Nick Cohen: Why I've given up on the left

In follow up to my last post on Jeremy Corbyn, I wanted to show this video I listened to today by the journalist and writer Nick Cohen.

He's written the lead article in this week's Spectator magazine, entitled: Why I’ve finally given up on the left


After reading his piece which I re-tweeted and watching his video above, it made me realise that I share many of his feelings about the left and left wing politics.

I'm increasingly becoming disillusioned with the left and the attitude and mentality that many on the left now hold.

The election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader may have energised a lot of young people to join the Party and helped older members reconnect with Labour's values. But there's also I think a growing number of people like me who may not immediately decide to vote Conservative but they are coming to the conclusion that Labour and the left in this country is no longer for them.

Jeremy Corbyn new Labour Leader: Things just got interesting!

So no surprises with the announcement last weekend that left wing veteran Jeremy Corbyn had been elected as the new leader of the Labour Party.

After making it onto the nomination list at the last minute, its been anticipated for a number of weeks that he would triumph in a result that will have ramifications for the Labour Party and British politics for years to come.

For those of you who have read some of my previous posts and tweets, you will know I'm not a fan of Jeremy Corbyn. When I say that, I mean I'm not a socialist and I don't agree with many of his views. In saying that I do think that some of the issues he's raised should and deserve to be discussed as part of a wider political debate.

We should talk about rising inequality, austerity and the housing crisis in the UK, particularly in London where house prices are no longer affordable for many people. That said, I don't believe he is a potential Prime Minister in waiting and far from increasing Labour's vote and seats in Parliament at the next election, his appeal amongst the wider electorate simply won't be large enough.


What does Corbyn's election victory mean?

Jeremy Corbyn's election victory tells me that the Labour Party has no interest in speaking to or understanding the electorate who occupy the centre ground of British politics.

Those of us who follow politics have to remind ourselves that for most people politics isn't really that important. A lot of the electorate are pretty middle of the road when it comes to their political views. Too many on the left of the Labour Party hold a disdain even contempt for the centre ground - they don't want to appeal to people there as they believe the centre is too right wing.

It's all very well Labour party members and activists voting for Jeremy Corbyn but is Mr and Mrs middle income in Nuneaton or Worcester prepared to vote for Jeremy Corbyn?

I don't think so but then I don't think many on the left even care. If I've learnt anything over the years, those on the left only care about 3 groups of people. They are: The poor and disadvantaged, the rich who they want to tax and thirdly they care about themselves and their own political beliefs and values.

A lot of politics is about gut feeling and instinct. My gut feeling says that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn has nothing to say to me as an individual or those average middle income earners in this country who aren't rich or well off but at the same time aren't deprived or living in poverty.


Why I don't support Corbyn

We hear a lot about the politics of hope. That Corbyn's success is down to people who are fed up with 'politics as usual'. Fed up with 'the Westminster elite' and want something different. I understand this but Corbyn's election does not offer this hope to me in the way it does for many of his supporters.

Politically speaking I've always considered myself a Social Democrat, I'm centre left. However, what I've started to realise is that I actually dislike much of the hard left wing politics represented by Corbyn and his supporters. I find it quite distasteful!

Corbyn seems like a decent and principled person which I don't have a problem with. It's what his politics represent I dislike. Left wing politics likes to portray itself as progressive, inclusive and concerned with the welfare of the poor, the disadvantaged and those that don't have a voice but that's just part of the picture.

The reality is that all too often left wing politics is in fact incredibly self righteous, arrogant, hostile and bigoted towards those who don't hold or share their views and values.

The left likes to claim the moral high ground and those of us who don't share those view are dismissed as being Tory or Tory lite, this goes for those of us who have never voted Tory.

The Conservative Party have been known as the 'nasty party' but there is a nastiness amongst many on the left. I voted for Liz Kendall in the leadership election. The amount of hostile abuse she received on social media for being a supposed 'Tory' is a great example of this nastiness.

Those of us with a different political opinion whether it's on the right of the Labour Party, the political centre-ground or Conservatives are dismissed as selfish, neoliberal Tory scum who are only motivated by self interest.

This kind of arrogant view sums up why I have no intention of supporting such a left wing Labour party. Holding hard left wing views does not make someone morally superior which sadly appears to be the case for many on the left who support Corbyn.


No more excuses

Another reason why I won't be supporting a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour Party is that I'm tired of the endless excuses the left comes out with. For the last 25 years all we've heard is how the Labour party under the leadership of Tony Blair and New Labour abandoned Labour's traditional core values and beliefs. They accepted too many of Margret Thatcher's reforms of the 1980's and in doing so became 'Tory-lite'.

