All the elements were there........

All the elements  to expalin the support for Leave were there in the run up to the referendum. . See the entries in my blog in each case

The entry   "Tensions in the European Union."

Mr Donald Tusk, President of the EU Council of Ministers, sets out very clearly how the elite of Europe have left many electorates behind in pursuing the European idea. And the growing distrust of the elite on these grounds  (but the refugee crisis also played a large part ) has led to the growth of anti-EU votes in many countries, Brexit has brought this fact to the fore.

The entry  "Jefferson and harmony, and immigration "

At the same time the elite in the United Kingdom have specifically encouraged the acceptance of more refugees,  ignoring the fact that it is not their streets but the poorer streets of the country which see their culture  threatened.

The entry   "Who will vote for Remain and who for Leave"

The result of these considerations ( but see below)  is shown in this survey -  an  overwhelming support by the less well educated  - and therefore less affluent -  for quitting the EU. It is noticeable also from this survey that the other group supporting Leave is the section of the population that is aging, As one of my correspondents in Germany has said, these two groups have nothing to lose.

The entry  " Most politicians are the same  -  but some are dangerously not"
                   [ Scroll down ]

People generally in all countries distrust politicians and all the elite. As a result the advice from nearly all expert opinion to vote Remain had if anything a contrary effect. This foolish attitude is the result of an apparent  transfer of responsibility - the problems facing the United Kingdom and many countries have no solutions, they can only be managed, and they run on  and on and on. The politicians are blamed for not delivering - but they cannot deliver, and it is not their fault.. Intelligent people who pay attention to the problems can see that, but many cannot. So even without the specific distrust of the elite on the grounds of EU ambition or immigration the referendum was an opportunity to register a protest against the world and against the elite who were ignoring them.

Conclusion

The majority for Leave was achieved by  a protest vote. Protest votes can be useful in many contexts in reminding our leaders of the views of ordinary people. - but not in a vote which has dramatic consequences . If the result had been decisive one could have said that there was a genuine view in favour of Leave as well as a protest. But as it is with such a narrow result the protest element can only be regarded as an invalid contribution to the victory of Leave. It is essential that the House of Commons uses its constitutional powers ( the referendum is not binding) to upset the referendum's conclusion. If the Commons were to use the vast majority it has for Remain to over ride the referendum result there would be cries of dissent. A second referendum would mostly avoid that reaction and might be the most democratic way to proceed. Staying with the results of the first referendum is on the other hand a corruption of democracy.

Jefferson and harmony, and immigration

When President Kennedy entertained the American winners of Nobel prizes  at the White House, he remarked that there had never been such a brilliant assembly in the room  since Thomas Jefferson dined  alone. Jefferson was indeed a brilliant polymath, as one can see from the house he built., and  in his first Inaugural Address he set out his views on human society, a society ( one can add) based over the years on the arrival of immigrants from many countries.

"Let us, then, fellow citizens,unite with one heart and one.mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things"

High flown language, suitable to an Inauguration Address, but true. True for high intellects and people of adequate substance,  for whom such harmony and affection are most usually in their own hands. But for those more constrained let us look at the way immigration can affect a society,  in an analysis by Professor Putman of Northwestern University

" Increases in ethnic diversity lead to collapses of civic health. Trust amongst neighbours declines, as does voting, charitable giving and volunteering........As community cohesion weakens, moral norms change. What would have been unacceptable behaviour in a more homogenous national community becomes tolerable when a formerly ascendant group seems itself at risk from aggressive new claims by new competitors"

The aspirations declared  as so central by Jefferson are also there in lives in the poorer streets and in  the less upwardly mobile. The advent of people of other kinds and cultures  makes it difficult to unite with one heart and one mind as Jefferson recommends. And if such people have not yet arrived in every street those living there can imagine what will happen if they do.

The so sadly late Jo Cox MP in her  splendid Maiden Speech painted a picture of multiculturism that has worked. So it can. But the problems need to be understood and overcome.  I am not impressed when Bishops and Barristers and Actors preach that the Government should be humane and welcome more and more immigrants. One could say that they will benefit with better servants and waiters and barmen. That will assist their pursuit  of Jefferson's harmony and affection in their lives, but they should not preach without considering the need to pursue harmony and affection for all of us.

