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.
Incidentally, some young man I know well was just forced to take an ‘apprenticeship’ for £1.98 an hour. The same job twenty years ago would have been paid £5 an hour. If it hadn’t been for his parents, he wouldn’t have survived. He would have been a ‘benefit scrouger’ instead, if he had managed to get through the assault course which is now benefit claiming.
Just waiting for Mary to object to Macky, rather than Resident Dissident. Ah, such a long wait. I think I’ll go to bed. Night all.
Seems i’m getting quite famous for blocking ‘debate’. My posts must somehow cover others, stops them from posting and reading others points.
Hell yea. Win.
Macky- 21 Jun, 2015 – 11:53 pm
It’s seems very strange behavior/attitude to me.
But then, it’s not the first time i’v been comforted with strange attitudes in this blog.
Ishmael; “It’s seems very strange behavior/attitude to me.”
It comes from not being very bright, it actually very sad and that’s being serious; so rather a similar scenario to when Jesus on the Cross implored God to forgive his tormentors for they know not they do, we can at least understand why the our not very bright co-commentators act the way they do !
I’m afraid you are projecting, Habbabkuk. The notion that migrants lower wages is a myth:
http://socialistreview.org.uk/389/do-migrants-lower-wages
Ps, final ‘blocking’ thought before bed. Perhaps it’s a good sign, breakdowns should be happening.
I’d say it’s a general symptom, classes being quite susceptible. .
“If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks of his cavern.”
― William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
Anon1’s apologia for the far-right economic agenda is pretty surprising for someone trying to take himself seriously. Austerity works – where? In which country has the economy been turned around, by cutting their way to prosperity?
Anon1 – Please explain with a bit of detail how your favoured austerity policies are helping this country and its people. You said you’d like more of it – kindly outline what you have observed and approved, and would like to see to a greater degree by extension.
Blaming the poor for taking so much money off the rich is a well-worn trope. Whether the US or UK versions are used (eg, “Makers Vs Takers”, cf. “Strivers Vs Skivers”), it’s the same rancid theme – promote poor-shaming, and praise the rich. Versions of these various memes appear almost simultaneously in both countries with astonishing regularity, tailored for local use, of course. “Job creators”, “Benefits culture” – all top-down driven themes.
One can only promote this alternative reality if they are one of :
a) Wealthy and selfish
b) A paid shill (which includes most mass media and the popular press)
c) A useful idiot
a) and b) are clear enough. c) is more interesting – and far more common. Thinking they are on the winning team, they blame all their misfortune on immigrants, the workshy and deviants, and imagine themselves not as the working poor but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires (to paraphrase Steinbeck).
Back to Anon1 – how can you expect to be taken seriously, when you are working these tired, miserable, discreditable far-right talking points so hard?
BBC News persist with their downplaying of Saturday’s march. They have just referred to the number of marchers as ‘tens of thousands’. It’s a miracle that they did not say ‘ten thousand’
RT report ‘hundreds of thousands’ on their website.
Is there a definitive official estimate?
Technicolour
Thanks for that info on Wetherspoons. That’s a shocker. I’ve eaten their breakfasts in the past and marvelled how cheap they were (and how good). I did wonder (perhaps naively) how they managed it. Now I know.
Technicolour (23h50 yesterday)
My “I don’t know – what is your opinion?” was actually addressed to our Irish-American friend, who was doing a bit of his usual wondering again, but thank you for your post.
I can believe the example you give because, curiously enough, I heard something almost identical a week or so ago from a chappie I was talking to (he used to be on one of those contracts but is now a full-time employee with the same company). I was particularly struck by what he (and you) said about the consequences of asking foe a weekend off.
It is appalling.
R4 Today programme this morning: Burnham and Cooper are the BBC’s star picks, and we are to understand from this outlet that someone called Corbyn is also standing, rofl, lol, leftie. And now news of a skateboarding penguin…
On the bright side, the moment could be approaching (especially as Cameron is set fair to abolish tax credits and rely on the generosity of employers to provide meaningful work and pay a decent wage) when Labour goes into meltdown and something a bit less business-friendly – and viable – emerges from the crucible.
Seems i’m getting quite famous for blocking ‘debate’. My posts must somehow cover others, stops them from posting and reading others points.
Hell yea. Win.
(Ishmael)
Mods. Attention, please. This guy has stated that his intention is to block free expression in these comments. His output (passim) confirms it.
Daniel
“The notion that migrants lower wages is a myth”
______________________
I’m not so sure, at least as far as a number of areas of activity are concerned.
Does not the abundant availability of immigrant labour (I of course include EU labour in particular) tend to enable employers to pay as little as legally possible? I should be surprised if employers forewent the opportunities offered by this particular example of supply and demand.
But don’t take it from me, take it from that arch-capitalist (I suppose) Digby Jones, former CBU top dog and now Lord Jones: O suppose he knew what he was talking about:
“We have a tight labour market in the UK and yet wage inflation has not been a problem.Immigrants are doing the work for less.”
