You might think that the Blairite Labour MPs would stop anonymously briefing and leaking against Corbyn, at least for the duration of the general election campaign. You would, however, be very wrong. The Blairites are so consumed by hatred, and so incensed that anybody should offer a political alternative to neo-liberalism, that they simply cannot stop. As ever, the right wing propagandists at the BBC are only too delighted to provide a conduit for their rage-fuelled accusations.
This, however, is stunning. The BBC Newsnight “policy editor” has just been tipped off, by two of the usual anonymous Blairite MPs, that Corbyn has stooped so low as actually to ask people to vote Labour, as part of his vile plot to seize power. I am not making this up. Chris Cook of Newsnight has actually just published this:
Two Labour MPs suggested to me he is trying to maximise the popular Labour vote to help bolster his argument for staying on in the event of a defeat.
How very dare he? Corbyn is trying to maximise the popular Labour vote? Surely that must be illegal or something?
The fact that Blairites now brief against Corbyn that he has the temerity to increase the Labour vote, after they shrunk it for two decades, is stunning evidence of how pointless and embittered the Blairites now are.
Most recent opinion polls show that Labour are already regularly above the 30.4% Ed Miliband’s Labour obtained at the last election, and on an upward trend. Which does not mean they are going to win, by any means. But it is very likely Corbyn will indeed increase the Labour vote, which is a rather awkward fact for the BBC and other MSM narrative.
The Tories will probably get their Pyrrhic victory in England and Wales on June 8th, but the harsh reality of Brexit is going to send their popularity plummeting with extraordinary speed. I have no personal doubt that this will lead to Scottish Independence becoming a fact within the next three years. I also hope that Jeremy Corbyn stays on to complete the task of purging Blairite influence and giving the people of England and Wales the chance of a political alternative that respects human decency.
” Which does not mean they are going to win, by any means.”
Managing success will be his problem, not managing defeat.
Someone who “respects human decency” wouldn’t appoint Stalinists to run his campaign.
https://capx.co/corbyns-campaign-chief-is-an-apologist-for-tyranny/
I know Andrew Murray. Seems a decent sort of chap.
Andrew Murray: a man who has repeatedly praised the murderous Stalin, the despotic tyrannical regime in North Korea and was a member of the Communist party for 40 years until December 2016. Decent? I would like to know your definition of indecent Craig.
When Corbyn holds such dubious and anti-democratic individuals close in his inner sanctum, it mirrors his own warped weltanschaung. The voters will, no doubt, deliver their just verdict accordingly.
Get off your high horse Andrew. How many Tories are in support of Saudi Arabia and other States that have zero respect for human rights?
Or Labour
This is an extraordinarily silly statement. ‘Stalin’ did much that was, by any measure praiseworthy, for a start his term of office included the defeat, by the Red Army of the Nazis. It is also true that he was ruthless with his political opponents- unforgivably so in the eyes of many who sympathise with the, for the most part, socialists and communists who he had jailed or killed . But his ruthlessness was as nothing compared with the ruthlessness of the South American dictators supported by our Tory governments, dictators whose heirs are still in power, greatly to the satisfaction of professional anti-communists whose support over half a century for genocides in Guatemala and Colombia has run to providing British military assistance to the death squads.
Say what you like about Andrew Murray but while The Establishment in Britain was falling over itself to assist on the attacks on Libya, Syria and Iraq- and doing so for the most sordid of motives- Murray was using all his energy to preserve peace. Any rational definition of decency would rank Murray’s actions far above those of Corbyn’s opponents-the warmongers and child butchers.
As to the “despotical tyranny” in North Korea its origins are obvious enough- they lie in the terrible suffering inflicted on the country by the US and its allies/satraps and a consistent refusal to allow south Koreans to reunite with their brethren to the north.
Give you one guess where Oliver Kamm stands on Iraq, Libya and Syria.
“South American dictators whose heirs are still in power” – the only two heirs who come to mind are Raul Castro and Nicolas Maduro. And are you seriously suggesting that South Koreans would like to be ruled by Fatboy Kim?
Nothing in your post about the large number of friends of the suspiciously right-wing Henry Jackson Society in the Labour Party then, Andrew? Now there is a front of dubiosity and anti-democratic thinking .Still-Blairites to the fore, eh?
‘‘Stalin’ did much that was, by any measure praiseworthy’
…only in the eyes of revisionist communists. A very small select number of people, although some of them now have the levers of power in the Labour party. Which is why Labour will lose this election by a very significant margin.
@ Andrew Manners May 15, 2017 at 21:51
‘..Decent? I would like to know your definition of indecent Craig.
When Corbyn holds such dubious and anti-democratic individuals close in his inner sanctum, it mirrors his own warped weltanschaung. The voters will, no doubt, deliver their just verdict accordingly.'[
Be interesting to know quite what your ‘Weltanschaung’ is; shall I hazard a guess?
I ‘suspect’ you don’t find Isr**l’s atrocities (Gaza, Lebanon, etc) to be ‘indecent’ (never mind ‘Crimes Against Humanity’).
I suspect you find the UK’s involvement in attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. a ‘Crime Against Peace’?
Etc. – I’ll let you respond,; show your ‘True Colours”.
Communists are democrats; you’re getting mixed up with Bolsheviks, who sold their souls when they suppressed the Kronstadt mutineers in 1921. Liarbour did the same thing in 1922.
Philip Hammond, the Tory Chancellor, said at the weekend that we are the “natural partner” of a real-life, genuine Communist regime. If you don’t like having someone who once said something complimentary about Stalin lurking within the opposition election campaign, what do you make of our own Government selling us out right now to a current Communist country?
Did you note that the author of that muck is Oliver Kamm?
How would you define a Stalinst?
I might say it is immoral for anyone to be involved in a campaign who thinks one country invading dozens of other nations and racially subjugating their populations for economic exploitation for decades or even centuries. Would you agree with that?
Stu,
I perfectly agree with your last comment. You are, of course, aware that it disqualifies the whole Tory Party and is a perfect description of the British Empire? Also a perfect description of Israel, although it only colonised one nation.
