212

Lead Us Not Into Oblivion

W Stephen Gilbert

The simple response of course is to blame it all on Corbyn. Let’s face it, no more comprehensive bogeyman has ever been offered to the British electorate.

An extreme, hard left, unreconstructed Marxist, surrounded by ruthless Bolsheviks, he was a hater of Britain and of freedom, a friend of terrorists, an anti-Semite and racist, a fanatic dedicated to a state grab and the dismantling of enterprise, a driver-out of decent people, a dissenter from the holy grail of nuclear deterrence who would have left his country defenceless and, for good measure, a teetotal vegan, which rules him out as a reliable person with whom to deal, after the manner of Jagger and Richards’ “he can’t be a man ‘cos he doesn’t smoke/The same cigarettes as me”.

Had he gained office, he would have confiscated all your possessions and slain your first-born. Really, it’s astonishing that Labour got any votes at all.

On the other hand, perhaps this is a simple-minded reading.

The comforting notion that it would have been a very different story if somebody else – Liz Kendall, Owen Smith – had been leading the party and hence that it must all come good with, say, Jess Phillips fronting up at the next election doesn’t stand up to much examination.

After all, it’s relatively unusual for a sitting British government to be voted out of office. It’s only happened twice in the last 40 years.

Before that, despite everything that’s claimed about the volatility of the contemporary electorate, changes of government were more common: three in the 1970s alone. Still, since World War II, only eight governments have lost office, four of each of the two main parties.

As a general rule, it may be considered that opposition parties do not win elections, but rather that governments lose them, because they’re perceived as exhausted or incompetent or corrupt or a combination of these perceptions. That was certainly the case in 1964, 1979, 1997 and 2010, the last three of which are the most recent examples.

Something very striking about the election outcomes of the last 40 years is the identities of the two Tory prime ministers defeated during that passage of time. Both Edward Heath and John Major had largely lost the confidence of the national press. (To a lesser extent, this was also true of Theresa May).

And it can be no coincidence that these two were the most enthusiastic Europeans ever to lead the government of the UK. The national press is heavily in favour of the UK being outside the EU. (May was perceived as lukewarm as well as incompetent on Brexit; it’s been widely suggested that with another week of campaigning in 2017, Corbyn would have gained Downing Street, despite the horror of the establishment and the press).

It would be foolhardy to underestimate the power of the newspapers, even in the era of social media. Though specific outrages perpetrated by individual editors cause a temporary, soon-forgotten stir, it is the daily drip of systematic undermining with any material which comes to hand or which may be invented to suit the case that makes Labour perennially unelectable.

Though the overlapping and never-ending campaigns against Corbyn were – as many of us said they would be when he was first elected leader – the most malicious and mendacious ever visited upon a Labour leader, every manifestation of the party is blackguarded by the Tory press because its proprietors want continuous Conservative government, a one-party state dependent upon an immutable fifth estate.

I can clearly picture a front-page headline on the London Evening Standard during the local elections of 1976, at which a far from radical Labour government was defending its councils. SIX LABOUR LIES screamed the headline. No pretence of reporting news or of presenting objective analysis. The job of the press was to propagandise on behalf of the Conservative party. That’s what it’s always been.

It’s not hard to see why. Newspaper proprietors are billionaires. They avoid tax bills commensurate with those of less wealthy people by arranging their tax affairs abroad. Like other multi-national speculators, they spurn governments that wish to bring them into conventional tax brackets and to regulate the conduct of their businesses.

For those reasons, proprietors are opposed to what they see as the over-mighty European Union. A Britain outside the EU is far preferable to one within. The larger that governmental agencies grow, the more power they accrue. Proprietors want weak and compliant administrations. Therefore they certainly don’t want lefty leaders who talk about duty (in every sense), tax, equitability and the redistribution of wealth.

The only Labour leader elected by the public to the office of prime minister in the last 45 years was Tony Blair. As will be recalled, his opponent was the aforesaid John Major, than whom Blair cannily if not candidly positioned himself slightly less Europhile.

More significantly, Blair made it clear to the proprietors whom he cultivated that he would continue the Thatcherite programme (in particular the selling off of public enterprise to the private sector), making an earnest of his intent by rebranding the party as New Labour, by eschewing the word Socialism and by the momentous symbolism of scrapping Clause IV.

Should you consider this to be a calumny against Blair, reflect that he was a guest at Rupert Murdoch’s marriage to Wendi Deng (with whom Murdoch later suspected Blair of more than a tendresse) and is godfather to one of the couple’s daughters. Neither Major nor any of his successors got this close to Murdoch or any other proprietor, though David Cameron tried very hard.

The reach of the so-called popular press should never be underestimated. Those millions of people who are bored to tears by politics may skim past the disobliging headlines about successive Labour leaders, yet gradually gather a vague but enduring impression of unsuitability. The details don’t signify, any more than the accuracy or credibility.

Do any of the candidates to succeed Corbyn fondly imagine that the Mail and the Telegraph will give them a fair hearing, let alone be kind to them? Consider the apparent frontrunner, Keir Starmer.

People in the Labour movement, never mind the antagonistic media, ask with some astonishment whether the “lesson” of Labour’s 2019 defeat can really be that the party needs to be led by a middle class remainer from a North London constituency such as him or Emily Thornberry. Is this the obvious way to win back the so-called Labour red wall or commend Labour to the Europhobic press?

Oh, Starmer’s apologists protest, but he had working class parents. Tell that to the working class, not many of whom find themselves a job which brings with it an automatic knighthood – Starmer’s downplaying of his title will only encourage the press to use it all the more. Indeed, Sir Keir’s record as Director of Public Prosecutions will furnish plenty of old stories to be dug up and spun to his disadvantage.

And what about the argument that Labour was too extreme, that it urgently needs a so-called moderate public face like Starmer or Thornberry or Phillips, more like that of Blair? The myth of Blair’s omnipotence needs to be set against the years of uncertainty about its role that the Tory party worked through after Major stepped down.

Despite the opposition’s inability quickly to regain the trust of the press and the establishment, Blair’s support seriously declined, particularly after the invasion of Iraq.

By the election of 2005, Labour had lost 4 million voters and 63 members of parliament, and party membership was at an all-time low (under Corbyn, it became the biggest political party in Europe). Moreover, the gradual collapse of Labour’s support in Scotland began during Blair’s premiership.

It has not been widely noticed that the supposed centre ground was decimated in the 2019 election. Twelve MPs standing again had defected or been expelled from either the Labour or the Conservative parties, whether over Brexit or because of the extreme turn they all claimed had been taken by the former party. None was returned to parliament.

Moreover, scant progress was made by those parties which offered staying in the EU as a major policy. Indeed, the LibDems suffered a net loss of one seat.

They regained Richmond Park from the Tory Zac Goldsmith (who kept his ministerial post, however, because Boris Johnson promptly gave him a peerage); this was the only evidence of London’s vaunted support for rescinding Article 50.

But two LibDem losses were deeply resonant: that of their leader Jo Swinson, who was the architect of the party’s categorical stance on the EU, and that of Tom Brake, the party’s spokesperson on the EU.

As the candidate of the Labour right-wing (look at her voting record), Jess Phillips would certainly divide the party and very likely destroy it if she were elected.

Once named among the ten most abusive MPs in an analysis of tweets and posts, she has been a serial decrier of the current party leadership and hence would have no credibility when trying to face down a backlash of her own. For anyone wishing a recognisable Labour party to be elected to government, her candidacy will be discounted.

Lisa Nandy is the dark horse in the race. Daughter of the highly respected Marxist academic Dipak Nandy and granddaughter of the fondly remembered Liberal politician Frank Byers (her women ancestors seem not to have been so much in the public eye), she would be the first British party leader of mixed heritage, as well as the first woman leader of Labour.

Few party members will agree with all of her stances and actions (she joined in the mass shadow cabinet resignation of 2016 and she co-chaired Owen Smith’s challenge for the leadership), but she can evidently justify her decisions with vigour and she acquitted herself with total aplomb in her Andrew Neil interview, unfazed by his characteristic hounding.

However, she will have sounded some alarm bells with her categorical “yes” to the question whether she would accept the findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation into allegations of anti-Semitism in Labour, whatever they might be. It’s a foolish undertaking to agree to sign a document you’ve not seen. Suppose the EHRC proposed that the Labour party should be disbanded?

Rebecca Long-Bailey is widely seen as the Corbyn continuity candidate and has the formal backing of Momentum. On two issues, however, she has given some of her natural supporters pause. On the question of Trident, she told the Today programme: “if you have a deterrent you have to be prepared to use it”.