Tensions in the European Union - but a clear steer on how to vote

Donald Tusk, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the European Union, is a Pole. The Poles, in my  direct experience, were very anxious to embrace every aspect of the EU as soon as possible after the collapse of communism, demonstrating a clear fear of a expansionist Russia. I thought in those years that they had overlooked a change in history, but they have been proved right. And Mr Tusk is right about other things as well

At the European Business Summit,  and at the event marking the 40th anniversary of the European People's Party (EPP),  he said -

"There is no worse prospect for the European economy than the omen of a triumph of anti-liberal and Eurosceptic political forces, whether of left or right.We must and can avoid this scenario. The condition is to depart from utopian dreams and move on to practical activities, such as for instance reinforcing the EU's external borders or consistently completing the Banking Union.   Forcing lyrical and in fact naive Euro-enthusiastic visions of total integration, regardless of the obvious good will of their proponents, is not a suitable answer to our problems. Firstly because it is simply not possible, and secondly because - paradoxically - promoting them only leads to the strengthening of Eurosceptic moods, not only in the UK. As one of the key players of European integration Hubert Vedrine recently said    'You see governments and parties all over jumping up and down asking for  "more Europe, more Europe'- and Vedrine added -  'If you want people to massively reject Europe, just keep on [jumping] ' " [European Business Summit]

" ,,,,It is us who today are responsible for confronting reality with all kinds of utopias. A utopia of Europe without nation states, a utopia of Europe without conflicting interests and ambitions, a utopia imposing its own values on the external world.  Obsessed by the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people did not share our Euro-enthusiasm....And increasingly louder are those who question the very principle of a united Europe.The spectre of a break up is haunting Europe and a vision of a federation does not seem to me the best answer to it. We need to understand the historical moment " [EPP]

 It is difficult to disagree with Mr Tusk.. Had those in leadership positions taken care to take practical steps, and to listen to their electorates, Europe would have progressed, more slowly,  but more practically, and in a popular way. Yet still there are those who are desperate to cling to the "Idea of Europe". A year or so ago the Ambassador of Greece ( Greece ! ) to the United Kingdom  said twice in a short speech that " the EU had been a success " There seems to be a reluctance on behalf of the pro-Europe people to admit in particular that the Euro has been a disaster - perhaps the main example of political excitement overriding simple economic truths.  This heightened discussion by Mr Tusk and others has been accelerated by the possibility of Brexit. The forces against the EU are surging in most European countries ( close run thing in Austria),  represented by parties whose policies in other areas are sometimes dangerous, and they have been encouraged by developments in the UK . The tensions are severe, and break up is discussed

 As regards the UK the intellectual and moral positions on the Brexit side are even less attractive than the attitudes I criticise above. It is a tragedy that David Cameron called the referendum - I suppose to settle the matter once and for all. There are only a  few voters (  not including myself) who are able to balance all the complex factors. As Clement Attlee said, referendums are for dictators and demagogues - and  for the latter look at Boris Johnson  ( and in the US context Donald Trump ).It is a confusion to say that letting the people judge is democracy, since democratic structures should place decisions in the hands of those competent to make those decisions, which the electorate is not in most cases.  Decisions should be taken  in parliament, where the MPs are informed of every dimension of the problem ( including the views of their constituents). An  overwhelming majority of MPs are for Remain. That should decide the votes of the electorate

Who will vote for Remain and who for Leave?

This Survey, carried out by Populus, is significant.  Note the heavy support ( large enough to be free of special bias) for Remain from the more educated and the similar support for Leave from the less educated. It is relevant to note also that it is  the young people - who will be most affected by the decision of the referendum -  who are supporting Remain.

Clement Attlee. Labour Prime Minster 1945 to 1951, held that referendums were the devices of dictators and demagogues. (DD)

The Survey

To better understand the differing nature of support for Remain and Leave, we’ve created the Remain Index and the Leave Index.

These compare propensity to vote for Remain and Leave against the national average. In the analysis below, an Index score of 100 is average, showing the group is no more or less likely than average to vote for that side. Scores above 100 indicate a greater level of support, and scores below 100 a lower than average level of support. All analysis is based on more than 8,000 interviews, conducted both online and by telephone, that informed our investigation into the differences between phone and online polling for the UK’s EU membership referendum.

