Show Hide image

Seymour Hersh-extended interview

A longer version of this week's NS interview

Is it always a journalist's duty to report the truth, even if it may damage innocents?
I'm a total First Amendment Jeffersonian. It's their job to keep it secret and my job to find it out and make it public. But once one gets some information, one doesn't run pell-mell into it. You spend some time making sure just what the downside is. At the New York Times in particular, I had the experience of telling the intelligence community: "I'm going to do this, and if you have people in harm's way, we're going to do this in a few days -- get them out." But most of the time it's not that dramatic.

You know, maybe six or seven times in 40 years I've had a story and I've communicated to the government what I'm doing, which we always do, and the president or the secretary of defence has called up my editor or publisher and said: "If you write this story, American national security will be damaged." And in every case except one where we delayed briefly, we wrote the story and, son-of-a-bitch, the Russians didn't launch paratroopers into the foothills of San Francisco the next day. At a certain point this claim about national security becomes something more. It's always political security.

Are there times when you have a scoop, or a piece of information, but let it go?
You're constantly not publishing everything you know. That's part of the game. You leverage what you know and sometimes you'll have a phrase that will indicate to someone on the inside that you really know more than you're writing. It's a self-protection measure. Sometimes if I'm into a sensitive story . . . it's hard to talk about this stuff -- but sometimes I'll indicate I know more.

For example, some kinds of intelligence are useless to us. Suppose one were to determine where the American attack submarines with nuclear arms are at any given time. How useless is that to a newspaperman? Some of the most secret secrets in the government are not very useful. But sometimes it is useful to tell people more than you actually write, to negotiate language with the other side -- that is, the government. Sometimes we don't do that. I'll add that this administration is actually more pleasant to deal with, because, unlike the Reagan-Bush years, they are not either taunting you or threatening you. The people I have dealt with here at a high level are almost rational. There's nothing quite as arrogant as somebody who thinks he's seen all the secrets.

Look, let's say you're a major player in a law firm billing $1m-$2m a year and you come down to $160,000 a year to work inside. What's it all about? It's all about: "My God, I really know what's going on. I've seen the top-secret stuff from the intercepts and the CIA. And then some punk reporter comes in and knows something he shouldn't know and I'm a person raged, not only because he knows it, but because that's what I'm in this job for -- I wanna know." I actually had people say to me during the Vietnam war when I was getting very critical -- I was just then working for a wire service (AP) -- I had people say to me: "If you only knew what I know, you would know how wrong you are." It's a cliché to say it, but it's true: they really do get it into their heads that they know more than you.

Do you ever worry that your phone is bugged?
Some people I only talk to in their home or their office, but I arrange the calls here. Even in the Nixon/Bush years, I could say this: there are certain people I would call on a Sunday morning at their home from my home. We'd have very good talks, and it's a very good time to work for me. I can't call people at their office. And as long as they were talking to me from their home on a Sunday morning about stuff, I would feel comfortable. If somebody suddenly stopped talking to me on a home phone . . . To bug me legally they'd have to get a warrant. Bush and Cheney did so many illegal things, but once you have something illegally you can't use it very much. If the 9/11 attacks taught us one thing, it's that the agencies collect lots of wonderful stuff they don't share with anybody.

You rely a lot on unnamed sources. Is that a dangerous technique, or an invaluable one?
Look at the serious press in the UK, France, America: every single day there are unnamed sources. I love the notion that somehow investigative reporters are held to a higher standard with unnamed sources.

My view is that I'm glad we don't have the British standard. In America we have this wonderful notion that you have to prove malicious intent. In England it is more difficult: you have to be just wrong -- it doesn't matter what your intent is. But I believe people in my profession should be held to an extremely high standard. I welcome the fact that people can sue me and go after me. I know American reporters who have described an unnamed senior CIA official and I knew . . . the name of the person they were not naming -- and the reason they didn't name him is that he had a certain bias which would have mitigated the story.

