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.
“Scottish government plans to privatise the west coast ferry service”
*sigh* They are so left wing aren’t they, this victorious Scottish government…
Anon1
” The left’s default position of defending welfare junkies disgusts me. They think they are earning themselves brownie points for ‘compassion’ but the damage they do is immeasurable.”
The left’s default position that money will solve problems disgusts me.
Muslims are radicalised in poor Muslim countries because there are no jobs, no they are radicalised by CIA agents who want to cause chaos and extract their country’s mineral resources.
People are workshy, no sometimes your mind is so busy with the injustice of the world that you couldn’t do a job. We import fresh minds unaffected by these injustices of English society.
I really believe at the bottom of my heart that the only way to solve any problem is to ask God. So yes I find the default position of both Left and Right disgusting. Why would any human being be so narrow-minded as to think that a single dogma, the ian Duncan Smith dogme or the Jeremy Corbyn dogma, would solve the unique circumstances of any individual human being.
Total insanity, but I will get stick for having to agree with what you say.
recall? whoops: giyane
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.
I, too, find it interesting that this is the first sign of any acknowledgement that some of the dreaded fireworks putting the tiny undefended state of Holocaustia at risk are actually not launched by Hamas. I think the moral is you can’t trust any bugger.
CalMac was privatised by the Labout Party years ago.
This is just another manufactured ‘SNP bad’ story.
And some felt I should have met with them. lol. I don’t get with ass holes.
Ishmael, I’m afraid that due to your young year, so I presume, you will not be able to avoid ass and arse holes, regardless of were you live or play.
And nobody here asks you to fraternise with people who demonstrate, you decide to go or not. That you don’t like Habby is normal. I shall now go back to some work if you don’t mind, there is nothing that can’t wait, bar breathing.
“The left’s default position of defending welfare junkies disgusts me”
The left’s default position is defending the welfare system, that astonishing, civilising edifice that has served us all in one way or another since 1945 (and established by a government burdened by far greater debt than is the case today).
There are strong moral grounds for some minimal redistribution of wealth from the richest to the poorest and it is not bad finance either because it boosts the local economy. It subsidises low-paying employers and private landlords.
Who are these “welfare junkies”? Everyone claiming benefits or just a proportion? What proportion do you estimate? Big enough to justify dismantling the welfare state itself?
The bank bail-out cost us over £15,000 per person with no chance of getting it back. I’d save my disgust for the real, hardcore kleptomaniacs if I were you.
All sorts of Israeli halftruths in this one:
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Arab-MK-to-join-third-Gaza-bound-flotilla-warns-Israel-not-to-intercept-it-406687
Contrary to the picture the Palestinians are trying to paint, Israel allows humanitarian aid, food and construction supplies into the Gaza Strip, Hotovely said.
Yeah.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=50251#.VYfsP0Ze-8o
Gaza…more isolated than ever. And the UN Human Rights envoy refused access by Israel…twice (see above).
It’s not just Habby, far from it (if only) it’s the general hypercritical class consciousness that stinks. The selective hypocritical use of authority to silence dissent from injustice most claim to be against.
But the vast majority on, owning or running this blog are obviously and inexorably part of its continued culture. Perhaps it’s because i’m young enough to see it, so clearly that it smacks me in the face like you wouldn’t believe..
And this same up your ass “you can’t expect” attitude that i’v got from many people in real life, I do avoid. I thought this blog was different somehow, or wanted to be. I am entirely wrong.
part of it’s continued* culture
You can do something useful and fix that mods, as if.
[ Mod: Done. Even fixed the punctuation for you. ]
Ishmael, I’m afraid that due to your young year, so I presume, you will not be able to avoid ass and arse holes, regardless of were you live or play….
Think you’re wasting your concern, Nevermind. It’s here, and has said so, to disrupt:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/06/nicola-corbyn-and-the-myth-of-the-unelectable-left/comment-page-3/#comment-534028
Ignore, I think. Habbabreak was made for it. Also seems to redouble its efforts when Irael is mentioned…or it’s 14 and hasn’t quite worked out that adult discussion stuff.
Habbabkuk, you are merely regurgitating a falsehood. As I showed you, the reserve army of labour is intrinsic to capitalism. It is part and parcel of the system, wired into it from its very birth – and not something created by immigration. By its very nature capitalism pits workers against each other, forcing them to compete for jobs and money, rather than cooperating for the common good.
If we make the mistake of blaming the reserve army on immigrants, we might as well say that all unemployed people should be made to leave the country – and there are 1.7 million of them, by the way, overwhelmingly British – because they all put pressure on wages, regardless of their nationality.
Agree with you Ba’al. This Ishmael character seems to be quite a crackpot. Blurting out any old rubbish-thought that pops up in his brain. Can anyone see Craig tolerating him if he were online? I think he’s been pulled up by Craig for his abuse of the forum but some people think that means they have to strive even harder to prove how flaky they are.
Ishmael or Ishcmuck?
We will never know Nevermind because the justifications and reactions on that sarcastic remark where deleted..
Reflections like how accusations of ‘disruption’ are used to totally censor. By the ‘adults’ of course.
