This is the story of some squalid little men (and women), but it is a vital insight into the nexus of the political and corporate media elite. The Guardian, New Statesman and Huffington Post today all run major stories around a “focus group” study in Nuneaton which revealed that voters think Corbyn is “scruffy” and “old-fashioned”. This is deemed front page news.
The publicity was obviously supposed to coincide with Labour losing Nuneaton council, its most marginal council surrounded by Tory territory, in the council elections on Thursday. However Labour held Nuneaton. That did not stop the New Statesman article, by “research” authors James Morris and Ian Warren, from going ahead with the immortal phrase “While today’s Labour party has no hope of representing Nuneaton”. Err, it is still in control of the Council.
The publication is also timed to coincide with a revolt by Labour MPs at this afternoon’s meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party. The idea is that the “research” would prove that election losses were Corbyn’s fault. That is toned down now after they beat the Tories outside Scotland, but I am told that Progress MPs are still briefed to flourish the Guardian and raise this “research” today. That is meant to get this “research” onto the evening news.
But when you look at the research very closely, you realise that it is absolute rubbish. James Morris and Ian Warren are total charlatans.
Firstly, the whole sample is 16 people. That is right, 16 people. They are supposed all to be ex-Labour, though there is little evidence of that in the transcripts. What is not in dispute is that they are all Tory voters.
So you have 16 Tory voters, in two groups male and female. But out of 16 people there is not one retired person. Not one young voter. Not one person unemployed. And every single one is in a nuclear heterosexual relationship with children. Every single one is a homeowner.
Furthermore their sources of information are (by order most mentioned) the Daily Mail, Sky, the BBC and the Sun. Only one out of 16 mentions the internet as a source of political information.
People who voted Tory constitute already just 24% of the general population. Exclude retired, tenants, single, childless, gay, young and internet savvy people as well, and you get down to a deliberately chosen 5% of the population from which to choose your sample. You then get these 16 carefully chosen, blinkered right wing bigots into a room. Nevertheless something still goes wrong for your research. Two of the 16 (in the female group) state a firm intention to vote Labour next time (while a larger number state they would consider it).
So what do you do if you are a charlatan like James Morris or Ian Warren? You leave that in the transcript, which no journalist will ever read, but you exclude the fact that 2 of the 16 will vote Labour next time from your findings! And you studiously lead the conversation with the group round to the idea that others who are considering voting Labour next time might be more likely to do so with a change of leader.
The idea that locking two carefully selected groups of totally unrepresentative right wingers into a room to self-reinforce their bigoted opinions, in any way constitutes real research, is utterly laughable. The only conclusion is that having carefully selected the people in all of the UK the most likely to dislike Jeremy Corbyn, they dislike Jeremy Corbyn. Next week, a group of young unemployed people from the Easter Road will give their views on David Cameron.
Needless to say the so called journalists who have published this nonsense did no investigation whatsoever of the farcical nature of the “research”. They just published the press release, as witnessed by the fact they all use exactly the same quotes from scores of pages of transcript.
An important question is who paid for this. Obviously it is a Blairite production, but where did the money come from? Greenberg Quinlan Rosner research are credited, and they are extremely expensive. I asked Ian Warren who funded it. First he replied “I did”, then when I asked him who funded Greenberg Quinlan Rosner he stated there was “something sinister” about the question. I asked again twice, but answer came there none. Astonishingly, “who paid for this” did not occur to the mainstream journalists who uncritically published Morris and Warren’s nonsense.
This is a deeply sinister story. Right wing Labour figures hope desperately their own party will lose in Nuneaton. So they commission (and presumably pay for) ludicrously skewed research to show Jeremy Corbyn caused the loss. This absolute non-news item, that a tiny selected group of completely unrepresentative right wingers do not like Jeremy Corbyn, is then plastered on front pages by their Blairite media contacts to coincide with a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting today, in order to further the slow motion coup against Corbyn.
It is actually quite sickening. All of those involved – including the Guardian and New Statesman editors – are very low people indeed.
After reviewng the various fierce denunciations of what Anon1 and I said about Mr Corbyn’s appearance, I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that early alibis are being constructed.
As, indeed, Craig seems to be doing by focussing most of his latest posts on how the MSM deal with things rather than on substance itself.
What do I mean when I say that?
It is that I think most people on here realise that Mr Corbyn is unelectable on the basis of the policies he currently espouses (he may of course trim his sails if he survives as leader). As unelectable as Mr Foot was in 1983, despite the unpopularity of the first Thatcher govt ( the Falklands notwithstanding).
Some on here probably don’t want him to win – they would much prefer to have a Conservative govt to help them give full scope to their predilection for unremitting negativity.
This explains why alibis for his inevitable defeat are being constructed – it’s all the fault of the partisan media, busily distorting and lying away and focussing on entirely peripheral issues like Mr Corbyn’s scruffiness.
It’s a nice narrative, but one with its head firmly in the sand.
@Habbabkuk (Establishment Propagandist)
One day old bean you may tell the truth, you may acknowledge some facts or historical references, but the audacity in the rubbish you post in quite breathtaking, particularly with regards Corbyn, and indeed Labour Party history and electoral history. Now, do remind what event happened on 26th March, 1981. A little reminder, THINK ‘Gang of Four’.
I’ll leave it there, but your propaganda does not go unchallenged by me, nor your inability to compare apples with apples, for its a truism in most you post your analysis is based on apples and oranges, which are quite different fruits I believe, but I guess in your book they are fruit nonetheless, with no bloody differences.
Mr “Roberts”
That was an impressive rant, but could you demonstrate with reasoned argument why it is “rubbish” to say that Mr Corbyn is unelectable on the basis of his current policies?
Which policies, the policy outlines Mr. Corbyn was elected on by the Labour Party membership as of September last year, the new non-neoliberal/neocon policies being drawn up now, or the policies contained in Labour’s June 2015 Manifesto?
Lets see, Trident renewal, he’s opposed but its being worked on now by the Party.
UK’s membership of Europe, he’s come out now in support of this, but the Party is allowed to campaign either way.