That happens all the time. It happened when I worked at the New York Times and I'm sure it happens elsewhere - people will have a source, but if they named him denouncing, let's say, the Bush administration, if you said who he was, he would be devalued. And by saying "a higher-level former senior intelligence official" you can cover that. I hate that. Therefore, the way in my own mind that I cope with that anomaly, that disgrace, if you will, is that I say I welcome people suing me.

I've been in a lot of litigation. I welcome that on the grounds that it is an appropriate measure. I think I've been in seven. We were in court once and the critical issue was that the judge was going to make me reveal my sources. I was going to have to say that we conceded the point and be found guilty of libel. The judge was a Reagan appointee in Chicago a couple of decades ago, and the Reagan appointee ruled that I didn't have to name sources. I went on camera and we went to the judge, and we gave an account of six people and gave a description of them, and the judge accepted that they were real -- that I was serious and I had sources. But if he hadn't, I think I would have had to concede the case.

How bad are British libel laws?
I had one case involving [Robert] Maxwell, a famous case in 1981 in England, after I wrote a book called The Samson Option. Basically, the British press had me accusing the former publisher of being an Israeli agent. I didn't quite say that -- he was an asset, he wasn't a spy; he just did what they asked him in one case. And we were sued to death and won a huge settlement. So my one experience with the law was fine.

Do you find the libel laws in the UK chilling?
There's no question -- D-notices are chilling. You guys have a very tough system. Every time someone goes up against it in England they end up in jail.

Isn't there a risk that some high-level sources might be "playing" you?
Of course, that's a categorical risk. I'm doing something sensitive this morning, and there's no question some may have . . . But I consider myself a full-service agency. You can come to me with a secret and I take it to other people and learn things about what you know . . . You have something that they call "compartmented intelligence", above top-secret. You come to me with a secret, and then I write a story that includes things you didn't know. So when the government assesses what I wrote to see who could have leaked it, you're not ever considered to be someone who could have, because they know that you (because of you and your compartment) could not have known what was published by the other compartment. You can come to me with compartmented information and I can go to other people with compartmented information and make it very hard for them to come to a conclusion about who could have been leaking. It's foolproof.

How have you managed to remain an outsider for so long when, for example, Bob Woodward, another great journalist of your generation, has gone mainstream?
There's no way they would deal with me. Bob Woodward, I disagree with his point of view. He starts at the top and goes down. But if he hadn't written, for example, that first Bush book, we wouldn't have known much about Bush's thinking. I think Bob's books sometimes tell a lot more than he may think they do. I'm not saying anything I haven't said to him -- I just wouldn't do it the way he does it. The Obama White House can't abide me. Within a month, they were going behind my back to my editor: "What's your man Hersh doing?"

What do you make of Barack Obama?
Don't get me going on Obama. If he decided to be a one-term president, he could be marvellous, but it's not clear he's decided that.

Did he deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
Well, no, of course not. It was partly an embarrassment to him and it says more about the people in Sweden [sic]. Let me just say this to you quite seriously. There are people -- for example, one of the defences of [John F] Kennedy was that [Ted] Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger said publicly that he was for sure going to get out of Vietnam after the election in '64. He couldn't do it then because he was going to run against a Republican. They think that's wonderful. My analysis of that is that this was a president who said I'm more interested in my personal politics and the election than the lives of those that are going to die in the next year. And that's true if he really was going to get out -- he didn't have the courage to get out in '63. That's a political judgement. They're made all the time. Johnson kept on making it. He probably never liked that war but he kept on going.

So with Obama, the question is: will he stay in Afghanistan until he thinks it's the right time to get out politically? Or is he going to take a chance of not getting re-elected and find a way out quickly? It's not such a hard way out. There are people to talk to there. There's no evidence any of them are interested in bombing the World Trade Center.

Do you see shades of Vietnam in the current Afghan war?
No -- only in the sense that an American president is making political judgements about a war for his own personal re-election prospects. But it's a whole different scenario. Yes, in the sense that we could have gone to the North Vietnamese very early in that war. There was serious stuff going on, particularly very early stuff between the North and the Diem brothers, and we stopped that by getting them killed. Basically, there's so many ways it doesn't break down, so many ways it's a whole different culture.