With Corbyn's victory there can be no more complaints or excuses. The left has taken control of the Labour Party and can put forward a distinct socialist alternative. If I hear anyone tell me that the parties are all the same I will scream! The electorate has been given a very clear choice between Labour and the Conservatives.

Nobody knows how things will develop over the next few months or years but what I do know is that if and when things begin to go wrong for Labour and Corbyn none of it will be because of him or his policies.

Instead we will hear a long list of excuses which the left specialises in.

If Labour are trailing in the opinion polls or perform poorly in next year's local and European elections, you can guarantee it will be because of the following:

1. Tory lies / the right wing media brainwashing the electorate
2. Blairites and the right of the Labour Party.
3. Tony Blair
4. The Iraq War
5. BBC bias
6. Policies that were right but the electorate didn't get it

If that sounds cynical I make no apologies, it's what I've learnt about the left after 30 years of following British politics!


The reality of real politics

Jeremy Corbyn has built his career on the politics of protest and opposition, he is now in a position of genuine power and influence. Politics can't always be about holding onto your principles 100% of the time.

It's also about compromise and accommodating others. It's about accepting what can be achieved within specific circumstances and parameters. This might not be exciting or visionary but this is the day-to-day reality for many involved in politics.

It's going to be interesting to see how some of his views and principles hold up in the next few weeks and months, I may not agree with his politics but I'll admit I'm looking forward to the entertainment value that Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party will provide.

World Athletics Championships: A look back

With the Athletics World Championships over, I thought I'd have a quick look back at some of my highlights.

I don't want to talk about doping, I know it's an important issue but it's the athletes and the performances that really matter so that's what I want to focus on.

Stand out performances.

It's too easy to focus on Usain Bolt, even though his performances in the 100m and 200m were exceptional. The same goes for Mo Farah, instead I wanted to highlight some other performances which caught my eye.

Dafne Schippers

A silver in the 100m and gold in the 200m winning with the 3rd fastest time in history. I think she made the right choice to give the Heptathlon up. Schippers has proven the Europeans can compete and beat the best of the Americans and Jamaicans.



Dina Asher-Smith.

Surely the future face of British athletics. She's had an amazing season running under 11:00 seconds for the 100m and finally breaking Kathy Cook's 200m records set back in the 1982.

22.07 NEW 200m BRITISH RECORD for @dinaashersmith #Beijing2015. Officially fastest British Woman ever over 100/200 pic.twitter.com/zQnLYSZTQI

— British Athletics (@BritAthletics) August 28, 2015

Wayde van Niekerk

One of the great 400m of all time. Certainly didn't expect South Africa's Wayde van Niekerk to win but look at the time - no wonder he had to be taken to hospital after collapsing after the race! Anytime someone runs the 400m under 44 seconds it's always a special event.

Wow! 43.48 for Van Niekerk. 3 men under 44.00 seconds! One of the greatest 400m ever! #Beijing2015 https://t.co/cgJaIoJh9a

— Rodney Dennis (@Rodneyd75) August 26, 2015

Allyson Felix

I remember Michael Johnson saying that there is only room for one global star in athletics and we all know who that is. A certain Mr Usain Bolt.

But in the world of athletics Allyson Felix is a superstar! her ability over 100, 200 and 400m is exceptional. She's been around for so long, competing in major championships since she was a teenager and her record is incredible. Her performance in the 3rd leg of the 4x400m relay will live long in the memory. It was sensational.

Felix with her 4x400 teammates

USA pulled it out of the bag with their intro... Charlie's Angels anyone? http://t.co/0IJelX3oux #bbcathletics pic.twitter.com/q7GQice6Dh

— BBC Sport (@BBCSport) August 30, 2015

Greg Rutherford

You can tell from some of his interviews that Rutherford doesn't feel he's got the respect he deserves for his performances over the last few years. He's probably right but after winning here in Beijing and holding the World, European, Commonwealth and Olympic titles there can be no more debate about his talent.

I think his problem is that coming into the Olympics in 2012 the general public weren't really aware of him and I didn't know he was in such good form coming into that competition. His problem is that the long jump doesn't have the same profile as it used to when the likes of Carl Lewis and Mike Powell were around.

Secondly, we don't see people consistently jumping over 8.50 and up towards the world record mark of 8.95. I think if Rutherford was jumping 8.60 - 8.70 his profile would have been higher. But the thing that really matters is that he delivers when it matters and for that he deserves all the respect for his achievements.