The analysis suggests the Remain and Leave campaigns are appealing to very different voters and that the country is sharply divided on Brexit.

The Remain Index

The strongest supporters for Remain are those in still in full time education. Students are more than 50% more likely than the average voter to back Remain. Relatedly, those aged 18-24 are the 2nd strongest supports of Remain.

Indeed, Remain over-indexes for support across all younger age groups and amongst all university educated groups. Those educated to a higher university degree level are around a third more likely to support Remain than average, with those educated to degree level about a fifth more likely than average to back the UK’s membership of the EU. Like their younger counterparts, those aged 25 – 34 and aged 35 – 44 also disproportionately back Remain.

Geographically, it is Scotland and London that show the strongest support for Remain. Scotland’s Remain Index is 123, while London’s is 115. Those who have travelled abroad in recent years also tend to back the UK remaining in the EU.

Demographically, socio-economic groups AB and C1 both lean towards supporting Britain’s membership of the EU. These groups, broadly speaking, represent Britain’s middle class, professionals, and administrative workers.

The Remain Index reveals the portrait of the strongest supporters of Stronger In: younger voters, those university educated or still studying, in professional roles, and living in London or Scotland.

Politically, the Remain Index delivers few surprises. Remain support is more likely to be drawn from Labour, Liberal Democrat, and SNP voters. Conservative voters are less likely to support Remain and UKIP voters, of course, significantly under-index on support for Remain.

Do not ask for an apology......

The pressure in so many discussions for those alive today to apologise for decisions and actions executed before they were born is  highly undesirable, and for several  reasons. The fact that no one can be responsible for  the actions of those now departed this life is not the most significant reason

First, where does one stop? If the Christian west should apologise fot the Crusades, should the Islamic world apologise for the explosion of Islam out of Arabia after the death of the Prophet, which led to the seizure of  the Holy Land ( and North Africa,  and Spain for seven hundred years) ?  But secondly, and more fundamentally, to apologise for the past is to impose our current values on situations different and often remote from today's world, and to crystalise  judgments ( including the acceptance of blame) which might be,  and very often are,  simply wrong on the historical evidence

As regards values, some years ago a very sweet lady broadcast the fact that she was travelling to Australia to meet the descendants of those who had killed her great grandfather, a Christian missionary, She would apologise for his attempts to impose Western values on them, and they would apologise for killing him. The fallacy of this analysis is apparent - he was taking to Australia the greatest good news in the world, and they were defending their land - advisedly so,  in view of what happened afterwards.  This lady's analysis was intellectually and I think morally corrupt but it is clear that sweetness and light would follow her visit.

As regards blame, if  I remember correctly.Pope John Paul II, when surveying the history of the Church's actions against the Jews over  the centuries, did not apologise but said that what had happened on so many occasions was reason for great sorrow - and this seems a possible way through the problem. Moreover, even apart from the question of blame, an apology often crystalises a supposed solution which is in fact wrong, or at least only partial. There was nothing that England could have done  about the Irish Famine, to prevent the failure  of the potato crop in two successive years, and to bring food in any quantity to Ireland  in the years of the "Hungry Forties" in England itself, and at a time when reserves of food could not be accessed as they can today. But the apology by Tony Blair no doubt contributed to a relaxation of tension and to an extent dissolved resentment on behalf of many of the Irish.  In many cases an apology can have beneficial effects, even if from a corrupt base.

It would be best if no one wanted to ask for an apology for a distant  action. Both parties should rise above these contortions and deal with the matter at a detached and reflective level. But I appreciate that human nature will not in many cases be able to overcome what is after all a very human desire.

The right of succession still affects us

Elizabeth II at ninety represents succession in a constitutional monarchy ( though see my entry on the Republic of the Untied Kingdom) but we have lost the sense that ancestry provides a validation of a succession to power. That sense existed for centuries. To take a very clear example, the throne of Poland was for a time subject to election ( though of course from a small list of candidates ). One such King sent an embassy to Elizabeth I with a message which the Queen did not like at all, and in a powerful retort she argued that the Polish King, being merely elected, lacked the authority of birth

It may be thought that we have left all that behind, but there are examples of how the accidents of birth in ruling monarchies in the past still have very large effects today

