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.
From the ineffable Mary:
“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.”
______________________
Tariq Aziz – Saddam Hussein’s long serving Foreign Minister – enjoyed a kinder death than many of the deaths meted out by the govt in which he was prominent for so many years.
As a reminder – Joachim “von” Ribbentrop, Hitler’s long serving Foreign Minister, was hanged after the Nuremberg trials.
—
[ Mod: This was stuck in the Spam queue ]
Daniel
OldMark is trying to discuss immigration and unemployment with you but I see that you are still throwing great big dollops of Marx around instead of answering his excellent points.
You did exactly the same with me when I tried to discuss with you (which is why I stopped bothering).
Why do you persist in not answering people’s points?
Are you a worthy contributor to this blog or are you just a Golders Green Marxist who likes exchanging quotations from Marx with the Polish barista at your local Starbucks?
Just askin’ !
Habbabkuk,
An understanding Marx on this issue is crucial to clearing up the misconceptions as evidenced by your responses on this topic. I’ve dealt with the points, am not a Marxist and I’m not falling for your flame baiting tactics.
I thought thinking of Saddam Hussein as the new Hitler ended with the Bush administration.
Daniel
“An understanding Marx on this issue is crucial to clearing up the misconceptions as evidenced by your responses on this topic.”
________________________
That is nonsense and you know it.
In fact, you tacitly admit it because you feel yourself obliged to wheel out a couple of (?)studies in support of your Marxist verities. And then, when OldMark queries the validity of those studies, you start quoting Marx again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I’ve dealt with the points”
____________________
Youè most certainly have not. Neither mine nor OldMark’s
+++++++++++++++++++
—
[ Mod: Ad hominems deleted. Kindly discuss the issues without the insults. ]
I was talking about the fate of a tyrant’s Foreign Minister, Lysias.
But I forget, silly me! – you don’t think Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, do you.
🙂
The epithet “new Hitler” is only ever applied to our official enemies not fascists like Bibi or Blair, for example. I for one believe it’s not appropriate to compare anybody to Hitler. Nevertheless, media double standards need to be highlighted.
below is an article written in response to the lack of resolve in Europe’s refugee apportioning crisis. HMS Bullwark, apparently, is on its way back to Portsmouth with 800 refugees, Cameron does not want them, but Italy has refused them access after the EU’s bigots come to no decision at all.
so what is the solution, should we really stop sucking up to neocon causes and spend the money helping people to help themselves at home?
“Poorly Concealed Racism’
The number of detailed issues brought up by the 28 countries — with their 28 governments and 28 individual histories — soon multiplied. The allocation formula proposed by the Commission was questioned and portrayed as unfair. Small countries like Lithuania argued that they would be required to accept a larger number of boat people in proportion to their population as much larger countries like Poland. Sweden, Germany, Austria, Cyprus, Malta, Finland, Portugal and the Netherlands appealed, more or less vociferously, to the spirit of solidarity, repeatedly expressing their “surprise” over objections. Sometimes 10 ambassadors were saying precisely the same thing.
The discussions were more open on the sidelines of the meetings, at evening receptions on cool Brussels terraces, where people spoke of the “shameless nationalism” of individual members and “poorly concealed racism.” Western European representatives were critical of the Eastern Europeans for only wanting to accept “white, Catholic” refugees, while the Eastern Europeans accused their Western colleagues of moral conceit. One of the ambassadors, who attended all of the meetings and some of the receptions, says: “From today’s perspective, the agenda was dead an hour after it was born.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/how-eu-promises-to-introduce-refugee-quotas-failed-a-1040226.html
Habbabkuk, you surprise me – you are posts often demonstrate substantial knowledge themselves – history seems to be your subject, and there’s no reason it should not be. I don’t think that if anyone has useful knowledge to share it should be a source of shame – especially here on the web. Careful, academic discourse – the scientific method perhaps? – may even be able to displace aggression and adversarial approaches.
