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.
Concerning discussion on a ban of the Confederate Flag…
Rush “The Pig-man” Limbaugh, the notorious hate-radio corporate stooge, imperialist war-loving chicken-hawk, racist and obese, drug-addled fascist (at best), has started whining his particular brand of angry white-man victimhood already:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/rush-limbaugh-banning-the-flag-of-the-confederacy-is-part-of-the-lefts-anti-american-agenda/
One might laugh at such vacuous blatherings, but the pig-man is listened to by millions of bobble-heads, who will faithfully murmur, “Yup.. yup.. yup.. makes sense.. yup, yup…” for his entire 3-hour daily show. This is broadcast coast to coast, on virtually all frequencies for talk-radio, by corporate MSM and has been for many years.
The pig-man has benefited enormously from corporate largess for his devoted services to the investor class over the years, in the form of relentless propaganda. His fortune can be measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars. He despises the working poor, but pretends to speak for them. Needless to say, the pig-man has a very long line of wanna-be imitators.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect example of all thats gone deeply fucked up in the US over the last few decades.
A fuckwit greed-stooge of the highest order.
The bastard would sell his own kids for a headline/stock option.
He’s a new-liberal…
This blog is the “Ally of authority”.
https://youtu.be/3LqUA7W9wfg?t=40m
The problem is Choice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE3IX5Jt1rI
” Please. As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of Disaster. “
Big Brother is not watching you. 🙂
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/23/google-eavesdropping-tool-installed-computers-without-permission
Reading this lead to an interesting consideration, what are the differences, despite some shared characteristics, that mean we don’t see Israelis turning guns on each other as with the US type mass murder shootings ?
The Israelis have Palestinians to shoot at.
“One of the things that struck me when we began to learn more about Dylann Roof’s background was how even though family members knew he was psychologically disturbed he was still given a gun complete with ammo as a 21st birthday present!” Becky Cohen.
I agree. How dreadful.
***********************
Macky, thank you for replying. I do appreciate it.
I am despondent about the situation wrt Palestine. I think that is rational. Sorry. I hope I am wrong.
When I express agreement with you, or indicate that I feel you have added to the discussion – you seem unwilling to acknowledge it – instead I am seen as “backtracking”. You never, ever acknowledge any statements made by people whom you ahve decided you are agianst. You seem to direct more vitriol at these people that at the forces Craig Murray is ranged against.
In terms of communication, it takes two, so perhaps you too would do well to “try harder”? I think you’ve been here a long time with occasional posts but seem only to have become actively and frequently posting in recent years. You seem also to have adopted your current style fairly recently. Coming onto this whistleblower’s blog and appearing selectively to disparage people – not just their views, but them personally – who rationally support that whistleblower might not be the most fruitful way of communicating.
Your criticims of me wrt what you call “the race card” echo those made in the past by Alfred (Can Speccy) and his supporters. You also seem to support those here who espouse what you call, “political Islam” but disparage those who support left-wing and progressive Muslims and socialists in Muslim-majority socities/countries. Indeed, you have made statements which I believe have essentialised people.
I could be just as aggressive in writing if I wished to be; it’s not difficult, in fact it’s much easier. But I see little point.
What do you think about white supremacism? It’s not a “sly” question, it’s simply the subject at hand. Please consider sharing your thoughts. Thank you.
and new weaponry to test upon them Ba’al.
~~
John Goss Did you get this banner at the bottom of that Guardian link?
https://membership.theguardian.com/about/supporter?INTCMP=MEMBERSHIP_SUBSCRIBER_LOYALTY_BANNER
Double smilies.
I could be just as aggressive in writing if I wished to be; it’s not difficult, in fact it’s much easier. But I see little point.
I’m surprised you’re not, if you’re observing Ramadan and have low blood sugar! Kudos. Peace.
‘The current definition of child poverty is measured by whether the child lives in a household with an income less than 60% of the national average.’
Agent Cameron wishes to redefine it and has assembled this little group of rich hard-hearted types to assist him.
‘David Cameron is looking to revive plans to change the way that child poverty is measured, in advance of figures that are expected to show it has increased for the first time in a decade.
The prime minister discussed the matter with the cabinet on Tuesday morning, Downing Street confirmed, with Nicky Morgan, the education secretary, Oliver Letwin, the Cabinet Office minister, and Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pension secretary, leading a conversation on whether the government was using the “right” measures.’