Health, new consultation underway with the membership, MP’s and experts.
Corbyn’s Labour Party policies are mostly a work in progress and won’t actually be issued in their entirety until about two years before the next election, where upon they may, or may not make it into the Party’s 2020 Manifesto.
However, we actually knows what he believes in, usually sticks to his core beliefs and actually seems to want to give some moral leadership, gathering than just offering electoral economic bribes as our Tory friends and Blairites firmly believe in. Lets say we are not doing ‘bread and bloody circuses’ anymore, which no doubt you enjoy greatly.
Mr. Robert’s was both an actual stage play and Movie staring Henry Fonda and Jack Lemmon – I have fond memories of it, perhaps you can Google IMDB to find out.
“It is that I think most people on here realise that Mr Corbyn is unelectable on the basis of the policies he currently espouses”
____________
Which are?
Please elaborate on the policies that in your opinion make Mr Corbyn unelectable.
Thanks in advance.
As a supporter of Mr Corbyn, surely you do not need me to tell you what his policies are?
Habb.
Just as I suspected, you either haven’t got a clue or you can’t be bothered to search for them. The latter I suspect being the truth.
So I’ll help you out a wee bit.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news-14-5/the-jeremy-corbyn-policies-that-most-people-actually-agree-with-10407148.html
http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/why_i_m_standing
As for supporting Corbyn, I’d much rather prefer Corbyn as PM, than a nasty party politician as PM.
However North of the border, Labour are finished, until independence is declared, hopefully sooner than later.
“As unelectable as Mr Foot was in 1983, despite the unpopularity of the first Thatcher govt ( the Falklands notwithstanding).”
Well, in spite of constant negative media propaganda about Foot, Labour under Michael Foot was consistently and vastly ahead in the opinion polls and was well on track to win the next General election, until the Falklands War which occurred in Spring 1982 (and the General Election occurred in Spring 1983), so I’m not sure on what basis you make this claim.
The basis on which I wrote is the following:
1/. The first Thatcher govt was extremely unpopular a couple of years into its mandate: a doubling of VAT, rising unemployment, rising inflation…..
2/. The Falklands factor certainly existed, but the war itself took place a year before the 1983 election.
3/. Michael Foot and the Labour Party were unelectable in 1983, the proof for which being that they were not elected (and not elected by quite a margin).
Its 1983 election manifesto has been called the longest suicide note in history by many, including many not at all hostile to Labour.
Habb,
In three words, Bollocks, Bollocks and more Bollocks.
In 1981 the Labour Party split, and its now recognised that the devil spawn of the SDP was largely a CIA initiated and sponsored entity – the Yanks remember were trying to start WWWIII under Reagan.
During the split period support for the SDP climbed and ate into both Thatch and Foot, then comes the Falkland’s, had we lost – and it was so bloody close – do you think Foot or the SDP would have benefited, or, the election itself would have been held off until exactly 5 years in the hope of a Tory recovery.
The fact is Thatcher choose the election timeline and her decision was influenced greatly by the ‘Falklands Factor’, something most UK political scientists and historians discuss often.
As for the Manifesto, well lets go ask the person who claimed in 1983, in hindsight, if the Manifesto was that bad.
Obviously, I actually know the last living author of the Manifesto and he still seems to have his finger on the button, particularly with regards the UK opting out of the EU, which is strange, because in 1982-3, the author and the good Doctor were at each others throat, now they agree that the EU ain’t brilliant.
I could go on, but the Falkland’s factor swung it for Thatcher, but again, as ever you utilise your own ‘Revisionisms’ to reinforce your own crass beliefs. Just a shame they don’t fly here, something to do with most actually lived through the period and actually have rounded educations.
Habbabkuk is exactly right (16:01) The alternative narrative is being constructed in advance of Corbyn’s inevitable demise. No, it wasn’t that the vast majority of the electorate rejects socialism. It was that the people really did want socialism but the “corporate media” brainwashed them against it.
And they will carry on like this forever, because really they are happier in their alternate reality.
Corbyn is advocating social democracy. His platform broadly equates to that of the SDP circa 1983-87 and with that of the SNP, today. The electorate in Scotland voted for the SNP precisely because they advocate social democracy rather than neoliberalism and the Labour Party from Blair onwards has been seen to be advocates of neoliberalism – basically, of cuts to jobs, homes, the future.
People, though, are susceptible to massive propaganda – that is why propaganda is useful. Look at the tabloids in the 1980s, Look at the demonisation today of Liverpool Football fans wrt Hillsborough. Look at the shameful hatred being projected by the media against ‘migrants’ – as though ‘migrants’ were to blame for the economic situation and indeed, for everything! UKIP will not act in the interests of ordinary people – they are ultra-neoliberals as well as racists – but they and their media pals have been very successful in re-directing public anger. And propaganda is precisely what all this is. I think you are correct, sadly, in that Corbyn and Co in the context of the Labour Party leadership are unlikely to survive politically, but to be frank, his own Right-wing (Blairites) never gave him/them a chance.
I don’t see “the media” projecting hatred towards migrants. On the contrary, I see a lot of bedwetting from the main media organisations about the need to take in more migrants. Tune into the BBC, C4, even Sky.
I also don’t see the UKIP as having ‘re-directed public anger’ (presumably away from something you would rather it was directed towards). Rather it has reflected it. Again you cannot comprehend this because you view the proles as simple when compared to yourself and easily victim to evil propaganda. It doesn’t even occur to you that your thinking is exactly in line with establishment thinking, or that all the weight of propaganda is directed from your side.
I could expand on this and engage in a proper exchange of views but I see you have resorted to “UKIP are racists”. Again, exactly in line with mainstream political and media propaganda. So unless you retract that statement, and until you are prepared to accept that the working class communities you clearly look down upon for having the temerity not to support their own replacement by cheap third-world labour are perfectly well aware by themselves and their own experiences of the detrimental effects of unlimited immigration, there is no point in engaging with you. Maybe then we can also discuss the main reason for UKIP’s existence – as the only major political party reflecting more than half the population’s views on the EU.