On Iran, are we repeating the mistakes that were made on Iraq?
Some of the things are very disturbing. We are getting new leadership at the International Atomic Energy Agency. The next wave there is not going to be as rational. So the trend is going to get worse. There's no evidence yet that Iran has violated any of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty proceedings. By the way, your country is so deeply involved in all this crap. It's amazing to me, as someone who went to the Vietnam war and Iraq war, and now the Afghan war. There's simply no learning curve.

The great [writer] Harold Pinter gave a speech on 15 October 2002. He began by telling an old story about Cromwell. The citizens are all brought to the main square and he announces: "Right, kill all the women and rape all the men. His aide says to him, "Excuse me, general, isn't it the other way around?" And a voice in the crowd calls out: "Mr Cromwell knows what he's doing." And Pinter said, "The voice is the voice of Tony Blair: 'Mr Bush knows what he's doing.' " I keep on thinking that about Gordon Brown, too: it's the same voice. If we have to rape the men and kill the women, then by God we will!

Post-Bush, do you think there's still a risk of a military strike on Iran by Israel or the US?
Yes.

Where do you place yourself on the political spectrum?
I'm your standard left liberal, but I vote for Republicans, I've given money to them. I'm not a pacifist. I would have been tough on Osama Bin Laden after 9/11, but I'd have done it legally. I would have done what the Indians did in Mumbai, what the Spanish did in Madrid after the train incident -- treated it as a crime.

Are you disappointed Obama didn't release those "torture pictures"?
I know a lot about this stuff. Let me just talk about hypocrisy for a second. I do believe Obama when he says there were more terrible things done by individuals than we know, and the record is more complete than we know. Obama's position is that, at a time when we have 130,000 Americans in Afghanistan, putting the pictures out would just inflame people to take action against them. The New York Times has been editorialising against him, but when it had a reporter captured, it thought it was perfectly appropriate not to talk about it publicly for seven months, on the grounds that the paper was trying to protect his life.

So I would say here's the president -- about whom I have many reservations, believe me - saying: "I'm gonna not put these out, because I'm going to save American lives." And he's being criticised quite vividly by the New York Times, which had done the same thing for its reporter. I don't like it. So I give him his due on that one. I have to know what it is. It's horrible, but so what? We know the basic story. And so this is one of the examples when I don't write anything I know. Are you kidding me?!

What would you like to forget?
My Lai.

How would you like people to remember you?
I couldn't care less. I don't believe in life after death.

Are we doomed?
The trouble is that hope sprang anew in America last November. And I think the dashing of that hope is going to be much more lethal than even the cynicism under Bush and Cheney. If that hope is dashed, we'll really be in trouble around the world.

091120_Seymour_Hirsh-02 1

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty
Show Hide image

New Statesman readers on Jeremy Corbyn, one year on

We asked you what you thought of Corbyn, and found that New Statesman readers are apparently as divided as the Labour membership.

Earlier in the summer, we asked readers for their views on Jeremy Corbyn as he prepared for another leadership contest. Below is a selection of responses. To avoid accusations of bias, I divided the submissions into broadly pro- and anti-Corbyn positions (usually based on whether the writer thought Corbyn should continue as leader) and the proportion of each that the NS received is reflected here. It seems our readers are as divided as the membership over a leader who has turned Labour into a mass-membership social movement.

 

Labour had been drifting

I voted for Jeremy Corbyn because he held distinctly socialist ideas and because he had a long record of standing up for these. I felt the Labour Party had been drifting and it was no longer clear where it stood on some of the big issues. Under Jeremy, Labour has shifted – and clearly Owen Smith, like him, is also on the left of the party. Jeremy has conducted himself with dignity under enormous duress. Locally, we have seen many new members join the party, attracted by Jeremy’s focus on serious political issues and by his clear views.