Tory plan to redefine child poverty as figures set to show first rise in decade
David Cameron’s cabinet discusses issue before statistics due to show increase to 2.5 million children in poverty – a figure he will say is not a true reflection
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/23/child-poverty-measures-figures-first-rise-in-decade
Daniel
Habbabkuk : “Daniel
But I think he’ll just maintain a discreet silence. Let’s see if I’m right.”
Lysias;
“23 Jun, 2015 – 7:17 pm
Trolls like to provoke comments. It’s their flame-drawing tactic. I prefer not to react.
Troglodytae non vescendi sunt.”
___________________
There you are, Daniel, I told you. Case proved.
There are some people whom you’ll never get to admit that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant.
Rechnicolour
“Given that – and thanks for the opportunity to spread some reality – how you do feel about mocha?”
___________________
I feel good about moka! So if you’re a woman and if you’re reasonably attractive, you could consider doing an Iain Orr and offering me one some time. 🙂
I think we can dispense with the notion that the government of this country is in any way concerned with the welfare of most of its citizens, Mary. Gove the other day was bleating about the two-tier nature of access to justice – solution, redecorate the courts, as far as I could make out. Strangely failed to mention the Tories scrapping legal aid. I don’t think they’ll rest until the six-year-old children of (compulsorily) hard-working families are sent up chimneys again. Cue the new Qatari-funded, high-tech Tyburn Tree, upon which the corpses of minor shoplifters who couldn’t afford a lawyer will dangle…
No Mary but thanks. In a way I agree with the Guardian trying to raise support and if the reporting was always ‘fearless and free’ I might even subscribe. Rusbridger gets a bad press here. I know he’s handing over the reins. But I don’t dislike him, wig or no wig.
I recall Peter Oborne interviewing Alan Rusbridger on one of his Channel 4 reports, I think the same one where Tory donations stopped when William Hague called killing a thousand Yemeni civilians for the loss of six Israeli soldiers “disproportionate”, and Rusbridger talked about the pressures on editors from the owners, not giving them a free hand. All five of these videos are keep disappearing in the UK on YouTube (surprise, surprise). The Rusbridger evidence starts at 27 minutes, but if you have the time watch the whole programme – even all five of them. They are eye-openers. I don’t expect the trolls to join in on this issue except perhaps to divert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cchSEL5uyOE
Child poverty up,inflation up, promises forgotten, economy not doing as well as it was painted before the election. Thanks for all the great links.
Any news anywhere of Majid Ali? Have they found him or his remains?
And radiation is up, so are cancers. Slowly the impact of Fukushima is making its mark.
But hang on, where, in all this quiet contemplation of building new pressurised water reactors, are all the fairies that have dealt with the molten core, I mean they were all dressed in pink with little blue ribbons, apparently fairies are the only one’s who can deal with melting core’s, robots get fried and humans fall to pieces after more than one Sievert.
So bring on the British Fairies led by Amber Rudd, ready and waiting for our newly wind chimed pretty looking power stations by the sea. Solutions against Tsunami’s inundating our power stations is simple, one big giant plastic bag, off course with the usual child safety warning, ‘that should do the trick’, said Heath Robinson.
http://enenews.com/ap-biggest-question-fukushimas-melted-fuel-asahi-fuel-mainichi-one-fuel-experts-nuclear-cores-hit-groundwater-could-melted-ground-world-never-case-like-fukushima-fuel-melted-fell-video
“I consider being described as ‘ineffable’ by Habbabkuk is insulting to me and that he has broken the rules.”
______________________
For someone who posts on here incessantly and is not slow to throw about endearments like “troll! troll!” whenever challenged, the writer of the above appears to have a remarkably thin skin.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I also note that she considers Tariq Aziz to have been rather hard done by?. I hope she won’t be calling him “a Christian gentleman” next.
[ Mod: If you have some personal vendetta to run, ask permission to do it in email, or elsewhere. This forum is not the place for it. ]
John Goss.
Thanks for the information on Google.
I think I need to throw my computer in the bin.
I am not I.T. savvy enough to circumvent all this spying by the Americans.
I have never voted for an American Government yet, they think they have the Right to spy on everyone.
I hope the rest of the world is spying on them.
We need an ethical company to build computers with search engines that do not record our business.
