What is New Politics?

Jeremy Corbyn is a bit of a paradox.

He is an older politician in a time where politicians seem to be getting younger and younger who appeals to the youth. He’s an inexperienced politician with no ministerial posts, a backbencher who rose above the rest. He is, by all accounts, an ancient relic which has been dusted off and now wiped, being used as the face of far left politics. To further this, he is – according to his own words – a champion of “new politics.” This is a phrase in politics which has always confused me. 

If you spoke to someone in the Edwardian era, they would claim the Labour Party was New Politics, a break away from the Burke/Fox/Mill/Gladstonian and imperialist traditions of the 19^th Century. It was a time where political parties, in their modern form, truly meant something. Gone were the days of policy-coalitions – the Liberal Unionists simply had folded in the Conservative Party, the more radical voices were being compelled by the new trade union movements developing across the whole country. 

I guess you could say 1928 was another New Politics moment. Well, specifically, 1929. It was the Second Government for the Labour Party – a minority led by Ramsay Macdonald. This election was the first to have women enfranchised, changing the electoral map much like the Reform Acts and enfranchising acts of the century before. But this was different; this meant that a whole new group who had never gotten a voice was now speaking. It had quite a large effect on politics in Britain, obviously. 

Decades later that difference was illuminated by a Cabinet minister of Edward Heath’s challenge his leadership, that minister being a woman, Margaret Thatcher. She introduced a politics to Conservatism which was condemned by former party masters like Heath and Macmillan (who as Chancellor of Oxford University, refused to grant her an honorary doctorate in a controversial move). Whether you like Thatcher or not, she help make much of the modern political atmosphere with her long reign in government. 

Then we arrive to 1992: New Labour. Is this not the height of New Politics? It showed Labour abandoning what was seen as an ‘outdated platform’ and going onto a more modernist approach to its politics. It helped, five years later, win a historically memorable parliamentary majority. It is one of the most contemporary accounts of New Politics and arguably, the most contemporary. However, personally, I think this assessment is an incorrect one to make. Because despite not having much claim to it now, there is another group to consider: the Liberal Democrats. 

In the height of their popularity, they were a party which excelled on being a new alternative. But the funny thing is, the Liberals are older than Labour (alright, so the LibDems aren’t but half the party was made up one of the oldest in Britain) and considerably older type of politics. Yet, they were seen as a fresh face in the lead up to the 2010 Election. I remember it well, being thirteen at the time and seeing Clegg was my political voice and engaging me in politics for the first time.

They were someone new and I was new to this world so clung to their moderate voice. “A little bit of everything” I remember thinking as I would watch each leadership debate, as precocious young sprout I was. 

So, from this short 500 wordish history, you can gather the concept of New Politics isn’t that new at all. There’s a recurring theme too; this sort of politics was built on being a straight-up, more practical politics for the people. While it may not seem as such in retrospect – Thatcher, the National Labour Government and the Liberal Dems being a few examples – that’s what their rhetoric was all about. You trusted Thatcher to bring results, the Lib Dems were trusted to do what they say, etc. And now, the New Politics is attached to Labour’s leader. 

So does the New Politics label go to those who ascribe to radical (in that they are shifting something not necessarily left wing politics) platforms? I mean, the SNP/Plaid Cymru and Greens could be counted as New Politics by that account. They all ran Anti-Austerity platforms, all were hitting Labour from the left during the election. 

We seemingly aren’t talking about them as much since Corbynmania has dominated our headlines despite the SNP’s “scary majority” over Scotland. But it’s not necessarily being some big game changer; it’s not like they could’ve even negotiated with Labour to form a coalition. So in that case, their New Politics didn’t really have much change and wasn’t won radical agendas. 

So what is it? What is ‘New Politics’? From what I can gather, it is not necessarily anything to do with policy. All of these parties share not an ideological platform but a platform of attempting ‘straight up’. They were all claiming to be straight talking, honest, principled characters who spoke to the people directly. Their relationship was direct, firm, they claimed command because they were the ones who knew best what the public was thinking as one giant mass. It is this similarity in New Politics where we discover just how pragmatic it is; when it succeeds, New Politics is coercing us to ideas that a leader has into thinking they are our own.

“By Jove, I want this because Jeremy Corbyn, who leads us, is saying it so it must be what I want” that is a victory for Corbyn and for all those who like New Politics. 

Now, without delving more into parliamentary history (because I really could), what does this say about Corbyn? I would never say he doesn’t believe what he says. In fact given how he’s handled Syria I think we can guarantee that he does [albeit that can be quite subdued which is hindering at times]. But all it says about New Politics is that it is not ours. It is, instead, a political strategy built on Machiavellian principle without us even realising. 