For what it’s worth, I thought Daniel’s piece on Marx was very interesting – more of the same please! I confess I’ve tried to read Marx (or rather explanations of his work) but come up blank. Daniel, have you read Zombie Capitalism, by Chris Harman? He writing style is very interesting, but rather complex, and I found it heavy-going. I should give it another go.
I’ve responded to all relevant points. You just can’t handle the fact that the facts run counter to your prejudices.
Daniel- I note your disavowal of Marxism in the post @5.23pm
FYI I’d like to resurrect a phrase from the Marxist-Leninist canon which I think is relevant to this debate- Lenin’s cry of ‘Who Whom ?’
In other words, in the case of the UK, the migrations of the international overclass (eg Mark Carney)- which undoubtedly contribute disproportionately to the UK’s fiscal base, cannot be conflated with run of the mill immigration to the UK from indigent or semi indigent citizens from poorer countries. Academic studies which treat both as ‘migrant inflows’ aren’t worth a cup of cold spit.
Ah, Habbakuk, the barrista of the board! Have you enjoyed your own latte yet?
Personally, I’d wait for Old Mark to respond to the outstanding points about his first posting on this before addressing any more of them. Because he went strangely silent, and stayed that way. You know, the points which included the fact that the survey he cited in support of his claims showed that immigration had a) some economic benefits and b) an increase in GDP per capita. Those ones.
Habbakuk, you yourself seem to be strangely silent on the facts you were presented with – about immigration not being the source of wages being kept low (never mind falling) and so on. Perhaps you’d like to address those?
Jon, no I haven’t. I read The People’s History Of The World’ by him.
Daniel
But perhaps I’m treating you too harshly. I should reserve my ire for the likes of [ Mod: Deleted ]
—
[ Mod: Kindly stick to the point, and stop insulting your fellow contributors. ]
Daniel
“I for one believe it’s not appropriate to compare anybody to Hitler.”
__________________
Read my post carefully and don’t be distracted by the Oxford Greatsman.
I was comparing what happened to Saddam Hussein’s FM with what happened to Hitler’s FM.
Got it now?
Technicolour
“Habbakuk, you yourself seem to be strangely silent on the facts you were presented with – about immigration not being the source of wages being kept low (never mind falling) and so on.”
_____________________
Well, you call them “facts”. I note that those “facts” have come either from reports whose meaningfulness has been questioned by OldMark (question of the definition of an immigrant)or from a survey of company bosses (to whcih I suggested that they would say that, wouldn’t they).
As for remaining silent, I think I’ve been as silent or loquacious as you haven ducky. 🙂
+++++++++++++++++
And as for me not waiting for OLdMark to reply for himself, I trust you’ll make the same observation when I address something to X and Y kindly answers. You will, won’t you? 🙂
Glenn-uk.
Thank for your good wishes.
I am a survivor, and kind words help.
That’s a strange phrase, “enjoyed a kinder death”. Perhaps he lived much longer because he was imprisoned rather than having to negotiate the battle ground that Iraq has become since Saddam’s removal, especially with him having been a Christian. For dissidents during the Baathist regime, a reference to the Nuremburg trials would be appropriate. Kangaroo courts would have been common place for those who Saddam considered guilty, just as the victims of the Nuremberg trials were denied a reasonable defence and were routinely tortured during their imprisonment.
Old Mark,
The fact that nominal wage growth below the rate of price inflation has resulted in real wages falling for the longest sustained period since at least the early 1960s, allied to the fact that British workers are facing the longest fall in their living standards since the 1870s, bares no relationship to rates of immigration.
“Western European representatives were critical of the Eastern Europeans for only wanting to accept “white, Catholic” refugees,”
__________________
The above, from Nevermind, reminded me of somethiong I’d been meanng to point to in our little discussion on immigration and employment, etc.
*******************
I think we can admit from personal observation that many of Starbuck’s (and other similar companies’) employees – baristas and so on – are EU nationals hailing from Eastern Europe.
But I have seen very, very few darker-skinned immigrants working at Starbuck’s – at least at the customer interface.
But there are many immigrants in the UK from places other than Easter Europe.
Why, then, should this be so?
Habbabkuk,
I was replying to Lysias not you.
