A dignified exit for whom?
Those unfamiliar with The Guardian’s brand of propaganda may be convinced that the Parliamentary Labour Party opponents of Jeremy Corbyn won some sort of victory on Tuesday 5 July, but the report ‘Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet agrees to Labour peace talks’ contains an interesting mix of facts and possibilities.
On the side of Corbyn’s opponents (presumably supported by The Guardian), come the following possibilities (my emphases):
“in what some Corbyn loyalists hope will be the first step towards a brokered deal”
“that could ensure a dignified exit for the embattled leader”
“One source involved in the discussions said the process could result in Corbyn stepping aside before a 2020 general election …”
and mid-sentence the report turns to the hard facts that the opponents have gained nothing of note (again, my emphases):
“... but that there could be no pre-conditions. “The bottom line is, there can be no gun to Jeremy’s head,” one shadow cabinet source said.”
“the negotiations, which are aimed at averting an immediate challenge to Corbyn’s leadership”
“He [Andy Burnham] stressed at the meeting that the party should respect Corbyn’s mandate.”
“Corbyn is adamant that he will not step down and believes anyone who wants to challenge his leadership should do so through the proper process.”
“Burnham and others, including Watson, believe a leadership race would destabilise and risk splitting the party amid bitter recriminations between the leadership team – backed by the grassroots membership – and most of the party’s MPs.”
In other words, these negotiations really offer “a dignified exit for the embattled” MPs in the face of the overwhelming support of Labour Party members for Jeremy Corbyn and his policies.
Also tucked into this report is the continuing bleat that MPs matter more than members:
“Labour MPs say his position is untenable without the support of the parliamentary party”
“Watson told MPs on Monday that he had informed Corbyn it was not enough to have a mandate from the party membership, which voted overwhelmingly for him nine months ago.”
This will not only cut no ice with those members, but is likely to antagonise them even more against MPs who ignore their views. In fact, the more they use that argument, the more likely they are to provoke de-selection processes aimed at putting in place MPs who will respect the views of Constituency Labour Parties.
Everyone with any sense in the Labour Party, including all the MPs, is well aware that an implosion of membership would decimate Labour’s parliamentary presence at the next election.