Don’t forget the Golan Heights! (Two thirds of it, anyway.) That’s a sizeable part of another nation.
There’s also our very best friend, the good old US of A, which took vast swathes of Mexico – stolen outright, without even the pretence of justification- to become Texas, “New Mexico”, Arizona and much of California. That’s while they were completing the process of genocide against maybe 20 million of the original inhabitants, of course.
They paid them £15 million though. If you’re a bit bored and have 15 minutes to spare, Alistair Cooke did one of his Letters from America on it. The whole anthology is brilliant – i’m slowly working back and just got to 1979!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b040bxln
I rather enjoyed Gore Vidal’s quip that the Mexicans were taking back their northern provinces an inch at a time.
The article you yourself quote demonstrates that Murray isn’t a Stalinist.
‘He [Murray] writes (p. 74): “That things happened in the USSR which were inexcusable and which ultimately prejudiced Socialism’s whole prospect is today undeniable. Whether Communists in the capitalist world could or should have done more than they did is much more contentious.”’
The “things” Murray refers to are obviously atrocities which occurred under Stalin. So Murray says the opposite of what the author of the article claims. But you know what? The author is Oliver Kamm. So that’s not surprising.
I’d look into Kamm a bit if I were you, before you start linking to him here. You’ll generally get nothing but belly laughs.
if things like the collectivisation of the peasantry were atrocious, was not the enclosure of the commons in England and Ireland an equally atrocious (albeit slower) precedent? If the famine in the USSR 1932-1933 was bad, does that mean that the Tsarist regime was as culpable for the one in 1892? How about the Raj managing a famine death average of a million Indians a year 1876-1901? If the Bengal famine of 1942-1944 squibbed off three million people at the same time that Aktion Reinhard did another three million, does that make the nazis Churchillian or Churchill a nazi?
Industrial states kill on an industrial scale and the ideology they profess makes little if any difference to the numbers of dead. Ask the Vietnamese or the Iraqis or the Palestinians or the real Americans and real Australians.
And these terrible crimes of imperialism excuse what Stalin did how?
He was a senior member of this lot until last year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Britain
So perhaps revisionist Marxist Leninists apologists would be a better description.
…who opposed reactionary imperialists, imperialism and their running dogs.
This may be a reference to the unofficial electoral pacts which have been reported in some constituencies where local Labour members have proposed campaigning for SDLP or Green candidates if they are more likely to defeat the Conservative candidate. Three members of the South West Surrey Labour Party have been expelled for supporting a pact to overthrow Jeremy Hunt’s 28,000 majority. This, of course, means they are not trying to maximise the popular Labour vote.
In context, it isn’t a reference to that.
I would hope in the long term that Labour will abandon the unionist claptrap and ally with the Scottish nationalists, just as Gladstone did with the Irish nationalists in 1866, and stop running candidates in Scotland.
How would allying with the Scottish nationalists electorally do anything to get rid of Conservative MPs in Surrey? In fact, allying with the Scottish nationalists electorally is another instance of not trying to maximise the popular Labour vote.
I fear that turning the good people of Surrey away from Toryism is a long term prospect.
Possibly.
However, giving people the prospect of voting for one anti-Conservative candidate with an increased possibility of their winning or reducing the Tory majority helps to make it more short-term, even if it fails to maximise the popular Labour vote.
In 1886?
“The Blairites are so consumed by hatred”
Possibly not as much as those who rely upon second hand accounts from a journalist working for the much vilified BBC.
Next time anonymous labour sources brief against Corbyn I shall remind you that you don’t believe such things. This is a new scepticism on your part.
You’re the one who tells us the BBC is not to be believed. I somehow doubt that those briefing against Corbyn would say anything so daft – there are plenty of genuine things to say but I shall lay off until after the General Election as will most sensible people.
There is every chance that the Beeb did just make it up. On more up best news
Here’s brian may
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=uVbmqaYhC5I
I think it’s lacking context. The aim Corbyn is accused of in relation to his campaign strategy, campaigning in safe seats and tory marginals, is trying increasing vote share rather than trying to maximise seats. Seen through the prism of a Blairite thinking it makes sense, but it sounds either idiotic or nasty to most.
Don’t try to look through a blairite prism – you’ll only go mad and become completely incoherent to everyone else 😉
Is this Blairite/Third way prism the one with US$ marks etched inside it so as to change all into greedy fuckers, or in Blair’s case ‘murderous greedy fuckers.’?
Craig said: “The Tories will probably get their Pyrrhic victory in England and Wales on June 8th”
I wouldn’t lay money on that one.
To keep up the pretence of ‘democracy’, in this election campaign, more and more people are now hearing about the policies of Corbyn & Co for the first time.
At this juncture I wouldn’t dare predict who will be prime minister on 9th June.
Particularly with what’s gone on in France, with the Macron puppet being installed as President (which will probably result in a full-blown revolution in France).
Corbyn should have conducted a full Stalinesque purge of Blarite scum in the Labour party when he became leader. Had he done so, there would be no traitorous dogs in the party to provide these Establishment stooges in the media with such quotes. There would be plenty of embittered has-beens, of course, but no MPs, let alone senior shadow ministers, to act in this perfidious manner.
Hope you’re not a member, Glenn. You won’t be one long if you are.
Why do you think I don’t put my proper name down here? 😉
Expect you’ll be reported in any case, just to let the bloodhounds loose.
They can chase their tails if they like – I’m more than happy to waste their time.
If you were an active member Glenn you would know that it would not be possible for Corbyn to carry out a ‘Stalinist purge’ even if he was so inclined. The leader does not have those sorts of powers. Most of the machinery is still in the hands of Blairites. Reclaiming the party will be a long project for the members to see through. An SDP type defection might be a good thing (which is why it probably wont happen)
I know, Philw. It’s a nice thought though, wouldn’t you agree? Efforts in that direction should be made in any case. Blairite scum should be eliminated from any position of influence, and moves made to deselect them. Kicking every last red Tory out of the Labour Party would be entirely sensible.
