London, 13 December 2019 - In his short declaration soon after the dramatic result of these General Elections Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said he will not lead the Party to next General elections. That means in the reality he wants to stay as leader over the next five years, as a Tory majority government will govern with a full mandate until 2025. 

Therefore according to Islington North re-elected MP's words, he will step down in 2025 of some time earlier to give time to a leadership contest.

Is that correct? Is it fair after such a striking debacle the Party is not prepared to give electorate the clear message they understood Corbynian radical stances do not meet the wider electorate, do not unify the country at all, do not work out the divide created by decades of financial led unregulated capitalism and Tory repressive regime disguised as austerity, where the plotted impoverishment of the wider middle class has been the economic mean to deliver the tight control over an undefended society of voters only able, after ten years, of being subdued to fake slogan and ridiculous mantra such as 'get Brexit done'.

When small and medium enterprises' owners or managers clearly vote Conservative because they are not prepared to pay employers more, or to deal with foreign competitors either; when millions of people who are on the brink of poverty are clearly voting Tories you have to ask yourself why: Labour leadership is not doing that. Over these hours they are turning away from the reality.  

Ignorance and inability to understand political dynamics aren't the only reasons of Tory majority. There's much more. From Cameron onward British people have been convinced by irresponsible politicians that (in change of a vote for the Tories) they could get rid of foreign competitors.

Not all foreign are competitors you might argue: well EU citizens for the most part certainly are, and not just because of job or academic and cultural related experience, but for other reasons such as female competition: the one nobody talks about because touches the individual, and not the collective, area of interest therefore it's hidden and certainly not mentioned among the main reasons people, female in particular, vote against EU immigration. For those who wanted to deny this last 'issue' there are plenty of studies on migration and marriages.

The kind of protectionism that exiting EU market represents is not just directly related to jobs, trade and goods, but to personal life as well. There's a complex set of interests determining people voting for Brexit.

Now, if any other majority government in charge in the 27 EU countries pushed for ten years anti immigrants stances (as happened in Italy over the previous Lega led coalition) they would succeed. If this happened here is because in Britain the first-past-the-post facilitated the rise of far right Tories over a decade, while other countries have a more articulated electoral system and a less strong dual party system.

That said, what does all this background have to do with Corbyn and the fact he has to pass on  his chair to the next leader? It has, because corbynians gave in to explain ‘the many’ the reasons why if you do not accept the competition means you are not able to live in a democracy nor in an economic system which can thrive in this world.

Corbyn addressed manufacture industry workers as though they were the wide majority of voters. They are not: 80% of British workers are in the services industry. Yes, Labour want to abolish zero hours contracts and other injustices, but this scared SME, they are most of the electorate too.
 

They instead listed a set of policies who are perfect for those who are poor and destitute (the millions victims of Tory austerity) and the contractualised employees protected by Unite the Union. These are not the majority: the many are vary, and diverse.

Corbyn built over these years a powerful core inside the party which is not able to project its policies to the wider membership or outside, to the electorate either.
 

Yes it is absolutely right to scrap tuition fees so British young can be once again competitive. So why then Labour lost? Why all families did not do the good of their children? Because people do not vote for their future, unfortunately. I know it’s hard to say this. They vote for their own present lives and the British voters are for the most part 50+ and home owners: they have short term needs and views. Those who are not in this range, are greed and anxious to earn money because these are the media messages they are hit by.

The solution? Simple: the wider alliance with all the other opposition parties Labour did not want to do. That would have softened the ‘radical’ manifesto and met the needs of a multilevel society. Lib Dems, in Kensington in particular, have their own responsibilities in having competed in stark opposition. Tactical voting has done the rest of the mess confusing voters as local stats were not available.

Corbyn has to resign in a move that gives room of manoeuvre to a more flexible Labour Party independent from Unite the Union's unilateralism.

'Get Brexit done' means to people 'I give you all asap'. 'Scrap tuition fees, regulate rent market', means to people 'I do all for your children’s future'. The many want all right now for themselves and they do not care if the promises are lies, they try in any case to get what they want, even through dishonesty as Tory do.

We know that’s a complex issue, a long story to tell. But the solution is the political alliance. Why? Because it communicates strength, governability, capacity to give the poor and at the same time to give enterprises the way to grow, to explain that a developed country is one where people are able to cope with competitors.

@Emymuzzi

@TalkeuropeTweet

We need a cross-party alliance now 

Corbyn has to resign, we have to change before it's too late

Copyright © TalkEurope.org 2020