After June’s General Election, and the rather better showing made by Labour than almost all the polls and pundits had predicted, this blog concluded that the view of Jeremy Corbyn as party leader had to be reassessed, quoting John Maynard Keynes, that greatest of economists, who famously said “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?” But, sadly, some remained resistant to such actions.
Time to quit while you're not too far behind
One who has remained resistant, to the point of wilfulness in the manner of a stuck record, is the Observer’s Nick Cohen, who has returned from a break in submitting his weekly column to show readers that he is as bitter, wayward and utterly clueless as before - indeed, looking at his latest effort, maybe more so. “What would it take for Labour’s moderates to revolt?” he asks plaintively, before giving the game away.
“Labour’s new leaders and Labour’s new members appear utterly incompatible. On the one hand, we have stone-hearted Leninists, who proved they were no better than establishment apologists for Saudi Arabia when they endorsed the most vicious men and movements on Earth. On the other, idealists who just want peace, love and understanding” he begins, and you know it will be downhill from hereon in. Which comes immediately.
“The kindest explanation is that Labour members don’t know who they are following. Most have read enough of the history of Nazism to grasp what Donald Trump’s flirtations with Britain First and the Ku Klux Klan portend. They do not shudder when they see Corbyn surrounding himself with aides from the Communist party of Britain and the fragments of the Socialist Workers party because they know little or nothing of communism”.
R-i-i-i-i-ght. What Labour put before the electorate in June was a programme that looks mild when compared with what Clement Attlee and his team offered in 1945. Much of what that Government achieved is still, despite the efforts of the party’s opponents, and indeed some of its leading figures, in place. Corbyn and his colleagues offered the electorate nothing that would be out of place in most mature European democracies.
Instead of accepting this, and recalibrating his spite-o-meter, Cohen merely rants on. “As democracy and liberty come under attack, from Poland to the US, the salient point to remember about Leninists who stayed with communism after the fall of the Soviet Union is that they switched from embracing one form of totalitarianism to embracing every form of totalitarianism”. It’s like the Python Communist Quiz, but without the laughs.
There is no attempt to understand the swelling membership, the opinion poll leads despite all the abuse Cohen and his embittered pals have been slinging, or the desperate state in which the Tories increasingly find themselves. No, this is just formulaic abuse. Ed Rooksby has it about right as he Tweets “The Nick Cohen formula - Para 1: Corbyn Leninists Andrew Murray. Para 2: Corbyn Nazis SWP. Para 3: Corbyn Communism Cuba Saddam. Para 4: George Galloway. Para 5: totalitarians authoritarians Corbyn. Para 5: Freestyle mix it up - uuh Mark Fisher? Finished. That'll be £500 please”.
Except that Cohen probably gets bunged rather more for this weapons grade drivel, characterised by lines like “I accept that Labour supporters may be ignorant”. Yeah, right Nick - try looking in the mirror for once. The time of Nick Cohen as a credible pundit was for a time, but not for all time. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
7 comments:
It would cheer me up if he did only get £500 per column to be fair
I wonder what sort of a Labour leadership or government programme Nick would be able to support. I remember him being very critical of Blair and New Labour and now he attacks Corbyn and his team. The only programme of action I can recall him supporting (there must be others?) is the Iraq war.
Cohen is merely a symptom of red toryism. The sort of thing rejected overwhelmingly by the membership in the light of their experience with the Blair/Brown wretches.
He's useful only as a warning of what hysteria lies ahead.
Much more threatening are Blairite barrow boys like Benn, Umunna and Mann, still in place and ready to betray at the first drop of a red tory hat - which they are ready to drop themselves. They are political crooks to a man and woman, quislings who should join the far right tories. With them gone, Labour might stand a chance of restoring fairness and decency. With them in place, the chances are not far short of zero. That is how corrupt our political system is.
Cohen?......Pffffttt......a bribed propaganda information clerk, nothing more.
Who do you think this drivel is aimed at? I suspect it's a piece aimed at reinforcing beliefs of a core group of supporters (on the right wing) rather than convincing anyone new). Also who ultimately is paying the cheque for his fee?
At least when Aaronovich was found out as a crap artist, he had the sense to move to an organ (or do I mean 'orifice'?) which was more in tune with the bilge he was by then producing.
If Cohen wished to retain any credibility (assuming he still has any), he would decamp to the Daily Rupert as well, there to form a tag-team with Aaronovich or with Mad Mel.
But then, considering that the Oddswerver today also features yet another piece by Peter Preston parroting the pro-Madrid line vis-à-vis Catalunya, perhaps he might as well stay where he is.
Ideally, Cohen would be taking (even more) 'wingnut welfare' by committing to writing denounciations of 'the left' for the right-wing media full-time. Problem is (a) Dan Hodges is already doing it and (b) that schtick is old as the hills (see another ex-Observer writer, Melanie Phillips).
There is a good side to this.
As time wears on, more and more closet Blairites are flushed into the open. Once identified, their political goose is cooked.
Post a Comment