Better to let them with and rot slowly, and relaively quietly, given their media access. No point chucking them out faster than you can reclaim their electorates.
Leaks aren’t always a bod thing. Last week they leaked the Labour Party Manifesto a fortnight early, it was in the headlines, first story in the news, everybody was talking about it. If they’d waited and released it as planned chances are a lot of people wouldn’t have noticed.
Looking through my Labour Party account (8th article down on the Briefings link from the home page – perhaps JSD might wish to apologise for accusing me of lying when I said I was a Party member) I found the following from Corbyn’s Chatham House speech:
“There is no need whatever to weaken our opposition to Russia’s human rights abuses at home or abroad to understand the necessity of winding down tensions on the Russia-Nato border and supporting dialogue to reduce the risk of international conflict. ”
For once I agree totally – perhaps some here might wish to start to show some opposition to Russia’s human rights abuses at home or abroad? It would appear that like me Jeremy is not one for brushing the abuses of the Putin regime under the carpet.
But it is easier to tackle human rights abuses at home: privatisation and exclusivity of health services, austerity for the poor, lack of houses, crippling university fees, crippling household bills, abuse of Muslims, no jobs, all leading to a growth in ailments like rickets and consumption, which were thought to be a thing of the past. That’s the immediate task of Labour and not to point out what is wrong with other countries until we get our own house in order. Wouldn’t you agree?
Yes I would but I might argue about the means to achieving those ends – but I have never seen any reticence from you or many here (or Mr Corbyn for that matter) on making pronouncements on foreign affairs. Of course home for my wife and my children who are all dual nationals is in part Russia – families can have their foot in more than one camp unless you are Norman Tebbutt. I have noticed however a distinct unwillingness on your part to show any opposition whatsoever “to Russia’s human rights abuses at home or abroad” – but following Jeremy you can always convert as well. Perhaps you might wish to join in condemning the regime for its arrest of those delivering a petition complaining about the treatment of homosexuals by Putin’s pet assassin in Chechenya?
I think I might have some Russian blood in me, Gospodin Goss perhaps, but I can recall too when in this country there was blatant discrimination against gays, with derogatory epithets like ‘puffs’ and ‘homos’. I was not even out of my apprenticeship when I read Oscar Wilde’s ‘Dei Profundis’ a moving account of how he was betrayed by fellow gay and establishment figure, ‘Boysie’ aka Lord Alfred Douglas. The persecution of gays, gypsies or Jews should never be tolerated. However, as Lord Alfred Douglas demonstrated, not all gays are decent people.
Russia used to be very tolerant of the gay scene in the days of Wilde and up to the revolution which as you know followed the First World War give or take a year. I am not a psychologist but it seems to me that after a war countries with big losses need to procreate and that may account for intolerance of LBGT street parades. Being heterosexual I have difficulty getting into the skin of someone of a different sexual identity, except when I am writing about gay culture, which you have to attempt and leave to posterity the extent to which you have succeeded. With the losses Russia suffered in the war procreation may be a logical reason why Russia is averse to sexual practices which cannot replace the lost in battle. Perhaps if there were no more wars . . . but that’s wishful thinking.
And not just easier, nothing has contributed more to Putin’s enormous popularity in Russia than the identification of his opponents with the US and NATO. The Russian people are quite capable of running their own affairs, if we want to influence them we should do so by setting an example of good government, of social equality, of the equal treatment of all and, above all, desist from issuing threats to exterminate them in nuclear war.
Difficult “to weaken our opposition to Russia’s human rights abuses at home or abroad* for those who never expressed any opposition in the first place?
Which ones? Will Corbyn agree to a reciprocal deal, full employment say in return for the Russians ending support for the ionising occupation?
“Two Labour MPs suggested to me he is trying to maximise the popular Labour vote to help bolster his argument for staying on in the event of a defeat.”
I’m trying to get my head round this. I’m assuming it means something, tactically speaking. At a guess, they are pre-gaming the (assumed and desired) defeat by focusing on seats, rather than any popular vote. So, this might mean they realise JC might do ok in the popular vote – better than Miliband perhaps – but still lose some seats, and they don’t want this vote share to become important in any leadership election … Ah I give up. If Nu Lab ever had any strategic minds – and there is considerable doubt – they’ve all fucked off to the private sector. We appear to be left with their researchers and office managers, who don’t really have a clue about anything much. For one, they appear to have forgotten that the leader generally has to go out and get some votes during an election, unless they are dictators, or Theresa May.
I always said those 48% pols were baloney. Glad I don’t have to give my money to PNAC\Tony Blair, as I promised to do if wrong. I still wouldn’t bet against a coalition Government, though sadly that drip whotsisname in the Libs is a Tory, and will form Government accordingly.
Context is Everything. I wonder how many commenters have actually read the article and whether Craig has understood the mathematical-statistical point being argued by the Editor. Refute that.
A. Yes and Yes.
And yes, I know I’ll sound like the record’s stuck when I repeat (yet again) that Corbyn gave an incredible speech to Chatham House last Friday, a speech in which he basically said that Uncle Sam can go get lost.
Some commentators on this board derided me for pointing out that there was then suddenly a massive ‘hack attack’ that was reported in all the news headlines.
Corbyn was the first high profile western politician for more than 30 years to openly give the finger to Uncle Sam.
The rest of these politicians are craven cowards and absolute traitors.
Like ‘President’ Macron in France: not worth spit on the pavement.
Jacques Chirac.
Craig, this is not aimed at you, it’s aimed for anyone else who may be tuning in.
France has always been an independent nation. Post WW2, France refused to join NATO, and as a member of the UN Security Council was able to influence key decisions.
At the time of 9.11, France was described as “cheese eating surrender monkeys’, etc, because they refused to join America in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Do you remember ‘freedom fries’?, etc.
The sad thing is that political France has now been completely taken-over by the psychos in Washington.