Another 'lucky' win for Greg. A truly amazing achievement. #Grandslam #Beijing2015 https://t.co/IUlpVbRVCB

— Rodney Dennis (@Rodneyd75) August 25, 2015

Breaking down the stereotypes

In athletics we get used to seeing certain countries dominate in certain sports. The USA and Jamaica in the sprints, East Africans in the distance events, and Europeans in the field events. One thing that stood out for me in this Championship is that we've seen different nations succeed in events that we might of previously thought unlikely.

I've noticed both China and Japan are producing good sprinters and this was confirmed with the Chinese winning a silver medal in the mens 4x100m relay.

Kenya emerged from their middle and long distance 'ghetto' with Julius Yego winning the Javelin and Nicholas Bett winning the mens 400m hurdles!

Feels weird seeing a Kenyan throwing the javelin! And he learnt javelin from watching YouTube videos! #Beijing2015 https://t.co/G6miQDC7ij

— Rodney Dennis (@Rodneyd75) August 26, 2015

In the distance events America has been producing a number of good distance runners for a few years now even though they didn't manage to win a medal last week.

In the sprints we had Dafne Schippers coming second in the 100m and winning the 200m in the 3rd fastest time in history and Russia's Segey Shubenkov winning the 110m hurdles. It just proves that white European sprinters can run just as quickly as the Americans and Caribbeans.

I think one of the reasons I've highlighted this is that it's easy to become lazy and make assumptions that certain countries and races of people are naturally better at some events and sports than others. If Kenya's Julius Yego thought that as a Kenyan he could only run distance races he would never have become World Javelin champion. Like wise, Dafne Schippers could have stuck with the Hepthalon if she didn't think she could ever beat the Americans and Jamaicans.

The sports that we do and excel in are related to culture, opportunity, hard work and training just as much as natural talent and ability. Jamaica's success at sprinting has encouraged kids in Jamaica to emulate their winning sprinters the same in Kenya and Ethiopia with distance running but these things are not set in stone.

Japan and China have proved that East Asians can run fast and in Britain with the success of Mo Farah there's probably kids out there that can see themselves having a go at the distance events and not thinking it's just for East Africans.

Its' good to see that different countries are winning events outside their perceived natural strengths, it makes athletics more interesting and more competitive.

I'm already looking forward to seeing some Jamaican long distance runners and a Chinese sprinter running under 10 seconds. You might laugh but there's no law saying it can't happen.

Bolt to the rescue!

After Usain Bolt's 100m victory in World Championships last Sunday, I felt almost guilty for ever doubting him. After the 200m final I felt a sense of relief when Bolt crossed the finish line with meters to spare over Gatlin.

Of course I always wanted Bolt to win but I admit its been really exciting having Gatlin running so well. For the first time since Bolt broke the 100m world record in 2008, we generally didin't know whether he would win or not.




The good v evil narrative might be journalistic hyperbole but clearly the symbolism of either Bolt or Gatlin winning was always going to be huge. With Bolt prevailing he can be pushed as the saviour of the sport but in many ways his victory has little impact on the greater challenge of eradicating drug cheating in athletics.

I remember hearing the comments of former British sprinter Darren Campbell who argued that if Justin Gatlin had won the title it would force the IAAF to really confront the issue of drugs in the sport, what with a 2 time banned doper returning to win the blue riband event in athletics. I understand this argument and partly agree with it but ultimately Bolt beating Gatlin was the best result for the sport.


Athletics has has a rough ride in recent weeks and has been under a huge amount of scrutiny, particularly following the investigation into doping by The Sunday Times Insight team.

As an athletics fan I don't want to see the sport I love discredited and undermined which in effect is what happens everytime somebody is reported to have tested positive for a banned substance.

Like cycling, people have always taken drugs in athletics, and people will continue to do so. The key is to catch those individuals particularly before they compete in major championships and win any medals.

When I started getting into cycling and began learning more about drug abuse in the sport, I learned that people took drugs because they didn't think they could compete or win as clean athletes.

Athletics is an incredibly competitive sport, a sport that is truly global and to win medals is hard. Again taking cycling as an example, athletes and coaches need to understand and believe that they can compete as clean athletes.

The second point which I think differs from athletics is that I hear stories about athletes testing positive and to be honest I'm not always convinced that every athlete that tests positive for drugs has done so deliberately. There are so many medicines and supplement that athletes can take which include banned substances that I sometimes wonder if they've been ignorant or just naive.

