The BBC and corporate media coalesce around an extremely narrow consensus of political thought, and ensure that anybody who steps outside that consensus is ridiculed and marginalised. That consensus has got narrower and narrower. I was delighted during the general election to be able to listen to Nicola Sturgeon during the leaders’ debate argue for anti-austerity policies and for the scrapping of Trident. I had not heard anyone on broadcast media argue for the scrapping of Trident for a decade – it is one of those views which though widely held the establishment gatekeepers do not view as respectable.
The media are working overtime to marginalise Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour leadership candidate on the grounds that he is left wing and therefore weird and unelectable. But they face the undeniable fact that, Scottish independence aside, there are very few political differences between Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon. On issues including austerity, nuclear weapons, welfare and Palestine both Sturgeon and Corbyn are really very similar. They have huge areas of agreement that stand equally outside the establishment consensus. Indeed Nicola is more radical than Jeremy, who wants to keep the United Kingdom.
The establishment’s great difficulty is this. Given that the SNP had just slaughtered the Labour Party – and the Tories and Lib Dems – by being a genuine left wing alternative, how can the media consensus continue to insist that the left are unelectable? The answer is of course that they claim Scotland is different. Yet precisely the same establishment consensus denies that Scotland has a separate political culture when it comes to the independence debate. So which is it? They cannot have it both ways.
If Scotland is an integral part of the UK, Jeremy Corbyn’s policies cannot be unelectable.
Nicola Sturgeon won the UK wide leaders debate in the whole of the United Kingdom, despite the disadvantage of representing a party not standing in 90% of it by population. She won not just because she is clever and genuine, but because people all across the UK liked the left wing policies she articulated.
A Daily Mirror opinion poll following a BBC televised Labour leadership candidates’ debate this week had Jeremy Corbyn as the clear winner, with twice the support of anyone else. The media ridicule level has picked up since. This policy of marginalisation works. I was saddened by readers’ comments under a Guardian report of that debate, in which Labour supporter after Labour supporter posted comment to the effect “I would like to vote for Jeremy Corbyn because he believes in the same things I do, but we need a more right wing leader to have a chance of winning.”
There are two answers to that. The first is no, you don’t need to be right wing to win. Look at the SNP. The second is what the bloody hell are you in politics for anyway? Do you just want your team to win like it was football? Is there any point at all in being elected just so you can carry out the same policies as your opponents? The problem is, of course, that for so many in the Labour Party, especially but not just the MPs, they want to win for personal career advantage not actually to promote particular policies.
The media message of the need to be right wing to be elected is based on reinforced by a mythologizing of Tony Blair and Michael Foot as the ultimate example of the Good and Bad leader. These figures are constantly used to reinforce the consensus. Let us examine their myths.
Tony Blair is mythologised as an electoral superstar, a celebrity politician who achieved unprecedented personal popularity with the public, and that he achieved this by adopting right wing policies. Let us examine the truth of this myth. First that public popularity. The best measure of public enthusiasm is the percentage of those entitled to vote, who cast their ballot for that party at the general election. This table may surprise you.
Percentage of Eligible Voters
1992 John Major 32.5%
1997 Tony Blair 30.8%
2001 Tony Blair 24.1%
2005 Tony Blair 21.6%
2010 David Cameron 23.5%
2015 David Cameron 24.4%
There was only any public enthusiasm for Blair in 97 – and to put that in perspective, it was less than the public enthusiasm for John Major in 1992.
More importantly, this public enthusiasm was not based on the policies now known as Blairite. The 1997 Labour Manifesto was not full of right wing policies and did not indicate what Blair was going to do.
The Labour Party manifesto of 1997 did not mention Academy schools, Private Finance Initiative, Tuition Fees, NHS privatisation, financial sector deregulation or any of the right wing policies Blair was to usher in. Labour actually presented quite a left wing image, and figures like Robin Cook and Clare Short were prominent in the campaign. There was certainly no mention of military invasions.
