“The many, not the few”. That is the take-away message from Corbyn’s first election campaign speech. It is not original. It forms part of the Clause IV rewritten by Tony Blair that replaced the stodgy socialist ambition that was obsolete after the fall of communism, or rather, the interval, as it is likely known amongst the comrades.
In essence, Corbyn’s Labour sees its job in government as ganging up on social and economic minorities, whose only crime has been achievement and success for which they have been well rewarded. Examples of this minority are Sir Philip Green, lately of BHS, and Mike Ashley, a man who sells trainers. Labour’s enemies seem to mainly reside in the clothing and footwear trade.
Corbyn claims to represent ‘the many’. He does not. Labour champions ‘the few’ who work in the state sector, and whose taxes merely recycle government cash, versus ‘the many’ in the private sector, whose taxes pay for everything. Corbyn prefers ‘the few’ who are members of trades unions versus ‘the many’ who are not. Labour itself champions legions of ‘the few’, those who identify themselves according to their culture, ethnicity or social preferences. They assemble these into a coalition of minorities they describe as ‘the many’. It is yet more ganging up.
‘The Few’ who are the targets of Labour’s hatreds also includes individuals of modest means and backgrounds who have human rights. Labour does, and always has, supported the self-assumed rights of the collective over the individual, even when these collective rights are exercised with violence. Labour’s backers, the unions, reserve special hatred for those who would disagree with their shop stewards and cross a picket line. These individuals, exercising their civic freedoms, are not even supported by the socialist front organisation Liberty, and never have been. Liberty also had nothing to say about female Labour MPs who were victimised for speaking freely about their opposition to Corbyn.
Labour’s support for human rights is political lip-service. This is evident in the way that Labour’s leadership openly associates with terrorists and dictatorships while attacking genuine democracies like the United States of America. Labour is now run by people who openly profess solidarity with the increasingly illegitimate government of economic basket-case Venezuela. Labour’s leader has been in the pay of an Iranian state that is sponsoring a war in the Middle East.
‘The many’ in the Parliamentary Labour Party were ignored when they said Corbyn should go. The result is that Corbyn’s front bench consists of ‘the few’ who can stand to work for him, regardless of how competent they are.
Corbyn, and Labour in general, also blame ‘the many’ who are readers of British newspapers for not voting Labour, and attack newspaper owners. They forget that these papers are commercial operations and have to produce articles that will attract readers. Labour attack their party’s depiction in the mainstream media, complaining it is biased against them, when all the media owners are doing is to produce commercially-viable content. They forget that people choose which newspapers to buy, which television programmes to watch and which web pages to browse.
People also make free choices on which blogs or Facebook posts to follow and also whose tweets to read. This does remain a free country. The media is not rigged against Labour in particular. There is nothing stopping socialists from launching a Labour-supporting newspaper if they believe that the Daily Mirror and The Guardian, and thus ‘the few’ readers of these journals, are ranged against them. There are hardly any constraints on the launching of a left-wing website or blog that builds up a large following. Labour is, in fact, attacking the individual choice and free speech of ‘the many’. The absence of popular socialist media is because socialist media is not popular. ‘The many’ do not want to read it.
It is only the left-wing parties who are campaigning on the basis of stoking up hate against some of the inhabitants of these isles based on their social or economic identity. Only Labour is attacking commercial organisations’ lawful freedom to publish. it justifies this hatred by depicting itself as speaking for the majority that is put upon by a minority. This is a falsehood. Socialists are the minority. ‘The many’ in Britain do not want, nor do they need, socialism and ‘the few’ in Labour should understand this.
The hecatombs of the 20th Century tell us what happens when ‘the many, not the few’ rhetoric takes hold. Hate-preaching should not be part of mainstream British politics. People who have previously voted Labour should be aware that their renewed support is validating a perversion of democratic politics.
(Image: David Howard)