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.
“I crossed on the ferry to Skye many times before the bridge was built and never paid once. If you were a local the boys who collected the fares walked right past you. They made enough from commercial vehicles and tourists not to have to penalise somebody just going to the shop in Kyleakin.”
______________________________
Hang on a minute Fred, a bit of double standards going on there, you complain that staff at CalMac may lose their jobs,due to a new provider,yet here you are openly admitting to fare dodging,on the very ferries the islanders owe their existence to.
To add insult to injury you’re publicly condoning not only your actions but the actions of the ferry staff, in stealing monies from the service provider, you see paying your way a penalising, others call it fare dodging.
I now see very clearly why you hold a grudge to the building of the Skye bridge.
Technicolour
““Enjoy your next latte when served by a Polish university graduate, Daniel!”
I wonder how many of the 1.4 million British people working abroad are being sneered at by European Habbakuks. My sympathies to them.”
______________________
No sneer intended, Technicolour, don’t try and set up straw men.
You will know that most of the staff in places like Starbucks – and in the “hospitality” business in general, in London – are from the Continent; and a lot of them are from Eastern Europe.
Many of them are also well over-qualified for the jobs they do. University graduates are well represented.
Tell me where the sneer was….
I always thought the ‘they’ in this song was about politicians, elections. They come to build a wall between us…
Keep hope readers, they are few.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9gKyRmic20
Britain has been attacked by a senior US official for undermining progress on a global clampdown on tax avoidance by multinationals ahead of an international agreement to be published at the G20 talks in the autumn.
Efforts to establish standards that would prevent companies from shifting their profits across borders to avoid taxes are said to have amounted to a “collective failure” due, in part, to self-interested moves made by David Cameron’s government.
George Osborne said in 2013 that Britain was committed to making international tax rules fairer and the rules are due to be finalised this summer and published in October.
But US treasury official Robert Stacks has revealed deep frustration with the reality of Britain’s negotiating tactics, accusing the UK of behaving as if it was entitled “to more than the income from the assets, functions and risks actually in their jurisdiction.
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Stack,in the UK at present 3250 civil servants currently crack down on benefits cheats, who’ve scammed £1.2bn,whilst 300 civil servants currently chase, £70bn of unpaid tax.
“Or did Alex Salmond have a ulterior motive Fred,if so what, let us know Fred.
As for Souter,what exactly is his crime Fred? is it one of donating to the SNP?”
So the Scottish Sun backs the SNP right after Salmond backs Murdoch’s bid for BSkyB and the SNP suddenly drops their commitment to re-regulate buses from the manifesto right after Souter bungs them half a million quid.
Lysias The Wikileaks revelations on GCHQ methods of operation were also on Twitter –
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/612975733154152448
Daniel
“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.”
__________________
So you say that the reserve army of the unemployed (1,7 million, overwhelmingly British) puts pressure on wages.
In which way, then, does the availability for work of a couple of million immigrants not put (even more) pressure on wages?
“Hang on a minute Fred, a bit of double standards going on there,”
I haven’t accused you of anything, if you can’t debate without making it personal you can fuck off.
Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)
21 Jun, 2015 – 11:44 pm
“Which, Daniel, is one way of saying that immigration is a good way of keeping wages down.”
………………………………………………………
Is that the fault of the immigrants Habbabkuk or is it your friends the neo-liberal capitalists?
Daniel
I have just read your latest.
Just in case you misunderstood (you probably didn’t, but still…) I should say that I’m not claiming that immigration depressed existing wages. What I am saying is that it enabled and enables employers to more successfully resist calls for higher wages.
Is not the apparent shortage of nurses a case in point? The shortage is explained by many to be due in large measure to the low salaries for qualified nurses; the govt is either unable or unwilling to offer attractive salaries, to say nothing of meeting the costs of training. But the govt solves the problem by recruiting nurses from all over the world, principally from poorer countries. Does not the possibility of importing foreign nurses get the govt off the hook from offering more attractive salaries?
Mary
22 Jun, 2015 – 7:50 am
“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’”
“Is there a definitive official estimate?”
…………………………………………………..
The police say no-one turned up.
Mr Scorgie
“Is that the fault of the immigrants Habbabkuk or is it your friends the neo-liberal capitalists?”
_________________
Have I blamed the immigrants anywhere, Doug? Please supply quotations.
“So the Scottish Sun backs the SNP right after Salmond backs Murdoch’s bid for BSkyB and the SNP suddenly drops their commitment to re-regulate buses from the manifesto right after Souter bungs them half a million quid.”
_________________________________
So in your opinion, Alex Salmond is guilty of backing Murdoch,which could’ve brought more jobs to Scotland,if Strugeon were to back Murdoch just now,and it brought more jobs to Scotland,would that be wrong in your opinion,and do you think hard pressed families looking for jobs would agree with you?
