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.
Daniel re George Galloway)
“I don’t think publicly opposing the Iraq war and siding with the Palestinian’s could in anyway be regarded as somebody lacking in conscience.”
______________________
I wouldn’t necessarily regard those two bits of evidence as conclusive, Daniel.
But why are we about to cross swords about George Galloway? This thread is about Jeremy Corbyn and a possible Nu-nuLabour.
Today I have been hearing nothing but support for Westminster’s decision to end the subsidy for onshore wind farms. Even people who are pro SNP and pro green energy have been saying enough was enough for some time now.
The consensus in these parts seems to be that Westminster got it right.
http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/News/Subsidy-axe-will-hit-far-north-wind-farm-plans-18062015.htm
The only obvious fault I can find in this excellent piece of analysis is the creation of the fictional character named in the title. Mind you, I’d vote for her.
“However,it’s easy to espouse your above belief,when it’s more than likely Mr Corbyn,won’t get a fair shake,from either the media or press,and ergo,your supposition is shall we say fanciful at the very least.
Nice try.”
__________________
I don’t know why Republicofscotland calls my post a “try” because I was being quite serious when I wrote as follows:
“I say this on the basis that this would – assuming Mr Corbyn stands by his beliefs and the policies he has so far espoused and that the party stands firmly behind him – present the electorate with a clear choice between two different visions of society as opposed to the non-choice which is currently available.
The electors would then have the choice of voting left or right as opposed to right or right-lite.”
The main point of the post was to express hope that the electorate in 2020 would have a real choice between “left” and “right”.
Is there a problem with that wish?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is, of course, possible that some – including some on here – would prefer that the electorate not be given such a clear choice.
The reason for that might be that they are afraid that the electorate would vote “right” and thus show for oince and for all that it wants nothing to do with Corbyn-style “left” policies.
And that would never do, would it. 🙂
Much nicer to be able to wail “ohhhh, the electorate didn’t have a real choice!”
Ba’al Zevul
What do you mean ‘Overoptimistic’ I am downright a pessimist, who wouldn’t be? Clearly you misread or more likely didn’t bother at all..
Craig
You write about popular war jingoism and militarism and the media demonization of Michael Foot.
Fair enough.
But could you reassure readers that you believe that the British govt’s forcible ejection of the Argentinians from the Falklands was the correct course of action?
“I don’t know why Republicofscotland calls my post a “try” because I was being quite serious when I wrote as follows:”
_____________________________
Okay Habb maybe I was a little harsh on your comment, but it’s still just speculation,Im sure I read somewhere that Mr Corbyn only recieved the backing of enough supports to make the contest for Labour leader appear wide and varied.
In the article which alludes me,the said backers of Mr Corbyn remarked that they’d no intentions of voting for Mr Corbyn,to become Labour leader.
One for Habbabkuk’s file who seems v interested in ancestry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_David_Cameron
~~~
Had a decko at the JC and saw P William took time away from his air ambulance duties to attend a jolly with Lord Levy at the Jewish Care anniversary dinner last week. Does he support any similar event for a Muslim charity?
‘In pictures: Duke of Cambridge attends Jewish Care anniversary dinner
June 12, 2015
The Duke of Cambridge paid a glowing tribute to Jewish Care at its 25th anniversary on thursday night.
He addressed 1,500 people at the event at Alexandra Palace, praising “the real and loving care” the charity provided to thousands of elderly and vulnerable people and wishing it “mazeltov” on its anniversary.
Click here to read the full story’
http://www.thejc.com/galleries/news-galleries/in-pictures-duke-cambridge-attends-jewish-care-anniversary-dinner
Republicofscotland
“Okay Habb maybe I was a little harsh on your comment”
___________________
You’re forgiven, RoS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Im sure I read somewhere that Mr Corbyn only recieved the backing of enough supports to make the contest for Labour leader appear wide and varied.”
____________________
I wouldn’t be surprised if that was true.
Perhaps the electors in the leadership election believe that Labour would not get re-elected on a Jeremy Corbyn-type prospectus.
I happen to believe that that is true but it would nevertheless be a pity to have to take my word for it – it would be much nicer if this idea were put to the test in 2020 in order to let the electorate prove it.
However, every cloud has a silver lining.