If we look to the Bedford Speech – “we’ve never had it so good” – as Harold Macmillan said in 1957, that was hugely believe in the 1960s. Arguably this is what politicians should be doing. They give us ideas and platforms for us to follow and we like them so vote for them. Is that not what democracy is built upon? The trouble is of course, by suggesting this, it doesn’t give us much authority as an electorate. We are not allowed to decide where politicians focus their attention. A primary example of this can be found currently in US Politics – many Democrats who are blindly following Clinton currently chose not to engage the issue of her emails. 

But should it occupy undecideds who is it to say that CNN shouldn’t covering each email in detail? Surely free democracy means getting to decide what we think is important and posing that to our politicians even if they think it’s beneath them? In fact I’m pretty sure Corbynites who say that’s the trouble with the Tories – that’s they’re not listening to us folk. New Politics should be founded on that principle. This is not to say that Corbyn doesn’t listen to people or the public but, maybe his New Politics isn't that new at all.

No politician is perfect - not even Jeremy Corbyn

Tomorrow comes the end of a very long three months for the Labour Party. They will, supposedly, be instating Jeremy Corbyn as their leader. He is the champion of British radicalism currently, with so many who left to the Green Party returning to Labour and so many lefties who had not voted Labour since pre-Tony Blair suddenly feeling loyal to the Party. He is the sort of leftie populism that many want to hear more from our Westminster politicians, especially against the Tory majority Government now in power.  However, I have noticed a worrying trend about him amongst the left: the blind eye that many take concerning ANY criticisms of his politics. 

I get it. Corbyn has appeared an underdog, it appears a far-left candidate gets unfairly treated by the established journalists we have. The BBC, usually a respectable organisation, has taken to a very comfortable centre-right which had tainted their journalism for quite some time. Even I, a centrist at heart, felt that their over exposure of Farage was obvious in the Election this year and they didn’t really seem to bother to balance their reports. And the Telegraph obviously has some partisanship bias; it is often known as the “Torygraph” by so many. Even the Guardian, once an okay insightful paper, has become sludge in recent times and it has resulted in it writing very…bad articles on Corbyn, to put it mildly.

But my problem with “Corbynmania” has been that it equates any hint of criticism that you’re secretly some variation of Tory (in my instance a “Yellow Tory”). Even when Owen Jones has strayed away from his own bias and been critical or when the New Statesman has opted to do a more critical piece, suddenly the entire media is launching a war against Corbyn. And while I can understand the frustration of the left – the Labour Party has been claiming bias since Harold Wilson led the party – it is not very help or constructive to pick a leader without knowing anything that one might consider a fault. 

For instance: I voted for Tim Farron after re-joining Liberal Youth and am glad to have done so. Why? Because in a time where we have betrayed ourselves, I think a grassroots long-time member of the Party is the one to bring us back. He never was a part of the previous government, giving us a fresh Liberal-strong image as a party. And to quote my own Party, it’s now more than ever that Britain needs a bit of liberalism pumping into our veins. Despite his involvement in building up the party and his strong message, there is a black cloud concerning social politics – he is supposedly against gay marriage. 

It was the first question for everyone: Are you a homophobe? When he couldn’t answer in a 10-second soundbite, suddenly that was all he was. I would like to take this opportunity to inform you, he vote for the Gay Marriage Act in 2013, he merely abstained from one of the readings (the second, I believe). And Tim Farron sits in one of former safest seats for the Tories in the country, transforming it into his own. He is a conservative Anglican, meaning there is a certain clash of his liberty and of his faith. I’ve spoken to Anglicans who are LGBT who understand that this is a tough line for them spiritually and personally. 

It is difficult to excuse, however, especially as LGBT issues are so personal for some people (myself included). But I made a call – to elect someone who I think will defend my personal liberties despite disagreeing with them or to not do so on the grounds he abstained from a reading this one time. Considering Farron was calling for 60,000 refugees to come to Britain 4 weeks ago, as well as visiting Calais, I’m quite glad that I made that decision. But I was in fact aware of that issue during the leadership election and I’m glad that I was because it meant that I could make an informed decision.

Why can the same not happen with Corbyn?

This issue is not limited to the Labour frontrunner, of course. If you go across seas, the populist “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders is protected by the fact he’s “more left than everyone else”. I agree with a lot of Sanders’ political ideas for the United States but, I also recognise he is pro-Israel, a position I’m not quite in agreement with. In the same way I can appreciate the radicalism (albeit not agree with it) of Corbyn but, we can’t simply shutter ourselves away from positions which make us uncomfortable. For instance – many claim that he is far left to the point of being a Eurosceptic, something much of the left has difficult stomaching. 

So then you have to prioritise issues/policies. Why? Because that’s what we do with every other politician. Jeremy Corbyn has been around since 1983 – why is it suddenly he’s a saint like figure, above everything that every other politician is? And similarly, Sanders has been in US Politics since 1975 – why is it suddenly that he’s not got a single bad mark on his record? [An interesting side point: the women against these two men are continually, openly criticised….even by those who agree with them. Interesting that, isn’t it?] 