It’s not just “the proles” as you disparagingly call working class people – in fact, in my experience the most easily brainwashed tend to be the highly-educated middle class. I think public anger in Scotland has directed itself at the appropriate targets – the toffs, Big Finance, and so on – the neoliberal system – rather than at ‘migrants’. So I look up to the working classes (of which I am a member) of Scotland for their refusal to swallow corporate propaganda.
And your contention wrt the impact of immigration on wages is deeply contested by the evidence, which is far more complex.
Just turn on your TV or open your ‘paper and see how many positive stories there are about anyone who opposes neoliberal economic policies anywhere in the world and look for positive narratives about migrants. You will find some of the latter, but overwhelmingly, it is the opposite. And it is truly shameful.
Oh, and yes, UKIP promotes a xenophobic, racist approach, lowest common denominator, very effectively re-directing public anger away from Wall Street/City of London/on-shore money laundering et al and towards ‘migrants’ and ‘Muslims’.
Here’s the problem. If one is in a party whose potential leader’s policies were put to it’s membership and they voted a leader based on that then that’s that. J Corbyn is that leader.
You may . not be happy with a party espousing policies you don’t agree with, then chose another or start your own.
Anything else is usurpation, and that would render you part of a party truly unelectable and with policies designed to snare voters but which are not genuinely held .
Thanks Craig – excellent post.
Decent solid working-class people in Nuneaton used to joke that the Labour vote there was weighed, never counted; hope Ken Loach has something to say.
A man’s mind is known by his talk and Mr Ian Warren likes to ‘talk the talk’ by ‘disarming’ the opponent in an attempt to subdue and occupy; subdue and occupy rings far too many bells for me.
Mr Warren cries ‘This reluctance to step into another person’s shoes speaks to a much wider problem we have in our politics, which has been all too apparent with the election of Jeremy Corbyn.
His win seems to have motivated rival camps to form, each side recruiting people via social media with the apparent supremacy of their wit and wisdom. Neither side has made any effort to really understand the motivations of the other side. For those opposed to his election, it’s enough to say that Labour will never win another election: the Corbynistas are apparently naive “morons”. Meanwhile, supporters of Corbyn are comfortable labelling UKIP supporters as “racists”, and anyone within the party who disagrees with them as “Tory” or “scum”. (Or both!)’
Instead of disarming I would suggest Mr Warren has paralyzed his own mind.
Is that Ian Warren the Election Consultant?
Bernie Sander’s does not utilise Consultant’s, had he done so, he’d not have campaigned in New York State, but campaign he did, and Corbyn seems a chip off the old block. The Consultant’s destroyed Labour and now are trying to destroy Corbyn as their employment potential takes a serious nosedive, hence, their willingness to be engaged by the Blair camp – talk about snouts in the trough!
As the first line of Craig’s post says
“This is the story of some squalid little men (and women), but it is a vital insight into the nexus of the political and corporate media elite.”
The trolls have tried to turn this into a discussion of how Jeremy Corbyn dresses ( exactly what trolls do). Please could all these diversions be modded out as off-topic?
They tried all this stuff, that is the Establishment types and their Tory hanger-ons, against Gandhi. Guess what, Gandhi led India to independence. Remind me what attire he wore again?
Remind us who assassinated Gandhi.
Was it the British authorities?
Irrelevant?
Yes (just like what Gandhi wore)
That is nonsense , of course, but even if it were not, no one was obliged to reply to the “trolls”, were they?
Throwing the word “troll” around when you disagree with someone and are losing the argument is a little dim, isn’t it.
Actually, instead of ‘Modding’, let us remind ourselves that the most popular mover star and comment star of the early part of Cinema was a man attired as a Tramp, namely Charlie Chaplin – who for his left-leaning politics was kicked out of Hollywood, like many other left-wingers were ejected. So, lets not denigrate, lets celebrate because it’s the bloody men in their US$1,000 blue suits that have actually been lying to us. But also, it seems anyone in a suit and tie impresses some posters – a case of never giver a sucker an even break!
Are you kidding? $1000 won’t buy you even half of a Brioni suit.
I have just resubmitted this CM post on CIF on The Guardian – lets see how long it lasts:
RebeccaRiotsXV6 Just now
Does The Guardian actually produce ‘real’ analysis anymore, or does Ms. Viner believe its The Guardian’s duty to spin, usually spin against Corbyn.
Here’s one I found earlier and it makes more interesting reading than this:
Cxxxg Mxxxxy
May I respectfully ask you to consider the Guardian’s latest and entirely dishonest piece of anti-Corbyn propaganda?https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/05/ian-warren-nuneaton-charlatan-fabricate-front-page-news/comment-page-1/#comment-595648.
Comment removed several times already – WE ARE WATCHING YOU CENSOR US?
Stuck or, as is actually the truth, in a non-self imposed exile, something to do with Cameron’s racist immigration policies.
We have noticed, which is why I believe many refer to you as ‘The Master’, as found on Doctor Who – he was an evil genius when John Pertwee had to deal with the bugger. Oh and Mr. Pertwee wore some funny attire, and I could never get into his replacement I’m afraid.
And the Guardian isn’t allowing any discussion on the article
Funny is that, and if you post an honest and factual Comment its removed quickly.
Here’s one just deleted from their Spin Story on how well the Scots Tories did last week under Ruth, despite a near record low percentage of the vote:
morsekey2
posted 21 minutes ago
“Wee butch Ruth is nothing but a tory stooge, an irrelevance, a nuisance.The papers will get tired of photographing her in every manly position they can think of, how about one where she is trampling on a sick/handicapped/unemployed person as tories do.”
Ruth Davidson’s got Scottish Tories back in the game. But nowhere near power
I have to say that while I agree with the criticism of the Guardian’s praise for Ruth Davidson, and that the talk of a Tory recovery has been seriously overblown, that comment does strike me as containing unnecessary digs at her sexuality. I thought we on the left were better than that.
I’ve enjoyed reading the various posts and adding my own modest contributions to the dialogue.
But I do feel there is something missing.
It’s a reminder of the big picture, the one that’s invisible to the peeps and sheeple.
“Herbie”, where are you in my hour of need?
