against his party's whip more than five hundred times.  It seemingly hasn't occurred to people that disagreeing with Corbyn can also be a "principled" position, and that Labour MPs not toeing the Corbyn line might not be rebelling just to cause trouble, but out of the same high-mindedness which led Corbyn himself to rebel against myriad former Labour leaders.  As Helen Lewis pointed out in the New Statesman back in July, Jeremy Corbyn does not have a monopoly on principled belief.

"But Corbyn was democratically elected!" they bleat.  Moderate Labour MPs have to respect that!  Since when has Corbyn respected the sovereign wishes of an electorate?  He certainly doesn't respect the views of the people of the Falklands Islands, who voted overwhelmingly to remain a part of United Kingdom in a 2013 referendum.  He doesn't respect the views of the people of Northern Ireland when he hobnobs with the IRA.

No, Jeremy Corbyn is only interested in democracy or party unity when it suits him.  I don't see how he can reasonably expect other Labour MPs to show any more loyalty than he would've shown if any of the other candidates had won the leadership contest – or expect people to respect the democratic wishes of his voters any more than he respects the democratic wishes of the voters in the Falklands, or in Northern Ireland.  He certainly can't expect to carry on doing whatever he pleases free from media scrutiny and without consequence.

And as a result, his time in charge of the Labour party will be characterised by dissent, attrition and rebellion – all of which fractious in-fighting will cause splits in the party, and distract Labour from being an effective opposition to the Conservative government.  So much for the wisdom of people who naïvely greeted Corbyn's election as leader with: "At least we'll have an opposition who actually 'oppose' now!" (or similar).  Well, at least Corbyn and his cronies know they can always blame someone else for their failure to hold the government to account.

Who is asking 'The English Question'?

As you probably know by now, Scotland voted 'No' to independence from the rest of the United Kingdom in yesterday's Referendum.  (If you didn't know, and you're now annoyed with me for posting 'spoilers', you can get stuffed.)

Much of the post-Referendum talk today, however, has been about England, and the so-called 'English Question' which now has to be answered (apparently).  My question, however, is this: who is asking this English Question?!  So far as I can see, it's mainly politicians and and political commentators all asking each other.

As a brief summary of what this English Question (also often known as the West Lothian Question) is supposed to be, consider that devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland means that any issues which affect only those countries are handled by their own devolved legislatures - the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies - whereas, with no regional legislature of its own, issues affecting only England are still handled by the national Parliament in Westminster.  This means that only members of the Scottish Parliament debate and vote on issues which affect only Scotland, but issues which affect only England are debated and voted on by MPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in Westminster.

Yeah, I get it.  It's 'unfair'.  But it's difficult to get worked up over this stuff.  I mean, really?  I find it difficult to believe that there are people all across England furious that Scottish MPs are voting on things.  Honestly, I do.  After all, as the always astute Hopi Sen explains, the inherent asymmetry of the United Kingdom means that this issue is considerably less problematic in practice than it is in theory.  How much does this 'problem' actually affect people's day-to-day lives?

I understand the theory behind it.  I just think politicians who are desperate to show England that we won't be getting a raw deal in the post-'IndyRef' world are barking up somewhat of the wrong tree.

I like to think I'm fairly engaged with politics.  I'm already planning my all-night 'General Election and Curry Party' for next May (contact me for an invitation - seriously, you're very welcome).  I don't find politics off-putting.  But I struggle to get excited about the idea of an English Parliament, or devolution to Regional Assemblies, or any of the other suggestions which have been put forward as potential 'West Lothian Answers'; they simply don't inspire me.

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe there is a burning desire across England for devolution, and I'm just not 'getting it'.  But I somehow doubt it.  I think we'd know.  I can't help but feel that the political classes have got themselves worked up into a lather over a topic which a considerable proportion of the general population aren't that fussed about.  At least, I'm not that fussed about it.

Scotland decides

Scotland decides. But we're all affected.

As the people of Scotland go to the polls today to vote in the Referendum on their independence from the United Kingdom, we're all eagerly awaiting the results. I'm certainly not going to be so foolish as to stick my head into the gaping, toothy jaws of the 'IndyRef' - which has chewed up and spat out far better writers than I - by proffering my opinion on the various issues surrounding the vote here.

But I do struggle to understand the attitudes of some of the people of the rest of the UK. The idea that this is "Scotland's vote", and the rest of us should just keep out of it, is a nonsense. (Of course, this stance isn't exactly helped by the rhetoric of some of the more extreme Nationalists in Scotland, who are keen to tell the rest of us that this is nothing to do with us, and we should stop trying to get involved!)

This sort of isolationism is sheer delusion. English, Welsh or Northen Irish people who want to wash their hands of the whole affair and pretend it's nothing to them are kidding themselves; whatever the outcome of the vote today, our country (and by that I mean the whole of the United Kingdom) is going to go through some pretty major constitutional changes, and that's going to have an impact on everyone.

We can't just disengage from the whole thing. The vote may be confined to residents of Scotland, but the repercussions won't be. Like it or not, we are all vested interests.