by Muhammad Ibrahim
Photo sourced from Time magazine
As I explore the godforsaken setting of student politics, one thing is abundantly clear – students still love Jeremy Corbyn. From an outsider’s perspective, this seems rather odd. One would imagine that the left-wing students, like the rest of the country, would have moved on from a man who hasn’t been the leader of the Labour party for two years now. Arguably, the only real relevance he has in mainstream politics is in the form of ill-fated attacks from the Tories, attempting to remind the electorate of the “horrors” that would have befallen Britain had he gained power. Nonetheless, this is no explanation for his continued presence, and indeed reverence, on university campuses nationwide.
I think there are two reasons for this phenomenon, the first of which lies in the allure of protest. For all his flaws, one thing that can be said about Mr Corbyn was his profound ability to protest. Though this was not enough to get him into no.10, it certainly captivated the hearts of students across the country – for protesting is really at the heart of the university experience. University is a bohemian environment where resistance thrives. Not limited to the political sphere, the resistive spirit of the university student is boundless. Pictures of students doing what Corbynistas do best (holding placards) adorn the walls of the SU building. From dyed hair to Marxism, university students have, for decades, been picking fights with convention before graduating and settling down in their corporate jobs – particularly in the case of LSE. It is my belief that this resistive spirit compels students to reject established political norms and align themselves with figures like Corbyn.
The second, and perhaps more controversial, reason is idealism. Corbyn represented ideals, not strategy. As Keir Starmer recently pointed out on Alastair Campbell’s podcast ‘The Rest is Politics’, the Corbyn era of the Labour party was defined by people who thought winning motions at a party conference was changing the world. Radical stances were taken without much regard for what the rest of the electorate wanted. On the other hand, the electoral success of New Labour was in its ability to compromise with the electorate, rather than becoming a self-celebrating protest party. Being idealistic is not necessarily bad in itself; as Bismarck said, “politics is the art of the possible”. However, the rest of the quote is “…the attainable – the art of the next best”. It is clear that “the possible” is only attainable through pragmatism and compromise. Without compromise, Bismarck wouldn’t have unified Germany, and Labour certainly wouldn’t have entered government in 1997.
So, what links university students with this idealism? Perhaps it’s our ability to be selfless. We’re cushioned by either Student Finance England or the bank of mum and dad, giving us the opportunity to think beyond our own immediate needs. This form of rhetoric is not without its merits – it is in part to thank for Labour’s increase in popularity amongst the youth during the 2017 elections. However, as soon as we join the workforce and have commitments beyond an essay deadline, we compromise with our principles and favour practicality over lofty ideals. This is why the Tories, traditionally the party of incremental change, perform so well with the majority of the electorate.
The Corbyn obsession isn’t the only peculiarity to be found in LSE’s political scene. The other most notable eccentricity is the profound lack of a political scene at all. It seems that LSE’s political discourse is populated by a small but vocal minority who actually care and is avoided by the apathetic majority. LSE, which was once a hotbed for resistance and protest, seems to be devoid of the activism culture which is so innate to the university experience. The cause of this is uncertain. Perhaps it’s the transformation of the Students’ Union into an administrative body rather than a true student-run union is to blame, or perhaps corporate culture has finally triumphed. The remedy for this must be at an institutional level; the university would certainly benefit from a centralised SU-run debate platform, rather than the current arrangement – which involves individual societies piecing it together themselves. This would not only help create a “campus community”, which LSE is so often criticised for not having, but would also be able to consolidate talent in one place, therefore attracting more high-profile speakers.
The recent progression of national politics is perhaps the best indicator of what lies ahead for LSE’s student politics. Starmer’s increased confidence combined with the recent ineptitude of a scandal-ridden Conservative party means a Labour majority at the next general election is becoming increasingly certain. The Corbynite faction, Momentum, struggled to get their motions passed at the recent party conference, and the National Executive Committee elections yielded mostly moderate candidates. It would therefore seem as though things are looking bad for the Corbynistas. With their inability to compromise they have two options: join the Marxists in ideological obscurity, or the Lib Dems in the political wilderness.