Though she attempted to ameliorate this significant departure from the stance of her mentor, talking of assessing the situation and addressing the consequences, the fact of her attested preparedness raises questions about her sincerity.

The establishment and its propaganda wing, the media, equates the deterrent with equally treacherously vague concepts like patriotism, strength and determination. Women candidates for high office may well perceive that they need to compensate for a prejudice in favour of men on such issues.

But a professed willingness to consider unleashing nuclear warheads is nothing to do with hard-nosed qualities. It is more a test of thoughtfulness in a politician. Given that the question is anyway hypothetical, has Long-Bailey considered the various hypotheses? What would be an acceptable level of casualties caused by a British nuclear strike: 100,000? 10 million? 100 million?

How many other nations would it be permissible to damage in the process of obliterating the chosen enemy, given that radiation and environmental blowback are no respecters of national borders?

How much collateral damage in neighbouring countries – say, such nations friendly to the UK as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan – would London be able to justify in a nuclear strike on Tehran and other Iranian targets?

You can bet your life that Boris Johnson has never contemplated what it would mean to “press the button” in actual practice, and you can imagine the bluster of his replies in the never-to-be-enacted circumstance of an interviewer challenging him to do so. Any Labour leader needs to be more credible than Johnson in the imagined supplementary questions to the long-hop delivery of “would you press the button?”

Depressingly, Long-Bailey also demonstrated how far the party has been destabilised by the campaign over anti-Semitism, and this was a view she volunteered, unlike Nandy’s, which was in answer to Andrew Neil’s question.

Long-Bailey wrote on her blog:

My advice to Labour Party members is that it is never OK to respond to allegations of racism by being defensive … The only acceptable response to any accusation of racist prejudice is self-scrutiny, self-criticism and self-improvement”.

This argument leaves out of account the possibility of a false, a vexatious or an unjust accusation. It replicates the Tom Watson position that anyone in the party accused of anti-Semitism should be considered guilty until proved innocent, a philosophy utterly alien to Britain’s age-old justice system.

She defined anti-Semites as “people holding negative and stereotypical ideas about Jews”, but she also wrote that “the party is right to be excluding any prominent members who tour the country and the TV studios denying and diminishing the problem of anti-Semitism”, which one can certainly do without in any way uttering negative and stereotypical ideas about Jews.

Anti-Semitism is a subject of a quite different nature to that of Jewishness, but it has been elevated into a kind of taboo. And she went on: “Labour party members who do feel strongly about Palestinian rights must also understand why Jewish people in Britain today, for whom the Holocaust is a recent memory, see the existence of a Jewish state as a source of hope and security”.

These two stances are not mutually exclusive. Supporting Palestinian rights does not preclude supporting the continued sovereignty of Israel. As the long-form IHRA definition states: “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic”.

So, for instance, Saudi Arabia is criticised for its actions against Yemen in much the same way that Israel is criticised for its actions against Palestine.

Long-Bailey declared that she would work with the Jewish Labour Movement, but she made no mention of Jewish Voice for Labour, which has a very different take on the issues from JLM.

Rather than make common cause with a Jewish grouping within the party, all the candidates for leader and deputy leader have now signed up to support ten so-called pledges demanded of them by the Board of Deputies of British Jews. These include undertakings to empower “Jewish representative bodies” (by which is meant, of course, the Board itself) within the internal workings of the party:

Key affected parties to complaints, including Jewish representative bodies, should be given the right to regular, detailed case updates, on the understanding of confidentiality … Labour must engage with the Jewish community via its main representative groups, and not through fringe organisations and individuals”.

The candidates are all being extraordinarily naïve in yielding to an outside body such executive power, particularly as the Board of Deputies is an attested supporter of the Conservative party.

Its president, Marie van der Zyl, wished Johnson “every success as Prime Minister … we have had a long and positive relationship with Mr Johnson … and we look forward to this continuing”. The price of such a warm welcome is too high for a Labour leader if it means that Labour is to be formally answerable to unelected interests and lobbies which are committed to its rivals.

These concerns leave a considerable question mark over all the leadership candidates. It is bad enough that the task for Labour is historically difficult and may well depend entirely on Boris Johnson losing the support of the media – which, compared with most Tory PMs, he is perfectly capable of doing by himself.

After all, he’s been universally characterised as a compulsive liar and, while that was insufficient to prevent him being elected Tory leader and confirmed as prime minister, there are other character flaws that could dent his credibility more deeply.

Corbyn’s Achilles heel was his very decency and honourability. With no personal ambition, vanity or self-importance and despite the strength of his convictions, he was so wedded to democratic values that he tried to bind all shades of opinion into his party’s outlook.

He was defeated from within by the irreconcilables whose enjoyment of privilege and dependence on the tenets of social democracy would brook no compromise with more far-reaching proposals.

He flinched from excluding any elements – it’s impossible to imagine the leader of another party or another leader of this one absorbing such an in-the-face personal attack as “you are a fucking anti-Semite and a racist” without any retaliation, verbal or disciplinary.

Boris Johnson has demonstrated that ridding his party of those who disagree with him is not electorally damaging. Perhaps Labour is ready for a greater degree of internal discipline, rendering attacks on the leadership capital offences.

But how can a Labour leader neutralise the inevitable hostility of the media, without draining the Labour party of the greater part of the causes for which it was founded? I suggest that another page from the Johnson playbook be torn. Fight dirty. There’s no value in being a high-minded also-ran.

The next Labour leader should set up two energetic and determined units – an immediate rebuttal team that counters every untrue, unfair or in any other wise damaging story or criticism or report from whatever source and ensures that such rebuttal is disseminated wider than the original misinformation; and, longer term, a smear team.

This latter should be a group of old-fashioned investigative reporters, yellow journalists of the kind who work in Tory Central Office, and who would be tasked to accumulate as much background information as possible about the frontbenchers of other parties and, more importantly, about newspaper proprietors, print and broadcast editors, political correspondents and reporters, interviewers, columnists and pundits.

That such an exercise had been conducted should then be revealed publicly and frankly, putting all the media and political rivals on notice that any dirty trick played on Labour would be promptly countered by a reciprocal revelation of a highly damaging kind.

Whoever becomes Corbyn’s successor, the party needs to look outwards and be ruthless about it. That would be a refreshing novelty and might even commend it to significant numbers of electors.

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Marion Reynolds
Marion Reynolds

Thought provoking article all the more so for it’s closing exhortation to courage.

bevin
bevin

So you are a neo-liberal Peter, then.
To see whether Austrian economics works we just have to look out of the windows, where, according to Oxfam today, the gap between rich and poor has reached catastrophic levels., with the world’s top 1% owning twice as much wealth as the poorest 90%.
The problem with liberalism, in its first version, is that those elegant arguments demonstrating that we all benefit from ruthless competition in which a few make enormous incomes and most people grow steadily poorer soon become totally unconvincing.
Look what happened to John Stuart Mill the ideologue of liberal Political Economy and Utilitarianism-he ended up as a socialist MP. Or look at Chadwick, the first Secretary of the Poor Law Board and the architect of the 1834 Poor Law: after seeing what happened in a society in which the great majority, deprived of any claim on property, either work, if they can find it, or starve. And realising that high mortality rates and slums breeding epidemic disease did not contribute to the happiness of the greatest number- he became a Sanitation Reformer and turned his manic energies towards improving education, eradicating slums and reducing poverty.
That is why we have neo-liberalism, because the first iteration of Liberalism and laissez faire became insupportable- a recipe for national suicide. The Liberals either became conservatives and supporters of government intervention to preserve families and ensure the minimal health and fitness of a population liable to conscription, or socialist reformers.
“We are all socialists now”said Lord Harcourt, the Liberal Chancellor- a remark echoed by Edward VII- and, so, in the sense of having rejected the doctrines of Malthus and James Mill and been alarmed by the degeneration of the population revealed by the Boer War and the numerous social studies of the late Victorian era, they all were.

In fact- and this is another story- much of the endemic trouble the Labour Party has with its doctrine and its policy stems from the fact that most of the ‘socialists’ who founded it were hardly socialists at all, merely reformed Liberals or Imperialists with a soft spot for their ‘own race.’ The Socialists, outnumbered and intimidated by the descendants of such famous Liberals as the Potters, Wedgwoods and the Stephens, had an almost imperceptible impact on the practical politics of the party in Parliament. Corbyn was not the most recent in a long line of socialist leaders of the Party, he is almost unique in that he was even close to being one.