Robert: You don’t need a particular computer for a search engine which doesn’t record your personal details. Use one of these:
https://ixquick.com/
https://duckduckgo.com/
https://startpage.com/
There are a couple of others, but they should get you started.
Robert Crawford, the search engines are not in your computer nor in your software. Your search query is sent to a remote website such as Google. The search is performed by their software on their computers; the results are compiled into a page which is sent back to your system and displayed.
If you ask a policeman directions to the baker’s, that policeman learns that you want to know where the baker’s is; this is inevitable.
But what you theoretically could do is get together with lots of other people who want directions and randomly swap your queries. Each asks a policeman someone else’s query, and then you all swap your queries back. Each of you gets the answer to your query, but no policeman can tell who wanted to get where.
Firefox add-ons such as Google Sharing effectively achieve a result like this.
Glenn-uk.
Thanks Glenn, I already have one of them and No script. I would put Tor on. However, I have been told as soon as I do that the American and English governments will want to know what I am up to. Which is NOTHING!!! However, it is my Privacy and not for public consumption.
Better they spied on the hierarchy. As well as the opposition parties, and big business.
Clark.
Fuck the world’s policeman!.
My apologies ladies.
Robert, you fuck the policeman. I prefer his wife.
@Suhayl Saadi, apparently responding to your personal comments about me is classed as a “personal vendetta” here, so go here;
https://squonk.tk/blog/2015/03/15/the-general-discussion-thread/comment-page-45/#comment-18395
[ Mod: Thank you for your co-operation and understanding. ]
Yes Glenn, I *used* to use duckduckgo, but then as the company is based in Paoli, Pennsylvania, in Greater Philadelphia, they are possibly/probably subject to superinjunction type national security letters and other technical legal means which might disclose their individual users’ search history. I have noticed DDG servers based in Eire , for the EU, but I can’t see a ‘warrant canary’ on DDG.
RC, I similarly do believe that there should be a balance between security & privacy on the internet, and that there is an ethical need for some privacy for personal and societal development reasons. The tools are not obvious for achieving this, the deny/degrade/disrupt mob are VERY good at their job and don’t leave many traces behind them. . .
At present, the ixquick.nl service (based at IPv4 37.0.88.27) and the ixquick.com (based at 84.246.8.58) are both served from Holland, as is StartPage, at least from my forensics. this can change due to mergers/acquisitions. I prefer IXQuick.nl, but I also use and have used since around 2006 many different random traffic/search generators – to poison slightly – my data/meta-data file.
I have also successfully used the latest version of TAiLS (the anonymous internet live system) live CD/DVD – which is a helpful pseudonymous – not anonymous – live Linux distro, specially made for fairly secure booting of a leaky Windows PC with a somewhat better OS. The agencies currently track who is downloading TAiLS, so hence it is an attempt at pseudonymity, rather than anything absolute.
I consider TAiLS a minimum requirement for using banking websites with a Windows PC, the current threats are too-high for ‘naked’ Windows to handle such valuable things. Some banks don’t like the TOR component of TAiLS. Change your bank!
I accidentally handed out around a thousand copies of TAiLS once, when I had 18000 visitors one day. I was, within a couple of hours of starting to give them away, visited by an agency agent/official who managed to waste some of my time. ‘They’ are rather quick. when they wish to be, and individually reasonable, serious and personable.
I can see why Snowden had ‘crypto-parties’ to diffuse the tools for simple, honest, reasonable use of the internet; for home banking needs not terrorism!; but the current Home Office definition of criminal/terrorist does seem to be commensurate/indistinguishable from citizen.
Some habits are very difficult to break –
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=1
Very long article. Does not show Putin’s Russia in any better a light than the West.
Today Crimea – tomorrow….Texas?
http://vz.ru/politics/2015/3/23/735599.html
In Russian – you sort it out.
Robert, I use DDG, and I trust them. Whether I am right to or not is a matter for debate, but the founder (Gabriel Weinberg) is a passionate privacy advocate and I don’t suspect him to be a stooge. My search queries are probably not worth spying on, but the feeling of security is nice.
I’ve not used Tor for years, it used to be very slow, and it can attract the wrong sort of attention. Using a VPN is probably better, since business remote workers use them all the time for company security. However, you generally have to pay for these – I think 5USD/GBP per month (on top of your ISP charges) would get you a reasonable one.