Decent interview in the New Yorker with a Cambridge professor. The prof is largely correct, but he doesn't seem conscious of his essential contradiction: Corbyn should have been stronger against Brexit, but he admits Labour would have lost in so many Leave districts that were otherwise pro-Labour. The very idea that Remain would have won if Corbyn was a full-throat Remainer can't pass any smell test, and note the don in the interview gingerly admitted that point.
Two stunning facts remain: (1) Britain's elite were so full of hatred for and fear of Corbyn they consciously allowed themselves to have less fear of a Johnson/Tory victory and (2) their adamant stance on Remain was foolishness incarnate in terms of political strategy. Had they had any good faith and desire for unity for Labour, they would not have excoriated Corbyn as they did, and would have better explained Corbyn's sensible, moderate position that allowed for a new negotiation and a re-vote on the result of that re-negotiation. Corbyn had credibility with many Leavers for years as someone who had been deeply critical of the role Central European (largely German) bankers had over the European Union, to take one major example. Somehow the Cambridge don has forgotten all of that in his analysis.
Two stunning facts remain: (1) Britain's elite were so full of hatred for and fear of Corbyn they consciously allowed themselves to have less fear of a Johnson/Tory victory and (2) their adamant stance on Remain was foolishness incarnate in terms of political strategy. Had they had any good faith and desire for unity for Labour, they would not have excoriated Corbyn as they did, and would have better explained Corbyn's sensible, moderate position that allowed for a new negotiation and a re-vote on the result of that re-negotiation. Corbyn had credibility with many Leavers for years as someone who had been deeply critical of the role Central European (largely German) bankers had over the European Union, to take one major example. Somehow the Cambridge don has forgotten all of that in his analysis.
Note also nowhere does this Cambridge don admit the corporate media's and BBC's consistent, breathless attacks on Corbyn's competence in addition to Corbyn being some sort of alien amidst true Britons had a horrific effect on older shut-ins, who chose to go with Johnson and the Tories rather than risk Corbyn and Labour. Also, despite the massive pro-Liberal Democratic Party bias among elite media, none of their preferred candidates did well, and their leader lost her otherwise safe seat in Parliament.
I am, however, very glad the Cambridge don told the New Yorker writer that Bernie Sanders is in a very different position from Corbyn and how the election in the UK has nothing to do with Sanders' increasingly strong fortunes. The corporate media here in the US has been so much more beaten down in the hearts of tens of millions of Americans, meaning it has largely lost credibility except with an increasingly smaller part of our population, and youth is coming out even more than in the UK, even in various Republican oriented states.
I am, however, very glad the Cambridge don told the New Yorker writer that Bernie Sanders is in a very different position from Corbyn and how the election in the UK has nothing to do with Sanders' increasingly strong fortunes. The corporate media here in the US has been so much more beaten down in the hearts of tens of millions of Americans, meaning it has largely lost credibility except with an increasingly smaller part of our population, and youth is coming out even more than in the UK, even in various Republican oriented states.