And, as we will discover next year when the books, from the insiders, come out he had almost no power to make decisions. The most common complaint, hereabouts, against Corbyn’s ‘leadership’ is that he did nothing to refute the slanders of anti-semitism (it’s a complaint that I have made) but the likelihood is that he was not allowed to. If he had made a robust defence-and he should have- most of the Shadow Cabinet would have resigned. By the same token had he insisted on sticking to the 2017 pledge to honour the Brexit vote-and he should have- even his closest ‘allies’, the ones left after the expulsions, such as Diane Abbott and John McDonnell, would have/did vote against him.
Corbyn was the example in the Political Larousse to illustrate Engels’ remark that
“The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe.”
There were people on this site who were claiming in December, before the election, that the Deep State backed Corbyn, in the sense that he was ‘their man.’ That was nonsense but it is certainly true that had the Deep State (aka Establishment) the brains to have realised it they would have done their best to put Corbyn into the leadership of the Labour Party so that it, the only power that could, would destroy him. And itself.
But the reality is this: the choice between socialism and barbarism, between a society of social and economic equals and long periods of tyranny, characterised by the intellectual and cultural impoverishment that authoritarian government and constant class struggle invariably produce, followed by outbursts of vicious civil war has never been so live. And the choice of socialism has never been more obvious
Thatcher, buoyed by the success of Austrian economics in Chile under the military dictatorship, set out to eradicate every trace of what she might have called ‘marxism’ in the form of social services, health and educational guarantees, utilities and transportation produced and sold at cost and the self defence institutions of the working class-from Unions and Co-ops to the public commitment to provide employment and housing for all. And the result is a society falling to pieces, social disintegration of the sort not seen since the 1890s when the first iteration of liberalism and “freedom through work” collapsed and the Liberal Party, after unconvincing efforts to change its utilitarian spots, split into fragments.
Austrian economics-as a glance at Austria’s history confirms- can only lead to deepening class conflict ending in fascism. That is what setting the rights of property, dominated by a tiny minority, against the claims of humanity as a whole, must lead to: if not socialism than the victory of the few over the many, a victory that can only be consolidated by permanent terror.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

The most common complaint, hereabouts, against Corbyn’s ‘leadership’ is that he did nothing to refute the slanders of anti-semitism (it’s a complaint that I have made) but the likelihood is that he was not allowed to. If he had made a robust defence-and he should have- most of the Shadow Cabinet would have resigned. By the same token had he insisted on sticking to the 2017 pledge to honour the Brexit vote-and he should have- even his closest ‘allies’, the ones left after the expulsions, such as Diane Abbott and John McDonnell, would have/did vote against him.

So what is this shit called? “Better late than never”? Not in my book. In my book it’s called “Useless fucking chatterati Leninist arseholes.” Talking about arseholes, what was it Homer Simpson said? “Please, Mr Burns, let me keep my job and I’ll lick your butt and call it ice cream.” Yeah, right.

austrian peter

I don’t think there is anyone in the current crop of aspirants for the leadership of the Labour party that has the vision and courage to recognise that the concept of ‘labour’ is long gone – the world has moved on.

In this regard, IMHO, the party needs to re-invent itself for the 21st century political economy and re-brand with a name and philosophy which forsakes the dinosaurs of the last century. It will take time and positive energy to leave the last rump of Marxists to wallow in their pugnacious swamp of yesteryear, masquerading as a socialism, suitable only for the past glories of heavy industry.

The world today requires an advanced understanding of the technological economic forces at play which will determine our collective future which is eminently described by Tony Seba – Nota Bene:
http://worldoutofwhack.com/2020/01/03/tony-seba-clean-disruption/

The party might begin by understanding the Harrogate Agenda: http://harrogateagenda.org.uk/

bevin
bevin

I suppose that by writing off “Marxists” (whoever they may be) with such contempt you are attempting to convince us that you have refuted Marx’s arguments.
It would be nice to see some evidence of this, in the meantime if the question is whether I’m going to accept your ideas on putting an end to the capitalist system or Marx’s, I’ll stick with the old devil I know.

austrian peter

Thank you for your rejoinder, bevin, and I would not presume to write off Marx’s arguments for I believe they might well have been valid for their time. My point was that they are inappropriate for our 21st century economic models. Not that I am condoning the Keynesian methodology which our esteemed economists seem to promulgate for this too is flawed IMO.

I am supportive of the Austrian school of economic thought, you know, Mises et al as an alternative economic method more suited to our present era. “To the Left, all economics divorced from Keynes or Marx is dangerously right-wing and protective of established capital.”
https://mises.org/wire/austrian-frame-mind?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=a73ee4abfc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_12_31_06_15_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-a73ee4abfc-228270721

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

I don’t think there is anyone in the current crop of aspirants for the leadership of the Labour party that has the vision and courage to recognise that the concept of ‘labour’ is long gone – the world has moved on.

I think that would make a great epitaph for your urn, mounted over a dashboard in front of an Uber driver. Sort of a heads up display. Or in the cab of a gigtime “self-employed” courier paying off his own van. Or on your coffin, screwed into a memorial rack in an Amazon warehouse. Or under a components trolley in an Apple supply chain factory in Shenzen. Or in the night stackers’ canteen in your local supermarket. Or in a display case at a 4am bus stop in Spain where the fruit pickers and vegetable cutters wait for their daily ride to the fields. Lots of places your world view could bring a little joy and recognition to the common tomorrow’s man.

paul
paul

To that diminishing number of people who remain emotionally invested in the Labour Party, I would just ask if they really believe it will actually represent their interests.

Each of the runners and riders in the Great Labour Donkey Derby has now signed up to the Ten Commandments brought down from Mount Sinai by the Chief Rabbi.

And like Thornberry, all the other candidates have been “on their hands and knees, begging for forgiveness” in the Times Of Israel and the rest of the Zionist press. That newspaper openly called for the extermination of the Palestinians, incidentally, “When Genocide Is Permissible.” But what’s a little thing like genocide between friends?

Long-Bailey demanded the unqualified support of all for expulsions from the party. Phillips has helpfully explained how any criticism of Israel, or pro-Israeli groups, is anti semitic. Hence Rachel Cousins is anti semitic for criticising Israel. Nandy was saying how much she admired Madrid’s handling of Catalan separatism. SNP to note.

But Phillips is currently a 50-1 outsider in the Donkey Derby. Thornberry isn’t doing much better. Starmer is likely to inherit Jezza’s somewhat tarnished crown, despite all the assertions that “it has to be one of the wimmin.” An uninspiring ex-CPS career bureaucrat. Just what Labour needs. A good, safe pair of hands, neoliberal, pro austerity warmonger Friend of Israel.

paul
paul

As yet, even here, few people generally, and even fewer in the MSM, seem to have examined the Chief Rabbi’s Ten Commandments in detail and seen how arrogant, ludicrous and unworkable they actually are. All five pathetic candidates have caved in to these demands without a word of protest. This could well prove to be a ticking time bomb for Labour and UK politics in general, ushering in a new dystopia.

– People like Jackie Walker, who queried the definition of anti Semitism and wanted to talk about Slavery, must NEVER be readmitted to the party. No matter how much they may grovel and apologise.

– Anyone who associates with anybody who has been suspended or expelled, like Jackie or Chris Williamson, must also be INSTANTLY expelled.

– NO DEBATE, and NO RESERVATIONS WHATEVER are permitted. The edicts of the Board Of Deputies must be accepted without question. Van Zyl at the BOD has already pilloried Richard Burgeon for his failure to sign up.

– Henceforth, Labour may only deal with “Approved Jews,” the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Labour Movement. The pro Corbyn Jewish Voice For Labour is a “fringe group.” Labour may not engage with JVL from now on. The JLM refused to campaign for Labour in the last election.

Interestingly, you don’t have to be Jewish to be in the approved JLM. You do have to be Jewish to be in the banned JVL. The JLM seemed to appear out of nowhere after Corbyn did surprisingly well in the 2017 election. The BOD and the Deep State seemed both enraged and terrified at the prospect of Jezza getting the keys to 10 Downing Street, and the smear machine went into overdrive. They just wouldn’t tolerate his support for a Palestinian state and ban on arms sales to Israel.

paul
paul

The effect of this will be a complete purge of the Left from the party, and certainly any pro Palestinian sentiment. There is no scope at all permitted for reservations on human rights grounds. So if you say a word out of line about Gaza, the West Bank, the torture of child prisoners, or the ICC, which has begun an investigation into Israeli war crimes, then you are OUT. If you question the fictitious Two State Solution (which Netanyahu and all Israeli politicians have now officially rejected), you are also OUT.

Only dyed in the wool pro Likud Zionists will be allowed anywhere near power. Expect another large purge in the near future. There is no room for any Leftist in the party. Pro Palestinian motions and a call for an arms embargo on Israel were passed at the last Labour Conference.