John Boaler, Calne, Wiltshire

 

The party might split

I remember Jeremy Corbyn from the 1980s onwards, so I wasn’t surprised that he refused to “play the game”. I saw this as unhelpful but not necessarily harmful. He inspired many to get involved in politics, especially younger people, which was and is good. However, I thought he would realise sooner or later that he wasn’t up to the job. My views changed when he didn’t stand aside after the MPs’ vote of no confidence. My impression of him then was as someone obstructive – destructive, even – not charmingly rebellious. If he wins decisively, I think the party may have to think about splitting.

James Chater, London

 

A divided party cannot rule

While most Labour MPs oppose Corbyn because they see him as unelectable, they fail to see that a divided party is causing much more damage to Labour’s prospects than his leadership. Perhaps Labour MPs would serve their party better by presenting to the public a united front, even if it isn’t one they fully support.

Oliver Callaghan, Lancashire

 

We need a snap election

I cried when Corbyn won the leadership election last year, as I felt that it would be the end of the Labour Party. There was nothing about his campaign which inspired me and I found his lack of ability to think on his feet very worrying. Recently, I have been perplexed at how even the unfairness displayed in the nepotistic employment of his son Seb [who works for the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell] has failed to puncture the aura of sanctity. The only solution seems to be a snap election to prove that he is absolutely unelectable, so that Labour can rebuild.

Caroline Dorber, Lichfield, West Midlands

 

I’ll be voting for Smith

I voted for Corbyn as a refreshing change from politicians repeating patronising soundbites. However, the turning point for me was during the Paris attacks [in November 2015]. He was asked to confirm that he would use lethal force against terrorists if a similar incident happened here and he hesitated, as if considering an interesting philosophical point. I will be voting for Owen Smith (but wish I could vote for Owen Jones).

Philippa Barton, London

 

We are poised for change

I resigned from the Lib Dems to join Labour because of Jeremy Corbyn. His task is to re-create the Labour Party as a socialist, not a Blairite centre-left, party. He is right to persevere. “Labour” MPs should support him or resign. My view is that he has the right principles and is very courageous, but is still receiving unfair and corrupted coverage by the British media. This country is poised for great change.

George Macpherson, Dulverton, Somerset

 

We need a Labour government

I voted for Jeremy Corbyn first time round, believing a new standard of politics could be achieved, and to some extent it has. He is undoubtedly a decent, principled man whose politics I share and actively advocate. His staunch defence of the NHS, his solidarity with striking teachers and junior doctors and his sustained attack on austerity are admirable. Yet it is clear that to overturn six years (and counting) of austerity, we need a Labour government. With Corbyn as our leader, we won’t achieve that aim any time soon.

Josh Wilmer, Leeds

 

Corbyn has been underestimated

Undeniably the biggest surprise for many about Corbyn’s term of leadership has been the way they underestimated the man himself. Those who sought to remove him simply didn’t understand the nature of their prey. His resilience, courage and respectful loyalty to his supporters are qualities that perhaps should not define a person as being unfit to lead or incapable of winning an election. With his experience and involvement with the needs of the disabled, to take just one example, he has a social and political CV more relevant to the needs of many in Britain today than a business or public relations background.

Ian Flintoff, Oxford

 

Labour has become a cult

I used to think of myself as on the left of the Labour Party. No longer. The way Corbyn and his supporters have behaved over the past year – the immaturity and ineptitude – has contaminated my view of the whole socialist project. They are not interested in winning. Fine if you’re well fed and middle class (like most Labour members): you’ll be OK whoever is in power. Not so good if you’re poor or working class (like most Labour voters) and you’re relying on a Labour government to improve your life chances. That’s Corbyn’s unforgivable crime, turning a practical, pragmatic party into an irrelevant cult.

Another year of this will finish Labour off – possibly for good.