(Sunday Telegraph, 20 August 2006).
CBI top dog
In yet other news, Netanyahu blocks French initiative for talks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/world/middleeast/netanyahu-rejects-international-diktat-on-israeli-palestinian-peace-deal.html?_r=0
Possibly because the US State Department actually acknowledges the Israeli excesses of ‘Protective’ Edge:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/19/state-department-terror-report-contains-subtle-shift-on-israel
Which might account for some troll activity, lately.
Israel blocks UN envoy from visiting Gaza…for the second time:
http://news.yahoo.com/israel-blocks-visit-un-human-rights-envoy-102527029.html
“Technicolour
Thanks for that info on Wetherspoons. That’s a shocker. I’ve eaten their breakfasts in the past and marvelled how cheap they were (and how good). I did wonder (perhaps naively) how they managed it. Now I know.”
Me too. I always thought the food was a loss-leader to get people into the building for drinks. But then the drinks appear to be cheaper than elsewhere.
This exploitation of workers, be it children in the cotton-fields of Uzbekisan, the illegal Mexican crop-pickers of California, Nepalese workers in Qatar and any other zero-hours workers exploited by the super-rich is what that heartening rally was about in London on Saturday, where I met up with three who comment here. It was an amazing and large (largest I’ve been on since 2003) rally against austerity. I took a photograph of the BBC helicopter filming the demo.
In fairness the BBC reports have been better on this rally than others. I have only been able to find one still aeriel photo in our media. But the BBC have kindly let the fascist state of Ukraine have a copy of their footage. I’m puzzling why them and not us.
http://uatoday.tv/society/aerial-shots-show-anti-austerity-protesters-march-through-london-442768.html
I’m puzzling why them and not us.
To show that our policy of ignoring dissent is more effective than the Ukraine/Russia solution of shooting at it? You have to assume there’s a propaganda advantage. Wonder if the BBC sent a copy to Athens, but somehow doubt it….
Israel blocks UN envoy from visiting Gaza…for the second time:
Ba’al, should this not invite a reciprocate rejection for Israels politicians and or generals on shopping trips in Oxford Street?
Why should Israel be allowed to diss the world whenever they see fit?, do we see the Cambodian nation, who suffered the killing fields under some deranged tribal generals, behaving like fascists, ignoring the UN, attacking its neighbours, beating up its minorities in a fit of Apartheid?
Why should Israel be allowed to diss the world whenever they see fit?
Because underlying Israel’s foreign policy is still Moshe Dayan’s dictum that it should behave like a mad dog.
AFP (via the Toronto Star) reported on Sunday that Hamas and Israel have discovered a common concern, however….
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/06/21/israel-and-hamas-form-unspoken-alliance-against-islamic-state-group.html
Good post Glenn, though reason never stops these types. Witch does make me wonder about this whole blog’s sanity sometimes. Round and round.
Brings me to Nevermind @9:20. I’d hazard a guess that Cambodia is not a useful strategic outpost for the world hegemony. For whom killing children or mass slaughter of innocent people is most excellent.
And our establishment are critical allies in dealing in death. One world it’s a battleground, one world and we’re gona smash it down.
That alliance stinks already, don’t you think Ba’al?
Hmmm how do we draw Hamas into IS’s focus, lets see, shall we have a common pact with Hamas? that will get their interest, will it not?… about as transparent as the condom over Camerons head as drawn by Steve Bell
So Israels terrorists can’t sit at the table and talk peace with Hamas, but they see nothing wrong in standing shoulder to shoulder with Hamas terrorists against ISIS terrorists.
yep, and bananas grow in Greenland….
I do hope that post was OBVIOUSLY sarcastic as mine, somehow I fear not.
[Mod: Several highly unproductive comments between yourself and Macky have been deleted. More of the same will be deleted without comment in future.]
Isn’t it remarkable how every time it looks as if there could be the beginnings of an interesting discussion on things like the minimum wage, the notion of the working poor, the possible connection of immigration with this, etc, ……up pop the usual suspects with their Gaza, Israel, IS and, of course, with their learned discourse on ‘trolls’.
In other words, let’s talk about the far away and what we can do nothing at all about rather than the near and what we might be able to do something about.
I used to think it was just mental and verbal incontinence but I’m now beginning to wonder if it’s not deliberate…..
Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse Constituency Labour Party have nominated Tom Watson for deputy leader.
And speaking of authoritarian types. I’v never seen (for instance) Mary trying to push the whole discussion to things she deems important.
But all some seem to do is that. I’m ‘beginning’ to think it’s deliberate.
Some no doubt think they do, or should, own this blog.
Last minute talks between CalMac and unions to avoid industrial action over Scottish government plans to privatise the west coast ferry service.
http://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/1323361-ferry-strikes-last-minute-talks-held-between-calmac-and-rmt-union/