Also Fred, you claim Murdoch and Salmond are in bed together,then why didnt Murdoch back Salmond on the indy ref.
Murdoch can be seen openly in a news report filibustering,when asked if he’d support Salmond and independence,one would imagine if such parties were as you say cosing up together then why not openly back them.
As for Souter it’s all about timing and I suppose it could be seen by some anti-SNP supporters who’ve jumped on the wagon of discontent as a donation for sevices, I do however see the need to re-regulate buses,some are in a particularly shoddy state.
This is a Medialens thread on the C4 interpretation tonight of the UN report on the war on Gaza last summer. The report by an American judge Mary McGowan Davis gave equivalence to the parts played by Israel and Gaza.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1434995451.html
Haaretz reports Netanyahu’s reaction.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.662434
“The commission which wrote [the report] was appointed by a council that calls itself a human right council [but] in fact does everything but defend human rights,” Netanyahu said at a Likud faction meeting on Monday. “Israel doesn’t commit war crimes, but defends itself from a terrorist organization which calls for its destruction. We will not sit idly by. We’ll continue to act with strength and decisiveness against all those who try to harm us and our citizens and we’ll do so in accordance with international law,” Netanyahu said.
That is roughly ‘Do not harm a hair on our heads. We are the chosen’.
See McGowan Davis’s history on the UN report on Cast Lead, 2008/9, which commenced under Goldstone who later resigned under pressure.
McGowan Davis: Our report on the Cast Lead probes stands
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/McGowan-Davis-Our-report-on-the-Cast-Lead-probes-stands
Time and time again, the Palestinians are failed by the UN.
Anyone got any thoughts on this white supremacist terrorist atrocity in the USA? My view is, it’s nothing new. 500 years of Strange Fruit.
Macky
“Oh look what the GCHQ spooks are upto, but I’m guessing that maybe some commentators here are already very familiar with all this :
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/06/so-the-spy-services-are-the-real-internet-trolls.html#comments”
_____________________
Thanks for pointing me on the direction of the “moonofalabama” website, Macky.
Having glanced at it briefly, I have come to the conclusion that that would be the perfect home for you and your posts; the contributors would seem to be even deranged than you are.
“even more deranged” – sorry, I was laughing too hard when I wrote that! 🙂
“I haven’t accused you of anything, if you can’t debate without making it personal you can fuck off.”
_____________________
Hit a nerve have I Fred?
I feel it’s completely relevant to the matter,you raised concerns over the state of Scotland’s ferry services,you openly admitted to being a chronic fare dodger, I didn’t accuse you, you told us remember?
Now you’re railing when confronted on it,its a bit like a shoplifter complaining to the store manager,the shelfs are half empty.
Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)
22 Jun, 2015 – 10:21 am
”…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…”
……………………………………………………….
But you can do something about it Habbabkuk. You can join the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
Get with it man!
Mary
“That is roughly ‘Do not harm a hair on our heads. We are the chosen’.”
__________________
No it isn’t, Mary – read the quotation again.
(I can see why you keep your own comment to a minimum)
Mr Scorgie
That’s true, but I can’t vote to influence Israeli govt policy on the West Bank but I can vote to influence UK govt policy on, say, the NHS or welfare.
I’d be careful about bragging too much about your involvement with the BDS – if you were serious about it, you probably wouldn’t be using a PC to post on here. And quite a few other things.
Unless of course you confine yourself to not buying Israeli orange juice and tomatoes…..
Given the equivocal and late support given by the Scottish Sun (and neither the Times – virtually unread in Scotland anyway – nor the English Sun) to the SNP, you might well doubt the actual effect it had on the result. Murdoch backs winners more than he makes them. Also, the SNP fitted nicely with his support of the Tories (see Rebekah Brooks, Raisa, Coulson etc, for very much closer contact with Cameron’s arse) and the need to hit the UK total Labour vote. I’m sorry Salmond had to schmooze the bastard, also Trump, which was disgraceful, but that must have been more in the nature of ‘I won’t rock the boat if you don’t’. Cynical? Yes, of course. Look at the opposition to see why. Here’s to a really principled Blairite Labour resurgence, eh?. And check out who’s giving it money…
Souter’s been supporting the SNP for at least fifteen years, btw. And he’s not the only member of the Lords who’s there on account of a political donation or two, is he?
It’s a shitty business, they’re all caked in it, and I am still waiting for viable suggestions for ending it without killing people. Which I do not endorse.