Adam Patrick, via email

 

Lone voice in wilderness

Three people have struck me with their steadfast principles and quiet resolution in the past year: Ken Loach, Michelle Obama and Jeremy Corbyn. Though consistently demonised by the MSM [mainstream media], JC has maintained the principled stance he has always had. What mighty hypocrisy he would be accused of if he now abandoned it for short-term gain. His is a lone voice in UK politics speaking out for the ordinary citizen.

The New Labour rump should reflect on the fact that it was their policies that lost the last two general elections, largely because they were indistinguishable from the Tories. It is my hope that among the newer Labour intake of MPs there will be those who are not tainted by connection with global business interests or petty personal ambition. Most politicians say they entered politics to “make a difference”. JC and a principled team could do that.

Vivien Jones, Powfoot, Dumfriesshire

 

Metropolitan figure

Jeremy Corbyn’s “overwhelming” mandate was 60 per cent of the votes of a group comprising 0.05 per cent of the UK electorate. What about the other  99.95 per cent? What does Corbyn have to say to the bloke in Sunderland who reads the Daily Mail, used to vote Labour but is now Ukip, wants immigrants to go home, thinks Corbyn is as remote a metropolitan figure as David Cameron, and doesn’t think much of a bloke who won’t sing the national anthem? One year on, Corbyn and his cohorts do not seem to have recognised that or, worse, don’t care.

Iain Macniven, Highlands, Scotland

 

No to a Tory clone

New Labour won elections because it behaved like the Conservatives, turning a blind eye to tax avoidance/evasion, big bonuses and big-business bribery and corruption. David Cameron was pleased to call himself the “heir to Blair” but one who would do better because he had the willing support of his party. We don’t need a clone of the Conservative Party; we want an effective opposition that can shame the Conservatives into doing the right thing. Corbyn has done rather well in that respect.

Alice Edwards, Wokingham, Berkshire

 

The Micawbers dithered

I expected nothing from Corbyn and he hasn’t surprised me. He is not and never will be competent. Currently, the party is unelectable, but not indestructible. Scotland is the ominous warning. However, Corbyn and the people who manipulate him (John McDonnell, Seumas Milne, Momentum/Militant) are not wholly to blame for our dire state. I wrote in the NS in January what the PLP needed to do. But the Micawbers dithered and delayed. The Parliamentary Labour Party should at last go its own way, or face electoral oblivion.

Joe Haines, Tunbridge Wells, Kent

 

A purge of neoliberals could be his legacy

Any assessment of the Corbyn leadership has to be considered on two levels: how has he performed as a “traditional” leader of the opposition, and how has his leadership impacted on the political debate in the broader community? On the first question, certainly by the usual measures (unifying the parliamentary party, point-scoring against the government, etc) he has not been what the majority in the PLP want or expect. However, purging the Labour Party of the neoliberalist ideology that has compromised its capacity to confront the challenges of globalisation could well be his lasting achievement.

Paul Pearce, New South Wales, Australia

 

Greens against Corbyn

You may assume that, as a Green Party supporter, I am thrilled to have a lefty like Corbyn as Labour leader. Last year I was thankful for him having put such issues as Trident and austerity properly on the agenda. However, a year later, I’m calling for him to stand down. As long as we have first-past-the-post, Labour must be centre-left, and must be a broad church. Corbyn will not win a general election, and shouldn’t punish those who need help most by proving this in 2020, and extending Tory rule by another five years.

Freya Pigott, via email

 

Remarkable courage

I cannot tell if Corbyn has been a good leader of the Labour Party. From the moment he was elected 11 months ago a senior group of Labour MPs has plotted unceasingly to remove him when they should have been attacking a socially divisive Conservative government.

Corbyn wants to create a Nordic-style social-democratic party that recognises the important role of the public sector. They remain wedded to austerity and New Labour’s policy of privatisation.

How successful would I have been as leader if I had been surrounded by people whose sole aim was to remove me? I think that Corbyn has shown remarkable courage in fighting for what he believes in.

Barry Bennett, Kingston-upon-Thames

 

The experiment flopped

You can’t sit at the back in a grump with your arms folded then expect loyalty when you become leader. It needed an astute approach by someone who cared enough about Labour to work out how to unite everyone, and go on to become a radical, reforming, electable party.