And now the Americans have come up with a new definition of who’s a terrorist. “Nonstate actors who use violence for political reasons for a political goal and haven’t been supported by the US.” This is so the CIA can supply them with arms.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/05/state-department-renamed-al-qaeda-not-a-terrorist-organization-can-receive-cia-supplies.html#comments
But Rob, the MSM would have preferred to fascinate on a slight change in the weather, later opening times at some Bradford corner shop, a change in dustbin collection practices from Sheffield Council – anything, it doesn’t matter – even if there were no cyber-attack.
Surely you’re not naive enough to think the MSM would be forced to give wall-to-wall coverage on Corbyn’s speech, unless something more important came along?
Whether you like Corbyn or not, what he said last Friday was quite remarkable.
And then you’re going to believe all this total nonsense about a hack attack.
What are you paying these spineless, criminal egits for?
Everyone of them should be put up against a wall and… prosecuted.
(ha!)
Rob, I don’t disagree for a moment that it was a remarkable speech. Remarkable in that the leader of a major political party actually had the courage to tell the truth!
I do like Corbyn, by the way, and shall be voting accordingly next month.
Shame you did not actually take into account a single word of my reply with your response, but instead just repeated your original point.
It makes for dull conversation Rob. Ideally, I would respond to you, and you respond to my response. If you’re just going to keep saying your original point over and over, I can either repeat my response to it and get nowhere (as appears to be the case), or sadly conclude that you’re not up to a reasoned discussion about anything.
glenn_uk, fair point, and as always my apologies for not responding.
I’m banging on about Corbyn because his recent Chatham House speech is totally unprecedented in modern history.
You’ll hear not a whisper from the presstitutes.
And you’ll hear not a whisper from me, because I’ve just finished a 16 hour day and I’m totally knackered.
Let’s hear it from all the Tory voting landlords, who do feck all and just rack it in from their poverty-stricken tennants.
These landlords are even proud to be labelled ‘vermin’.
That’s how dumb they are.
Thanks Rob. And agreed, it was a very good speech indeed, highly notable for the remarkable content, and it goes without saying that the MSM would never, ever dare to even comment on it in more than passing, let alone have the courage to quote it and discuss it.
The speech
http://press.labour.org.uk/post/160582006344/jeremy-corbyn-speech-at-chatham-house
and a video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGzPo8Wx1n0
May 12th 2017
This is untrue. Blair took over from John Smith,Ising as close to his politics.
Labour was showing over 50% in the po!!s.
By 1997 Blair has reduced this by 20%: enough for a stonking majority.
But Blair reduced the labour vote from 1994 onwards. That is 23 years!
It seems to me that John Smith has been mythologised massively in comparison to tony blair, and that he wouldn’t have been much different; was basically just as much New Labour. Apparently it was john smith who was instrumental in starting off the prawn cocktail offensive (or sucking up to the city of London) and he was very much the ‘bankery’ side of the argument in the party (as opposed to eg Bryan Gould at the time); he was also instrumental (along with mandelson and blair) in pushing labour towards a pro-Europe stance (the main reason for the existence of new labour (and really part of the same effort as the prawn cocktail offensive (because that’s what the bankers wanted labour to do before they accepted them)). And contrary to the myth that says he refused to go to Bilderberg so they killed him, it was actually Smith who was up for Bilderberg and attended several meetings before his death.
This is based on (vague) recollections from the excellent work of Robin Ramsay eg The Rise of New Labour http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster63/lob63-new-labour.pdf
or The Clandestine Caucus http://powerbase.info/index.php/The_Clandestine_Caucus (for a more overarching history of anti-left organisation through the 20th century.
If I’ve remembered wrong or if anyone has contradictory evidence, please let me know.
The voice of reason, I’m really shocked that labour members want to sabotage mr Jeremy Coburn popularity, because they think like conservatives. Why isn’t this information in the media or the news? because they are all corrupt! Shame on them all. School yard politics!!
It’s the labour Rights job to keep left wing leaders out of government. They all go to Washington to learn how to do it.
I totally agree although I retain some hope for a miracle in this election.
Have some more positive news;
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/three-days-100000-young-people-register-vote/amp/
Cant find the headline now but here’s a pic of it from Brian’s soapbox
http://brianmay.com/brian/brianssb/pix/17/Independent_under_25_votes_690x592.jpg
This election is the chance for young people to get their own back on brexitinh grandparents let’s see if they pickup the challenge
Wouldn’t be surprised if the Blairites in some areas manage to ‘lose’ some postal votes collected from the party’s voters.
Meanwhile the 4 Liberal Democrats and 1 Labour councillor on Perth & Kinross Council have decided they would rather put the Tories in power than the SNP. They would rather reward the party whose councillors and candidates tweet about violence against the FM or make racist jokes about African people being cannibals. The Tories now distinctively orange hue doesn’t bother them.
Do you think someone told them about their SNP MP referring to them as “wanks”?
Just a thought.
Well if they’d rather help to power the party whose people like posts by Britain First and tweet anti-Muslim remarks then I wouldn’t refer to them as good guys.
To be fair Craig, on this one you are going a little far. Reading the article, the question is about Corbyn’s strategy of not focusing on marginal constituencies for his visits. So really the quote is suggesting that Corbyn is trying to win the largest share of the national vote possible as opposed to the largest number of seats possible. That’s a questionable argument (I think Corbyn is doing well to go for the huge crowds, something May cannot possibly hope to emulate) but nevertheless it does make some kind of sense, as opposed to no sense whatsoever.
Huge crowds? Aren’t you now going a little too far?
Have you been to Jeremy’s rallies?
No. Of course Corbyn’s crowds must be bigger and more genuine crowds than May’s. But are they to be described as huge? I could be happily wrong since I’ve not been assiduously following Jeremy’s campaign.