OOO, dropping like flies now, unbelievable. un fucking believable.
Ishmael, are you feeling ok?
Habbakuk: the piece Daniel linked to was interesting, did you read it? As well as the point about the ‘reserve force’ of unemployed ‘native-born’ (such Empirical language!) workers, it contained this:
“Under the headline “Immigrants Help to Raise Average Wages”, the Financial Times reported in May 2012 on a study that examined the period between 1997 and 2005, when there was an increase in the foreign-born population equal to 3 percent of the native population. The authors — economists Christian Dustmann, Tommaso Frattini and Ian Preston — estimate that immigration depressed wages by 0.7p per hour for the lowest paid 10 percent of British workers.
But immigration contributed about 1.5p per hour to wage growth for workers in the middle of the earning range, and slightly more than 2p per hour at the top of the scale. So the most comprehensive study shows that immigration raises wages for the large majority of workers.
A full-time worker in the middle of the wage distribution gains by 60p a week (40 x 1.5p) and those at the top of the wage distribution improve by 80p a week. Immigration stimulates economic activity and therefore creates more jobs and opportunities for wage earners. It increases both the available labour force and the potential consumers of goods.
What follows? Firstly that the migration effects on wages are tiny, a handful of loose change either way. And if it’s true that the increased competition among the lowest paid had cut wages by 28p a week then what is that compared to the wage-cutting, profit-seeking manoeuvres of bosses and the Tory assaults on every aspect of workers’ lives?”
KOWN, John Goss; I’ve been there in Wetherspoons too, wondering how they did it. Now we know. Habbakuk’s right, the exploitation is shameful, and shameful that, like it or not, the public are all now subsidising these companies’ private profits.
No not really Daniel, i’v entered a parallel universe, up is down and left is right.
But I will get over it.
ps I’m sure this disruptive reply to you is too much for some, so don’t expect it to say long. I hinder other people posting you see. I’m really a bad person.
so don’t expect it to stay* long
Meh what’s the point. Freedom of speach blog, unbelievable.
yes I read the juvenile words uttered, let us presume in anger, Ba’al. what do you think?, is he a Ben Gurion student on special bakshish?
For me Ishmael is currently by far the most interesting comment writer.
He writes his own thoughts rather than endless cut and pasting. He contributes to conversation rather than just relentless empty belittling of others. He’s not obsessed with one subject. He’s not partisan glued to a buddy who once agreed with him.
Just saying.
Yeah he’s sometimes odd but all the best people are.
New Zealand’s Unite union has finally got the local McDonalds to stop using zero-hours.
http://www.wsm.ie/c/mcdonalds-workers-new-zealand-win-may-day-victory-over-zero-hours-contracts
Here, though, they’re still using them (although exclusive contracts, tying the worker to working only for the chain, were banned last year).
The prospects of our castrated unions getting any traction in a workforce terrified of losing even the shit employment it managed to get/was forced to take by the DSS are low. And Cameron is happy to exploit this further.
Ishmael
“And speaking of authoritarian types. I’v never seen (for instance) Mary trying to push the whole discussion to things she deems important.”
_______________
Get real, man.
Strictly speaking you are right, in the sense that Mary is not seeking a discussion when she keeps cutting-and-pasting stuff. But she is certainly seeking to push attention onto Israel/Palestine to the virtual exclusion of almost everything else.
She feels it’s her absolute right to post on Israel/Palestine whenever she wants, even though what she posts is never breaking news and irrespective of the subject of the thread.
And as authoritarian types are concerned, I recall that it took one post from me, pulling her up short or questioning something or other she had written, for her to call me a troll.
And now, as Atlee once said to Lasky: a period of silence on your part would be welcome.
Just to correct a mistake I seemingly made, I assumed that he was a LfI, but he is not, unless this has been changed during the last few days.
Andy Burnham does not appear to be a friend of Israel, but he is a friend of Palestine, so I have been told.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Friends_of_Israel
Habbashitegob
“a period of silence on your part would be welcome.”
[ Deleted ]
—
[Mod: Let’s try to keep it civil, gentlemen. ]
For me Ishmael is currently by far the most interesting comment writer…
Tastes differ, and you are entitled to your opinion. But I’m not getting the impression of someone who wishes seriously to engage with any topic, but merely to lash out incoherently at people he regards (wrongly as I am sure you will agree) as authority figures. I am certainly not getting any attempt at a solution to the wrecked society most of us agree exists now. And if he hasn’t learned by now that most real human beings have formed their own opinions on the basis of their own experiences, which are not going to be instantly overturned on the basis of a quotation from Blake, it’s possibly time that knowledge is allowed to permeate his own doors of perception.
And I suspect you find him sympathetic because you too see violence and refusal to engage with the existing norms as panaceas for what ails us. Or have I got one of you wrong?
Still, Habbabreak is now my friend.
Daniel
Where have I ever denied that the existence of a reserve army of the unemployed (beyond what can be considered as a “natural level” of unemployment) has a depressing effect on wage levels?
Macky, Phil, (Ishmael): If you feel that way, it defeats reason that you are still here. But you can’t resist it, can you?
Why not start your own blog/s?