It’s all about the elites and the sheeps and the peeps.
Webster Tarpley, Corbett Report awareness. Doesn’t go down well with the Elites.
Only a matter of time before the Peeps wake up the Sheeps.
Then the gloves come off. Seen it all before. Check Iran-Yemen-Saudi conflagration and gas pipeline in Turkmenistan for details.
Thank you, Anon – I feel better now after that touch of “Herbie in the night” 🙂
A hound will always be faithful to its master, no matter what endeavour he undertakes. I daresay it’s comforting, but you shouldn’t take such obedience to be an objective sign of approval, you know.
For “Modest” read “Useless”.
Why is it blairites?
I think it may be BLiarites now, getting a little left behind I’m afraid, so lets just call then ‘rightist-forces within Labour.’
Corbyn is as unelectable as Trump and Sanders were. Until they started to win elections.
These are times of crisis. The old world order is crumbling visibly. The Empire, which has developed over five hundred years is no longer dominant. In every sphere, economic and military, cultural and philosophical, Asia, Africa, Latin America… all the areas formerly dominated by the Empire, colonised, plundered, their young kidnapped and enslaved, their resources monetised and exported, the land which once afforded subsistence to millions, privatised and transformed into commodity plantations, serving the world market…the old Third World, is refusing to do as it is told by Europe and north America.
Millions of refugees, most created directly by the criminal policies of imperial governments, are making their way to the metropolitan centres where, deep instincts tell them, their birthrights are salted away in banks, palaces and museums. Their movement is such that it cannot be deterred. Sink one boat in the Mediterranean and a dozen will reach the beaches. Put a thousand in camps; ten thousand will slip into the cities.
And some among them, embittered by the treatment meted out to them, will be very angry.
The metropolitan system is falling apart internally. The glue that held it together consisted of those benefits that came to be known as the welfare state. It is a glue so thin and dilute that it no longer holds.
To the migrations add a new generation of dissatisfied, angry youth full of contempt for the life of debt bondage the usurer-government offers them, and unwilling to spend their lives as pimps and whores, bully boys for pay day lenders and hit men for the Empire.
Even the old, long settled in a society which changed only slowly and almost imperceptibly, in its political and social characteristics, are beginning to lose faith as the NHS gives out and monopolies rack rent the utilities, squeezing every penny out of consumers left, unprotected, to the mercies of a market place dominated by a few corporations, each of which has more power and wealth than the puppet governments it sponsors.
All Corbyn and the Labour party have to do, when they have got the Blairite monkeys off their back, is to find out what the people want- a fair chance in a just society, full employment, plenty of affordable housing, and the liberty to pursue whatever form of happiness they choose- and enlist their support to get it. A socialist government has never been so electable: even in America, where young people are marinated in anti-communism, there is a mass turning towards the left and socialist answers to questions that status quo politicians boast cannot be solved. The era of centrism is over. The age of extremes is upon us.
Corbyn was a reaction to the incipient corporatism of Blairism. And that, Fascism for the 21st Century, is the alternative. There is no longer any room for pretending that there is a civilised version of capitalism, it is a raging beast. Either we kill it or it will devour our liberties as it has already, as an hors d’ouevre, devoured our privacy. And taken notes on our opinions.
“Corbyn is as unelectable as Trump and Sanders were. Until they started to win elections.”
________________________
All three of them are unelectable in the only election that counts.
I note the arbiter on this board, or Establishment Toad as he should so rightly be called, shows his ugly colours once more, this time professing to be an expert on the US polity – that this beast cannot accept all major Poll findings that Bernie Sander’s would be elected President if allowed to run, be it against the Queen or Trump seems to elude him. All Poll’s demonstrate a greater than 10% lead for Sanders against Trump and has done so consistently since the beginning of the year, whilst the Queen enjoys 10% over Trump now, but its a soft lead and many a loyal Sander’s supporter will not vote the Queen, approx 20% will swing to Trump, who himself will loss votes from neoliberal turning to the Queen for safety, such as the Koch’s. But to Habb none of this matters, because he too is supportive of the neoliberal/neocon hegemony that has held sway since 1980. The kids in America have had enough, the Blue Collar has had enough, blacks have had enough, although not yet a majority of them.
Change is all about us, but the Habba is stuck in hubris unable to acknowledge simple truths, which essentially amount to we are ‘fucked off’ and actually want some change. The old die Habb, and that includes the neoliberal old guard, a new spring is in the air and these new voters don’t want the past, don’t want to be up to their eye balls in debt, don’t want to destroy the planet for COIN and power. They actually want to live, live in a world with jobs, with hope and with a future. All agree on one thing, they don’t want the Queen, and if the Queen stands against Trump he plays by his rules, he’s no gentlemen like Bernie, he’ll eat her for breakfast. And yet you instruct Corbyn, Trump and Sanders are all unelectable, even though each has overcome huge odds and hurdles.
A strange creature is the Habb, but that’s what you get when you lurk in shadows, blinded by the light.
Our resident Habba pet, forgive, has said something. He said Trump is unelectable. Wow! why would that be Habby, is it because he’s got this far and the US establishment and media co conspirators are all up in arms about it. Even his very own party does not want to support him now that he’s won.
So, Habby are you the mysterious author of the William Bennet fake? you can say so. Do you think that Trump will be ‘removed’ before he becomes president?
You have posted so much over the last two days and said so little, maybe now you would like to emerge from you under your bridge.
https://www.truthorfiction.com/bill-bennett-theyd-kill-trump-before-they-let-him-be-president/
BTW, Bevin, I suspect you’ve lifted your text from somewhere. No problem with that but you should give the source.
Looks to be rehashed and reworded from various, erm, Guardian articles. Appears to contain seams of Will Hutton and Seumas Milne. At least he makes some basic effort to cover his tracks, unlike RoS.
I might have to start paying more attention to Bevin’s long-winded diatribes.
Looks to be rehashed and reworded from various, erm, Guardian articles. Appears to contain seams of Will Hutton and Seumas Milne.
Then it should be very easy for you to post links to those, erm, articles. Do and prove Bevan a plagiarist, or don’t and prove yourself a liar.