I came across the following statement on the website of British Athletics:

Before using any medications, whether prescribed by a GP, bought over the counter in a Pharmacy or even straight from a supermarket shelf, it is vital that athletes check whether they contain prohibited substances. Medicines bought in the UK, USA, Canada or Japan, can be checked using GlobalDRO (www.globaldro.com)

It makes it clear that athletes have to take the responsibility of knowing what substances they are putting into their body even if it's for medical reasons - I think this makes the argument about drug cheating a little more complex.

When it comes to sanctions imposed I think this is an area where things need to improve. Justin Gatlin has been able to return to the sport like many other athletes because the length of his ban has been too short. I think drug bans should be for at least 5 years.

That's long enough to potentially take away the best years from a younger athletes career - alternatively for older athletes such a ban could end their career. I don't think 5 years will come into effect but I can see 4 years being introduced.

When it comes to athletics punditry I always love listening to Michael Johnson, so have a listen to some of the things he had to say on BBC Radio 5 this week.

What should be done about drugs cheats? @MJGold says there should be a minimum 4-year ban for anyone found guilty. http://t.co/83PzPMc3qL

— BBC 5 live Sport (@5liveSport) August 27, 2015

People like me are always going stick with athletics. If you're a sports fan you love different sports for different reasons. With athletics there's something I love about the simplicity of it all. It's just about who can run faster, throw further and jump higher than their competitors. But you need to have credibility about what you're seeing and that's the challenge for athletics.

A good example of this is when I look at many of the womens world records for 100m, 200m, 400m and 800m I shake my head, there's a question mark over everyone one of them. It's this type of question mark which I don't want to hang over the entire sport of athletics and I hope that with the election of Seb Coe as head of the IAAF things can move forward and improve.

I get Jeremy Corbyn's appeal but a #Labourleadership victory would be a retreat into Labour's comfort zone.

Anyone who has been reading my Twitter feed over the last week will know that I won't be voting for Jeremy Corbyn for leader of the Labour Party.

Labour are currently experiencing an existential crisis, struggling to decide who and what they want to be and stand for. Lurching back to the left will clearly appeal to traditionalists and new younger labour members but I don't see this left wing platform sweeping Labour to power in 2020.

Clearly this election campaign hasn't gone according to the script. I like most people assumed that Corbyn would be the token candidate from the left, running for symbolic reasons but with no chance of actually winning! But that's all changed.

A YouGov poll claiming that Corbyn is on course to win the leadership and stories of left wingers joining the party to vote for Corbyn - mean the Labour establishment is now in a state of panic. Last week Tony Blair issued his warning to the party, that lurching to the left will result in further election defeats. I couldn't agree more.

I've been reading a lot about the leadership election and thinking about Labour and left wing politics in general. Lets be honest Labour are in a total mess. Not only are they struggling to understand why they lost the election and what they should stand for, they're also being completely outmanoeuvred by the Tories who have claimed the centre ground and stolen some of Labour's policies.

So what is going on with Labour?

There's a number of things I've started to realise about the Labour Party, particularly in the last few years. I voted for the first time in 1997 and my vote helped usher in New Labour under Tony Blair. Despite his 3 election victories, the truth is that many inside the party always have and continue to resent the lurch to the right and the centre ground which New Labour represented. I mentioned in one of my previous posts, that you rarely here Labour supporters saying anything positive about their 13 years in power! For them New Labour was completely inauthentic.

After the 2010 election, Ed Miliband's leadership was meant to return Labour back to its roots after the New Labour years but despite appearing to take the party to the left, he and Labour were roundly rejected by the electorate in May. The argument from the left is that voters were not presented with a clear enough choice, they see Jeremy Corbyn's leadership bid as a unique opportunity to 'reclaim' the party and take Labour back to its authentic socialist roots and ideals.

Do I think Corbyn can win the Labour leadership? I've come to the conclusion that yes he can. Do I think Labour could win a general election under his leadership? No I do not!

I wouldn't go as far to say there's a civil war in the party (that may come later) but there's clearly an ideological struggle taking place between the traditional Socialist left of the party and the more moderate, centre left, social democratic wing. I've started to realise that those on the left don't want, moderate centre left politics, they don't want to claim the centre ground, they want a Left wing socialist party.

Pragmatism v Principles

What I've started to understand is that the difference between the Conservative Party and Labour is this.