Labour has won 3 elections in the past 45 years, all under Blair. This is a recipe for a Conservative stranglehold on power far into the foreseeable future.

paul
paul

The policies and membership of the Labour Party will now be dictated by a tiny religious minority of around 300,000 people. Or rather, by self appointed “leaders” of that religious minority. How many people the Chief Rabbi can be said to speak for is open to question. If the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed to politically represent all nominally Christian people, that would probably be challenged. Some Jews are atheists.
Some are infants who are too young to care. Some Jews probably have no interest either in religion or politics. Many Jews, including the Chief Rabbi, support the Tories. The people in the Jewish Voice For Labour do not agree with the Good Rabbi or the BOD.

So control of Labour has been surrendered to a handful of self appointed Jewish Zionist leaders closely linked to Likud and closely linked to the Tories, who have a very tenuous claim to represent SOME Jews.

What an inspiring example of democracy in action.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

[The Times of Israel] openly called for the extermination of the Palestinians, incidentally, “When Genocide Is Permissible.”

An electronic blogger posted that opinion piece electronically and The Times of Israel of Isrrael took it offline as soon as one of the editors saw it. That does not exonerate The Times of Israel or a large proportion of (a) its voters and (b) the Israeli electorate from privately wishing a speedy extermination on the Palestinian people, but nor does it exonerate you, by publishing such attributory and explanatory omission, from precisely the same sort of rabble rousing platformwise around.

paul
paul

Wrong. This was a centre page EDITORIAL. It may have been memory holed later because even the most genocidal Zionists saw the potential for embarrassment, but that changes nothing.

It’s not me who’s omitting things.

paul
paul

Rollup! Roll up!! Get your tickets for the big Donkey Derby!!!
Who are the Board of Deputies going to appoint to lead Labour into oblivion?
Does it matter??
Does anybody care???

A few self appointed leaders of a small religious minority will now dictate the policies and membership of the Labour party. A sure fired recipe for success.

Maybe the Tories should set themselves up as the political wing of the Moonies or the Hare Krishnas.

paul
paul

Over the past few days, a number of non violent groups have been designated as “extremist” by the counter terrorism police and placed on the Terrorism Watch List.

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
CND.
Stop The War Coalition.
Campaign Against The Arms Trade.

All these organisations will now be “monitored” and presume\bly infiltrated.

Welcome to the UK Stasi State.

Anyone who “associates” with Hezbollah will also now be subjected to things like asset seizures. Previous UK governments saw some value in keeping open a line of communication to Hezbollah politicians, which has mass support in Lebanon and is part of the government.

But hey, have to keep the Zionist Lobby happy.

Orage
Orage

I fully agree with the second part of this analysis and the conclusion but have problems with the first part.

Had he gained office, he would have confiscated all your possessions and slain your first-born. Really, it’s astonishing that Labour got any votes at all.
On the other hand, perhaps this is a simple-minded reading.

It is. The attack was much more refined than this. Remember that Corbyn improved Labour’s ratings in the elections of 2017 to everyone’s astonishment. Therefore, the attacks previously launched against him had to be refined and extended. On the AS front a very public figure, apparently neutral and well respected had to make a loud and very public statement. On other fronts, Labour’s stance on Brexit which had changed between 2017 and 2019 was used to discredit every other Labour policy in the otherwise very popular manifesto.

And it can be no coincidence that these two were the most enthusiastic Europeans ever to lead the government of the UK. The national press is heavily in favour of the UK being outside the EU.

Short memory: soon after the election there was constant bleating by politicians and other commentators that the establishment and large parts of the press were so in favour of remain that they wanted to ‘thwart the democratic will of the people’. It is really not so simple. I think that the momentum towards getting ‘Brexit done’ was because of the paralysis in Westminster and Parliament which held up any other actions. Even when there was a chance in replacing Johnson with a temporary government of national unity under the stewardship of Corbyn, Swinson in her arrogance insisted on not supporting this action and it was therefore less likely to be supported by the rebels who joined her party who effectively dictated her policies.

It would be foolhardy to underestimate the power of the newspapers, even in the era of social media. Though specific outrages perpetrated by individual editors cause a temporary, soon-forgotten stir, it is the daily drip of systematic undermining with any material which comes to hand or which may be invented to suit the case that makes Labour perennially unelectable.

As someone quite rightly noted, even the press with reduced circulation, hold great sway with the electorate through being amplified by the BBC and other channels. This is through the high profile ‘reviews’ of the press, such as in the Andrew Marr show, where the editors of the papers have a full exposure. They often also have their own slots in some of the programs in Radio 4.

The only Labour leader elected by the public to the office of prime minister in the last 45 years was Tony Blair. As will be recalled, his opponent was the aforesaid John Major, than whom Blair cannily if not candidly positioned himself slightly less Europhile.

I am not sure that the fact that Blair may have presented himself as less Europhile, a statement that is in fact difficult to prove or to quantitate, was a major reason why Blair was elected. This is a simple case of twisting the fact to suit the hypothesis.

More significantly, Blair made it clear to the proprietors whom he cultivated that he would continue the Thatcherite programme (in particular the selling off of public enterprise to the private sector), making an earnest of his intent by rebranding the party as New Labour, by eschewing the word Socialism and by the momentous symbolism of scrapping Clause IV.

That’s more like it.

People in the Labour movement, never mind the antagonistic media, ask with some astonishment whether the “lesson” of Labour’s 2019 defeat can really be that the party needs to be led by a middle class remainer from a North London constituency such as him or Emily Thornberry. Is this the obvious way to win back the so-called Labour red wall or commend Labour to the Europhobic press?

So according to the author, it is more likely that the red wall will continue to vote for a Tory Eton privileged class Toff than for a middle class person from a London Constituency? Is Johnson not also from a London constituency? And does being a Europhile now make you so toxic that you should avoid politics altogether? What about the 48%? Do they become non-people?

Oh, Starmer’s apologists protest, but he had working class parents. Tell that to the working class, not many of whom find themselves a job which brings with it an automatic knighthood – Starmer’s downplaying of his title will only encourage the press to use it all the more. Indeed, Sir Keir’s record as Director of Public Prosecutions will furnish plenty of old stories to be dug up and spun to his disadvantage.

Without looking at the totality of the corrupt system of honours, it is not constructive to pick points like this.

Moreover, scant progress was made by those parties which offered staying in the EU as a major policy. Indeed, the LibDems suffered a net loss of one seat.

This requires a more nuanced critique. Lib Dem loss which also led to an even more catastrophic loss for Labour was probably due to two main factors, Lib Dem have still not removed the treachery of the coalition government which led to the sell out that damaged the party, and secondly to Swinson’s arrogance in both claiming she will be the next prime minister and also her constant vilification of Corbyn, more so than of Johnson. She was singlehandedly the greatest disaster in this election and got her rewards by losing her seat.

The establishment and its propaganda wing, the media, equates the deterrent with equally treacherously vague concepts like patriotism, strength and determination. Women candidates for high office may well perceive that they need to compensate for a prejudice in favour of men on such issues.

The question of ‘pressing the button’ is a trick question that the press and right wing like to use as a test of patriotism. In fact it really should be a test for insanity. In any case the correct answer to this question is much more complicated. A British PM will never be the sole person to decide as to whether to press the button. As a member of NATO it must be the case that this action has ramifications that mean that they would have to consult, if not with the US, but also with NATO whether this action is warranted. It should also be pointed out that without renegotiation of many treaties, this is an extremely theoretical question. I think that if I was PM and a pacifist, my answer would be that I would first examine our obligations under the treaties we have and renegotiate these before considering this question. I would also say that I would work towards a foreign policy that would make it less likely that UK is faced with this decision. I think that any other answer is pure fantasy. The other does also address some of this in the following paragraph.

richard le sarc
richard le sarc

Who was that ‘..very public figure, apparently, neutral and well-respected..’?

Orage
Orage

Tongue in cheek.
The apparently also applies to the ‘well respected’.