It was only once Labour were in power that Blair shaped his cabinet and his policies on an ineluctably right wing course and Mandelson started to become dominant. As people discovered that New Labour were “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”, to quote Mandelson, their popular support plummeted. “The great communicator” Blair for 90% of his Prime Ministership was no more popular than David Cameron is now. 79% of the electorate did not vote for him by his third election
Michael Foot consistently led Margaret Thatcher in opinion polls – by a wide margin – until the Falklands War. He was defeated in a victory election by the most appalling and intensive wave of popular war jingoism and militarism, the nostalgia of a fast declining power for its imperial past, an emotional outburst of popular relief that Britain could still notch up a military victory over foreigners in its colonies. It was the most unedifying political climate imaginable. The tabloid demonization of Foot as the antithesis of the military and imperial theme was the first real exhibition of the power of Rupert Murdoch. Few serious commentators at the time doubted that Thatcher might have been defeated were it not for the Falklands War – which in part explains her lack of interest in a peaceful solution. Michael Foot’s position in the demonology ignores these facts.
The facts about Blair and about Foot are very different from the media mythology.
The stupid stunt by Tories of signing up to the Labour Party to vote for Corbyn to ridicule him, is exactly the kind of device the establishment consensus uses to marginalise those whose views they fear. Sturgeon is living proof left wing views are electable. The “left unelectable” meme will intensify. I expect Jeremy Corbyn’s biggest problem will be quiet exclusion. I wish him well.
And so the biggest demo since February 2003 disappears from the BBC website without even making the top story, and no follow up – no questions asked about ‘what now’ for the myriad groups that came together yesterday. What an antidote to fear and learned helplessness that march was. No wonder the corporate media would rather we forgot all about it.
The arm of the state strikes again. Here’s Andy Murray at Queens. Looook at the shiny…
See ‘jobs which UK people, paying UK rents and supporting families at UK food prices cannot afford to do’ (above) See also visiting academics, consultants, musicians, Heads of the Bank of England, and so on.
1.7 million people unemployed (latest figures which have been massaged to death by the use of ‘sanctions’, and other methods to drive a million people off the system). Getting rid of the 104,000 who come here to look for work will help the millions, will it?
Come on, come on! Surely you have the facts at your fingertips?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/21/saudi-arabia-ignore-wikileaks-release
Of course, the 1.4 million British people currently working in Europe would have to come back too. You know, I don’t think you’ve thought this through.
Also look forward to you removing the sick, the disabled, the single parents and the elderly from your general list of ‘benefit claimants’. Then you can go on to addressing other areas of the country (let’s not get all London-centric, so ‘lefty’) with no jobs. What will you do about the people there?
You must have some money Anon1, why not bugger off and enjoy it?
O don’t worry about the people, they’ll be much better off, and I imagine people like you are generally not wanted. So it would be ever so democratic also. What’s not to like?
BTW, He can’t watch the video because it’s to much clear information, less manipulable to engage with…. Gota keep the blinkers as tight as possible…
They all do it to an large extent… A kind of art of manipulating others by trying to force them into your ideology. Presented in the nice caring conservative way or course. No bad language or ‘offensiveness’ …
“Thus I clothe my naked villainy With odd old ends stolen forth of holy writ, And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.”
Shakespeare.
I don’t normally think I need to assign quotes on here. But will having been asked before other incidents made me aware some are unaware of such classics. Though surly not this one in particular.
The details he seems to expert himself in are just a cover to hide the deeper more fundamental issues not looked at. While hoping others don’t see, trying desperately to seem like some kind of authority.
It’s pretty repugnant to observe given what’s quite obvious about the situation and the harmful effects it’s having on real people.
Ishmael
I’m trying to follow what might turn into a good discussion between Technicolour and Anon1, but you keep making silly, irrelevant noises from the sidelines.
If you have something concrete to contribute, please do so. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, will you, there’s a good chap.