It could have been magnificent, a spectacular achievement – but it flopped. I know this is a rant, and I am ashamed it’s personal, but I am furious.

Audrey Laughlin, Sandwich, Kent

 

An end to Blairism

Blairism doesn’t work; it is based on false premises, especially that the private sector is always superior to the public sector. Corbyn is not perfect, but he remains the only leader who consistently rejects these false premises. Until this changes, he’ll get my vote.

Peter Nicklin, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

 

Man of great integrity

Corbyn stepped up as Labour leader promising straight talking and honest, kinder politics; in his first year, he has delivered just that. He has conducted himself with great integrity at Prime Minister’s Questions. He has, however, taken a while to hone his style, and his determination to keep things civil has, on occasion, proved costly. This was demonstrated most clearly with his failure to capitalise on Iain Duncan Smith’s acrimonious departure from the cabinet. If Corbyn wins again, he should maintain the energy of his leadership campaign by making frequent public appearances and stating his case in the communities with which Labour must reconnect to ensure victory in 2020.

Samuel Peers, via email

 

It’s all over

I didn’t vote for Corbyn. A leadership candidate needs to be electable, not just selectable by members. I liked the way he contrasted with Cameron at the despatch box. But despite airing the emailed concerns of everyday Britons, he failed to speak clearly to Labour voters on the EU; a third opted for “Leave”. Moreover, he has failed to present a compelling policy offer to support his “new kind of politics”. With only feeble support from his parliamentary colleagues, the question is: if Corbyn wins again, will the last Labour MP to leave the party turn out the lights?

James Young, London

 

Should he play the game?

Corbyn has not been a complete disaster for Labour. He has navigated electoral tests – performing adequately in some, such as the local elections, and exceptionally in others, as in recent mayoral votes and by-elections. His finest achievement has been his influence on politics as a whole, gradually pulling the political and economic consensus over to the left and hugely expanding the party’s grass-roots potential by inflating the membership. As a supporter, I by no means wish him to become a professional politician, but he may now have to start playing the game to recover.

Tim Bliss, Kent

 

Don’t blame the media

Expected little, got even less. Intellectually feeble, organisationally incompetent, ideologically Neanderthal and copes poorly in adversarial situations, Corbyn lives in a neo-Marxist bubble surrounded by unpleasantly hard-nosed ideologues. He is incapable of convincing anyone beyond the faithful, who are as depressingly unrealistic as he is. His continuation as leader will make me review over 50 years’ support for the party. The attempt to blame his negative image on a hostile media is disingenuous and patronising. I and other critics are perfectly capable of making a judgement on what we see and hear.

Mike Penny, Northampton

 

Stop the selfies!

He appears well mannered, principled, different, refreshing, tough, genuine – and you have to admire the man for sticking with it. He shares initials with another great rabble-rouser and you can feel this is starting to become a cult – especially when he requests cuddles with his admirers. Some of us are starting to shudder. He appears to be unable to lead a team with credibility. Or is he just being blocked by the press, the cynics, the Blairites? How on Earth are we supposed to know the answers to such questions when the mainly right-wing press vilifies him and his party have never all rallied behind him?

If there is a credible alternative, bring it on. I don’t see one.

Lyn Poole, Tameside, Greater Manchester

 

I’ve lost my excitement

As a long-standing active Labour member, I was excited, if tentative, about the idea of Corbyn as leader. Sadly, his election has caused division from the bottom to the top of Labour and created an atmosphere of disrespect. A good leader should not let that happen.

Veronica Ward, south-east London

 

Who’s the alternative?

Due to his preference for angrily ranting at rallies to sensible debate with his colleagues, and allowing his praetorian guard to cut off contact from MPs and members alike, I have, regrettably, come to support replacing Jeremy as leader. My problem now is that those whom I trust to lead Labour to electoral success are not stepping forward, leaving us first with Angela Eagle, who is as wet as a bank holiday Monday, and now Owen Smith, who looks like a poor impression of John Oliver. However, I haven’t given up hope that one day, sooner or later, our talents (Dan Jarvis, Tristram Hunt, Chuka Umunna) will step forward from the back benches to lead our party.