GEOFF
GEOFF

The Labour party as far as I’m concerned is finished, why would they be taking orders from an unelected group ,unless they really believe this nonsense about antisemitism, who the hell do these people think they are, that’s my lot with the Labour party they don’t deserve support after that signing up to that crap.

paul
paul

The tragic part of all this is that Corbyn could easily have faced down all the lies of the Zionist Smear Campaign. And with considerable dignity.

paul
paul

All he had to do was give a short speech of about 10 minutes duration, detailing his close relationship with Jewish Left organisations and individuals over the past 40 years. And repeat this with each new smear vomited out by the Board of Deputies, the Mossad Office, Berger, Ellman, Smee, Ryan, Mann, Austin, and the rest of that human sewage.

paul
paul

At the same time, he could have deputised a figure like Chris Williamson or Ken Livingstone or any number of others to go on the offensive on his behalf. An attack dog like Blair’s Campbell. To repay the Zionist and MSM smear merchants in their own coin, getting down and dirty right down in the gutter with them till they backed off. In effect saying to the Zionist smear merchants, if you keep stop telling lies about us, we’ll stop telling the truth about you. Because you can never appease these people. No amount of grovelling to them is ever enough. Give them an inch and they take a mile.

richard le sarc
richard le sarc

A public campaign to acquaint the people with the Haavara Agreement and Zionism’s collaboration with its German cousin, Nazism, would have helped. In the end, because of his cowardice, Corbyn has proved a CATASTROPHIC figure, for Labour, for the UK, for its people and for UK Jews.

richard le sarc
richard le sarc

Indeed, so WHY didn’t he?

paul
paul

This site is totally knackered again.

CunningLinguist
CunningLinguist

There were plenty of newspapers supporting Corbyn, and condemning Johnson. The Independent, the Guardian, the Mirror.

The UK media doesn’t fawn over politicians, the way China Daily, or Russia Today does. It recognises that they are all narcissists who indulge in half truths…

Voting in an election is an exercise in deciding who is the least mendacious.

lundiel
lundiel

Almost every “local” paper is syndicated and owned by right supporting corporations. For instance, Gannett is an American company that owns a large tranche of Britain’s local newspapers. Gannett owns 100 daily newspapers, and nearly 1,000 weekly newspapers. These operations are in 43 U.S. states and six countries.
Reach Plc, the owner of the daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and 240 local newspapers does not support the left. The Mirror supports Labour centrists and it’s support of Corbyn was highly conditional and critical. The Guardian is a Liberal newspaper with a centrist Labour following, it’s contents mirror that, no one but you would call more than two or three Guardian contributors left of centre (the centre being very much in the right). The Independent is on online newspaper that is also centrist. All media is supportive of continued neoliberalism, it just depends on how much.

CunningLinguist
CunningLinguist

It doesn’t matter what reservations they expressed over Corbyn’s leadership, in what was a binary contest, they supported him over Johnson.

Ultimately, labour chose the wrong leader. One as divisive on his own way as Jacob Rees Mogg would have been, if he’d ever achieved leadership of the Tory party. Somehow, they avoid mistakes like that.

bevin
bevin

You mean that they should have chosen a Blairite.
But why? In order to get the support of the Capitalist media.
A support that they could only keep by pursuing policies of an imperialist and anti-working class nature. Just as the Blair government did- privatising the Bank of England, dismantling the Health Service, renewing the contracts of the Railway contractors, entering into PP Partnerships for the benefit of usurers and to the enormous detriment of the taxpayers…the list is as long as the 13 years that Blair and Brown spent disgracing themselves and undermining the Party they claimed to be serving. Or did you think that the erosion of Labour’s vote in 2005 and 2010 was the fault of Corbyn and the Left?
Look at Scotland dominated by Blairites all the way to the grave.
There is nothing new about the current Labour leadership contest. And nothing accidental about the course that it is set upon- it is aimed at performing Blair’s final service to neo-liberalism and wiping out the party the way that the National Labour and Social Democratic Parties were wiped out when they abandoned the commitment to socialism which was the raison d’etre of all these political formations.

Antonym
Antonym

In Europe it is much the same for local newspaper ownership. All this was allowed by national governments, no doubt under “advice” from Langley in the end.

I would call their line neither “right” or “left” though: it is pure Establishment – of the Anglo Arab oil dollar protection racket variety. So Islam is above comment let alone criticism, not very real Left.

lundiel
lundiel

Get off your hobbyhorse. I am critical of the gulf states all the time.

paul
paul

The only Moslems who are above comment are the fake Moslems in Shady Wahabia, who have been in bed with the fake Jew Khazars in occupied Palestine for decades.

richard le sarc
richard le sarc

If you follow the lineage of the Wahhabists and the Saud Mafia ‘family’, both trace back to progenitures who were doenmeh, or crypto-Jewish followers of the failed Messiah Sabbatai Zevi, who ‘converted’ to Islam in the 17th century. It’s no wonder that Sordid family members sometimes refer to the Israelis as ‘cousins’.

richard le sarc
richard le sarc

Your psychopathic delusion, if it is not just straight hasbara lying, that the Evil Arabs control Western discourse, rather that the Judeofascist and Zionist elite, is both ludicrous and nauseating at once, in its outrageous hypocrisy and cynical mendacity.

paul
paul

Just straight projection.

John Deehan
John Deehan

Not quite all media. The Morning Star was the only one that supported Corbyn.

richard le sarc
richard le sarc

Cunning stunt is a true follower of A.H, and his ‘Big Lie’ theory.

paul
paul

The US media is owned by half a dozen Zionist billionaires. The UK/ Canada/ France/ Germany/ Australia are no better.

George Mc
George Mc

Voting in an election is an exercise in deciding who is the least mendacious.

And what an indictment that is! You can have shit or shit or shit – but this shit here is slightly less shitty than that shit there. So ….which part of your body do you want mutilated? Who is going to kill you most painlessly?

richard le sarc
richard le sarc

So, where did Corbyn lie? Cowardice, certainly, but mendacity?

CunningLinguist
CunningLinguist

He lied in campaigning for ‘remain’ when clearly he believes we should be out of the EU .

George Mc
George Mc

Because he was duped by the Blairites.

paul
paul

You must be watching some mysterious private media nobody else has ever heard of.

bevin
bevin

If this article by Neil,Clark is correct- and it almost certainly is- the candidates have all ruled themselves out of serious contention. And the Party, if it elects one of them, will have consigned itself to political oblivion with such efficiency that it might reach that goal before PASOK or the French Socialist Party does. It will certainly be racing the Italian Democratic (former Communist) party to be the oldest and biggest suicide of the new decade.

Clark writes:
“….Pledge 2 states “Make the Party’s disciplinary process independent.” The Board of Deputies wants an “independent provider” to process anti-Semitism complaints.

“How many political parties would agree to outsiders – perhaps outsiders with an antipathy towards their own party- taking over their disciplinary procedures?

“But the Labour leadership candidates did! Pledge 3 says that “Jewish representative bodies” should be given the right to regular case updates. But wouldn’t this breach data protection legislation? Again, the Labour leadership candidates have no such concern. Pledge 4 is quite vindictive and says that “prominent offenders” who had left or been expelled from the party should never- I repeat never- be readmitted.

“But what if they were innocent? Or if they did say something deemed anti-Semitic once, but later said sorry? Should people forever be made outcasts for one tweet/statement made years ago? Why, unlike other offences, where redemption is allowed, should “anti-Semitism” be considered “one strike and you’re out for eternity?……”
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/202001171078061979-by-supporting-more-witch-hunting-labour-leadership-candidates-all-fall-at-the-very-first-fence/

richard le sarc
richard le sarc

By ‘independent provider’ they mean the Chief Rabbi, or Chabad or Nick Cohen.

George Mc
George Mc

The statement from the Board of Deputies of British Jews:

Today we release our #TenPledges, identifying 10 key points we believe Labour needs to sign up to in order to begin healing its relationship with the Jewish community.

“The Jewish Community”? Which community is that? One unified community? And one that was “wounded” by Labour? Who is it that speaks for all Jews in this way? Would it be that glum room of haunted faces paraded by the BBC on the night of the contrived Mirvis attack? Are these the concerned and, above all, wounded souls glancing around in fear of impending barbed wire enclosures and ebon pumping chimneys? As the BBC put it, “the poison in our society”, “the precipice we face”.

Under Stalin (so the story goes anyway) artists, poets and composers always started to shit themselves when accused of “formalism”. This was the code that said “bye bye”. In our new totalitarian state, “anti-Semitism” is the new kiss of death.

richard le sarc
richard le sarc

And don’t forget anti-Zionism or pro-Palestinianism ie ‘pro-terrorwist’.

George Mc
George Mc

In the light of the Corbyn fiasco, I suggest a new definition:

“Democracy”: A branch of showbusiness in which stand up comics indulge in mock jousting over illusory issues, excellence consisting of the most convincing veneer of gravitas that can be attained by the jouster. Every few years the public get to vote on which comic formation displays the highest level of verisimilitude. On no account should this phantasmal arena be permitted to infringe on the true management of a society.

Gall

It’s like American “politics” where they pretend you have a choice between tweedle dee (Repugnantons) and tweedle dum (demonicrats) and the voter inevitably gets screwed.