Google the first two sentences of the second paragraph. First result.
Anyone who has bothered to read Bevin’s regular posts here can see that they have nothing in common at all with the crap in “The Gatekeeper”. For god’s sake go and read “Gardening Today” or “Pigeon Gazzette”.
Or “Gazette” even.
Bevin
radio 4 just broadcast a program about E Schumacher he wrote about economics as if people mattered
“If greed were not the master of modern man–ably assisted by envy–how could it be that the frenzy of economism does not abate as higher “standards of living” are attained, and that it is precisely the richest societies which pursue their economic advantage with the greatest ruthlessness? How could we explain the almost universal refusal on the part of the rulers of the rich societies–where organized along private enterprise or collective enterprise lines–to work towards the humanisation of work? It is only necessary to assert that something would reduce the “standard of living” and every debate is instantly closed. That soul-destroying, meaningless, mechanical, monotonous, moronic work is an insult to human nature which must necessarily and inevitably produce either escapism or aggression, and that no amount of of “bread and circuses” can compensate for the damage done–these are facts which are neither denied nor acknowledged but are met with an unbreakable conspiracy of silence–because to deny them would be too obviously absurd and to acknowledge them would condemn the central preoccupation of modern society as a crime against humanity.”
― Ernst F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful
Clearly you chronicle and interpret the effects of the current hegemonic order Bevin where the good of community is trampled by capitalist profit. Yet on a fundamental plane competing systems ultimately must harmonize or unify to play the tune of reality and continuation without chaos and destruction. In other words all things including ourselves must entangle to survive. By entanglement I describe a relationship, a love, a passion, a knowing what the other is doing without doubt, without deceit, without treachery or hypocrisy, call it what you will, in human terms it is the path we must take to overcome oppression in a holistic manner without neglecting any particular axis so that it might be eliminated and genuine social emancipation may be realized.
Who wants to remain in perpetual terror, surveillance and injustice culminating in what is martial law in an Orwellian corporate monolith.
That is the real surrogate.
A message from José Mujica for Habba & Co…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GX6a2WEA1Q
Thanks for that, I enjoyed it. Seems like an admirable guy.
It’s a 10 minute clip, of one of the most extraordinary elected presidents in modern history (and one of the most popular).
I posted this 10 minute clip at 18.48. You said that you enjoyed watching it at 18.54, 6 minutes later.
I played it at 78 rpm, Rob. 🙂
Bo, seriously, I saw enough to be impressed.
And, unlike many on here, I’m quick. Quick to understand, quick to think, quick to react. Quick to spot fakes and BS. And, as far as you’re concerned, quick to work out how many bottles you’ve already consumed.
Even North Korea doesn’t tolerate what BBC reporter Rupert Wingfileld-Hayes is claiming about its supreme leader, and the country. It took the liberty of arresting him as he was leaving the country, interrogated him for 10 hours, and made him sign a statement before he was released to go.
Made the BBC look like a ‘loose cannon” when it comes to journalism
Which is exactly what it is.
“Two of the 16 (in the female group) state a firm intention to vote Labour next time (while a larger number state they would consider it).”
Reread the transcript!
There are eight women in the group.
“Labour” is said THREE times.
But the interviewer says “So five Conservative, two labour”!
Elidor
I know there are eight in the female group. But as none of the men are switching to Labour I gave the two out of the entire 16 to be scrupulously fair.
I had not, however, picked up your excellent point that actually there were three, and the interviewer distorted it!
Craig, the interviewer gets respect from young people for his blag. And when blag becomes respected, the older generations will copy it. You inhabit a world of ethanol smelling newsprint and TV studios. What people actually do is blag. Habbabkuk blags.
The pure insolence of utter , unrepentant bollocks , i.e. Blag, is cool. get used to it.
Thanks! I wasn’t dissing you about correctly sharing the 2 among 16, I just meant that 5+2 does not equal 8. I double-checked the intro to the transcripts, and eight women did give their names.
It’s just possible that the transcript is in error, and only 7 actually said something, but it seems more likely that the three “Labour”s in the transcript is accurate and the interviewer misstated.
Not that this is remotely statistically significant or anything, but it’s at least as meaningful as anything else they extracted from the focus group for the press coverage.
So this focus group that is supposedly telling us Corbyn is unelectable is showing a 19% swing from Tory to Labour in Nuneaton, isn’t it?
Bevin
Why are you talking about electability when we have already jumped to cutting off people’s heads?
The fashion copying of Daesh beards means the new generations have given up on my / Corbyn’s ability to control the lies of the Tories.
The Tory media savvies know that the energies of the young refuse to be boxed in by corporate-think. That’s why Bigotry is fashionable, even if on the lips of recidivist reactionaries like Kunsbuegger. Tory hate is much closer to the frustrations of the young than Corbyn patience.
I like Corbyn but he is a fossil, What we need emerging from Corbyn’s protective wing is some real passion on the labour side, to counteract the false passion from a bottle of testosterone of the david Camerons. Our very own man Craig Murray has traces of the ‘rage rage against the dying of the light’, but then he edits out comments of his contributors that express passion. we do not need a controlled explosion like this. We need real belly fire, and God helps us if it comes from the Right.
I have concluded that nobody ever sees these replies but, in case you look back, I am very much in agreement with you. You are right about the beards, in Canada too, they are sprouting up all over. It’s not just Daesh either, as you know, the Houthis too are bearded warriors.
For a definitive analysis of how Corbyn’s wardrobe will affect his election chances, I refer you all to this classic Volkswagen commercial from the early 1960s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue8_Ur9prsU
Love Bug Jeremy! I like it.
The people of Moldova, tell the self appointed world police force Nato, where to shove their military hardware.
https://www.rt.com/news/342315-moldova-nato-military-vday-protest/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome
CM,
The Guardian really does not like you at all – several of us have tried to ensure this Article appears on CIF, all have been deleted. I’ve yet to be put into ‘pre-moderation’, but it’s only a matter of time before ‘pre-mod’ hell or another ban to add to my dozen thus far. And yet, Comment is Free in The Guardian and ‘Facts are Sacred’!!!!