No.
well spotted Mike, the demo that hardly ever happened. It made first item yesterday, for a miniscule amount of time. The BBC forgot that there are MP’s they could have interview.
The BBC should realise that their franchise is upn, so sharpen your tongues newsmongers, you have a lot of backsides to please for your next tax take of consumers.
Liars and apologists for liars Inc.
Habbakuk, apart from rudely trying to shut Ishmael up, do you have anything relevant to add?
“Shit’s Gonna Hit the Fan”: Talking to a Billionaire About Class War
“…There is no earthly reason why Walmart and McDonald’s and Walgreens and these other giant, profitable institutions should have one worker in need of public assistance. It’s ridiculous. And it’s not just getting them out from under the need for public assistance; it’s like, that’s what drives the economy! The person earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 isn’t going out to eat at restaurants. They’re not taking piano lessons. They’re not going to the gym or the yoga studio. They’re not sending mom flowers on Mother’s day. What good is this person in the economy? If you raise it to $15 an hour, they’re doing all of those things. And all of a sudden, not just business thrives, but small business thrives…”
http://gawker.com/shits-gonna-hit-the-fan-talking-to-a-billionaire-abo-1711464448
In fact, that you regard them and can’t just read past and want to try and silence me? Tells me all I need to know about the value of my posts. They have some extra it seems.
It’s a shit debate, the same type that drags the public away from critical issues they are facing. It’s you and Anon1 in particular who sideline sensible debate. And these “issues” are not part of the cure…More Machiavellian machinations, subverting democracy…
Ps I bet your expert in LOTS of ‘sensible debate’ that goes absolutely nowhere aren’t you?
Why I really should not engage, but you really should not be on a blog concerned about human rights. Maybe it’s you who should piss off. ? Like permanently. I do wish you would as you remind me of the most awful things, the type of people who help do them.
We really do see enough of the consequences, of fact’s on the ground. That some try and address in whatever what they can. But to have people who cause the issues in your face….?
Yea, there is only so much a human being can take if you want to remain human. Hence I take very long breaks.
Dave Lawton Interesting facts about the cult in Bristol. Amazing that people can be manipulated with such junk.
I like its metamorphosis into a telesales company.
‘British Members of Parliament raised questions in the House of Commons, resulting in an investigation by Scotland Yard. Although the police brought no charges, Exegesis ceased to operate around 1984,[3][2] but re-emerged as a telesales company called Programmes Ltd.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis_(group)
All before the time when Ma Blair bought some flats for the son and heir? ‘Cheriegate’.
16 December, 2002
Cherie controversy at-a-glance
How the row over Cherie Blair’s links with Peter Foster unfolded http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2546835.stm
Also amazing. The sheer effrontery of the woman.
ROS you and your bloody neighbors had me laughing my socks off, gooden there mate. 🙂
The more I hear of Baroness Warsi, the more I admire her. She has stood up publicly for her principles** several times and has taken Cameron on. This time it is his speech in Bratislava that has angered her and rightly so.
Warsi Attacks PM’s Speech ‘Demonising’ Muslims
The former Conservative minister tells Sky News the Prime Minister was “ill-advised” and risked alienating Muslim communities.
http://news.sky.com/story/1505949/warsi-attacks-pms-speech-demonising-muslims
21 June 2015
**Baroness Warsi resigns over Gaza conflict saying she ‘can no longer support Government policy’
5 Aug 2014 – The senior Foreign Office minister Baroness Warsi has resigned over David Cameron’s stance on the Gaza conflict.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/baroness-warsi-resigns-over-gaza-conflict-saying-she-can-no-longer-support-government-policy-9648529.html
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/197032#.VYctxJvbKqp
O/T
Interesting information from the Saudi Wikileaks papers here . Two regimes that deserve each other . The marriage made in Hell .
Oh, hello Mary, here you are. I presume I’m missing out the bit where you objected to posters attacking other people with abusive comments citing you as an excuse/reason? Or are you just confining yourself to objecting when other posters mention you in passing?