Hi reel guid
I was Happily reading Mark Doran’s Blog earlier
And U can Happily Confirm – as I have noted for many weeks now – that Corbyn does indeed Attract Huge Crowds
Happily.. this makes me Happy 🙂 🙂
https://markdoran.wordpress.com/2017/05/14/tory-tory-tory-3/
Brian
Yes those are very good crowds. With the BBC doing their usual thing. Just like indyref1 when Yes supporters filled Buchanan Street one Saturday and the BBC web pages showed a photo of four people.
reel guid
Aye the bbc were at it big time during indy ref 1 ..i was at a few of those events..
https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-tale-of-two-rallies/
I think the crowds in Leeds yesterday was rather huge for a political speech. Even local BBC TV seemed impressed. There have been various other rallies which seem pretty big to me
https://www.thecanary.co/2017/05/15/the-extraordinary-moment-in-corbyns-campaign-that-even-the-bbc-couldnt-ignore-video/
Shatnersrug
Thanks for the Brian May short Video
Powerful Words. I was never a big Queen fan, but May ( Brian ) has been growing in my estimates.
Big Anti fox hunting activist. And Astrophysicist
The narrative has been right from the start that Corbyn is going to lose big. Come election day, though, that could play into his hands, with many floating voters concluding they have nothing to lose by voting Labour and many potential Tory voters not being enthused enough by the charmless, robotic May to bother adding to her apparently inevitable landslide.
What’s really behind this election, I think, is that the nation’s true powerbrokers are desperate for a new Leader of the Opposition – as a way to crush the lingering vision of a nation working together rather being at odds with itself and most of the world, and to further their wicked foreign policy objectives. That’s why they and our corrupt newspapers are kicking Corbyn, even while he is far behind in the polls (although it is also possible that they know the polls are false and part of their propaganda effort). May is merely another puppet to help them achieve the crushing of positive vision for Britain, and she will also be tossed aside in due course.
Tom, I think we might be in for a surprise next month.
Theresa May is a complete muppet, which is why they’re trying to keep her hidden away.
Under normal circumstances, the fact that a muppet like May immediately embraced the likes of Donald Trump would be political suicide.
But they held hands.
How nice.
Totally agree; I’ll be wearing my ‘Je suis Corbynista’ T/shirt (along with my ‘Remember the Liberty’ as we approach the 50th anniversary of the Isr**li attack on the USS Liberty (if anyone would like a T?shirt re either, let me know, and I’ll work out the cost and arrange stuff)
The article doesn’t make very much sense. Four different explanations are offered for Corbyn’s campaign strategy. Firstly that he isn’t visiting some of the seats that this Dr Hanretty views as important because he thinks visiting solid Conservative seats instead is a better idea. Secondly, that he isn’t visiting them because the local Labour candidates have told him to piss off. Thirdly, that he’s trying to build up his own support in solid Labour seats. Fourthly, that he is playing a TV game trying to get himself seen as the popular leader as much as possible.
Interesting that the third explanation, easily the most personally damaging one, is the one that the Labour right is choosing to big up and obviously leak to selected journalists. They couldn’t leave such damaging material until after the election. They couldn’t emphasise an explanation less damaging to the Labour Party’s election prospects. Oh no. They have to leak it anonymously now, like a pack of nameless dirty jackals. Remarkable that Cook is so explicit about it. It isn’t Hanretty’s view of the matter, or Cook’s. Cook doesn’t know why. He’s fair-minded enough not to pass judgement on it. “This pattern has been noticed by some of his critics who wonder if this is about life after 8 June. Mr Corbyn, some Labour insiders say, is visiting safe seats where Labour activists are over-represented to bolster his place in the next Labour leadership race. Two Labour MPs suggested to me he is trying to maximise the popular Labour vote to help bolster his argument for staying on in the event of a defeat.
Now I wonder who these critics and Labour insiders and Labour MPs are, who are too cowardly to come out and say what they mean, instead of dripping their filthy poison anonymously into the ears of reporters. They have quite obviously only talked on condition that they are not named.
They are a bunch of masked right wing scumbags who prefer Labour to lose and are willing to do all they can to help that along, rather than see a left wing Labour Prime Minister. That’s who they are.
You’re welcome to comment all you please on my postings. Comment is free. But keep your anonymised advice to yourself.
I am not interested in the opinion of a nameless, mendacious, yellow-bellied little weasel like you.
I would think accusing someone of lying without any evidence or making clear what they are lying about is pretty yellow bellied and weaselish. Might I suggest you get some counselling for your anger management problem.
You know as well as I do, unless you are as stupid as you are cowardly, which I suppose is pretty likely.
I’m not angry in the least – just contemptuous of someone who continually whines and snivels from the sidelines then runs away into the dark like a yellow weasel. If you really are a member of the Labour Party, which I sincerely hope not as it can well do without cowardly scumbags like you, then here is a perfect example of the right wing, folks – someone who talks a lot of poisonous drivel and hasn’t the courage even to do so under his own name, just like the people who talked to Cook. Couldn’t have a better illustration that the right isn’t worth the dirt you scraped off your shoe this morning.
They are a bunch of masked right wing scumbags who prefer Labour to lose and are willing to do all they can to help that along, rather than see a left wing Labour Prime Minister. That’s who they are.
This is the historic role of the Liarbour partei.
What is in the UK Labour Party’s manifesto?
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/05/13/lman-m13.html
UK Labour Party adopts pro-business, militarist election manifesto
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/05/13/mani-m13.html
RD is the same sort of “Labour Supporter” as that other self-proclaimed “Labour Supporter” Oliver “Each day brings worse examples of why it’s essential, for party & country, that Labour gets hammered in this election” Kamm ! 😀
I sometimes wonder if RD is really OK (in both senses !) 😀
Not a supporter but a member for many years – I don’t wish to see Labour hammered in this election.
In fact I am taking every opportunity to encourage those whose heart is in the campaign 100% to get out and promote the Party rather than wasting their hot air here. I have also registered my support for what Corbyn said on human rights abuses in Russia – I subject about which I care deeply.
CM,
Not only do we have the spectacle of BITTERITE/BLAIRITE MPs slagging off how popular JC is becoming – the crowds are now looking like those Sanders energised last year in the US Primaries, but we also have Labour CLPs asking members not to publicise the fact that JC is visiting certain Constituencies. Allegedly he’s drawing far too big a crowd and the Police have security concerns given many visits happen with less than 24hrs formal notice.
