A piece on Corbyn, written for Tories

I support Jeremy Corbyn but I know that many find the prospect of him in power a scary one. He has been labelled - “an unreconstructed Trot” and a “danger to our national security”. However, many might be surprised to discover that they agree with him much more than they thought.

Are you happy that companies like Google are allowed to “make a deal” with the Revenue to pay a derisory amount of tax? Tens of billions of pounds are lost to the nation by these “sweet-heart deals” and the use of tax-havens, which are only accessible by the very rich. Meanwhile, decent taxpaying British companies find themselves undercut. Successive governments have acted as if we have no choice except to put up with this, like we put up with the weather. This issue is a priority for Corbyn, who is advised by leading experts in the field.

The damage caused by recent floods in Yorkshire would have been prevented if money had not been “saved” in 2011 by not building recommended flood defences. The taxpayer will now pay much more as a result of this false economy. Corbyn has been very clear that while he is committed to reducing the deficit, when it comes to floods: - “Cuts in public expenditure are not the answer. You’ve got to be prepared to invest in flood defences…”

Did you think it was wise - economically, politically and in relation to national security - to invite the Chinese Communist Party into the heart of our nuclear power industry? It would make more sense to borrow at historically low interest rates to invest for the nation and to keep future profits in the UK. This is very much the kind of investment Corbyn advocates. Germany under Angela Merkel does the same. 

Much of the UK rail network is currently operated by the state-owned companies of France, Germany and the Netherlands. Arriva, for example, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bahn, the German state railway company. These companies put up the fares, take the subsidies and then it is the taxpayers of their countries who benefit from the profits. Corbyn wants to bring back the railways into UK public ownership, as and when the franchises come to an end. There is widespread public support for such a policy.

In the last 12 months the estimated cost of the Trident replacement has gone from £100 billion to £167 billion and it is expected to go much higher. Corbyn’s intervention has already ensured that the country will now have a proper debate. His view that there should not be a Trident replacement, is not “extreme”. It is shared by Tories like Crispin Blunt MP, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, who has said: - "The price required (to replace Trident), both from the UK taxpayer and our conventional forces, is now too high to be rational or sensible."

Millions of Britons live in poverty. Many are forced to use food banks. These are not “scroungers”: many are people with disabilities; many are children; many live in households where someone is working hard for long hours and earning below the Living Wage. Corbyn’s approach is straightforward - such poverty is unacceptable in one of the richest countries in the world. A one nation Tory like Harold Macmillan would probably have agreed.

Corbyn is not getting a fair and balanced hearing in the media. Partly, this is due to his own mistakes and inexperience and an admirable (or foolish) refusal to make it a priority to please the media. It is also because he is taking on the most powerful interest groups in the country.

Corbyn did not spend years plotting to reach the top. He is principled. Even his political enemies generally acknowledge that he is decent and sincere. He lives a simple, somewhat frugal lifestyle. He does not spin. He tries to answer questions - sometimes to his own detriment. In many respects, he is the kind of politician that people have been saying they want.

Some of the world’s most eminent economists are advising Corbyn on his economic policy. It cannot fairly be described as “extreme”. Corbyn is a far more sophisticated and pragmatic politician than the lazy, abusive label of “unreconstructed Trot” suggests.

Corbyn is not weak on national security. He is wary of launching wars. He alone of current front-ranking UK politicians opposed the Iraq War. The threat from IS can to a great extent be traced back to that disastrous decision. People may not agree with them but Corbyn’s views on national security deserve to be listened to with respect.

Some scoff at Corbyn’s frequent references to a “kinder’ Britain.  But Britain is a harsh place for many and both rich and poor would benefit from a kinder approach.

Tyson Fury and David Cameron - where is society’s sense of proportion?

Tyson Fury, a Gypsy, has said some offensive things and has been vilified by public opinion. David Cameron, the prime minister, said a deeply offensive thing and there has been comparatively little reaction. Where is society’s sense of proportion?

I first became aware of Tyson Fury, the self-styled “Gypsy King”, last month when he won a stunning victory against the long-time champion to become the Heavyweight Boxing Champion of the world.

Fury is a 6 foot 9 inch giant from Manchester. He is the son of “Gypsy” John Fury, a bare-knuckle fighter, who named him after the fearsome Mike Tyson. He had a chaotic childhood with little schooling. He is a born-again Christian with a deep belief in the truth of the Bible.

I first had contact with the Gypsy community when I was a Criminal lawyer, some 25 years ago. I observed then the terrible prejudice that Gypsies face. Police, gaolers, lawyers, sometimes even the judiciary, did not even feel the need to hide their contempt. Not much has changed: Gypsies are the most discriminated against and marginalised group in our country.

I thought it was wonderful that Tyson Fury had brought some rare success and pride to his community.

But now, Fury has been branded a sexist and a homophobe. He has faced a police enquiry (now dropped) into his alleged homophobic remarks and over 130,000 people have signed a petition demanding that the BBC ban him from their flagship BBC Sports Personality of the Year. A BBC presenter has called him a “dickhead” on air (not to his face). The Guardian’s Michael White has described him as “mouthy and opinionated in an ugly and stupid way.” The same paper’s Gaby Hinsliff says his views are repugnant and he “has already lost in every way that counts.”

