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.
Felicity Arbuthnot on the death of Tariq Aziz.
The Shameful Tragedy of Tariq Aziz
A Metaphor for the “New Iraq”
22 June 2015
http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/06/the-shameful-tragedy-of-tariq-aziz/
A very moving and factual account.
Gove’s views on the judicial system are sounding almost socialist! Or is he just a wrecker?
Gove To Attack ‘Two-Nation’ Justice System
The Justice Secretary claims the system allows the wealthy to enjoy “gold standard” services while many crime victims are failed.
http://news.sky.com/story/1506665/gove-to-attack-two-nation-justice-system
are the terrorists real? 5-eyes doesn’t want to help solve this, beyond a quick conviction or two.
This seems to parallel many reports of cases in the US
Quote
Macky
“I’m quite partial to using a same letter prefix; ie Doopey Dreoilin, Crazed Clark, etc”
_________________
Mad Macky?
RobG
“Otherwise I’ll direct you to a propaganda rag like the Daily Mail, where you’ll learn an awful lot about nothing.”
__________________
Careful there, Rob, our friend Lysias will be upset.
RobG
Do you have any more substantial grounds for asserting that Corbett works for the CIA? I happen to think he is one of the best on the alternative media circuit and it will take a lot more than the fact that he hasn’t covered Fukushima to persuade me otherwise.
“No, the whole point of my raising this issue was to disagree with Suhayl, whose original Post was fixated only around the race aspect” Macky
Yes, that does seem to be your approach to just about anything I post here. As I said, an interesting observation. Why does the mention of ‘race’ seem to cause suhc irritation.
If I agree with you, I’m “backtracking”. If I disagree with you, I’m “Rushdie” and “a warmonger”. It’s a conversation. If I recognise you made a good point and contributed to the discussion on what is a complex subject, perhaps you could learn to accept that at face value? You seem to have divided people here into two camps; those whom you disparage relentlessly, regardless and those whom you exalt endlessly, regardless. Is this a corporate workplace approach? I find it fascinating, as a study.
In fact, I think it’s pretty obvious that when I say 500 years of history was behind this atrocity, and “strange fruit”, I’m not talking only about race. Indeed, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X recogniosed that oppression in America was not simply about race. Nonethless, with regards to African American history, racism clearly does play a central role.
TwoLeftFeet: I cannot agree that the two sides should be treated the same. If Hamas were not dismissed as terrorists by Israel, primarily and the West in general, then we might have some dialogue with them. It suits Israel to be able to claim they have no partner in peace…
My comment was made with considerable diffidence, as I very largely agree with you. However, I don’t think there’s any doubt that Hamas have been as far away from international law as the Israelis, though on a far smaller scale, and with infinitely less impact on civilians. If Israel has broken international law, it should be subject to legal action, and I don’t see how you can exclude Hamas or anyone else who have broken the same law. Quite apart from anything else, if you did (sorry, sounding like Blair here…), it would reinforce the poor-little-victimised-Israel meme. But as I say, the prospect of Israel being held to any kind of account for its actions, let alone co-operating with a prosecution, is remote.
Morally, I’m with you, more especially as Israel presents a facade to its supporters to lead them to believe that it embodies the principles of universal justice and democratic rights – can indeed be considered part of the EU, which it aspires to join. OTOH Hamas pretends to be nothing other than what it is – a national liberation movement.
I see, incidentally, that one of Kagame’s horrible chums has just been arrested on war crimes charges:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/22/rwandan-general-karake-arrested-london-war-crimes
Fans of Mr. Blair will be interested to know that Karake was shifted to the Rwanda Information (lol) Ministry during Kagame’s wooing by the logorrheic* Blair:
http://www.france-rwanda.info/article-remaniement-a-la-tete-de-l-armee-rwandaise-79388560.html
For Karake to be arrested in London suggests that Kagame has thrown him to the wolves. By no stretch of the imagination could this happen to an Israeli, either.
* Credit TRIBUNE FRANCO-RWANDAISE for that one…
Resistance from a people in a ghetto/open air prison to an illegal occupation is not illegal. Some home made rockets versus a mighty army, air force and navy most provided by US funding it should be said.