GEOFF
GEOFF

The only good thing to come out of this shit, is you no longer have to strive to argue how good the Labour party is, it’s well and truly f****d

John Deehan
John Deehan

Let’s look at some facts instead, as some of the commentators on this site are trying to do, of spinning yarns. In the GE 2010 New Labour had 29% of the vote and had about 250,000 members. It was self evident that the “ project “ had failed hence the dropping of the New part. However, 13 years of betrayal by Blair, Brown, Mandelson and the majority of the PLP had not been forgotten either in Scotland or in many former rock solid Labour seats. After 18 years of Thatcherite Neo Liberal policies to have their hopes betrayed by these so called Labour politicians was ingrained in their memories.

Hope came in the form of Jeremy Corbyn who was elected by the overwhelmingly majority of Labour members despite the mendacious actions of the PLP plus the levers of power within the party. Nevertheless, the PLP, who in their actions, were more aligned to the Tories than the democratic socialist Labour Party had allies in the establishment so a pincer strategy was developed hence the fabricated AS nonsense. As Blair said “ he would rather Labour lost than win on a platform of socialism” or Mandelson’s statement of working every day to undermine the party. They acted in concert with the establishment to thwart the Democratic Socialist Labour Party at every turn.

The question is why, well many had nice pensions, nice salaries but more importantly the prospect of 6 and 7 figures salaries from the revolving door corruption of U.K. political parties. For example, Alan Milburn, former health secretary commanding multiple Kings ransom payoffs from private health companies. Not forgetting the Labour peers receiving £300 each per day to sit on their bottoms in the unelected 2nd chamber. To put it bluntly, these PLP members and peers did not wish to overturn the apple cart, knowing which side their bread was buttered on.

Now, the “ moderates, “ centrists” and Blairites are trying to lay the blame of the 2019 GE defeat, whilst the LP had 40.6% of the vote in the 2017 GE and still had nearly 33% in the 2019 GE, at the feet of Jeremy Corbyn. Forgetting of course in April 2019 a YouGov poll predicted the Tories would be trounced and the Labour would win handsomely if they had honoured the Brexit referendum but pressured by Thornberry, Starmer and many others JC tried to accommodate all views with the result that in the words of Nye Bevan “ the Tories had persuaded poor people to vote against their own interests “. The majority of the PLP are in denial of both their actions and their part in the defeat.

What is their strategy why to move the party to the “ centre” which in reality means right wing policies. How, will they achieve it. Limiting the choice of candidates hence why any genuine socialist choices were thwarted at every turn. The support of the MSM plus the State Broadcaster and creating an air of despondency to encourage left wing members to leave, as it happened after 2003, and packing the party with right wing members.

bevin
bevin

You are absolutely correct. Thanks for putting it so clearly. Now What is to be Done?

John Deehan
John Deehan

The elected leader of the democratic socialist Labour Party does not have absolute control over policy. Therefore, the election of socialist candidates to the NEC is of prime importance. However, if you are not a member, you can’t vote!

bevin
bevin

You are right: the elected leader has very little control over policy. Nor should he. As to the NEC one of the major problems there is the, recently elected, Jon Lansman a ‘socialist’ candidate.
You are right that members should stay in the Party and fight but they should do so without illusions. They should realise that the democratisation of the party, from top to bottom and the cleaning up of the PLP were both jobs that were undone in the past five years. And that the reason why they were not pushed through while the power, in the membership, to do so existed was because of the thoroughgoing cowardice of the “left” and its refusal to recognise that to be opposed to capitalism and to aim to replace it, ensures that the capitalists will use every weapon at their disposal against them.

How often after 2017 were we assured that, once the election campaign started, the BBC would treat Labour fairly “according to the rules’ . Or that the Press could be relied upon to publish Labour’s point of view? It has been clear for centuries that the media and the state will not allow the election of a socialist government. And yet Labour has never had a smaller Press presence, or less influence in the media.

In this sense the Blairites are correct: if you want the support of the state you have to be ready to pursue the imperialist aims hard wired into it; if you want the support of the media you have to be ready to protect the capitalist class and its intellectual servants; if you want the support of The Guardian you have to be willing to publish MI6’s Press Releases and denounce the Russian government for defending Syria from al qaeda. If you want the support of the Chief Rabbi you have to be ready to promote the policies of the fascist Israeli government and to look the other way as the indigenous population of Palestine is terrorised and starved into leaving their land in the hands of the invading zionists.

And if you support neither capitalism, imperialism, the Secret Police or the Chief Rabbi then you have to be ready to fight them until they are beaten into submission.

johny conspiranoid
johny conspiranoid

” And that the reason why they were not pushed through while the power, in the membership, to do so existed was because of the thoroughgoing cowardice of the “left” and its refusal to recognise that to be opposed to capitalism and to aim to replace it, ensures that the capitalists will use every weapon at their disposal against them. ”
Using every weapon at their disposal usualy means enterring into a conspiracy. If you don’t believe any conspiracy theories then the capitalists will always win.

Rhisiart Gwilym
Rhisiart Gwilym

“What, then, is to be done”, b? The Workers’ Party, perhaps?

There are plenty of younger people in Britain who are thirsting for some seriously-socialist serious democracy. Plenty of not so young ones too. The huge growth in Labour membership after JC’s election to leader seems to demonstrate that clearly. But we now have the crippled mess of Rump-Labour that the blitz against Jeremy has left behind; a blitz run by both the frankly anti-socialist, anti-democratic enemies of Labour and by the B’Liarite tory-lite rump of the PLP. As it stands, Rump-Labour is clearly not fit to be a socialist, left alternative to the Anglozionist empire’s gangster capitalism (for which the political wing of the English-raj class, the official-tory party, is the parliamentary arm at all times, of course). As it stands, Rump-Labour will be what the B’Liarites have made it: an occasionally-permitted, fake-‘alternative’, cosmetically-lite version of the full on rabid tory neoliberalism. Milibandaid, as you might call it.

Radicals and leftists have a tricky choice before them now: a new, genuinely socialist, genuinely democratic Britainwide*** party? Or stay and fight to reclaim Rump-Labour to be the the real thing. In the business of practical politics – the art of the actually possible – which is the better bet? Judging by the invertebrate, zio-kissing candidates for new leader, stay-and-fight seems a pretty forlorn hope…

But the task of creating a genuinely-radical socialist force in Britain is urgent: As the phenomenally-perspicacious studies, ‘The Limits To Growth’ and ‘TLTG: The Thirty-Year Update’ (plus many other such studies) point out, we are entering a new kind of socio-economic period on this planet, especially in the historic West. The several-centuries-long time of ‘endless’ economic growthforever (hah!) has hit the buffers and stopped. It will never return. The initial, cosmologically- and geologically-provided planetary wealth endowment has been largely squandered. The crucial commodity of plentiful cheap energy to power growing industrial ‘civilisation’, without which all modern economies grind to a halt, is now hitting crisis time (with literally NO, zero, zilch realistic replacements anywhere even on the remote horizon. Renewables? Hah! Don’t make me laugh!). Thus, the rise of the new empires of the North and the East is predicated on a zero-sum game with the declining Anglozionist empire: there’s never again – in the future of this planet – going to be enough commodities and raw materials just lying about in abundance for universal growthforever to be even remotely viable, so any growth of any new empire will depend on the decline of its opponents; zero sum, pretty certain, in fact likely to be even less than zero; actual shrinkage in the longer term; musical chairs.

Hard-faced realists amongst the ruling gics (gangsters-in-charge) of the Az-empire are already beginning to suspect this (after all, if no-count plebs with a connection to the internet, like us, can see it coming, so can they). Their response will be – indeed already is – to seek to re-establish themselves in their customary rentier-parasite tapeworm, WealthPowerStatus-addict function, within the rising empires. And that will mean demotion of the wreckage of the Western empire, and all its dependent provinces, to third world status, there to be exploited just as the Western empire(s) has(have) done to the Third World for half a millennium. (Oh, you think the Russian and Chinese empires are too inherently-moral, egalitarian and statesmanly to try such villainies? Unlike all previous empires, without exception? Really? Can I – er – can I interest you in some amazingly profitable shares in a bridge in NYC…?)

So here’s what is perhaps the most grovellingly-submissive of the Az-empire’s provinces, Britain, run now – on behalf of the atlanticist wing of the English-raj class – by one of the most entrenched and rabidly right-wing tory governments of recent times (chosen by the usual FPTP-enabled minority of Xmas-voting turkeys, yet again): An island packed chock full with over-population, all of whom have to be supported somehow. And here it is, just about to cut one of the main lifelines on which it’s depended for several decades now…

You can see, can’t you, why I keep hammering the perception that the only real-world, actually-feasible political choices that are now open to the peoples (sic: plural) of Britain are scarcity-socialism, which we only get by a critical mass of us standing up like the Gilets Jaunes and insisting; or the gics’ preferred default choice of neo-feudalism; towards which they’re already busy pushing us, of course (goodbye, NHS; goodbye social security! Goodbye all publicly-owned, non-commercial essential services! Goodbye liberty, equality, fraternity!).

