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.
O/T
Alasdair Gray in hospital after serious fall
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1434674606.html
For a man of 80 there could be serious complications but let’s hope he recovers.
Iain Orr
“Phil’s examples of SNP lack of radicalism are only, I would argue, signs of choosing sensible battlegrounds and timing”
Possibly. Possibly not.
The monarchy is the gilded apex that justifies wealth disparity. NATO is the war machine. These are red lines for the establishment. Do you think it entirely coincidental the SNP’s landslide occurred after they drew back from rejecting these fundamental pillars of our plutocracy?
These compromises shape their future. Not so easy to pull back from. They never are, no matter the original intent.
And your assumption this is the intent of the leadership is just that, an assumption. I suggest it is just as likely they mislead over their socialism rather than over their fondness for elites.
Finally, and most significantly, lets look at what they do control now as an indicator of where the leadership lie. Not double guessing their motivation, not hopefully wishing they are sincere. How they act now. I have added a forth item to my list:
SNP:
-Pro NATO
-Pro monarchy
-Extremely relaxed with the likes of Murdoch
-Undemocratic, centralised party structure
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.
I informed readers here months ago that the establishment gatekeepers view the scrapping of Trident as quite bluntly, intolerable. The decision to upgrade the Trident missile system and new build carrier submarines has already been made.
Once again the British public are way behind the curve and have been duped by the manufactured strategy of tension or some say erroneously, Cold War II.
Agent Cameron will announce the Trident decision close to Christmas and after the aptly named major NATO exercise “Trident Juncture 2015” (TJ15), beginning September this year [Good show! ‘dick’ Barrons].
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg ran with the idea a few weeks ago to gracefully secede to an enraged British public at the thought of US nuclear weapons returning to British soil.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/philip-hammond-us-nuclear-missiles-could-return-uk-response-russian-escalation-1504972
An obvious fake out for Trident!
While the elephant is in the room you fail to notice the monkey in the corner!
Just to be clear as any ambiguity or not spelling it out seems too easily misread:
The undemocratic party structure cannot be down to choosing your battle (cause I know you’re not SWP Iain :))).
From Monteverdi’s link at 11.59am :
The Mail profiled each of the contenders. Here’s the first paragraph of each profile:
“Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham is seen as the unions’ favourite and has vowed to restore Labour’s ’emotional connection’ with its supporters.
”
“Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper is seen as the ‘continuity candidate’ – having steadfastly defended Labour’s record under Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband.
”
“Shadow health secretary Liz Kendall was first out of the blocks in the leadership race – announcing her bid with a heavily-Blairite pitch to appeal to middle class voters.”
“Hard-left backbencher Jeremy Corbyn just managed to get enough MPs to nominate him for the leadership to get on the ballot paper.”
Giyane @ 1157 am : You misread my earlier comments. “I agree Craig” as a dangerously simplistic response was an allusion to the “I agree, Nick” remarks during the 2010 election debates. In other words, Craig’s excellent analysis needs to be the START (not the conclusion) of much greater policy debate on key topics. I noted (accurately) that Phil was not joining in that chorus; but, as Phil’s own comments show, I was not agreeing with him. In my view a manifesto commitment to appeal to republicans and those wishing to leave NATO would be a poor strategic choice. Far more important – as Abe Rene suggests – is to campaign, as Jeremy Corbyn is already doing, with policies that will provide more and more affordable housing, especially for rent. Economic competence is essential whether implementing socialist or neo-liberal policies. A Labour party that offers a vision of a society radically different from the present is needed to compete with a Conservative Party that already has its own vision of a different UK and a different Europe. The Green party and the SNP (and even UKIP) already have their own values and sound as if they mean what they say. So far Labour does not. The vision of being “business friendly” as a vote-getting device is on offer; what is not yet on offer is a coherent vision of what works best in both private and public sectors (like making laws that facilitate good business practices and good public sector management of communal resources).
My Unite source tells me that “Labour won’t vote for a leftie”, and I see nothing on the horizon to contradict him.
