Jeremy Corbyn’s remarkable campaign for the Labour leadership has parallels in other countries – not only in Europe but in America, where a little-known veteran politician on the left has suddenly emerged as a candidate for the highest office. Bernie Sanders is 73 and advertises himself as a democratic socialist. He wants America to be more like Scandinavia, with higher taxes and cradle-to-grave free welfare services for all. He is speaking to record crowds wherever he goes and commentators are starting to say he might beat Hilary Clinton to be the Democratic Party’s candidate for next year’s presidential elections. Have a look at this.
Sanders’ message is a simple one – the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer in America:
The issue of wealth and income inequality, to my mind, is the great moral issue of our time. It is the great economic issue of our time and it is the great political issue of our time. Let me be as clear as I can be: There is something profoundly wrong when today, the top one-tenth of one percent own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.
He is right, of course and our society in Britain is also becoming less and less equal. Suddenly, this seems to be something politicians can say and get away with saying. Suddenly, socialism is becoming fashionable – perhaps even in America where it has never been fashionable before. In Britain, the Labour Party had put socialism behind it, but in doing so had lost its working-class base. These old Labour votes are ones UKIP was beginning to attract. If Corbyn revives the Labour vote, how should UKIP respond?
Leaving our own problems aside for a moment, let’s look across the Atlantic. Why are the rich getting richer in America and the poor getting poorer? There is actually an important factor, which Bernie Sanders prefers not to talk about. It’s immigration. Immigration levels in the United States in the last few decades are very comparable with those in the UK and Western Europe generally. Precise figures are hard to come by because of high levels of illegal immigration, mainly across the long and vulnerable Mexican border, but official US figures show that immigrants went from 9% of the labour force in 1990 to 16% in 2011. UK figures for those in employment show that here, immigrants went from 7% in 1993 to 15% in 2013.
We are frequently told that immigrants make a net contribution to the overall economy. They may or may not do so, but the overall economy has to expand to accommodate them. Immigrants take jobs which would have been done by members of the existing population and they reduce wages generally by their competition. They use all the infrastructure and facilities of the country to which they come, capital assets built up over centuries which the existing population and their ancestors have worked for and paid for; they use the government services which the population pay for now; they need houses and flats built to accommodate them and roads and utilities expanded to meet the extra demand they create. They make most of the existing population relatively poorer, especially those at the lower end of the income scale, with whom they most compete. They benefit these at the top end of the income scale because they reduce labour costs.
There may well be other factors which should be considered when discussing the widening gap between rich and poor, but what is striking is the unwillingness of the new Socialists to address the issue of immigration at all. Jeremy Corbyn seems positively to welcome immigration. Are the new left-wing candidates genuinely concerned about the lot of the unemployed and badly-off who are being replaced in their own countries? Or are they proposing old remedies and finding old scapegoats – to draw popular attention away from the real issue which they and their friends do not wish to discuss?
Did you see how Sky scooped the BBC this morning by informing the viewers that Corbyn had won the leadership well before it was announced at the Labour meeting? Adam Boulton strikes again!
Corbyn made a speech in which he manage to repeat ‘passion’ or ‘passionate’ about 7 or 8 times. The Labourites at the meeting didn’t seem very passionate about Corbyn: there was no prolonged applause or standing ovation. Some looked very glum indeed. The plotting to dethrone Corby asap is well underway.
He didn’t say one single thing about the EU, the most pressing issue of our times. His attitude was that he could rule the country all on his own without interference from anyone and change it to suit his ideas of what is right. If that’s what he wants, he’d better support the OUT of EU campaign unequivocally from now on.
I don’t see these arguments as being particularly socialist but perhaps an asset to sustainability and a re-balancing of fairness. To seek to address the wide inequalities that exist in our society is a laudible intention but, what’s missing in the Corbyn/Sanders rhetoric is a truthful analysis of why this is happening and any credible plans to change things.
Mass immigration is a major contributory factor along with lax regulation, political corruption, corporate influence and elitism and they must all be addressed. All the while Corbyn supports mass unrestricted immigration and maintains his support (though seemingly lukewarm) for the EU, UKIP will benefit.
With Corbyn as leader Labour’s chances of winning an election are less than zero as the UKIP challenge, as yet unaddressed by either major party, will lessen their support even further.
Mass immigration from alien cultures will eventually ruin any country, but we must remember that it is our ‘own’ in government who make it possible.
As ever, the enemy within is the real one.
Suddenly, socialism is becoming fashionable – perhaps even in America where it has never been fashionable before.
In America? Rubbish.
Bernie is gaining traction for the same reasons Donald Trump is gaining traction. Any possible alternative looks dismal, and his likability factor is light-years beyond the competition’s, low bar though that may be.
We have always had socialists but no one to ever carry their banner – until now. It does not mean socialism is becoming more fashionable, it means only that people of that ilk have become more politically visible.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I need to say that my husband has known and worked with Bernie for decades. My husband was a staffer on the Hill and has been a lobbyist for years. My only personal contact with him consists of brief, business-related phone calls and a very kind note upon our marriage.)
Thanks for your helpful and interesting comment. In view of your comment about no one previously carrying the socialist banner, would you say that Bernie Sanders has taken the banner only now, perhaps for the purposes of the campaign, or has he always expressed much the same views, perhaps more quietly?
Bernie has been a socialist his entire adult life. And I can assure you, he has NEVER been quiet. Ignored by national media and dismissed as a crank perhaps, but never quiet. He represents one of the smallest states, Vermont, known for skiing, dairy and maple syrup. Not quite the stuff of political drama. He has received more media attention since he moved from the House to the Senate because Senators tend to wield more influence.
If you want to watch Bernie, I’ll tell you this much. He means what he says. There is no attempt to charm or obfuscate. What you see is what you get.
That’s interesting. There is a similarity with Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you.
And Nigel Farage.
Absolutely, David – and Nigel also has the right policies!