Give me irrelevance, or give me death.
Appearances, as we know, can often be deceiving. If you were to judge me purely by this blog, you would no doubt conclude I'm something of a politics obsessive. And you'd be right. But it doesn't run my life. Part of the reason I've always resisted joining any social network is I know it would just lead to my spending even more time thinking and spouting off on the subject. This might sound counter-intuitive, but if there's one thing the world desperately needs less of, as well as lawyers, it's politics. There's a very good reason why most ordinary, sensible people eschew getting involved, and it's not just because they're not interested or don't have the time to spare to do so: it's often terminally dull and the same arguments occur over and over again. The reward is minuscule in comparison to the amount of work you have to put in to get any real enjoyment out.
You can though understand why the most obsessed believe that their heroes, or representatives must involve themselves in every issue or campaign going, because otherwise why else should they do so themselves? This isn't helped by how what was once rare has become so commonplace: debates between political candidates, if they happened at all, were usually one-off affairs. Now, especially when it comes to choosing a party leader or a party presidential nominee, they happen practically every week. Yes, this does to an extent weed out the also-rans, but it also has the effect of boring anyone who might have been paying attention and isn't an obsessive to death. There are only so many times even the most anal of us can hear the same scripted lines without wanting to open up our arteries. By the time the Democrat/Republican candidates finally face off towards the end of this year, the chances of even Trump if it is indeed he saying something original will be lower than Jeb Bush's ego.
Owen Jones then worries that Labour "risks becoming irrelevant in the [EU] referendum". He says this despite writing of how Jeremy Corbyn "is in politics to change things, and voters know – if nothing else – that he is not there to defend the status quo or the establishment". Jones attempts to avoid the contradiction of this anti-establishment figure arguing for the establishment position by saying that instead Corbyn should "make his own separate case", calling for a vote to stay in the EU "as a first step to the reform it so desperately needs".
It isn't clear exactly how this will work. Most Labour supporters are it seems in favour of staying in, and yet how exactly will helping David Cameron to a stonking great victory help the party win the next election? How will effectively signing up to Cameron's renegotiation, as a remain vote will clearly be taken as, be the first step to the reform the EU so desperately needs, especially when it will be the Conservatives in power for at least another three years? Failing a Scottish "neverrendum" feeling taking hold, it's apparent this is going to be taken as the UK's settlement in Europe for at least a good few years.
Put it like this: irrelevance is by far the preferable position, if not for Labour, then definitely for Corbyn. We all know he doesn't believe in the EU. He said he voted for coming out of the Common Market in 1975, as you'd expect, and if you voted out then you have to go through a spectacular routine of verbal gymnastics to convincingly explain why you'd possibly vote to remain now. Getting vigorously involved in a campaign to remain, even purely on a Labour platform, makes absolutely no sense. Staying in the background and letting everyone else get on with it is by far the better bet.
Especially when it seems as though all involved are determined to send the public to sleep. Quite why there needs to be three BBC debates, not including any held by the other broadcasters quite escapes me, especially when only one is likely to be attended by Cameron. The right-wing press does of course regard this as the most important vote in the history of this septic isle, so naturally the BBC has to go one better, and yet Wembley Arena? Build it and everyone other than the obsessives will find an excuse to switch the channel. Irrelevance has never been such an attractive proposition.
You can though understand why the most obsessed believe that their heroes, or representatives must involve themselves in every issue or campaign going, because otherwise why else should they do so themselves? This isn't helped by how what was once rare has become so commonplace: debates between political candidates, if they happened at all, were usually one-off affairs. Now, especially when it comes to choosing a party leader or a party presidential nominee, they happen practically every week. Yes, this does to an extent weed out the also-rans, but it also has the effect of boring anyone who might have been paying attention and isn't an obsessive to death. There are only so many times even the most anal of us can hear the same scripted lines without wanting to open up our arteries. By the time the Democrat/Republican candidates finally face off towards the end of this year, the chances of even Trump if it is indeed he saying something original will be lower than Jeb Bush's ego.
Owen Jones then worries that Labour "risks becoming irrelevant in the [EU] referendum". He says this despite writing of how Jeremy Corbyn "is in politics to change things, and voters know – if nothing else – that he is not there to defend the status quo or the establishment". Jones attempts to avoid the contradiction of this anti-establishment figure arguing for the establishment position by saying that instead Corbyn should "make his own separate case", calling for a vote to stay in the EU "as a first step to the reform it so desperately needs".
It isn't clear exactly how this will work. Most Labour supporters are it seems in favour of staying in, and yet how exactly will helping David Cameron to a stonking great victory help the party win the next election? How will effectively signing up to Cameron's renegotiation, as a remain vote will clearly be taken as, be the first step to the reform the EU so desperately needs, especially when it will be the Conservatives in power for at least another three years? Failing a Scottish "neverrendum" feeling taking hold, it's apparent this is going to be taken as the UK's settlement in Europe for at least a good few years.
Put it like this: irrelevance is by far the preferable position, if not for Labour, then definitely for Corbyn. We all know he doesn't believe in the EU. He said he voted for coming out of the Common Market in 1975, as you'd expect, and if you voted out then you have to go through a spectacular routine of verbal gymnastics to convincingly explain why you'd possibly vote to remain now. Getting vigorously involved in a campaign to remain, even purely on a Labour platform, makes absolutely no sense. Staying in the background and letting everyone else get on with it is by far the better bet.
Especially when it seems as though all involved are determined to send the public to sleep. Quite why there needs to be three BBC debates, not including any held by the other broadcasters quite escapes me, especially when only one is likely to be attended by Cameron. The right-wing press does of course regard this as the most important vote in the history of this septic isle, so naturally the BBC has to go one better, and yet Wembley Arena? Build it and everyone other than the obsessives will find an excuse to switch the channel. Irrelevance has never been such an attractive proposition.
Labels: David Cameron, EU referendum, European Union, Eurozone, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour, Owen Jones, politics, Tories
| Permalink