@David: Not a great fan of Global Research, a bit right-on and woo for my taste – but this sums it up:
Many in Britain waited 18 years for a Labour government to come to power. However, by that time (1997) the party had reinvented itself as a Thatcher-hugging, right wing, media-friendly concern: a watered down version of the former Conservative regime with a middle class lawyer at the helm, looking like a friendly bank manager, sounding like a corporate executive and acting like a certain former grocer’s daughter. Some might say that was Thatcher’s finest achievement: the creation of the user-friendly Tony Blair to carry on her policies.
Thatcher very nearly said it herself. Asked what her finest achievement was, she replied, New Labour. Because “we made our opponents change their minds”.
As was the case with Thatcher, Blair was the handmaiden of the rich and powerful and helped deliver the Britain into the hands of elite interests who were intent on shattering the post WW2 Keynesian consensus and who are now intent on violently casting the world in their own image. It therefore comes as little surprise that since stepping down Blair has reaped tremendous rewards in return.
…and adds to his portfolio almost daily. This is the model to which the next Labour leader will be aspiring.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-world-order-political-puppets-how-thatcherism-paved-the-way-for-tony-blair-and-new-labour/5331613
What most of the posters do not understand that there is a huge left movement here in Scotland that will act as a counterbalance if the SNP falter and appear to change course.Jeremy Corbyn looks to have the proper credentials and would it seems be an honest guy,but the establishment in these isles have survived for circa 1000yrs and have perfected the “black arts”,they are formidable opponents to everyone.
Delusional or what? Since the start of the Thatcher years the power of the establishment has bludgeoned into an unstoppable freight train of bogies all connected to one another by whats become unbreakable couplings constructed by the security services. The idea that Corbyn with a set of policies that would improve the life of the ordinary man or woman would make a hapeth of difference is simply naive. If Corbyn posed any risk whatsoever to this amalgamation of the corrupt evil plum-in-the-mouth Brits that rule the roost then he would have ceased to exist well before he had even put his name in the hat. Just like a few other charismatic left wingers tragically have. Having said that I would nevertheless like to be convinced that I am indeed the delusional one!
George Galloway has issued an update on “The Killing$ of Tony Blair.”
In a nutshelll, progress has been slow due to editing, licensing problems, and the continuing stream of evidence for Blair’s crimes which needs to be incorporated. However, the production team have decided to draw a line on new evidence and so post production should now speed up.”
_____________________
“Should now speed up” – although I recall that we already heard that a couple of months ago I do hope it’s true this time, otherwise the film will most likely appear at the same time as the Chilcot report 🙂
Hope no one on here invested too much in that project – as risky as buying rubles, reals, rupees and rands when you could have been buying GBP, USD, CHF and shekels!
john young
are we both delusional or is it them?
I think you hit on the head when you stated that Labour politicians effectively are looking for self advancement.
Unfortunately I can’t see a return of the old,left wing policies,that Labour once promoted.
There’s to much money to be made from right wing policies,through privisation,and lobbying for corporate interests.
In my opinion the days of a left leaning politician leading Labour are over,or at least for the foreseeable future.
[craigmurray.org.uk – went into moderation queue at 12:47; possibly an obscure match with a spam-detection keyword]
Nevermind. Remember when the MSM attacked Michael Foot for wearing a donkey jacket to the Cenotaph.
Michael Foot and the donkey jacket that wasn’t
Michael Foot is often caricatured wearing a donkey jacket, a somewhat inaccurate reference to what was to become an infamous appearance at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday in 1981. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7361078/Michael-Foot-and-the-donkey-jacket-that-wasnt.html
Typical of the Torygraph to refer to it 34 years later.
The MSM prefer the leaders to wear sharp designer suits that the likes of Bliar and Cameron parade around in.
Blair-for-hire bags a new job (at Louis Vuitton, of course)
11 January 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242106/Critics-accuse-Tony-Blair-profiting-office-Louis-Vuitton-billionaire-friend-offers-high-paying-job.html
There was an earlier report that BLiar was given the run of their London store (Kensington/Knightsbridge??) after hours in order to choose free suits.