Now, forgive me, but this is an actual election and the ELECTORATE has a right to see the main political parties leaders out on the stump. However, it seems the BITTERITES/BLAIRITES are opposed to large gatherings on non-CLP members. Its as if we are not actually supposed to vote Labour, or only the Labour Party they deem acceptable – well fuck em, I’m out and about canvasing in South Males this week and feedback is now getting positive, despite the crap on the MSM. Indeed, judging by Leeds turnout today, if we can get more under 25s to register to vote in Cities with big student populations – Cardiff and Swansea being two such cities, we may be in with a chance. And however they swing it, a Labour vote above 33% – that’s actual non-neoliberal Labour, would be stunning when compared to the Legacy-Left Parties in Europe, most of which have been eviscerated by new Leftwing groups. So, bring it on, Labours polling is rising and a 35% vote would blow my mind completely!
Chris, I know you said it in your post, but you didn’t explicitly express it.
I’ve lived in France for years, and can tell you more about what’s going on here than in the UK (revolution is now inevitable in France).
But what’s happening in the UK, and particularly in Wales?
What’s going to happen next month when we have the general election?
Likewise – there are few marginal in Wales especially gioven polls indicate we have now fallen behind the Tories.
@ Alex Westlake May 15, 2017 at 22:59
I’d be very interested to know what YOU know about the abominable, Luciferian Fascist Juntas installed by the despicable US administrations?
Waste of time giving you info – at least till I get a response. Earn your bonus!
Honest question. How seriously should we take allegations of Lucifarianism\Satanism at the highest, elite levels? Until reasonably recently, it’s not a subject I’d considered in great detail, working on the assumption that incomptetence, careerism, and corruption were in fact the bedrock of neoconism. However, apparently – and mostly unreported – child abuse networks are being rounded up in the US, literally hundreds of people so far, so I’m increasingly wondering about these ‘conspiracy’ theories.
Mitterand, apparently, liked a bit of Lucifer. And Ted Heath, well I’m not sure I can post what he was, allegedly, involved in. But, it wasn’t nice.
@ Hieroglyph May 16, 2017 at 00:19
No need to be coy: ‘Sir Edward Heath WAS a paedophile, says police chief: Astonishing claim is made that the former PM is guilty of vile crimes ‘covered up by the Establishment’:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4238188/Sir-Edward-Heath-paedophile-says-police-chief.html
There are good, decent people in the police force, but all too often they are afraid to speak out, for various reasons.
I will happily fill you in on info which should leave you in no doubt about the evil Luciferian bast**ds running this world.
I will happily fill you in on info which should leave you in no doubt about the evil Luciferian bast**ds running this world.
Please do. I am not someone who just dismisses everything as ‘conspiracy theory’. Naturally, I won’t click on any links at work.
Ted Heath has been alleged to have been involved in worse than that – not that I personally give it much credence. J
Bevin writes:
” It is also true that he [ ie Stalin ]was ruthless with his political opponents- unforgivably so in the eyes of many who sympathise with the, for the most part, socialists and communists who he had jailed or killed .”
______________________
The above is the sort of stuff written by hard-core Marxist-Leninists who try to defend Soviet communism by laying all the blame for a regime founded on and characterised by terror, repression, slave labour and class-genocide exclusively at the door of Stalin. It is merely a reprise of the line taken by Khrushchev – sent by Stalin to carry out the class-genocide in the Ukraine in the early 1930s – at the 1956 Party Congress and serves only as an alibi for the totalitarian nature of the Soviet regime from its very beginning.
Since the (partial) opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s, it has been clear that the vast majority of the people done to death, imprisoned, exiled and used as slave labour in the Soviet GuLag were NOT Communist functionaries or members of the Party but ordinary, non-political people: members of other parties (at the beginning of the regime when they still existed) and those who had the misfortune to be classified as “class enemies” deserving of extermination (“bourgeois”, clergy, peasants…and so on. This is fact, which can only be denied by the sort of people who still insist – despite the fact that even the non-Communist Russian govt has now fessed up – that the Katyn forest massacre was carried out not by the Soviets but by the Germans.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
” ‘Stalin’ did much that was, by any measure praiseworthy, for a start his term of office included the defeat, by the Red Army of the Nazis”
___________________
That is another common device used by apologists of Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism, which in essence seeks to justify/excuse Soviet terror in general and Stalinist terror in particular by claiming it was solely responsible for the defeat of Nazism. The defeat of Nazi totalitarianism is cynically instrumentalised to become a defence of the Soviet regime.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That perverted use of the defeat of Nazi totalitarianism reposes on the following mistaken way of looking at the “short” 20th century (to use Hobsbawm’s term).
The short 20th century is portrayed by apologists of the Soviet regime as the theatre of the struggle between fascism and communism – a struggle won by communism, which outcome justifies Marxist-Leninist communism as practised in the Soviet Union.
However, the short 20th century should more accurately (and more honestly) be seen as the the theatre for the struggle between LIBERAL DEMOCRACY and TOTALITARIANISM, the latter represented by both its communist and fascist variants.
And to end on a more jocular note, I very much liked the reference to “Stalin’s term of office” – makes him sound like a post-war Western European politician, doesn’t it, at the mercy of the whims of the electorate… 🙂
Communists hate to be reminded that Stalin and Hitler were allies for the first year and a half of WWII
@ Alex Westlake May 16, 2017 at 00:36
Spot on! Amazing how folk conveniently forget historical reality. I couldn’t agree more.
Luckily, there’s people (or bots) available to straighten them out.
So – who backed Hitler between the wars? Right – the Western Banksters and Corporations.
Prescott Bush (grandfather of George W Bush, and father of George H W Bush) was a director of a Nazi front bank (right into WWII).
In 1933, US Banksters and Corporations were impressed with Hitler and Mussolini; thay saw that their programs would benefit them, if implemented in the States. So, no slouchers, they plotted a coup (the so-called ‘Business Coup’ – talk about
euphemisms). They were deadly serious – but they made a big mistake (no, they didn’t eat the stuffed peppers) – they chose a very well-respected, bemedalled Marine General (Retd), Smedley Butler, to lead the coup.