Katherine of Aragon, the first wife of Henry VIII had several sons . But they  died almost at once. Had one lived Henry would not have wanted to divorce Katherine in order to have a son, and would not have had to break with Rome in order to achieve that divorce ( marriage declared invalid 1533). He might of course have  been tempted by the riches of the Church which after the break with Rome he seized and gave to his favourites ( as indeed did several of the German princes who followed Luther ). But maybe not.. After all, Henry had written a refutation of Luther's position which led the Pope to award Henry the title "Defender of the Faith" , still held by our monarchs. And, in particular, we should never have heard of Elizabeth I and never have seen the establishment of her amazing compromise between catholic ceremony and protestant theology which remains the Church of England to this day

Frederick the Great of Prussia ( see also my entry) was born in 1712 as the third son of his father King Frederick William. Had one of his two elder brothers not died before he was born,  Frederic would not have become king  And although no doubt providing his brother with excellent generalship, without Frederic  in charge Prussia under a more ordinary man might well not have proceeded  to seize Silesia from the Habsburgs and establish Prussia as a great power. This would have happened in due course anyway,  but the tempo of history would have been different, with large consequences for the interplay of countries and events, such as the timing and structure of a united Germany

And, as a final example, the most dramatic of all, the Emperor Frederick III of Germany came to power  in 1888, but died that year, the same year as his father, of cancer of the throat. He was married to Queen Victoria's daughter ( also Victoria)  and had views far more liberal than those of his son who in the same year inherited as William II ( the Kaiser). How far the German constitution would have been changed under Frederick for the democratic  better is a matter for speculation, as these constitutional matters have their own momentum, but the cards would have been played in a different order.  And in addition, one thing Frederick was highly unlikely to have done was to build a fleet against England, which his son did, making sure that in any war England would be against Germany, and winding up the European tension. These developments would have ensured that the tempo of European history would have been different at the beginning of the 20th century from the tempo actually experienced.. With a different tempo there could well have been a war, as national rivalries were very strong,  but with a different timing the  unusual sequences of events that enabled Lenin  to seize power in Russia, and Hitler in Germany, could hardly .have occurred.  No doubt other tragedies would have been seen, but  two most terrible and evil men would not have found their moments

Royal Opera Night - Coronation 1953

This reception at the Royal Opera House preceded  the first performance of  the opera Gloriana by Benjamin Britten, as part of the events surrounding the Coronation  of Elizabeth II.  This draws attention to certain features of  interest.

One can gather from the atmosphere portrayed that there  was still an assumption and an acceptance of the United  Kingdom as a great power, or anyway a great player in  the world. It was true that India and several other   countries had achieved independence by 1953, but the  first African colony left the Empire only in the late 1950s, and it was around the same future date that  Germany    was to overtake the UK in economic terms. The feel  of the event in this film is remarkable as reflecting this  atmosphere

Nevertheless, the choice of this opera was a significant and indeed a foolish mistake, as was reflected in the reaction at the time. This has nothing to do with the quality of the opera as a work of art. After many years it can stand on its own quality. That the music was not easy  for some to penetrate at the time was a contributory factor but one which would have been less important if the subject matter had been appropriate

Britain had by 1953 suffered decades of hardship and misery. First the years before the Second World War had seen  a tremendous economic crisis following the 1929 Wall Street crash, Then there was the war with all its death and destruction. We were victorious, but the aftermath of the war scarcely gave us any reward as our position in the world - despite the points above - declined sharply, economically and imperially

But then a new queen came to the throne, and the economic position saw something of an improvement.. A new Elizabethan age seemed to dawn and we could look forward to better days. An opera looking back to the reign of Elizabeth I would provide exactly the right subject, covering as it did a threat from a great military power, Spain and the Armada then, Adolf Hitler and the Blitz now........and in both cases an emergence into victory and peace. 