Hope to god George G has better luck with his latest new party than he had with the previous attempts! After all, he’s trying to get the attention of an actual majority of the Brits, who actually agree quite well with what he stands for.
__________________

*** If the organisers of this effort are wise, they’ll not fight the nationalist parties of Alba and Cymru, but make alliances with them, so as not to split votes in those countries: Back us in Paedominster, and we’ll back your progress towards sovereign independence within a Confederation of The Isles; firm contract, no havering. Irish nationalists within the FOSCOE – the foreign-occupied six counties of Eire (similar to occupied Palestine) – will warm to such approaches too.

johny conspiranoid
johny conspiranoid

If the millions who voted Labour over the past forty years have come to the conclusion that they might as well have voted Tory, there can be no faster way of speeding up Labour’s irrelevance than to carry on being Tory-Lite. That’s what happened to the Lib-Dems, after Charles Kennedy, and now its going to happen to Labour. The electorate doesn’t think what it thought forty years ago.

John Deehan
John Deehan

You make a number of fundamental errors in your assessment. Firstly, millions of voters plus approximately 250,000 members left the Labour Party during the New Labour period because it wasn’t recognised by them as a democratic socialist Labour Party. Secondly, in the 2017 the democratic socialist Labour Party had 40.6% of the vote and an additional 30 MPs not forgetting the 250,000 members who joined the party. In comparison under Gordon Brown NL had 29% of the vote which meant that the democratic socialist Labour Party had gained almost 12% of the vote the largest increase in vote since 1945. Thirdly, in the 2019 GE the Tories only gained 300,000 votes whilst Labour had almost 33% higher than the 2005 GE when Blair won on less than 32% of the vote.Moreover, the Liberals lost so many seats and votes because they a. had a Blairite clone leading the party and b. forgot who their core supporters were. In much the manner that democratic socialist Labour Party allowed a right wing faction, posing as supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, to skew the policies in order to ride roughshod over the wishes of the former solid Labour seats. It is no coincidence that 55 of the 59 seats Labour lost had voted leave. It’s time to listen to what the core supporters want instead of pandering to right wing whose only interests lie in their own interests. By the way Bozo said “ he recognised that they had borrowed him their votes”. He will let them down as every Tory leader since Thatcher has. Like the prodigal son they will return.

tonyopmoc
tonyopmoc

As an almost life long member of trades unions, who I often had massive respect for (Unison still sends me mail), the main problem why the Labour Party has been self destructing since 1997 (and don’t tell me Tony Blair is a success)…is cos – well – if you are having a party, you invite everyone in. It’s a party – you can’t discriminate. All our political parties have been infiltrated, by forces (sometimes foreign) that have absolutely no interest in the ordinary working man.

The Labour Party is supposed to look after the interests of the ordinary working man in the area which they were elected – ie The UK

I am not voting for any of them, and I wouldn’t even if I was a member of The Labour Party.

Corbyn needed to get rid of The Blairites, could, and didn’t.

Nice to hear some female voices from The North West, but basically The Labour Party is lost now. I can’t think of any eloquent solutions.

Tony

J-J
J-J

Jess Phillips is deeply unlikable no matter what party she was in! Very pinchable face and her ideas of socialism are just literally mass immigration = good! Blind equality that can’t be enforced = also good! As opposed to workers owning and operating the means of production which is literally what socialism is!

Dungroanin
Dungroanin

‘Straight Face, Jess’

Caught in ecstasy on live tv on election night as the sting came in.

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar

Let me say this: any Jew saying that a population of 400,000 out of well north of 50 million should in effect control one of the two biggest political parties is absolutely, non-negotiably, irrevocably, unacceptably racist.

Any Jew who thinks that they get to run one of the two major UK parties should be given 28 days to renounce their UK citizenship or face death by firing squad. It is the most ridiculously racist and untenable argument possible to hold in any sentient nation state. I genuinely believe that UK Jews now think that the goyim must be their servants.

What needs to happen is a public definition of what Jewish behaviour constitutes racism. Jews are undeniably racist in how they behave, constantly playing anti-Semitic bullshit cards to gain unwarranted power and influence. It is a hate crime to say that Jews are superior to non-Jews ,that God sees the Jews as superior and it should be an imprisonment offence for any Jew to say that 400,000 Jews get to control a nation of 50 million +.

If Jews can not accept that, then they cannot be surprised if someone puts a bullet through their head.

I have no hatred of Jews, but I have an implacable red line where Jewish behaviour and attitudes are concerned. It is non-negotiable that they have no superior rights in any way to any non-Jewish UK citizen and that violence is merited against any Jew who threatens anyone with permanent economic sanctions when they state this universal truism concerning the inalienable rights of ALL humans not to be discriminated against based on gender, sexuality, religious faith etc etc.

I am very, very clear that the Chief Rabbi has to agree with what I say or he must be put to death in a very, very brutal way. If he does not agree with it he is an arch racist who should have no chance of any significant office, no political support whatever from any UK mainstream party. And if he uses Jewish thuggery to destroy economic lives for anyone who challenges Jewish racism, he no longer retains the right to life.

This is no different to the US’ attitude to any number of states that do not kiss their ass, after all. Assassination of the Iranian general comes to mind recently……..and the Chief Rabbi is not superior to him in any way…..so killing the Chief Rabbi holding such repulsive attitudes would be every bit as justifiable as the recent US action against a Muslim…..you will note I have not stated that he DOES hold such views….and I am not about to start a smear campaign in global MSM outlets suggesting that he does. I hope that he can say the same about his non-goyim brethren…..

I feel sure that the sycophantic Chief Rabbi would never criticise the myriad of genocidal actions by his greatest servant, the USA………..an attitude which brings into stark relief the question as to whether he is, in fact, an irredeemable anti-Arab racist………

How do you think Jews will feel about being called racists themselves?

I hope they feel all the outrage that those falsely branded as ‘anti-semitic’ felt.

And I hope that the Chief Rabbi has a full understanding of who ‘those speaking Semitic languages’ comprise, for he as a Jew is in just as small a minority of the Semites as the Jews are in Her Britannic Majesty’s United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland……..

paul
paul

We seem to live in a world of quotas now and who has got more beans on their plate than somebody else.
Apparently there aren’t enough ethnics, gays, wimmin, trannies, whatever, in influential, desirable, and highly paid jobs.
If this quota spoils system is going to be applied, it has to be across the board.
So if about 0.6% of the population is Jewish, then their employment as bankers, lawyers, journalists, politicians and the like, should be restricted to 0.6% of the whole. With o.6% of bus driver, road sweeper, and trawlermen jobs likewise reserved for them.
Likewise, about 0.15% of banker and road sweeper jobs should be reserved for trannies.
And 50% of the prison population and 50% of fatal industrial accidents should be wimmin.
Who could object to that?
It’s all perfectly fair. Let’s just get the quotas right.

Gall

Personally I think that you are confusing Jews with Zionists which is what the latter want you to do while they cry “ANTISEMITISM” and secretly support it.

“Herzl predicted that ‘the anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.'”

See:
https://prepareforchange.net/2019/08/06/anti-semitism-and-zionism-have-formed-a-brutal-alliance/

Irony of irony is that most White Supremacists are totally controlled by Zionists these days. The historical fact that is very well hidden along with the Haavara or Transfer Agreement is the fact that the B’nai B’rith the same Masonic organization that founded the ADL secretly supported the Klu Klux Klan and that those associated with them were instigators of wide release of the racist movie “Birth of a Nation” that actually resurrected the moribund KKK.

So caveat emptor when you buy that it’s the choose are responsible when in fact its the Zionists both Jewish and Christian of which Puritanism was a virulent strain of and was responsible for the American Holocaust and Genocide of the Indigenous population.

richard le sarc
richard le sarc

Rhy, the Jewish elite control ALL the parties-they just want to make Labour GROVEL. On hands and knees.

Antonym
Antonym

They control the Universe with their Jaweh!
Sssssshhhhh.

paul
paul

No, with lies, threats, smears, terrorism, blackmail and corruption.

richard le sarc
richard le sarc

Well, it’s there in black and white in the Talmud and the exegeses. What-are you a ‘self-hating Jew’ or something? You should enjoy your Divinity.