Agent Cameron appears to pay up front for his.
£2k-a-suit tailor who is helping the PM beat the squeeze: Speculation of fresh cuts in Cameron’s wardrobe after suit-maker is seen entering Number 10
Tailor Geoffrey Golding, 70, photographed arriving at Number 10
Awarded Queen’s Royal Warrant for services to Royal Household
Later David Cameron announced he was on a pre-Christmas diet
Sparking speculation Golding had been called into alter PM’s waistline
14 January 2015
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2910707/2k-suit-tailor-helping-PM-beat-squeeze-Speculation-fresh-cuts-Cameron-s-wardrobe-suit-maker-seen-entering-Number-10.html
Look, as much as you people might think your left, or think SNP are left. It just ain’t so. They are a party in power, supporting power, With power in the traditional party way. This is NOT left. The very fact of it is not left.
The structures of power are such they serve a minority that power. That’s not democracy, Not socialist and not left.
I can’t stand you people going on, supporting political party power, patting yourselves of the back for attacking “the other” and then thinking your something worth extra, witch is of course what this blog is all about.
You people are mostly the enemy of the people. You support concentrated power and try to get yourselves or others there. Your always fucking at it.
It may come as a surprise to some on here, but I believe that it would be best for the country, the body politic and the Labour Party if – by some miracle – Jeremy Corbyn would emerge as the new Labour Party leader and would survive as such long enough to lead the Labour Party into the next general election.
I say this on the basis that this would – assuming Mr Corbyn stands by his beliefs and the policies he has so far espoused and that the party stands firmly behind him – present the electorate with a clear choice between two different visions of society as opposed to the non-choice which is currently available.
The electors would then have the choice of voting left or right as opposed to right or right-lite.
As it happens, I suspect that the electorate would decisively reject a Corbyn-led -and-inspired Labour Party. But at least it would have pronounced and, accordingly, given the lie to those who somehow believe that the Conservative victory at the last election was due solely to the absence of a clear alternative vision.
“The SNP:
-Pro NATO
-Pro monarchy
-Extremely relaxed with the likes of Murdoch”
________________________________
First off Phil,I don’t agree with the SNP on everything they push.
As for being a member of NATO,remind me again who many other countries are members,Scotland is pushing to have the WMD’s removed it will, take time.
Pro monarchy? Well I know that a independent Scotland would probably keep the queen but once she kicks the bucket,it has been touted that a vote would be taken on whether or not,we should keep the monarchy or not.
Many folk don’t want any monarchy after Lizzies gone,I for one agree.
Here we go again Alex Salmond pictured with Murdoch and the conspiracy goes into overdrive,Murdoch employs thousands of folk in Scotland,at that time Alex was trying to drum up business for Scotland,he even entertained the Chinese,oops better not mention them,or that will be another fault.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-wight/jeremy-corbyn_b_7601916.html
At least some decent articles in the Press at last about Jeremy Corbyn .
“George Galloway has issued an update on “The Killing$ of Tony Blair.”
__________________________
Node thanks for that link,I will watch out for the film,if it’s as half as good any any of Michael Moore’s films it will be a eye opener.
Mary
“Agent Cameron appears to pay up front for his.
£2k-a-suit tailor who is helping the PM beat the squeeze: Speculation of fresh cuts in Cameron’s wardrobe after suit-maker is seen entering Number 10”
_______________
You’re decades behind the times, my dear, or perhaps you don’t get up to town very often.
£2000 for a bespoke two piece suit in a decent cloth is, if anything, cheap these days.
I mean, you could be paying £900+ for an off the peg Corneliani or similar – good cloth, admittedly, but all the disadvantages of off the peg.
He’s probably getting them at a prix d’ami.
RoS
““George Galloway has issued an update on “The Killing$ of Tony Blair.”
__________________________
Node thanks for that link,I will watch out for the film,if it’s as half as good any any of Michael Moore’s films it will be a eye opener.”