But Britten showed the first Elizabeth in her last days, surrounded by difficulties and facing death. How completely inappropriate and badly judged - just what was NOT needed and in no way reflecting the national mood.One can faintly understand Britten writing thus, in view of his pacifism and therefore his presumed dislike of triumphalism, though it showed a very cramped judgement.  But the fault rested with those who approved, indeed planned,this opera..Lord Harewood was a prime mover and in Kobbe he defends it on musical grounds, but also by belittling the views of "grandees and courtiers".  Others have claimed that in looking forward to more problematic days Britten was more realistic than the audience. In one sense perhaps so, but not in the sense of what was required at the time, especially as a directly relevant subject was clearly available in the defeat of the Armada

Clement Attlee, Prime Minister

Margaret Thatcher said of Attlee that he was all substance and no show, and certainly his calm and detached personality, together with his firm determination, marks him out as a man very suited to be Prime Minister. And he had a talented cabinet.  It is a pity that one has to add that the policies of his government, from 1945 to 1951, were disastrous, establishing the post war consensus that dramatically accelerated the country's decline and led to something close to bankruptcy in the 1970s.

This is not usually a recognised conclusion, as a result, I suppose, of the general tendency to see aims as important rather that the consequences of  government policies. Attlee and his colleagues set out to look after the classes that had been so poor and so unpowerful, but the result of their actions was to hit those sections of society as much as others.

Most frequently the National Health Service is mentioned, but this argument is upset by the fact that a  "Comprehensive National Health Service" was in the Conservative Manifesto in 1945 so would have happened anyway. It was an idea whose time had come. Let us rather look at the main elements of Labour's economic policies in those years, rigorously enforced and disastrous in their consequences

Labour nationalised a whole raft of industries, creating national monopolies which had all the faults of any monopolies.But that was not the worst consequence. These were old industries,  - coal, steel,.  etc - due for decline or needing rationalisation.  Nationalisation kept them going for years when they should have faded or changed -   indeed one could with little exaggeration say that the true beneficiaries of the nationalisation of say coal were the coal owners, who would otherwise have had to bear the burden of the decline.....and anyway the decline would then have taken place over years, with far less pain than their eventual sharp demise,  And in those years they sucked in subsidy after subsidy, using funds better spent elsewhere and employing people better employed elsewhere. The whole system made worse by the pressure from the trade unions to resist change.

Indeed the power of the trade unions was a bane of many governments for many years after the war  ("Get your tanks off my lawn" said Harold Wilson), not only for the influences just mentioned but also in that there was a significant Marxist element in their thinking, leading to a distrust of the market economy which was soon to flourish in Germany. These people illogically  wanted growth and economic success but didn't like profits.

In addition, taxes were sharply raised. It was perhaps not surprising that in an attempt to raise the standard of living of the working class the socialists of that time ( and regrettably of today) saw that raising money from the rich  to pay for better conditions for the poor was justified. But these things are not a zero sum game - by encouraging initiative and investment one raises more wealth for social spending. Tax at 83% on earned income and 98% on "unearned " income led to a denial of  entrepreneurial investment and a clamp on growth.  One feels also that social justice, as perceived by  socialists, was the central aim.......even though the people they were trying to help would have been better off with taxes at half those levels.


And what about Beveridge? He wrote "The State in organising security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility........The insured persons should not feel that income for idleness, however caused, can come from a bottomless purse"  And much more of the same. No doubt these limitations on welfare were rather unrealistic, but they were anyway ignored by the Labour government which vastly increased spending in these social directions without taking care not to overspend,  whilst at the same time curbing the growth of the economy.

All in all a disaster.  It took Margaret Thatcher to rectify the situation and so engrained were the faults that her policies had to be tough, so that she became vastly unpopular as a result. Tony Blair got the message ( she regarded his conversion as her greatest achievement), and it is a second reason for regretting the Iraq war that his reputation also in economics was clouded, with the result that socialist ideas have revived today in the stupidities of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party

Not Mrs Thatcher's Big Bang

It is assumed by many that the Big Bang in the City of London in 1986 was instigated by Mrs Thatcher and  that it deregulated the banks. Some believe that it led directly to the financial crisis of 2007/8. None of these assumptions is true

It was the Labour government ( that left office in 1979) that referred certain City practices to the Restrictive Practices Court. These practices were

1. Stockbrohers could sell or buy shares and bonds to and from the public but at fixed rates of commission and were not allowed to make markets

2. Stockjobbers could make markets in shares and bonds but were not allowed to deal with the public

3.  Brokers and jobbers were not allowed to take in foreign and other capital

When the Tories came into government in 1979 they could hardly - whatever their view on the substance of the matter - withdraw this case at a time when they were attacking restrictive practices in trade unions.