Sexism and homophobia are not binary, black and white concepts. There are shades of grey. All sexism and homophobia is wrong but some is worse than others. Not all sexist and homophobes are as extreme as the King of Saudi Arabia.

Fury is a sexist. He said: - “A woman’s best place is in the kitchen and on her back”. Such crass sexist comments are often heard in men-only environments from the Garrick Club, to the Rugby Club, to the pub. That does not make them in any way acceptable, of course, but it should give people a sense of proportion.

Moments after Fury became champion, he grabbed a microphone and sung his wife a romantic love song. I thought that was lovely.

A complaint was made to the police that Fury had “incited hatred towards homosexuals” by suggesting that all homosexuals are paedophiles. This allegation has been repeated across the media. No wonder people hate Fury.

However, Fury never said what is alleged. This is what he actually said: - “There are only three things that need to be accomplished before the Devil comes home. One of them is homosexuality being legal, one is abortion being legal and the other is paedophilia being legal.”  

Fury explains his view as stemming from his reading of the Bible. Millions of religious people hold similar views. Fury told journalists that his views are the same as the Pope’s. By all means attack the homophobia found in religion, but when attacking Fury for those same views, people need a sense of proportion.

Fury has defended himself vehemently. He denies sexism and homophobia. He has said: - “I don’t think gay people are paedophiles. Two adults consenting to love each other is a different matter to someone messing with a child.” 

When offensive remarks are made, it obviously matters who makes them. Fury is a boxer, not a headteacher, CEO or prime minister.

And in all the fury over Fury’s comments, people have ignored the fact that while some of his views deserve criticism, others deserve praise. 

From Fury’s own words, found online, he comes across as intelligent, intense and interesting. 

Fury is fiercely proud of his family and his community. He wants to do some good in the world in areas where he has seen so many lives blighted  - alcoholism, drug addiction and homelessness. He talks frankly about his own sometimes suicidal depression. And he talks a great deal about his belief in the Bible.

For me, the most striking thing that Fury says - many times - is his disdain for the material trappings of “success”.  Here are some typical quotes.

“…if we just were born to die for 70 years or 90 or 15 or 20, then what is the point of being born in the beginning. What is it for? To buy a house and a car and get old and die? For me, that would be a pointless life lived…you get caught up in worldly things i.e. wanting, wanting, wanting all the time. Throughout history…if a man had a billion, he’d want 10 billion. …When is enough enough?”

“My be all and end all is passing through here, trying to do a few good things on the way, helping people….It ain’t about winning the title for me…it’s not about all that sort of stuff and what they think success is. People think success is being rich and driving nice cars and being Mr Flash. Success isn’t that.” 

Sports journalist Barney Ronay writes: - “Success now is unlikely to change a relatively humble lifestyle….Fury can be, according to those who know him, a hospitable, gentle, funny, talkative, slightly disarming presence.”

Compare Tyson Fury with one of his opponents for the BBC Sports Personality of the Year, Lewis Hamilton, the Formula 1 world champion. Hamilton - “perfect” and bland - never expresses an opinion on anything and lives in tax exile enjoying the material rewards of success. Who is the better role model? 

Meanwhile, as I wrote last week, David Cameron called anyone who opposed his plan to bomb in Syria a “terrorist sympathiser”. That is similar to calling them traitors. And Cameron is the prime minister, not a boxer.

If as a society we had a proper sense of proportion, the front pages and the news on TV and radio should have been carrying powerful demands for the prime minister to withdraw such a gross slur and never repeat it again. 

But the media failed to understand how serious Cameron’s words were. And, anyway, they were busy attacking the Gypsy. Where is society’s sense of proportion?

Some things in politics are much more important than party politics

Sport is “all about winning”, they say. But even in a brutal sport like boxing, there are rules. If the boxer you support, hits below the belt or bites off a part of the opponent’s ear, then only the most tunnel-visioned fan would celebrate their “victory”.

Politics is a brutal game too but again there are rules. However, there is no referee. The rules are supposed in theory to be enforced in this country by “civil society”. A vital part of a properly functioning civil society is a media which should expose breaches of the rules and through its immense power of communication enforce compliance.

Last week, the prime minister flagrantly breached the rules of acceptable behaviour in our democracy by calling those who opposed his plan to bomb in Syria, “terrorist sympathisers”. He refused many times to apologise on the floor of the Commons. Such an accusation goes well beyond the normal, robust hurling of political insults. 

David Cameron’s comment is reminiscent of those of the vile, bullying Senator Joseph McCarthy, who - together with his followers - accused those who opposed him of being “Communist sympathisers”. 

McCarthy operated during the Cold War. Cameron uses his McCarthyite slur during the War on Terror. When a powerful person accused opponents of sympathising with enemies of the State, they are telling others that they should discount arguments of those opponents because they are made from traitorous motives. 

Very few in our media seem to grasp how destructive to our political system Cameron’s remarks are. They seem to be quite unable to view politics other than through the prism of party politics. 

After five long years of McCarthy striking fear throughout American society in the early 1950s, it was a TV journalist, Edward  R Murrow who played a crucial role in his downfall. That took moral courage of a high order. McCarthy had destroyed many people’s careers and worse.

Where in our media do we see a Murrow today?

Cameron has disgracefully and dangerously broken the rules of the political game and it is difficult to see who there is in our civil society who will do anything about it.

The situation is both depressing and very troubling. 

Some things in politics are much more important than party politics.