__________________
I doubt if it will be a tenth as good and in any event I wouldn’t suggest you hold your breath for its appearance, GG wouldn’t want your death on his (non-existent) conscience.
Formidable opponents indeed John Young – the establishment is the enemy, the machine whose face is ‘The BBC and corporate media who coalesce around an extremely narrow consensus of political thought, and ensure that anybody who steps outside that consensus is ridiculed and marginalised.’
We, the left, the perverse are the erstwhile Iraq, Libya, Syria and Palestine; those entities who protest world order and Establishment policies, succinctly expressed in Ba’al Zevul’s link above.
Further our intelligence services monitor the ‘intention streams’ -design and maneuver, collude and connive in a ‘little game’ to interrupt and prohibit, to frustrate and thwart the power of good people already burdened by a fiat ponzi scheme that benefits the few.
This piece has gathered dust but still relevant today and tomorrow.
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/rrtalk.htm
“As it happens, I suspect that the electorate would decisively reject a Corbyn-led -and-inspired Labour Party. But at least it would have pronounced and, accordingly, given the lie to those who somehow believe that the Conservative victory at the last election was due solely to the absence of a clear alternative vision.”
__________________________
Well Habb,nice of you to share your thoughts for onced,it makes a refreshing change from the usual,guff you spout.
However,it’s easy to espouse your above belief,when it’s more than likely Mr Corbyn,won’t get a fair shake,from either the media or press,and ergo,your supposition is shall we say fanciful at the very least.
Nice try.
But please do keep expressing your own thoughts,they make you appear almost plausable,a vast improvement,if I might add.
Let’s be honest, You don’t support alternative systems because they would never keep your importance or place in history that the current antidemocratic process would afford you if they got ‘your people’ or ‘the right people’ in ‘power’. And it’s too much like hard work, and you’d have to mix with people who don’t share you literacy standard or other class signals, that you use to think yourselves and put yourselves apart.
The celebrities, ‘outstanding’ intellectuals, you just would not matter much more than anyone. So you support the current system. Your privilege.
Just look how much Craig wets himself to get on the BBC. Again, much easer than creating something grass roots and an alternative.
are we both delusional or is it them?
Overoptimistic would be a better description IMO. If the SNP don’t deliver on what they implied (rather than what they actually felt able to state – and that doesn’t include independence, either), the Old Labour Scots heartland vote will fragment from the dissillusioned younger voters, currently SNP fans, and you’ll be back where you started. Keep holding those MP’s to account on austerity and inequality, push them for real jobs making real stuff, and don’t let them be seduced by their new, privileged and lifestyle and contacts. What happens to Scotland depends how this crop of MP’s perform. You may not have the opportunity again.
“I doubt if it will be a tenth as good and in any event I wouldn’t suggest you hold your breath for its appearance, GG wouldn’t want your death on his (non-existent) conscience.”
______________________________
It’s nice to know Habb, that at least we agree Michael Moore’s films are substantial.
But then again you already knew that.
I’m confident GG will produce the goods so to speak.
Just look how much Craig wets himself to get on the BBC. Again, much easer than creating something grass roots and an alternative.
Craig on BBC: seen and heard by millions.
Ishmael* on Craig’s blog: read by 30. Perhaps. It’s getting so I skip past you…
*Yeah, yeah. Me too. But I’m not whining.
The individual on a stage “left”…Telling us our power is in the voting system. There is no alternative.
There is no alternative.
Assuming that’s meant sarcastically, mind telling us what possible alternative there is? And how voting conflicts with a left ideology? Thanking you in advance.
It’s getting so I skip past you…
Im totally not shocked at that Ba’al ZevuL. Most do a great job of ignoring me anyway.
I’m part of “bewildered herd” of “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders” who should be maintained as “interested spectators of action,” and distinct from the actors themselves, the powerful.”
Nothings changed…
“And how voting conflicts with a left ideology?”
I’ll tell you how it’s fundamentally an anti-democratic process if you like…
And it was obviously a statement of fact I made concerning you and your religious clique. As if many other ways of organizing haven’t existed.