“Balance” in UN Gaza report can’t hide massive Israeli war crimes
22 June 2015
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/balance-un-gaza-report-cant-hide-massive-israeli-war-crimes
And yes, US militarism and imperialism post-WW2, both domestically (eg. the crushing of the Black Panthers and the American Indian Movement, etc.) and externally (all the countries invaded, including the recent ones) are major factors wrt violence and gun culture within the US. It’s really all part of the supremacism that resides at the heart of the US project. I’m not saying that that is all the USA is about. But it’s foundational. Just as the USA was built on Slavery as an economic and social institution, so White Supremacism (not just the obvious mainfestation but the systemic, socio-economic manifestation) forms a central part of that array of extremist ideology. It’s ‘niggers’, it’s ‘gooks’, it’s ‘ragheads’, it’s ‘injuns’ and so on. Yet in my view, terrorists like the KKK, Aryan Nation and Roof, etc. are easy to identify. They make white liberal and conservative elites in the USA feel good about themseleves. It’s the terrorists without hoods which are the most dangerous.
Acknowledging that someone for whom you have “nothing but comtempt” is expressing agreement with you on some matter would not be a sign of weakness. Quite the opposite. I do not have “contempt” for you, Macky – how could I, I don’t know you – I just think your style of communication is unfortunate. But hey-ho, it’s cool, whatever turns one on in the rough-and-tumble of the blogosphere.
Resistance from a people in a ghetto/open air prison to an illegal occupation is not illegal.
No, it isn’t. But, as a matter of principle, and if international law on war crimes is to be applied at all, that should not exclude prosecution for the means used by the resistance. If the Israelis are culpable for bombarding civilian areas, it’s very hard to argue that Palestinian rockets landing in civilian areas don’t invite the same charges. The relative scale of the damage might be reflected in compensation payments – in which case the Israelis would be paying through the nose…and Israel has many more actions to answer for. Phosphorus, DIME weapons, flechettes…just a few.
It might even be more productive to insist that Hamas be prosecuted, and apply the argument the other way round to ensure that Israel too faced scrutiny. I think there is some value in retaining the principle of impartiality here.
Suhayl Saadi; “Why does the mention of ‘race’ seem to cause suhc irritation”
It doesn’t, but if somebody uses it repeatedly as a cheap race card debating tactic to bizarrely insinuate racism, it does get rather trying, not just the nasty smearing, but because it means that rational debate is not being followed.
Suhayl Saadi;; “You seem to have divided people here into two camps”
The only distinction I make it between those who are capable of an honest debate, and those who either cannot or always chose not to. Unfortunately the first group are frankly not intellectually equipped and couldn’t participate in a rational debate even if their life depended on it, just a cold fact of life; the second group, which has two sub-sets, comprises of those who deliberately avoid rational debate because they are agenda driven trolls, or secondly, because they can’t help themselves as they suffer from various psychological issues. Of course any combination of these is also possible in any one person, and that is more often the case.
Suhayl Saadi;; “In fact, I think it’s pretty obvious that when I say 500 years of history was behind this atrocity, and “strange fruit””
No it was not obvious at all; rather like your initial post about state sanctioned murders, in which you appeared to be completely unconvinced that it happens, which prompted Doug to exclaim to you “Are you for real ?” When he listed some well-known state sanctioned murders in NI, your next comment was complete total agreement “absolutely..etc”. This ploy of a polar-opposite retro agreement to an opening position, is very, very odd to say the least.
arrest Saul Mofaz? no way, let him do his shopping.
Well, karake on the other hand is not a violent Zionist, so he can be arrested in London for his crimes against the Rwandan people.
If you are right Ba’al, and Kagame has thrown him into the snake pit, then he will sing like a canary and Kagame will be next, new charges be brought.
‘We don’t do deals with Hamas’. Unless oof course, we can throw them to the IS wolves with a fake loose ‘accord’, an understanding of sorts.
What a shiner, hypocrisy in its pure form.
@Resident Dissident, despite this being a Craig Murray “Free Speech Forum”, my reply to you can only be seen at;
https://squonk.tk/blog/2015/03/15/the-general-discussion-thread/comment-page-45/#comment-18358
If you are right Ba’al, and Kagame has thrown him into the snake pit, then he will sing like a canary and Kagame will be next, new charges be brought.
I wish. More likely it will be fingers in ears, lalalalala, when that song is sung (it probably will be sung – Karake’s been getting close to some opposition figures) as long as Kagame continues to favour ‘our’ miners. Pretty sure Cameron’s been unofficially employing Blair, who is great mates with Kagame – or at least Kagame thinks so – to pursue UK-plc foreign policy by other means.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8885987/Tony-Blair-trips-to-Africa-and-an-intriguing-friendship.html
“Mr Blair is always very polite when he comes here,” said a concierge at the (£2K a night Serena, Kigali) hotel as he showed The Sunday Telegraph around the presidential suite via a secure lift to the fifth floor retreat, “It is very nice for Rwanda to have a good friend like that.”