Yes, of course neoliberal capitalists will try to undercut wages by using cheap labour, maintaining a large pool of unemployed (both these by whatever means are necessary) and passing laws which make organising labour and solidarity extremely difficult. They did it with workers who lived in the UK for many decades, esp. in the 1930s and again post-1979. The fact that they play off one group of workers against another is hardly surprising, it’s nothing new. And the above dynamics then result in a rise in support for Far Right policies, which feeds into the divide-and-rule rubric. They would do it even if there were zero immigration. The depressions of the 1930s and C19th were not due to immigration, even though during some of those periods there was immigration. It’s really a diversion from the real target – and that is no accident.
The above should read: “They did it for many decades with works who lived in the UK…”
OK, Habbabkuk, apologies; you were genuinely wishing Daniel enjoyment of a latte served by a Polish undergraduate. May I follow suit and wish you – and indeed everyone here – enjoyment of lattes served by Polish undergraduates too.
Incidentally, do you have figures for the employment of Polish people in Starbucks? And the other ideas you quote?
“So you say that the reserve army of the unemployed (1,7 million, overwhelmingly British) puts pressure on wages.
In which way, then, does the availability for work of a couple of million immigrants not put (even more) pressure on wages?”
Come on, Habbakuk, it depends on the job and the ability of people to do the job. If I advertise for a vet in my practice, and 17 UK qualified vets turn up, I can, if I’m utterly unscrupulous as an employer, find the one who’ll take the lowest salary. Even if the entire population of Thailand also applied, it wouldn’t make the slightest difference, because they’d have to retrain to be UK qualified. For which you have to be rich enough to pay.
For those jobs which are already paid at rock-bottom rates and demand no training, your point stands: the study you have doubtless now read shows that the lowest rates were pushed marginally lower by immigration (28 pence an hour, I think). For the others, it improved wages. Please don’t force repetition on this blog.
“Does not the possibility of importing foreign nurses get the govt off the hook from offering more attractive salaries?”
No, it really doesn’t. Deliberately paying anyone low wages, and, moreover, forcing them to work dangerously long hours, is criminally irresponsible and should be illegal.
The above, of course, makes the case for a minimum living wage (£10 an hour is a good start) perfectly.
The constant torrents of racist drivel on tap post 911 is yielding fruit now, and it is going to get worse. Listen to Cameron, he is laying the ground rules.
Must thank your buddies (zionists) for it all. Divide and rule is an old game but apparently no one ever gets tired of it!
If we are to believe the UNHRC report both Israel and the people of Gaza are as bad as each other and both were victims of war crimes. Are they regarded as being equally affected and suffering comparable hardship? Israel claimed it had 1600 civilians injured and 6 civilians killed. Two people classed as civilians were taking food to soldiers. Another one was a migrant worker who was obviously not tucked safely away in an air raid shelter, supposedly along with most of the Jewish inhabitants of Israel (no such places of safety if you are an Arab).Presumably, his employer didn’t consider him important enough to suitably protect. I’d like to see the list of the 1600 civilians and their injuries. The reality is that many Israelis were continuing their normal daily activities whilst the people of Gaza were being bombed back to the Stone Age doesn’t seem to have been apparent to the UN investigation.
The level of dishonesty is reaching new heights. A cursory search on Google for the damage inflicted on Gaza produces some astonishing destruction when using the ‘images’ tab. Who were the investigators who didn’t have the common sense to use a good internet search engine?
I do agree with Netanyahu that the investigation was completely biased but we would differ as to which side they favoured. He clearly hasn’t realised that the vast majority of people are aware that he is a compulsive liar and he would be better leaving comments to Major Peter Lerner or Mark Regev. The time has come to cut these predominantly Jewish murderers off from the rest of civilised society. This isn’t anti semitism, it’s a statement based on the simple and irrefutable fact that the IDF is almost entirely made up of followers of the Jewish faith and they have collectively committed the most heinous criminal slaughter and destruction on the largely defenceless (and certainly imprisoned) people of Gaza.
The UN team haven’t even tried to appear even handed. I wonder how much this farce cost and what crime sites they were allowed to access. I’d like to know how these UN accomplices to such deliberate cruelty manage to sleep at night?
Suhayl Saadi,
The discussion relates to the question as to whether migration reduces wages. Academic studies’ have repeatedly found no link between migration and falling wages. It is bosses who try to hold down pay to make bigger profits. They want workers to blame each other because it keeps them divided.
“I am still waiting for viable suggestions for ending it”
You and who’s gang? Ie no your not.
Your stifling suggestions that may be more effective (at least in a small way) than your incessant individualistic rant’s. Dream on mr productive. Let’s see it then. Just bring down, end the order, with your productive words and any fans you can get on board.
Power is within people. The ones who have always changed anything, holding to a moral imperative etc. The focus on party’s and those who maintain that order? I won’t accept slavery period. There is no legitimate “Electable Left”…
I wonder how ‘Movement for Justice By Any Means Necessary’ @YarlsWood is doing.