There was then a period of consultation. This was not just reactionaries resisting change, Many believed that there was a lot to be said for the traditional system, including the Bank of England which had the task of raising large sums for governments and of managing the resulting market in government debt. But eventually the Bank and the other parties agreed.. These practices were abolished and the result was much the same as it would have been if the case had gone to the court and the City had lost. And the changes were not initiated by Mrs Thatcher

Note that although the word " deregulation" was ( and is)  used of this change it was not concerned with the supervision of the behaviour of financial institutions.  The banks were not involved in the practices which were abolished.  Banks were throughout regulated by the Bank of England  until regulation was switched to the Financial Services Authority by Gordon Brown, with unfortunate consequences  in 2007/8 -  see my entry on The Financial Crisis  - Solved  in this blog

Nevertheless, in the government bill which was then brought forward to establish the new systems, there was a certain amount of new regulation, and over Mrs Thatcher's period of office the rules governing the behaviour of financial institutions were vastly increased. These rules - which  were further elaborated later - can now  be regarded as cumbersome and  have by some  been adversely compared with the more gentlemanly policing of the past  (the eyebrows of the Governor of the Bank of England, raised to express doubts).  Now we are ruled by rows of computers containing vast legal documents. But the change was inevitable, first  because of the growth in suspicion of self regulation, and secondly because of the changes in the character of financial institutions after Big Bang.

The removal of the three practices  listed above  led to the creation in London of large general banks providing many services as a result of the acquisition of brokers and jobbers by banks from many countries. These banks enabled London to maintain and improve  its position in the world as a financial centre, paralleled only by New York, and to the great benefit of the United Kingdom.

  

Of course there were other influences aside from Big Bang - globalisation, the IT revolution, the development of complex derivative instruments.   And if the new financial world is less gentlemanly than in the past that is true of many aspects of life today, including the fact that it is probably politically incorrect to say "gentlemanly"

Most politicians are the same - but some are dangerously not

A defector from the Tories to UKIP has said that the voters feel that all the established politicians are the same, and that they do not deliver. He was right, but should have added that they cannot deliver. The problems facing this country - and indeed the world  - are not capable of solutions.......it is only that they have to be managed as efficiently as possible.  As a result the electorate is presented daily with a constant series of difficulties, the impact of which is exacerbated by the media's concentration on bad news, the probing of good news for weaknesses and the over - dramatising of events.

As regards the economy, no one knows what are the solutions to economic problems on a theoretical level to more than a limited extent -  one result of which is that many commentators will select the theories that fit their social preferences. Discussions on this level are therefore a waste of time. But practical experience since the Second War has supplied evidence that certain ways of proceeding work and others to not.This evidence points to the success of careful management of the market economy ( see my entry on The Financial Crisis - Solved) . And  this entails unpopular policies, such as keeping government spending under control

The demands on the National Health Service can never be met, as we get older, and more medicines and techniques are developed. So  there are always complaints, and  any attempt to rationalise the existing set-up is met with foolish accusations that the NHS is under attack

As for the benefits budget, it is in practice certain that much is wasted on claims in marginal cases. But attempts to cut out the waste are met by shouts of horror that the weakest are being attacked. The various charities are disgracefully irresponsible in these discussions, as they always bring forward the most severe cases as being under review. If I were a minister I would ask the main charities and pressure groups to propose cuts in their budgets of 20% - after all they are the experts. If they refused I could conclude that they were not worth listening to

And who can solve the questions of immigration? Hundreds of thousands of non-EU citizens have arrived in this country in recent years and far fewer have left. David Cameron's 20 000 asylum seekers should not be judged without these others. They all have to be fitted in. And millions and millions are out there,  desperate for tragic or for economic reasons to get in. This is another problem that will run for ever.which no one can solve. ( See my entry on A real Pandora's Box)

In such an environment one has to choose politicians who can handle these difficulties and crises best. The relevant  candidates are the traditional parties - Tories, Social Democrats, and New Labour ( which threw over socialism).  But because they cannot deliver there is an attraction in those who claim to be able to provide solutions - such as Mr Corbyn, a throw back to failed philosophies, and relying on  party activists, who from whichever party should never have more than marginal influence. And in the US we can see the same foolishness in the support for Trump.

Join the established parties and ridicule  the deluded followers of Corbyn