Or a corner of a scarce and essential resource…
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rwanda-has-become-worlds-largest-coltan-exporter-reports-kt-press-300010371.html
Coincidence? Heaven forfend!
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rwanda-has-become-worlds-largest-coltan-exporter-reports-kt-press-300010371.html
‘Numerous academic studies (some of which have been mentioned above) and others that include the London School of Economics highlighted, conclude that there is at best a minimal relationship between immigration and lower wages.
According to the most recent study by The Migration Observatory published in March, immigration is said to actually lead to a rise in the average wage of all workers’
Daniel- as I pointed out @12.44am, these ‘academic studies’ are of very limited utility if they play fast and loose with the definition of ‘immigrant’.
Is Mark Carney, and thousands of other high end executives who spend a few years working here, an ‘immigrant’ ? Clearly if you include people such as these in the definition the results will be skewed in favour of showing that ‘immigration’ is a net fiscal benefit to the UK.
Carney and his high earning ilk of ‘immigrant’ are here today and gone tomorrow. Don’t confuse these ‘immigrants’ with the would be immigrants who fill our TV sceens at the gates of Calais, or when presently attempting to cross the Med in their tens of thousands.
Isn’t there something surreally dysfunctional about a Human Rights Whistleblower Site, that champions Julian Assange, who advocates full transparency as a means of ensuring democratic principles, in light of this new, very arbitrary & beyond question clamp down on certain people being able to express themselves here ?!
Just sayin’ ! 🙂
Hi all. Surfin’ in to catch up periodically, as I am wont to do occasionally. Good to see that the friendly battles continue apace (if under a satisfyingly improved set of posting guidelines). More meandering, less malice, says I!
@Macky, you made a very good post at 11:09 regarding the atrocity in South Carolina. Race is important, but problems of economic disparity and regressive behaviour stereotypes (e.g. assigning violence attributes on the basis of colour) are filtered through a highly individualistic and ego-driven societal model. In fact, I think the gun ownership absolutism suffers from the same problem: it’s all about rights and very rarely to do with the community (except when the community has to bear the blowback of these ideologies, of course).
I don’t agree that Suhayl “plays the race card”, however. I should imagine that all people who are not white have experience of racism, and that experience should be spoken about – isn’t a core issue in the US that white conservatives are uncomfortable acknowledging the white supremacist aspects of the attack?
I’d suggest that the language of “playing the X card” carries with it an unfortunate (and possibly unintentional) implication that one’s interlocutor is in some way breaking the Queensberry Debating Rules – perhaps disingenuousness? I don’t think that’s fair, but either way, it probably doesn’t help the smooth flow of discussion. I don’t know what nationality or colour you are, but I’d guess you are white like me. If so – and forgive me if the assumption is incorrect – dismissing race simply as a “get out of jail free card” sounds like you might be unaware you have perks belonging to a rather privileged group. (I should add that, as a white person, I try to acknowledge the social advantages I have, without falling prey to guilt, which would be counterproductive).
“Herbie, the way Corbett and Dawson downplay the Fukushima disaster, who the fuck do you think they work for?!”
I’m not sure they downplay it.
Spot on Herbie- Also WRT Corbett he would have no personal reasons for downplaying Fukushima, given that he lives in western Japan !
Mary 23 Jun, 2015 – 7:08 am
Thanks very much for the Felicity Arbuthnot article on the mistreatment, last days and posthumous mistreatment of Tarq Aziz. She is a great journalist. We need more like her and John Pilger but to find them it is no good scouring the MSM press in some slight hope of occasionally finding a pearl – mainstream media personnel today bring to mint the words “s/he who pays the piper calls the tune”. 🙂
I’d strongly question the VT numbers on US radiation levels. They don’t accord with anything else I can find, and neither does their measure of background radiation. Gross counts/min isn’t a very meaningful measure of potential hazard in any case.
This site explains how it does it, and gives the correct caveat regarding Geiger data. Which can be very variable. Note, also as it says, readings are not equalised (between counters of different sensitivities and ages). This is raw data. Altitude increases the contribution of gamma-radiation to the background count, as does living next to a nuclear installation – you can see it’s not a lot.
http://radiationnetwork.com/
Here’s Jon(ny)… ! on his white steed (no racist connotations intended!), leading the Charge of the Old Guard Brigade to help a fellow member ! 😀
Hello Jon, forgive the above humour if you don’t like !