Neal Rubow, via email

 

Smith is a weasel

When I heard that Jeremy Corbyn had been selected as leader, my heart soared. Here was a leader who was truly socialist in his values. If the party would stand behind him, ignore the little weasel that is Owen Smith, and save the energy that it uses trying to destroy him to rally round him and the causes he champions, we would have a leader par excellence and a party that can win the next election.

Kate Colgrave, Milton Keynes

 

Labour must reach out

The point of the Labour Party is to seek representation at all levels of government and through such representation to implement the policies agreed by its members. The most important role of the leader is to be a face of the party who can inspire. It is not sufficient to enthuse party members. Our message has to reach out to the majority, to people who in the past may have voted for other parties. Corbyn has signally failed to achieve this.

Michael Jefferys (former PPC, West Suffolk)

 

Politics should not be a business

The events and commentary surrounding Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as Labour leader have brought some disturbing truths about our political system and society to the surface. Arguing whether he is electable is essentially turning politics into a business, with a politician’s agenda transformed into a service, to be bartered and shaped to best fit the market. A more pertinent question than “whether Corbyn is electable” would be: “Should Corbyn be electable?” If the answer to that is yes, we should fall behind him.

Erik Edman, Brussels, Belgium

 

Talk to the north

Labour voters in the north of England and elsewhere who look like abandoning us do want to hear about jobs, good pay, a better social life for them and their families. But Corbyn just seems to feel this is secondary to the central message of socialism. If he can’t put the economic well-being of the people and the country at the centre of the party’s message, then he will have failed the British people. Sadly, I believe he has.

Guthrie McKie (Labour councillor, Harrow)

 

“Yes” to the EU . . . with caveats

One thing Jeremy didn’t get wrong was his contribution to the referendum debate: a critical “yes” was far more in tune with most Labour voters than the last-minute pandering to racist attitudes, which did nothing but muddy the waters.

Jon Bounds, Abingdon, Oxfordshire

 

Support, not sniping

Corbyn has the right party but the wrong MPs. He should lose many at the next election; he should enter an electoral pact with the Liberal Democrats and the Greens on proportional representation and he should control better who gets on candidate shortlists. He deserves support, not sniping.

Roger Steer, via email

 

Missed open goals

I did not vote for Jeremy but I tried to support him as I have done every other leader. Yet I soon became disillusioned by his continual missing of open goals and the lack of any clear policy definition. Worse, on the doorstep, it was clear he did not resonate with voters.

We invited him to speak at a fundraising dinner but, despite many reminders, we could not get a reply. Ian Murray MP stepped in at short notice and we raised over £500. Many new members joined after Jeremy became leader but not one has supported any of our campaigning activities. This is not the new party of activists we were promised.

Peter Young, Strachan, Scotland

 

We need a realignment

I voted for Corbyn. I’m a Labour-voting union member – not the Daily Mail’s Trotskyite version, but a hard worker who could be made redundant at any moment. For me and my family, Corbyn talks sense: about social justice, about Trident, about the kind of society that Britain could be. But one thing has dismayed me – his failure to engage with the Remain campaign. And without election wins, nothing is possible.

I’ll be voting Corbyn again. But I suspect the best hope for change now is the implosion of both main parties, with a broad, socially minded, Europe-aspiring coalition taking on the ruling hard-right orthodoxy in a brutal, post-Brexit,
post-Scotland “rump UK”. Ken Clarke for leader, anyone?

Simon Procter, Ilford, Essex

 

From nice to stubborn

I thought he was a “nice” and principled man (though I didn’t vote for him as leader). Now I think he’s stubborn, rigid and more interested in his own principles than changing the UK for the better.

Georgina Webster, Keighley, West Yorkshire

This article first appeared in the 18 August 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Corbyn’s revenge