Twoleftfeet
“just as the victims of the Nuremberg trials were denied a reasonable defence”
___________________________
You should stop worrying about my choice of word for Tariq Aziz’s death and worry more about your own.
The subjects of the Nuremberg were “victims”?
And was there much of a “defence” for their actions? If you feel like it, tell us how you would go about “defending” them….reasonably or otherwise?
Daniel
“Habbabkuk,
I was replying to Lysias not you.”
_________________
Yes, you should have a discussion with him – he knows such a lot (after all, he’s an Oxford Greatsman).
You could for instance discuss his belief that Saddam Hussein was not a tyrant.
And, while you’re at it, ask him whether he thinks Hitler wasn’t either.
Does anyone on here receive a copy of “Common Space” from Common Weal, to their computer?.
Advertising FREE area.
Very good, I think you may like it.
Habbabkuk,
If they are indeed his views, then I disagree with them.
Daniel, he had many of the audience in tears,he was talking about the 2015 attack. When asked why he didn’t put his pictures up on youtube or somewhere else. He said that the risk of having the films parodied or altered by the Israeli propaganda unit was too great. He gave the example of film taken of him trying to resussitate a baby (unsccessfully) was parodied and mocked by Israeli propaganda by the sounds of “cut” as if it were actors and the sound of laughing children added.
When CNN had two doctors check the authenticity of the footage both said it was genuine.
Habbabkuk/Twoleftfeet: the deliberate legal shortcomings of Nuremburg are common knowledge, I’d have thought. Pointing them out does not make one a fascist – I’d have thought that was obvious.
My view is that no-one should have been hanged, but then I’m against capital punishment, whether it is for Saddam Hussein, Hitler’s staff, or Tony Blair. One could argue that my views in this area are a reflection of modern thinking in the same way that we judge the atrocities of the Second World War by the standards of international law today. How war crimes tribunals can be set up prior to the advent of war crimes law is an interesting question, and I suppose it would be best answered by a historian with knowledge of international law.
Certainly Hitler’s aggression and imperialism was appalling – but was Nuremberg not victor’s justice? I think it was Chomsky who said that the legal charges against the German high command were very carefully worded to ensure that the victor’s war crimes were specifically excluded. I imagine the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have “merited” some hangings, were the trials to have been fair and even handed.
Geoffrey,
MEMRI and Hasbara propaganda is so odious that nothing surprises me anymore as to the lengths the Israeli propaganda machine is prepared to go.
Oh, being called ‘ducky’ warms my cockles! Anyway, pet, you were meant to be focussing on the Dustmann report, not the Cream report, remember? Would like to know your thoughts – you should probably include your response to the demolishing of Migration Watch too, for intellectual rigour.
Though Greece may have postponed its exit from the Euro,for now,it’s still in a precarious position.
The suffering goes on.
Greece has a 25 per cent unemployment rate, a third of the people live below the poverty line, 300,000 are living with no electricity, and infant mortality rates have jumped over the years.
These problems are largely due to forced budget cuts of the past five years. Between 2009 and 2011, hospital budgets were cut by 25 per cent, while pharmaceutical spending was cut in half, leaving 800,000 people lacking health services.
Did Greece con its way into the Euro,by forging its credentials?
In 2002, it’s alleged Goldman Sachs secretly bought up €2.3billion in Greek government debt, converted it all into yen and dollars, then immediately sold it back to Greece. Goldman took a huge loss on the trade.
The deal was a con, with Goldman making up a phony exchange rate for the transaction. Goldman had cut a secret deal with the Greek government in power then. Their game: to conceal a massive budget deficit. Goldman’s fake loss was the Greek government’s fake gain. Goldman would get repayment of its “loss” from the government at loan-shark rates.
Greece’s right-wing, free-market Government was able to pretend its deficits never exceeded three percent of GDP. This met the entry criteria for the euro. Goldman charged the Greeks more than a quarter-of-a-billion dollars in fees.
To add to this Greece has,or had for that matter the highest amount of self-employed workers in Europe, who when it came to paying their taxes, decided not to, or not to pay the proper amount.