The Tories exist to be in power, they see it as their right and duty. Conservative politics relies on a degree of pragmatism and understanding on what policies will win votes and achieve power. It explains why they've been one of the most successful political parties in the Western world over the last century.

Labour, however are a party steeped in its own history, ideals and principles. You could argue they have more of a soul than the Tories. I now realise that for some in the Labour party, it's not about the winning - its about remaining true to the party's founding principles and beliefs. This is all very noble and admirable but my problem with this is that ultimately if you want to implement change then at times you have to be in government and that means winning elections.

I think a lot of people in the Labour party would rather lose and remain out of power than win and compromise on their principles. This may explain why I now keep hearing this phrase of 'Tory-lite' from those on the left.

Tony Blair and New Labour were 'Tory-lite', the policies put forward by Ed Miliband were 'Tory-lite', Liz Kendall is a Tory. In fact it now seems that those of us who aren't left wing socialists are all 'Tories'.

The left don't want to occupy the centre-ground, they don't want to appeal to former Conservative voters, they want left wing purity and want to appeal to those that share those values. Jeremy Corbyn is the man that embodies this.

Corbyn's appeal

I get Jeremy Corbyn's appeal. He's not the political establishment, he's not part of the 'Westminster bubble' we hear so much about, he's "principled" (why is everyone that's left wing principled?). He's a champion for the Labour left that for too long has felt ignored and marginalised. He's also benefited from the fact that his rivals are all in different ways so uninspiring.

We've seen all across Europe and in America in recent years that there's a great deal of disillusionment with the political establishment and people are looking for something different; this explains why Corbyn's campaign has appealed to so many. However it is one thing to be the leader of a growing political protest movement but very different to be the leader of the opposition and potential future Prime Minister.

The appeal of Corbyn particularly amongst the young, is like someone telling me about some great new band or singer they've just discovered. You listen to a few tracks and it sounds kind of new, but when you listen more closely you start to recognise a lot of the influences and styles that you've heard before. It's been repackaged and updated. Jeremy Corbyn is introducing 'New Skool' socialism. Nothing wrong with it but I've seen and heard it before!

You can't win elections in a comfort zone

I have no doubt that if Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership election he would appeal to more voters who have become disillusioned with the Labour Party in recent years. I'm thinking of people who have switched votes to the SNP in Scotland and UKIP and the Greens in England and Wales. The question is whether these are the voters that will help win an election?

This is the point I have about Labour moving to the Left. It may satisfy their core voters and make them feel warm and comfortable about themselves but that doesn't necessarily mean it will translate into an election victory.

Politics is always about striking a tricky balance between principles and pragmatism. A Jeremy Corbyn victory for me would send out a message that it is more concerned about appealing to itself and its principles rather than trying to appeal a wider electorate.

Too many on the left show a disdain and at times contempt for those on the centre-ground of politics and floating voters who have previously voted Conservative. Some simply don't want to appeal to those voters as they think it would be somehow 'selling-out'. When will they realise it isn't.


Conclusion

There's a part of me that's now beginning to think that perhaps it would be a good thing if Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Labour party. It's what a lot of Labour grass-roots members and activists want.

We constantly hear about how the parties are all the same and people want a real choice - well Labour under Corbyn would be a complete and utter contrast to the Conservatives. There can be no more complaints about a lack of choice.

In the same way you can get excited about two great football teams playing against each other in a big final. Or a boxing world title fight like Pacquiao v Mayweather, I'm quite intrigued to see a left wing socialist Labour party go up against the Tories in the 2020 election. I would love to see it.

I've got a good idea of what the result will be, but perhaps it's something that needs to happen. Having received the following tweet last week from a member of the Labour Party I have some idea of what the response would be following a Labour defeat.

@Rodneyd75 labour didn't 'lose'. They failed to win election,there's a difference. They need to take the next one with both blood red hands!

— mardymum (@helenturley68) July 21, 2015

Interesting semantics from mardymum!

Even if under Corbyn Labour get annihilated in the 2020 General election, there will still be some like the tweeter above who will claim that they didn't lose. They will self-righteously claim that they somehow won the moral argument, or that the electorate were scared off by the right wing media.

Whatever happens in the next few months or years, what we've seen is that many in the Labour party are happy to retreat into their comfort zone where it's as much about satisfying their own collective beliefs and values rather than appealing and meeting the electorate where they are.

If Labour elect Jeremy Corbyn they're effectively saying they're not interested in being an alternative party of government - instead they're choosing to be nothing more than a glorified left wing pressure group something which will not be of benefit for the Labour Party or democracy in the country.