“And yet, Comment is Free in The Guardian and ‘Facts are Sacred’!!!!”
Actually, that slogan has disappeared since Rusbridger departed, and I think was on the way out even earlier, when they started cutting back on the articles open for comments.
Hilarious, this was open for comments for about 10 minutes…
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/09/chilcot-report-iraq-war-inquiry-published-6-july
… which must be some kind of a record, even for the Guardian thesedays.
RobG.
Here the nasty party tear themselves further apart, with a bit of luck they’ll implode.
Former minister of State for Europe David Davis accused David Cameron of delaying the publication of Sir John Chilcot’s Iraq inquiry to save Blair’s reputation before the vote on June 23.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/667643/David-Cameron-Iraq-probe-Brexit-embarrassing-European-Union-EU-Tony-Blair
Republicofscotland, I’ve been leaked a sneak preview of the Chilcot Report, and will reproduce it here:
“…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………”
“……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….”
RobG.
Nice one Rob, very funny.
Meanwhile the Chilcot report is reportedly going to be released on July 6th, just don’t hold your breath . ?
Meanwhile the biggest bullshitter of all time no not Anon1, but David Cameron has out done himself this time.
“Britain’s possible exit from the European Union (EU) will increase the risk of another world war, Prime Minister David Cameron will warn in a speech later on Monday, leaving no stone unturned in opposing the so-called Brexit.”
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/05/09/464670/Brexit-Cameron-EU-Osborne-Juncker/
I haven’t read such utter bollocks, not since Lord Robertson, claimed that Scottish independence would lead to the Balkanization of Western Europe.
Habbabkuk (flush out fakes) May 9, 2016 at 16:37
“Throwing the word “troll” around when you disagree with someone and are losing the argument is a little dim, isn’t it.”
……………………………………………………..
Habbabkuk, I can’t remember you winning any argument on this blog in the years I have been here. Can you provide details for the benefit of all?
With respect sir.
Doug Sir,
Just to ram home my own point to the Habb, here’s but one post from a plethora of websites in relation to the ‘Queen Borg’ in the USA:
“Anne
May 9, 2016 at 2:46 pm
“The Clinton campaign is still trying to figure out exactly what Sanders wants in exchange for rallying his supporters to her side. In recent weeks, he’s suggested that Clinton can’t expect them to just fall in line, but he hasn’t enumerated exactly what he believes would draw them in. He hasn’t said which of his policy positions is most important for her to adopt or at least shift closer toward, or what other moves she could make that would satisfy him” [Bloomberg].
Really? It’s that hard to figure out? Where’s Captain Obvious when you need him?
I hate this game Clinton’s playing. Hate it, hate it, hate it. On so many levels, I don’t even know where to begin.
I hate that she’s trying to make Sanders the fall guy for what we all know is coming: she doesn’t want to have to look interested in the policies that drew people to Sanders – she just wants their votes and their money. And if she doesn’t get their votes, no sweat: she can just make nice with Republicans. That’ll teach us to turn our backs on a Clinton, right?
I hate that she’s not even going to stick by her “evolved” policies for longer than it takes to get the nomination, because, as we all know, “bringing the country together to get things done” means finding out what the GOP wants and giving it to them.
I hate that she’s so clearly and unabashedly using the media to do her work for her. Bernie Sanders? Who’s he? No one, if you watch network news; he doesn’t exist anymore.
At this point, if I’m Bernie Sanders, what I want Clinton to do is something anatomically impossible.”
Chris
Nuclear woman can satisfy all requests. I’m sure it won’t be the first time someone’s called her D***o Clinton. Bill said he didn’t know a blow job counts as sex. So she already has her statement ready for the impeachment session with minor anatomical alterations.
Clinton will say whatever she needs to, and mean not a single word. Sanders is wasting his time ‘giving’ anything to the Clinton camp.
As it happens, I think a Trump victory is perfectly possible. For one, he is someone with as few scruples as Clinton, and she, how to put this, may have a few issues in her past. She may also still get indicted by the Feds. Her march to victory is unlikely to be relentless. And, here’s another thought: we may mock the Republicans for voting for Trump, yet I strongly suspect he was always their best bet to beat Clinton. If he does, mayhaps the Republicans – who loathe Clinton – may not have been so stupid after all?
I suspect we will see a weird amount of political cross-dressing this year. A lot of Bernie supporters will be unable to support Clinton, for all the reasons you have described so well. Some of them will vote for Trump, because he is a maverick, and because they will see it as the only chance to stop the neoliberal status quo. (Incidentally, Trump may be a blowhard and a dickhead, but he does not scare me half as much as Ted Cruz did.)
Conversely, there will be a lot of Republicans who can’t vote Trump but would be quite comfortable with Hillary, who, before America went mad, would have been an entirely unexceptional Republican candidate.
So the winner will be determined by which candidate loses fewer of their party’s usual supporters to the other side.
I am busy reading the transcript of the 8 women at the moment and will go on to the men soon.
It’s extremely interesting. I recommend that everyone forgets the reports that have come out of the transcript and reads the actual source data for themselves. It is actually remarkably perceptive, I think.
——-
Does anyone have a different – does anyone have a sense that the Labour Party is
united?
No.
OK. I’ll ask you to write down the answer to one question. Who’s to blame more
for the Labour Party being divided? Is it Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the
Labour Party? Or is it his MPs? So just write down either ‘Corbyn’ or ‘his
MPs’. Who’s most to blame?
Where do we need to write?
Just anywhere, at the bottom of the page, wherever you like. Who’s most to
blame for this division? OK, so write one or the other down. Let’s have a show of
hands. Who said ‘Jeremy Corbyn’?
I did.
Yeah, I think –
Two. And who said ‘his MPs’? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. OK. Why do you blame his MPs
and not him?
There’s more of them.
Right.
So he’s outnumbered isn’t he to a certain –
Yeah.
All them MPs can’t be wrong can they, you know.
No.
Right.
There’s one man standing there and all of them saying ‘well actually you did it’.
But who voted him in?