Ok we seem to agree about the core issues relating to such US mass shooting as the recent one in South Carolina, however you will not I think be surprised to learn that I disagree with your comment about Suhayl’s race playing ploys. Firstly, he is the one who always initially brings up the issue of race, and even if the presumption that I am a white non-Moslem is correct, he has no right, and no logical basis to try to use that assumption to try both to dissuade me expressing views, &/or to discredit my views in general about Islam & Islamophobia; his bizarre charge that I set myself up as a non Muslim “Defender of the Faith”, is but one example. Secondly, either he has a massive paranoid chip on his shoulder, or it’s a deliberate cynical tactic, but to portray himself always as a victim of racial stereotyping, as he constantly does, is entirely irrational & unwarranted in all the exchanges I have had with him, the best recent example was his song & dance because I had addressed him as “Sly Suhayl”, which was purely a nod to the fact that I find most of his arguments disingenuousnessly suspect.
Brian Fujisan.
Thank you for your good wishes.
I am doing fine, my energy is improving, though I get to see what is going on in the middle of the night.
I spoke to the oncology nurse this morning when I was lying in bed exhausted after a little effort paying Import Duty on goods to help my well being.
If the spots on my lungs are from the kidney cancer, “a pill” is the treatment.
A new treatment which is much more successful than the previous treatment. Apparently, men faired badly from kidney cancer in the past. Now results are much better.
Anyway, I don’t have cancer any more. It has been cut out and thrown in the bin. So there!.
O/T nature notes
Overnight, after a day’s rain, my lawn has turned from green to golden yellow. Bird’s foot trefoil has flowered and is now attracting several species of bee. Wonderful.
Off topic just watched the Keiser review on RT which to my mind anyway is a good bit more credible than most news outlets anyhoo,both Keiser and his guest economist Stacy Herbert I think was her name agreed that it is essential that GB adopt an “austerity” programme the rub being it should be implemented asap in the financial sector it should be applied to shrink it,now I haven,t a clue does anyone? about the financial sector but what I could follow appeared to make sense.
Hi Craig,
I would appreciate your thoughts on this:
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/06/23/stur-j23.html
This put the nail into the coffin of any lingering enthusiasm I had for the SNP.
Sam.
Bit more Rwanda. Karake was not the first sacrificial lamb offered to the ICC in order to keep the heat off Kagame. Bosco ‘Terminator’ Ntaganda surrendered to the US embassy* in 2013 at the behest of Kagame, and, interestlingly, Karake:
http://www.umuvugizi.com/?p=7915&lang=en
He’ll be tried next month. Another coincidence.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/pages/pr1105.aspx
*and is charged with:
murder and attempted murder; attacking civilians; rape; sexual slavery of civilians; pillaging; displacement of civilians; attacking protected objects; destroying the enemy’s property; and rape, sexual slavery, enlistment and conscription of child soldiers under the age of fifteen years and using them to participate actively in hostilities; and five crimes against humanity (murder and attempted murder; rape; sexual slavery; persecution; forcible transfer of population)
And yes Habba, no doubt you got your (and others) comments sorted though many personal interventions and use of the ‘authority’ in the systems, for personal political ends.
I sooner chop my arm off than contact a mod or go though a fucking complaints system.
Only time i’v asked one for anything is openly on this forum, to fix a spelling error… O yes and to put back removed comments, again openly. Like that was going to happen. And I don’t want it to really, makes little odds to me when i’m against this farce.
Wow, last two removed.
Initial explanation given with questionable reasoning, then removed with no explanation and ZERO good reason.
Other than I went against Craig perpetrating the notion that tools of class rule (parliament) is somehow democracy..
Big one that init..
re. hatchet job on Sturgeon, above.
The UK doesn’t have maritime patrol aircraft. Towards the end of last year when there was a suspicion that Russian submarines were patrolling in our territorial waters … we had to draw on help from elsewhere. So my view is that we need strong appropriate conventional forces that are capable of defending the United Kingdom, but also contributing positively and appropriately to international threats.
We’re a fucking island. We are currently dependent on the Dutch, Scandinavians and Yanks for airborne marine surveillance. We had updated Nimrods under construction, and then the coalition decided the Russians were lovely after all, so we cut the planes up and flogged them for scrap. Five years later, with the Russians cruising at will round our moat, we still haven’t decided whose arms industry we will pay for the replacement – anyone’s but ours, by the look of it. I’d say Sturgeon got that right, anyway.
Sturgeon gave a host of interviews seeking further US investment in Scotland and made a speech to the World Bank promising greater “competitiveness.”
I guarantee some here think an independent Scotland is viable without heavy inward investment. I’m not one of them. That game has to be played, and ugly, unsocialist compromises will be needed to obtain genuine independence. Which need not be the final goal, but the final goal has to be solvent. And as the Authorised Socialist Version isn’t for independence, while the SNP is (still!) – Nicola’s getting her ducks in a row.