But though very well respected, particularly among the military, Butler had learnt his lesson (he later wrote a short book – ‘War is a Racket’). He was a true Patriot. When he was approached to leas the planned coup, he initially agreed, and played along just long enough to find out who was behind it.Then he exposed it in the Congress. The plot was skuppered, but none of the plotters were jailed or even pilloried – they were too high up.
All pukka stuff – documented. Great someone like Alex Westlake reminds us of how easy it is to forget (if we ever knew) ‘historical reality’!
To call the USSR and Germany allies is to misrepresent a situation which any honest historian understands. The USSR was left with no alternative in 1939 but to seek a non-aggression pact with Germany. Does anyone dispute that this was the case? There was a Trotskyist argument to be made but none other holds any water.
As to Habbabkuk’s rehearsal, for the umpteenth time, of the theory that
“… the short 20th century should more accurately (and more honestly) be seen as the the theatre for the struggle between LIBERAL DEMOCRACY and TOTALITARIANISM, the latter represented by both its communist and fascist variants.” The key word here is ‘variants.’ Variants of what? From what did ‘totalitarianism’ arise? From the French Revolution? From Robespierre and de Maistre? from Danton and Burke? From Hegel?
This is a theory of pure idealism and which bears no relationship to actual material reality. The reality is not only that the Soviet Union actually emerged from history, not as an idea but as a response to specific events and as an attempt to solve specific problems, one of which was imperialist warmaking. But that fascism was capitalism’s response to the challenge of communism. It was the remedy cooked up by a ruling class which was ready to abandon its claims to legitimacy on the basis of representative institutions and to get down to the brass tacks of killing those challenging capitalism and ruling by naked force.
To suggest that Hitler and Mussolini and their imitators were not backed fully by the capitalists and the ruling military castes in Germany and Italy is to deny the fundamental bases of both movements. And not to recognise the motives behind the backing that the Haute Bourgeoisie and the traditional authorities, including in Italy the Royal Family, gave to the fascists is to ignore not only what lay behind the fascist seizures of power but what they did in power. Their first actions were to smash the working class movements, to imprison and murder leaders of the socialist movements and critics of capitalism and to ally themselves with business and industry, setting up the Military Industrial Complexes of the day.
That is what happened: the First World War gave rise to worldwide disillusionment with imperialism and the capitalist system. There were massive strikes all over the world and there was enormous support for the revolution in Russia. This put the fear of God into the ruling classes; chastened by the bloody incompetence that they had exhibited during the war, they reached out for assistance and found it in the demoralised thugs organised by nationalists and capitalists to break strikes and break up political meetings held by socialists. As foci for the hopes and fears of the wealthy and property owners the fascists soon became the favourites of the authorities, the police, the judiciary, the civil service, the aristocracy even the Royal families. Hence their quick and untroubled ascent to power not through elections but thanks to the facilities offered by the authorities.
Nothing could be less like the process whereby the Communists came to power- against the resistance of the ruling class, in the face of the opposition of capitalism.
The basis of the totalitarian theory is simply idealism-a belief in the primacy not of deeds but of ideas; not of practice but of theories. As such there is little to object to in it-if people want to believe in fairies or the sheer force of the idea let them do so.
But in the hands of apologists for imperialism, such as Habbabkuk, the theory is a very convenient way of doing two things-first it equates the working class movement with its enemies and secondly it takes capitalism and imperialism out of the C20th equation. The struggle between the exploiter and the exploited disappears, in its place we are offered capitalist society, which is seen as normal, inevitable and a natural emanation of human nature and society. Its sins are to be accepted, its injustices to be swallowed. Nothing can be done about it, because to attempt to change it is to start down the slippery slope which leads to totalitarianism. It is a very convenient view of the world for the careerist or the cynic. Unfortunately for the planet and its inhabitants it is disastrous: there must be change, in the immediate term because there is enormous suffering in the world and in the longer term because the species, and other species, will die within a few decades unless we take a grip on our economies and our war machines and take them out of the hands of cannibalistic profiteers.
What the Tories are attempting to do is to argue that to vote Labour, for socialist policies such as nationalisation of natural monopolies and the rebuilding of an efficient and all embracing system of healthcare, is to start down the road to ‘totalitarianism.’ Or that to vote to put an end to military adventures launched at the whim of the Pentagon would be to offer succour to despots and tyrants. Never mind that most of the wars we invest billions in are fought at the behest of tyrants and despots. We are constantly asked to contemplate the crimes of Stalin, who died in 1953, and asked to look away from the crimes recently committed with our complicity in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. To make no mention of the butchery our proxy-Rwandan and Ugandan- armies are perpetrating in the Congo. Or of the siege of the Shia provinces of Saudi Arabia, actually occurring now and like the massacres, the human caused famines and epidemics in the Yemen, being carried out with our government’s assistance and encouragement.
Bevin,
I think you are crazed by ideology. The Soviet invasion of Poland, in collaboration with the Nazis, was a terrible act of aggression. Or do you claim that did not happen either, like the appalling Soviet massacre at Katyn?
@ Habbabkuk May 16, 2017 at 00:25
I can’t think of a Fascist who would not agree with you. BRAVO!
Paul Barbara. Aren’t you saying that anyone who agrees /concurs with our resident minor prophet on this is ipse facto a Fascist?
@ Kerch’ee Kerch’ee Coup May 16, 2017 at 01:45
There’s an old saying, ‘if the cap fits, wear it’.
The latest story about the Ba’ath party’s(Bechir Assad’s) crematorium for burning executed prisoners seems a follow -on from the earlier HRW’s atrocity story and may form a screen for a US/UK invasion/incursion from Jordan as the Damascus area is finally being cleared by the Syrian army.
What information on ISIS has Tump supposedly shared with Lavrov that endangers Americans, according to CNN? Could it be the active involvement of the US/UK and the Maccabeans in the varios Takfiri/Salafist groups?