Well maybe they didn’t know him.
They voted him leader.
You just kind of put it in a nutshell – who voted him in?
Who voted him leader?
So they voted him in as a leader so what chance do we stand if the MPs are voting and
then –
That’s it – even they voted him in and now they’re not prepared to back him.
Yeah, they’re not prepared to back him.
——-
You can see from that, that the transcript is quite nuanced. The women, in my view correctly, perceive that the PLP is not prepared to get behind Corbyn. If the PLP were solidly behind Corbyn then their views might have been very different.
The transcript is full of interesting and perceptive things. They don’t think Corbyn has had much of an impact because they haven’t heard much about him. (Why’s that, I wonder?)
——-
So you were saying the Labour Party’s for working people.
Yeah.
Who do you see as the Labour Party is for – the Labour Party represents?
Well historically yeah, the working classes. But I feel like in recent years that sort of
lines got a bit blurred. But I think Jeremy Corbyn’s sort of trying to go back to grass
roots Labour. And I sort of feel there’s a lot of dissent in the ranks. I feel like they’re
divided and they’re not – they’re not 100 per cent behind Corbyn. And that doesn’t
sort of instil confidence really.
What do other people – I’ll come back to both of those things you just said –
shall we just stick on the question of who they’re for and then we’ll come to that
point. Who do you think the Labour Party is for?
I agree with what was said, to be honest. You do, you think of Labour and you think
of the Working Class.
Now, is that – if I was to ask the question a different way. Is that a historic thing?
Is that because the Labour Party was obviously like founded from the working
class?
Mm.
Or is it a current thing? Do you think the Labour Party today is for working
people, for the working class?
No, I think it’s more historic.
It’s historic.
Not today.
Not today, it’s historic.
——-
The women are not very precise, but the gist of their conversation is that the Labour Party has over time turned into a lot of people only interested in themselves, that Corbyn is trying to return it to being a party for the working class, which the women approve of, and a lot of MPs are standing in his way.
I see quite a lot of cause for optimism in this transcript. I also think that if the researchers were looking to pick people to discredit Corbyn, it has not worked out very well for them.
John, if you forgive my saying so, you are missing the point.
Morris and Warren published “findings” which give an entirely different picture from the one you have correctly picked up from the transcript. They hand-picked a sample and then extremely selectively quoted that sample. So the fact the transcript does not give the picture they wanted does not hurt them at all. Almost nobody save us will read the transcripts. It is in no sense a good faith research exercise.
Oh, I quite understand that. The point I am trying to make is that, irrespective of the tsunami of bias from the media. these women have nonetheless gained quite shrewd insights into what is going on. And they have done that, while frankly confessing that they don’t know a great deal about Corbyn – which is, of course, because what he is trying to do is not covered by the media because it doesn’t suit their agendas.
And I think that that is going to carry on, reports like this one notwithstanding, you know? Because people are a lot more canny than this bloody researchers give them credit for. Corbyn’s not been in the job very long. The women are presenting an extremely accurate picture of what happened to the Labour Party under Blair and Co, and which is still very much how it still is. But it’s early days yet. Once the Blairite mob realise he’s not going anywhere, then perceptions will very likely change.
I wasn’t trying to contradict your argument. I agree with it. But I hardly think these women are the right-wing bigots that your title says they are. They emerge as pretty decent and thoughtful from the source data.
I also found the transcripts fascinating. Both eye-opening on the amount of spin that can be put on source material like that, and noting the very things you highlight.
Curious also that the male group was almost the complete opposite. Unlike the women, for them it seems Murray’s labelling of “right-wing bigots” might be reasonable. They had very little perception of policy (either Labour or Conservative), and it was just a confused view of character largely formed by media noise. This was my favourite bit, about writing the first thing that comes to one’s head about Corbyn:
The first word I’ve written down is ‘weak’ but I don’t know why I wrote that because if he has as viewpoint he tends to stick to it and will say something even if it sounds stupid saying it. I’ve just written down … and almost a bit beige, a bit sort of ‘what’s the point’, indifferent.
I agree with you, that these transcripts are very important documents. Much more so than any reporting that is based on them. I’ve now read the men’s transcript as well. I am not wholly in agreement with you – there is quite a bit of insight there, but what is most chilling for me is how views of policy, not necessarily character, are shaped by media noise. It is an excellent demonstration of how quite reasonable people, who say themselves that their information about the world comes mostly from the BBC and the right-wing media, can reach conclusions about the world which could quite easily be challenged by seeking out alternative information. An example is the need for austerity. It is almost taken for granted that austerity is necessary, and is entered into for the purpose of saving money rather than attacking, demoralising and fragmenting those who work and those who are unemployed. They may be right, and they may not be, but it is not hard to discover with a brief media search that the standard view is open to serious question.
JSM,
Does this no reinforce what many have been saying for weeks, namely the MSM and Labour Party elite (BLiarites) are creating a false narrative, one many actually believe as its spun in the media – obviously, as demonstrated on CIF, many are actually trying to point out simple truths, namely we don’t want Blair/ Tory-lite policies, we actually want left-of-centre policies, which means Labour reconnecting with its historical roots, whilst selling a more multicultural society than perhaps peers are unable to accept/comprehend – I personally think its the ‘comprehension’ part that’s inhibiting the traditional base to vote for Labour, which means addressing immigration scares, but not in a reactionary manner, rather admit pro’s and con’s and be seen to address the con’s, which can only be done by turning away from austerity and spending our taxes on the NHS, far better schools, roads and other infrastructure projects that also offer work, work that pays. Obviously, Labour’s Rightists need sorting out, and that’s for the CLP’s to do – time the greedy buggers undermining Corbyn were given a taste of their own medicine starting with Mann.
Of course it does.
Imagine these women (I haven’t read the men’s transcript yet) with a fair and objective media giving them balanced information. And all the other men and women who are not as integrated into the professional classes as these subjects appear to be. And a PLP solidly committed behind Corbyn. Then what would public opinion look like? Good thought, isn’t it?
Pity it won’t happen.