If indeed – as you say – Corbyn does not become leader and the Labour Party in 2020 is a mere right-lite imitation of the Conservatives, then would this not provide a golden opportunity for “Left Unity” or something similar to sweep into power?
So a right-left test there will be, whether or not Mr Corbyn becomes leader.
Phil and others interested in tomorrow’s March: I’ll do my best to meet up with others tomorrow. It will be harder at the start. For anyone interested, please ring me on my mobile oh seven nine one eight – six three four one four six [mods-cm-org – changed digits to words to save Iain Orr’s phone from getting spammed] any time from now onwards. Once I’m outside the Bank of England around 11.00 – 11.30 am, I’ll find an identifiable position and ring people. For meeting at the end of the march I suggest the focal point is the small Jeremy Corbyn stand. I’ve nothing to do with it, but I know it will be there from this message from the Jeremy Corbyn team:
TEXT BEGINS
Join us on the national End Austerity Now demonstration – this Saturday, 20 June at 11:30am, meeting near Bank Station, London.
Jeremy will be speaking at this national demonstration and you can help the campaign by:
Coming on the march – meet near Bank at 11:30am.
Handing out leaflets on the march. Find us at the junction of Queen Victoria St and Bucklersbury and we’ll give you a pack of leaflets to give out.
Come and join our stall at the end of the march.
Bring friends or come and make some friends!
We’re a small team, so please bear with us if you contact us and don’t get an immediate response. TEXT ENDS
Shame on our government.
‘EXCLUSIVE: MoD confirms Britain is arming Saudi Arabia in Yemen conflict
June 19, 2015
Britain’s Ministry of Defence has confirmed it is providing technical support and arming Saudi Arabia in its ongoing war against Yemen, RT has learned.
An MoD spokesperson said the UK’s assistance to Saudi Arabia includes providing “precision guided weapons,” but added the British government had been assured they will be used in compliance with international law.
Anti-arms trade campaigners condemned Britain’s support for the Gulf monarchy, claiming the UK cares more about arms sales than human rights and democracy.
RT contacted the MoD to ask if British weapons are being used in Saudi airstrikes on Yemen and if the UK is providing assistance to the Saudi-led coalition.
An MoD spokesperson replied: “The UK is not participating directly in Saudi military operations. We are providing support to the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces and as part of pre-existing arrangements are providing precision guided weapons to assist the Saudi Air Force.
“The use of these weapons is a matter for the Saudis but we are assured that they will be used in compliance with international law.”
The MoD’s response confirms suspicions held by anti-arms trade campaigners that Britain is providing support for a war that top Yemeni academics based in the West have branded “illegal.”’
/..
http://rt.com/uk/268324-uk-arming-saudi-yemen/
It is interesting to note that it is not only the UK but also Denmark which has swung to the right in the recent general election….
“The MoD’s response confirms suspicions held by anti-arms trade campaigners that Britain is providing support for a war that top Yemeni academics based in the West have branded “illegal.”’”
____________________
Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to why (and as from when) those “top” Yemeni academics live in the West and not in Yemen, where their talents would surely be sorely needed?
Republicofscotland
Yes, it is but unfortunately the way I see it was indeed the Land Reform Bill and the Scottish Governments stated aims to take over the CE that were the main reasons for the loss of the referendum. These reforms will never be ALLOWED to happen.
New land reform policy proposals bring in some superficially helpful measures but when you get down to the nuts and bolts vague wording appears to favor the wealthy land owners (with not enough to encourage community interest and too much encouragement of the development of land for economic gain). So land reform in reality is negligible while land prices continue to rise and the opportunities shrink. Its formulated this way to maintain the status quo.
Iain
I’ll hopefully see you at Corbyn’s stall. As long as I don’t have to wear a badge or listen to three hours of speeches. 🙂
Iain Orr, Phil,
Iain, thanks for the info (your comment at 18:18); hopefully I’ll see you both tomorrow.
Good stuff. Why not join the Labour Party and seek nomination as a candidate for parliament. Labour used to be the party of trades unionists and intelligent people, so you’d qualify on both counts.
But what neither the present labour party nor you, I beleive, are willing to acknowledge or oppose is the genocide of the British people by mass immigration and multiculturalism. In London the process has gone so far that when Michelle Obama visited Britain she seems to have been greeted exclusively by immigrants and a couple of token Europeans, David Cameron and Prince Harry.