Takfiri = Kafir. If you deny another believing Muslim’s faith, your own faith is negated.
A bit like Blairites denying that Corbyn is a good leader for the Labour party.
By allying, confederating with USUKIS the Takfiris have already thrown out the Guidance given them in the Qur’an. So what if after they abandon reliance on God, they then trust in the propaganda of the western MSM to give them success?
Giyane,
http://www.arabwomanblues.blogspot.com
and http://www.uncensoredarabwomanblues.com on Feb17,2017 set it out quite well. Sorry Leila Awad seems to have almost given up after some ten tears of excellent posts , along with great recipes
Dennis Thatcher was pissed at John Major for winning the 1992 election when som foresight would have provided the expectation of some of the events in that following Parliament.
What if the current efforts by corbyn were to simply build the Base in time for the next election after the more tangible negative consequences of brexit and neoliberalism?
Yours kindly,
Shax
I notice that fair weather friend The Guardian is rapidly changing it’s tone on Corbyn and Labour. Much in the same way it gradually became less condemnatory of the Tories a few years ago. They’re hedging their bets of course, but also a relaible indicator that the polls aren’t as favourable to the Tories as they appear. The winds are changing.
They’ve – finally – figured out that their hatred actually helps the candidate. So, they’ll feign balance now, using the usual techniques of framing, untraceable lies and condescension, just a little more sparingly.
I’ve finally figured out that the MSM is just the neocon Pravda, to be laughed at and\or ignored. Weird that I ever thought otherwise.
Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, Israel and Rome starting next week will take the media attention away from this election.
Then he is in Brussels for a NATO meet and finally a G7 in Sicily.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/14/donald-trump-puts-saudi-arabia-at-top-of-itinerary/?
Theresa sidelined in the corporate MSM for a while?
Delete the NATO meet. That is for defence chiefs.
Here is Petras on the Oded Yinon plan to divide Muslim countries in the Middle East and the US’s part in its fruition.
‘For the past 20 years Washington has aggressively pursued the age-old imperial strategy of ‘divide and conquer’ throughout the Middle East, Southwest Asia and East Africa. Frustrated at its inability to control national policy of various independent nation-states, Washington used direct and indirect military force to destroy the central governments in the targeted nations and create patchworks of tribal-ethno-mini-states amenable to imperial rule. Tens of millions of people have been uprooted and millions have died because of this imperial policy.
Washington’s strategy of fragmentation and secession follows closely the “Greater Israel Plan” set forth by Israeli politico-military writer Oded Yinon in February 1982 and published by the World Zionist Organization. Yinon maintained that the key to Israel’s domination of the Middle East rested on fostering ethno-religious and regional divisions. Following the Yinon Plan, in the first instance, Tel Aviv signed accords with Jordan and Egypt to break-up Arab regional support for the Palestinians. It then proceeded to fragment what remained of Arab-Palestine into small warring enclaves between the West Bank and Gaza. Israel then sub-divided and settled wide swatches of the West Bank with the collaboration of the corrupt ‘Palestinian Authority’ under Mahmoud Abbas.
/..
http://dissidentvoice.org/2017/05/us-and-turkey-the-balkanization-of-the-middle-east/
Great post Sharp Ears
Gotta travel for truth…n Facts
Divide and rule should be turned back on the US. After the dollar collapses the US should be divided into five or six independent states, but make sure each state gets what other states want, be that timber, coal, grain, tobacco, hydro-electric power, beef etc. Then when they kill abroad it’ll be other Americans again.
“The Blairites are so consumed by hatred, and so incensed that anybody should offer a political alternative to neo-liberalism, that they simply cannot stop. As ever, the right wing propagandists at the BBC are only too delighted to provide a conduit for their rage-fuelled accusations.”
Christ, you sound like a Guardian comment thread made flesh.
The ‘Blairites’ aren’t undermining him, Craig, they’re letting him fail all by himself. This article is merely one small part of operation: get the excuses in early.
No need to blaspheme in your exasperation.
The more the Tories smear and denigrate Jeremy Corbyn, the greater the support for him. The Tories are overdoing the attack.
Yesterday, the venue booked for him could not accommodate the numbers so it became an open air meeting,
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/864136143524306944
Also reported on Sky News but not on their website. The Labour manifesto is being launched today.
One of the most stupid comments I’ve ever seen. If the “Blairites” aren’t undermining him, James, how comes it that they are giving anonymous briefings to Newsnight editors? Eh?
Spot on the money.
As for this racist Tory councillor and magistrate, rather than be suspended by Warwick District Council, he should resign or be removed from both positions.
http://news.sky.com/story/conservative-councillor-suspended-over-racist-eurovision-tweet-10877411
He has his own software company (having crossed out ’employed by wife’ on his register of interests. he says ’employed by Computer Science Corporation ?? Who they) so he could be better employed putting his skills to good use dealing with the cyber hack. Perhaps a few too many sherries on Saturday night allowed his guard to slip and his true racism to emerge on Twitter.
https://estates4.warwickdc.gov.uk/cmis/
https://estates4.warwickdc.gov.uk/cmis/
This is the outfit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Sciences_Corporation
Mr Harrington will have to amend his register. In April CSC merged with HPE Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services to form DXC Technology!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett_Packard_Enterprise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DXC_Technology
I should imagine one has to keep one’s wits about oneself in the rapacious computer software corporate world.
Ruth Davidson will be signing him up to stand for a Scottish seat. He sounds just her type of politician.
Corbyn switches from socialist to tory when he moves north of the border. Curious.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15287634.Jeremy_Corbyn__I_will_fight_tirelessly_against_independence_vote/
He was in favour of a referendum just a few weeks ago.
He hopes for a return to the Labour domination of the Central Belt so he can start taking Scotland for granted again.
Being against Scottish Independence does not make someone a Tory. Personally I would love the UK to stay together and reform itself, and would vote accordingly if I lived north of the border, but I would rather live in Mordor under the malevolent eye of Sauron than suffer another five years of Tory rule.