The Guardian is a disgrace! I just posted a link to your website over the Guardian’s story about Corbyn being ‘scruffy’ and the spurious methodology. It got 12 recommendations in a matter of minutes but then has been taken down by the moderators. Since I posted no critical comments just a link to your article about this story how can the post be seen as having any kind of offensive comment? The Guardian is getting to be an absolute disgrace and makes a mockery of it’s so-called claim to be a liberal bastion of freedom of speech! Funnily enough they did not take out my previous comment which was on the ‘Flying Scotsman’ story! Presumably they are ok on people commenting as long as it does not threaten their political narrative!
Interestingly I have just been on the Independent which has a similar article from the arch-Blairite Rentoul. But give credit to the Independent since in the comments section there are a number of posts which cite your article on this story to offer a counter-narrative to the actual Rentoul article. Unlike the Guardian they have not taken down these links to your article! I am starting to think that I should cease bothering with either reading or commentating on the Guardian, if I bother with a mainstream media source [I get most of my information from web sources such as Counterpunch and Consortium News] I think it would be more beneficial to engage with the Independent!
Keith, as a longtime Guardian reader myself I can say that the Guardian thesedays is a bit like being in an abusive relationship: you know it’s all wrong, but still find it hard to leave the familiarity.
I still read the Guardian every day, even though I know that most of what they now publish is total BS.
I won’t read any article where comments are not enabled. Which is most of them, these days. When I do click on an article, I very rarely read it. I go straight to the comments, where I know I will find the truth of the matter. Sadly, the Guardian now seems to be working hard to expunge the truth btl as comprehensively as they have done atl.
There are a handful of exceptions. Zoe Williams had a good piece recently, as did Gary Younge. But I do wonder how much longer they will tolerate being caged and kept as quaint pets in such an establishment household.
I’m beginning to take the number of Habba’s and Anon’s posts to be a reliable indicator of the Establishment’s sensitivity to being rumbled. If Corbyn is, as they repeatedly insist, ‘unelectable’, why would they care? Floreat Etona in perpetuum, innit?
Merely saying what I believe, Baal, not “insisting”. Would you consider it a fair answer if I said that the outrage to which my comments about “unelectability” have given rise is an indication that majority opinion on here secretly agrees?
I have yet to see a fair answer from you. But do carry on protesting too much.
We would need to discuss what’s a fair answer, Baal.
A starting point might be to establish whether the original question or point was fair.
I like rubbing it in. We’ve been waiting for a while for a true socialist to emerge. You’ve all been saying for years that what the country needs and what the country wants is socialism. Now you’ll find out the reality, the hard way.
And I’m certainly not afraid of Jeremy. I have an investment in him. I was greatly relieved that he didn’t do too badly in the recent elections. He must be handled with great care to ensure he remains in place for the next 4 years. 🙂
What you say in para 1 is entirely my view as well.
As I said many moons ago, I have absolutely no objection to Mr Corbyn becoming Labour leader; and indeed I hope he will still be leader come the next general election.
This is because too many people have been bleating on about there not being a political alternative in Britain any more – everyone is a Conservative, differentiated only by their colouring.
Well, now the bleaters have their political alternative in the form of the Socialist Mr Corbyn and the peeps/sheeple will have a choice to make.
The choice I’m sure they’ll make will, I trust, make the bleaters shut up once and for all.
I like rubbing it.
FIFY
Funny how the ‘respondents’ were all anonymous Men and Women. The article clarifies my initial doubts that they were either the worst 16 critics of Jeremy Corbyn out of hundreds, or they were completely made up. The Establishment is NEVER to be trusted.
I see you can now search the Panama papers. What is the Blair Foundation registered on 12 September 2005 in Panama by Mossack Fonseca.
But by way of balance great piece in FT today on how America is the new Switzerland. You couldn’t make it up.
Interesting. Will report in Blair Miles as and when I can actually get into the database (something weird going on at the CBC site). However, there are more Blairs than one. What would be interesting would be companies called Firerush (and Windrush, although that’s a much more common company name). Any reference to securities dealings under the name ABG LLC (though not ABG Securities LLC) or the Anthony Blair Group would also stimulate my research organ.
In fact I don’t think your Blair Foundation is a prime suspect. The current crop of Blair corporates were set up after he left office, and the more fascinating of thiose in 2010 – two, perhaps in Gibraltar.
Note: The ICIJ site is currently overloaded and only works sporadically. It crashed my PC, incidentally. And it’s not a data dump, but edited to preserve commercial confidentiality, god help us:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/managing-wealth/050916/panama-papers-data-dump-biggest-surprises.asp
Still not a lot of US tax dodgers, either.
” America is the new Switzerland”.
Why does Trump promise to “make America great again” if everything over there is so hunky dory?
Tom Engelhardt: The Real Meaning of Donald Trump
He’s a Sign of American Decline (Just Not in the Way You Think)
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176133/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_has_the_american_age_of_decline_begun/
On the other hand, Switzerland seem to be doing OK, all on its own without the E.U. That’s Independent like.
On page 9 of the group 1 transcript THREE of the eight women mention Labour as their voting intention, however this is summarised by the interviewer as “Five Conservative, two Labour” (???)
Quite right – the interviewer can’t count. And the error is highly convenient for the apparent thesis. Which is why sensible research uses blind and double blind experimental methods.
The depressing state of 21st century British democracy arguably no better highlighted than in this blog piece.
“The depressing state of 21st century British democracy arguably no better highlighted than in this blog piece.”
Yes! Who would have imagined that Harold McMillan was telling the truth when he said “You’ve never had it so good.”? It’s been downhill ever since.
As I once had to point out to “Lysias”, it’s Harold Macmillan.
Thats a very anti-semantic statement if I may say so !
http://www.independent.co.uk/news-14-5/the-jeremy-corbyn-policies-that-most-people-actually-agree-with-10407148.html
I’m with the Greens on their policy of reducing emphasis of economic growth as the outlook for sustainability with further focus on stronger policies that limit consumption alongside improvability of the economy without spending.
I read the article in the guardian and caught myself thinking that I was reading the mail. Absolutely disgusting propagandist rubbish.