Nick Clegg’s ode to the fascist loons who now run the UK…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACnrOBZaEqU
“So out of 620,000 immigrants last year 520,000 of them were students who are going to leave once their studies are over? I don’t know, I’m pretty sure that the last time I went to London (for example, but any city will do) one of the most startling things is that virtually every job seems to be being performed by a person with a foreign accent. And yet there are no jobs!”
You’ll have difficulty persuading rational people in London who do not share rented accommodation with nine others to work for the minimum wage.
@Ishmael, thanks for your posts, which are quite profund & insightful, especially as there’s not too many other commentators here worth reading; your 9.55pm was particularly spot-on.
Which, Daniel, is one way of saying that immigration is a good way of keeping wages down.
I take it you don’t approve? You shouldn’t, for middle class jobs will be next.
Did Robert Harris make the CIA agent in The Ghost the wife of the Blair figure, rather than the Blair figure himself, because he knew something about Cherie, or just to be less controversial?
“@Ishmael, thanks for your posts, which are quite profund & insightful, especially as there’s not too many other commentators here worth reading; your 9.55pm was particularly spot-on.”
___________________
Trust old Macky to pop up with expressions of support after I tell Ishmael to stop interrupting a potentially interesting discussion by farting from the touchline.
Still I’m glad to see that Macky only finds Ishmael’s farts “quite” profound and insightful.
I don’t know – what is your opinion?
No, Habbakuk, it has nothing to do with immigration: see, numbers of immigrants looking for jobs (104,000 according to Anon) versus numbers of unemployed (1.7 million, according to government figures, which have shaved at least a million off the total). It has to do with employers here not paying a living wage, to anyone.
“AN OPEN LETTER – TO JD WETHERSPOON
I have dined in your establishments many times but I write to inform you that I will never do so again and nor will any of my friends or family.
The reason for this is that my stepson has the misfortune to work in your XXX bar in XXX and I am now aware of the basis upon which you operate and profit.
He is “employed” on a zero hours basis and earns barely enough to feed himself. Not long after joining your establishment he got into trouble with his rent due to the extremely low wages and was evicted from his home. I blame the basis of his employment with you for this. He now lives 2 miles away from your bar and is obliged to walk this distance to and from work as he does not earn enough to afford public transport. Yesterday my wife was obliged to buy him new shoes as he had worn holes in his existing ones. I think it is appalling that you do not provide your kitchen staff with appropriate footwear. If you feel that this communication is becoming a stream of negative comments then I urge you to read on as I have more to say. This 4 mile round trip trudge is sometimes made to attend a one hour shift. Unbelievable, a day’s work of just ONE HOUR.
Furthermore, if he attends expecting a longer shift this is sometimes not the case as he is sent home if trade is slack. He, your employee takes all the risk, you the employer take none. You’ll note that I do not mention his name. This is for fear of reprisals. Before you scoff, let me tell you this: When he first joined you, after two months of working every single weekend he politely enquired if he might have a weekend off. He was given the weekend off but worked no other hours either. A genuine ZERO hours. This was clearly a reprisal and he has never asked for the weekend off again.
The only way he can survive on such grindingly low wages is by getting benefits top ups. In order to do this he must provide pay slips which you do not provide. He is obliged to download them and print them himself and given that he will never be able to afford a computer and printer so long as he works for you, he must go to the library. I put it to you that it takes him more effort to work for you for a pittance than it does me to fulfill a full time job.
Clearly your business model requires that the public purse subsidise your employee’s wages. This to my mind makes your firm and others like you one of the benefit scroungers we hear so much about these days.”
Wetherspoons are hardly alone. Any comment?
@Technicolour, You really have a screw loose; what right have you to demand that Mary objects for other people’s posts ! What’s this nonsense about her being used as an excuse?!
Are you having a mental breakdown ?!!