So for example: Corbyn has been known to hang around George Galloway. This is perhaps comparable to how we condemn David Cameron for being a member of the Bullingdon Club or his friendship with Rebecca Brooks. I’m all for holding our politicians accountable, for actually calling them out on their faults. And I don’t think anyone on the far left to the far right are perfect. It’s just not capable in the wheelings-and-dealings of the political world. But, of course, to suggest any of this evokes the great hivemind of the far left which seems to plague most comment threads on a New Statesman article. 

Immediately I am a Tory, as mentioned, that I am suddenly “the enemy.” As an amateur blogger I’m suddenly painted as the big, scary Media instead of someone who is trying to think critically. It is vital that we, as an electorate, think about what we’re voting for. And by all means the message of Corbyn are valid but this blind eye thinking is not necessarily beneficial for people who do not vote for him, people who are Jewish, people who are Palestinian, who are pro-European Union or to anti-European Union. Because even if people are still Pro-Corbyn after learning this information, at least they know this information. 

We should not blind ourselves to faults – no politician should be placed on a pedestal and we should be aware for what we’re voting for. No exceptions.

Self care, romanticism and 'during' the illness - comments on Mental Health.

Recently, I talked quite extensively and very open about my mental health. That was possibly one of the hardest things I’ve endeavoured to do in my life and one which was received very warmly. A friend of mine reached out to me and said that I did not clearly address some issues. And that they felt I had not inculpated mental health issues. To be honest, I think that’s a fair point. I talked a lot about recovery because from where I’m sitting now, that’s easier to talk about. And I talked a lot of the lead up to what became a lot of my struggle but I never know how to talk about the struggle without it sound…wishy-washy.

You know what I mean.  “It’s all a journey”, “it gets better”. They’re all nice sounding phrases but I know people who take genuine offence at them. Because as nice as they’re sounding, if your endorphin levels have dropped and you can’t muster much energy to get up and do things, it’s bloody well hard to do anything else. I say I can never offer that much advice despite having been ‘there’ before. I don’t think of myself as qualified, I will simply try to see if I can see something similar in what I experienced and what a friend might being experiencing. But it’s really difficult sometimes to really know what to do because one feels that they should be better at it. But truth is, it’s not some float-y journey. It’s actually really hard.

I read a lot of things on the internet which bang on about ‘self-care tips’. And they usually say “get some chocolate, watch something nice”, etc. The messages themselves are nice enough but unfortunately, they tend to gloss over a lot of practical problems which arise with mental health. You tend to lose any patterns of hygiene you may have once have had and any desire to move your clothes out of the way on the floor. So maybe just grabbing some coco and sitting watching Orange is the New Black isn’t actually a way for you to progress. Sometimes it’s about doing the difficult thing – moving a couple of t-shirts so you don’t break your neck, clambering into the shower. That low point makes you lose any desire to function and it makes you lose any want to carry on. I think part of the illness is the inclusion of routine.

Even if it’s gentle things at first. You set a little task maybe, change your t-shirt today because you’ve been wearing the same pyjama top for 4 days consecutively. And here’s where, I think, the “mental health discussion” is actually finding problems. There’s one side which try to claim upon the beauty of people that has seemingly “Lost” throughout their ill period and the other side, which is harsh and cutthroat. We must understand that these are not the orthodox physical ill but instead, their mind is not necessarily responding to what seem normal human activities. And by simply bubble wrapping up people we are not actually helping. Whenever I break my leg, I’m told that the best way to recover is to get mobile as soon as possible.

That isn’t to say I should exist myself on crutches but make sure that I allow myself to get back to putting weight on it. Mental health cannot (nor should it) be treated exactly like physical health – for the quantifier of ‘mental’ makes it a much more subjective type of illness – but the analogy still holds some truth. You can’t make someone come out from the cave which they’ve built immediately but we shouldn’t be advocates of the cave to begin with. And it’s understood that people are struggling and are taking easier options but we need to have reality in this discussion. Without it, we will end up indulging emotional avoidance and people will be perpetually ill. Sometimes, my Mum would support me by making me get out of bed. That was hard, it was strenuous and I don’t always advise it (it worked for me but may not for you) but it was important that I had to begin a normalisation process.

Romanticism will not help nor will being overly harsh. Sensitivity is key to all these issues but I think sensitivity must go along with remembering what else is going on. Step by step.I think analogies and nice phrases are good at times but I guess one of the important factors of someone who has recovered is that it is particularly difficult to put yourself back in that place again. It's very difficult to remember what it was like because for a lot of it, you were very ill and you weren't entirely sure what was going on. You don't know if it was scary or bad but you perceive it to be as such now. And that is immensely important to discuss and to remember. 

I'm ending rather abruptly to allow space for discussion on this topic - I imagine it's one that can be discussed very lengthily by people more qualified to talk about this stuff than myself.