But this issue is the key to any future success for the labour party, now that UKIP stands exposed as a fake opposition like the BNP.
@Habby
It is interesting to note that it is not only the UK but also Denmark which has swung to the right in the recent general election….
The right being for restricted immigration, and the “extreme racist far-right” being for a total ban on immigration (and they got 21% in the Danish election).
Canspeccy, do you think that humans should be permanently segregated by race? Or is it just who breeds with whom that you’re worried about?
Speaking of immigration, one wonders how the Scotch nats feel about the rapid displacement of Scots by immigrants in their great cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh?. Will these so-called nationalists be as complacent as the English as their their own people become a minority in their own capital city?
“Labour used to be the party of trades unionists and intelligent people”
______________________
That reminds me that I’ve been meaning to make a point about SYRIZA.
Pay attention, everyone.
Do you realise that the leadership of SYRIZA (ie the MPs, central bureau, etc) contains few if
Canspeccy, what I mean is, in he future, when humans return to Earth from habitats within the solar system or even from nearby stars, should only British astronauts and their descendants be allowed back to Britain, only Pakistani-descended astronauts to Pakistan, etc?
What about on spaceships or in space habitats? Should laws be maintained to prevent interracial breeding?
any “workers” or “peasants”?
They are all middle-class professionals – engineers, lawyers, university lecturers or professors, former politicians of other parties….etc.
That explains a lot.
CanSpeccy, 7:03 pm:
Canspeccy, when do you ever NOT speak of immigration?
Johnstone.
I know it seems an impossible task to reform land ownership/use in Scotland and I’m no fan of Fergus Ewing,and his kowtowing to the Duke of Buccleuch,of whom it’s said fast tracked his windfarm application,if proven Ewing shoukd be sacked.
But land reform will take a long time to instigate, with the likes of David Cameron’s father-in-law Lord Astor who owns a 20,000 acre estate on the Isle of Jura,calling the reform a “Mugabe style land grab.”
But its not all doom and gloom the Community Empowerment Bill in Scotland makes it easier for communities to take control of land and property,for the good of the people.
http://www.thenational.scot/news/marco-biagi-each-community-knows-its-needs.4162
But overall I agree,a step further is required.
@ Clark,
Christ Clark, your questions are so contaminated with your own prejudices that it seems virtually pointless trying to disabuse you.
But I will say, as I have said repeatedly before, here and elsewhere, that I am staunchly for the conservation of human biodiversity. But diversity is the product of separate evolutionary and cultural development. So diversity depends on continued separate development.
The best thing, really, Clark would be for you and the other small number of Britons who wish to live in a racial and cultural melting pot to go and live in Florida, Toronto, Sydney or some such place, and leave Britain to the Brits.
CanSpeccy
I’m very fond of Denmark (perhaps not for the same reasons as you, though) and have a particular liking for Anders Fogh Rasmussen who is a splendid fellow (not to be confused with various other political Rasmussens!).
To call him Anders “Fog of war” Rasmussen would be to do him a grave injustice because his contribution to Denmark extends far wider and deeper.
It seems to be largely forgotten that the much more left-leaning John Smith looked like a shoo-in before his untimely demise. Blair came grinning to the surface, and assumed the mantle.
It’s also worth remembering that the Tory/ Murdoch press was so fed up with the corrupt, sleazy Tories by this point, that they were past caring about a change of government. Blair/ Mandelson had gone to great lengths to assure Murdoch that his interests would not be interfered with.
As ever, the support of the mainly Tory press is the most important factor for any prospective leader.
CanSpeccy
Toronto????? Have you ever been to Vancouver?
@ Clark
Canspeccy, when do you ever NOT speak of immigration?
Quite often, actually Clark. Did you not notice my comments the other day on Craig’s post about Tim Hunt? I spoke extensively in support of Craig’s contention that there was nothing in what Tim Hunt had said for anyone to take offense at.
However, it will amuse you to know that I have managed to combine the subjects of both the abuse of Tim Hunt by politically correct sadists and morons with the genocide of the British people by mass immigration and multiculturalism in a single post here. It’s one of my better pieces, though I say it myself.
Incidentaly, Clark, do you think genocide is a subject that should not be mentioned in polite society, or what?