Antonym
Antonym

First you set up a straw man against reason and numbers, next show yourself a Jew hater.

Who benefits from this kind of scrap? Not the British working class or their daughters for sure.

You blindness for Muslim preachers inside the UK shows you cards…

paul
paul

The same people who benefit from all the Zionist smear and hate campaigns, bankrolling stooge professional moslem baiters like Wilders, or Robinson with his £10,000 a month Zionist money so he can live high on the hog with his fancy cars and designer clothes. Certainly not the British working class. They’re just goy insects.

richard le sarc
richard le sarc

A vicious Moslem hater, without pretense otherwise, accuses others of hatred. Words fail.

paul
paul

It’s called projection.

lundiel
lundiel

Just got 2 emails from the Labour party saying “join us to make this choice”. It’s like Big B said in one of his books, “If you keep getting the same result, why inflict further suffering on yourself and others”.
It’s genuinely time to abandon Labour for good folks. There’s no hope so why prolong the cancer another 10 years? You’re only providing jobs for parasites.

J-J
J-J

The herd are wedded at the nipple to the two main parties! So it’s wishful thinking we will stop the madness!

BigB
BigB

Let’s not forget – other than removing Clause IV – Blair’s other major coup over long term Labour policy. Conspiring with his old flatmate Charlie Falconer – that’s Lord Falconer to the likes of riff-raff like you and I – which was liberating the City of London Corporation from any symbolic threat Labour may ever have posed. Which paved the way for the final enclosure in private property of the country as a market-monopoly state …which was obviously the Thatcher project mentioned.

Also, all candidates have signed the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD) “10 Pledges to end the anti-Semitism crisis.” Which Robert Stevens summed up better than I could: “Every single pledge reeks of authoritarianism in pursuit of a filthy witch-hunt.” Which augments the above nicely.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/01/15/boar-j15.html

The UK is a blackhole of gravitas-torn political lack. The recent election was an embarrassment of nihilism and an absolutist abandonment of the ecology of the future. If we can’t see that the inculcated communitarian behaviourism of vote, vote, vote, is destroying the planet and abnegating any future possibility …

…The fact Attenborough said a similar thing about the ecology of the future yesterday becomes a neat screening discourse and Rawlsian ‘veil of ignorance’ that separates the real from the false these days. They share the same voice: and no doubt share the same fate of being ignored?

So the radical becomes unwanted social commentary and the status quo moves on unopposed. I can tell you for free who is going to march lockstep with City of London Corporation’s greenwashing of neoliberal globalisation – the party of capital occupation and endocolonisation that is the Zionist Labour Party (Westminster Branch). Anyone who fancies a politics of awakening – my own favourite anti-necessatarian, anti-statist, anti-capitalist, anti-globalist and pro-universal human emancipatory liberation ecology – need not apply to the bleak Mordor-like anti-future of Britain’s apolitical hyper-individualism …personified by liberal Bourgeois pseudosocialism. Politics murdered politics while it was sleeping.

Awakening is still possible: but it means embedding political economy in political ecology; the market society in global ecology; and the hyper-individualist psychology in an emergent global emancipatory consciousness …none of which appear particularly appealing to the modernist Capitalist subject. I presumed UK politics could get no lower than the political nadir of Thatcher. Oh, well …you live and learn!

richard le sarc
richard le sarc

They always find new depths. It was plain that we here in Austfailia could not sink deeper than after the racist war criminal Howard, then we got the narcissist Rudd, despatched by the USA and Israel, replaced by the utter incompetent Gillard, followed by the psychopathic denialist Abbott. Thereupon he was followed by another narcissist, Turnbull, who would not stand up to the denialist claque that still dominates the regime, even as the country burns down, followed by ‘one in 100 year’ floods, so was replaced by a Pentecostal (from birth, no convert he) and advertising guru, Morrison. Surely this is it-rock bottom? Don’t ever bet on it, but there is not much time left for further excursions into the nether regions of human wickedness and stupidity.

bevin
bevin

The way for the membership, viewed by the candidates, it would seem, as voting fodder, to assert themselves is by taking a leaf out of the board of Deputies’ book and producing a list of simple demands and invite candidates to subscribe to them. Or to explain why they will not.
A members charter.

Among the commitments one would desire from an aspiring leader are- in no particular order:

1/ A firm commitment to re-nationalise the Railways and provide free public transport.

2/ Free Public Broadband and a re-commitment to the Manifesto as minimum objectives for a government.

3/ Repeal of all anti-union laws and restoration of the right to strike and closed shop.

4/ Leave NATO and pursue an independent foreign policy. No Trident renewal.

5/ Recognition of Palestine. Opposition to Israeli Apartheid policies. An end to the Occupation of 1967 territories and a return of the Golan Heights to Syria.

6/ Reinstatement of all members expelled without full disciplinary hearings in accordance with natural law.

7/ An apology to the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan for participation in the wars against the.

8/ Automatic re-selection of all MPs and Councillors as part of the nomination process for elections.

9/ Fixed election dates-annual elections to Parliament. Abolition of the House of Peers.

10/ A full review of the Party Constitution by elected delegates of the membership at special regional and national conferences.

These of course are just “off the top of my head” A final Charter should be both shorter and more precise. But the idea is obvious: insist on these candidates signing on to commitments, not simply to outside pressure groups but to the membership. It is, in fact, an insult to the membership for candidates, already pledged, to request votes. They ought to have consulted the membership before acceding to, for example, the Board of Deputies’ demand.
But that is Blairism for you: its basis is a contempt for the membership and an elitist distrust of democracy.

BigB
BigB

We share a tiny blue marble in the vastness of space …any policy that does not have this as its primacy is defunct from the thinking. We do not live in a world where the Arrow of Time and Entropy are reversible. We left that world behind in the 1970s – at a time when maximal available end-use energy (exergy) peaked. The Laws of Nature demand that after that: things must degrow. And they are. And they have been for decades. UK primary exergy has been degrowing for at least a decade, along with our economy. It can’t be reversed – not without expropriating wealth, energy, and material resources from the mouths of babies somewhere else. Jason Hickel’s ‘The Divide’ has all the relevant statistics.

4.5 billion people are in abject poverty – see Hickel for how neoliberal ideologues like Rosling and Pinker mask this with massaged statistics. It will take a minimum of 200 – 900 years to lift them out of poverty at current ‘developmental’ rates of growth. And current rates of growth are stalling: then what? Will the UK distribute its surplus wealth – of which it has centuries of primitive accumulation of – to repay our ecological debt to the intentionally immiserated we extrapolate our unionised industrial bourgeois thinking from? No.

The global ‘Catch 22’ is that if we do not start thinking of others trans-nationally – we too will perish …of shame, perhaps? Perhaps not? We in the UK have a globalist imperialist mindset that must be disentangled from by every single one of us. There is a veil of ignorance erected around our coastline by our bourgeois bounded-morality thinking. We are not alone. We are situated in a nested community that is globally extensive. Not the EU: the ‘bounded’ community of humanity. Which is itself situated in the earth systems ecology – a broader inter-species bio-community of diversity and inclusiveness …the interpenetration of global interbeing.

We do not function in isolation. Any proximal polity has to be distally harmonious first, not as an distant tertiary contingency …but as a primal ecological necessity and planetary sufficiency. Socialism is universalist first: in international solidarity. Not the life-blind ghost of some post-industrial landscape trying to revive the idealised dreams of yesteryear. We do not live in that world anymore. We never will again.

So with 1/, 2/, 3/, 8/, 9/, 10/ ruled out by reality – and by the fact that the capitalist market monopoly state is so obviously a major institutionalised cause of the capitalist ecogenocide. That leaves three clauses I can most heartily endorse. Perhaps we can repay our post-colonial Empire for the ecological debt we owe to the immiserated, dehumanised, and peripheralised world we stole our military-Keynesian glory years from?

bevin
bevin

My lengthy and detailed reply seems to have been lost somewhere, somehow. I’m not going to attempt to repeat it.

Tallis Marsh
Tallis Marsh

Okay, (in my personal opinion), the establishment are doubling down; getting heavier from all angles and using any and all means to take down the Corbyn Movement. Apparently, in this particular instance they are using the so-called ‘law’ (in reality a corrupt, two tier system that advantages the estab and disadvantages the general public)?

Not completely sure of the detils but as far as I can see imo, one of our few unions, Unite — that isn’t as heavily infiltrated/co-opted/subverted lie the other unions — is currently being targetted; the estab aim to remove Len McCluskey (through a law suit with an ex LP MP, it seems? See link below?) asap – probably before Unite can fully, officially endorse RBL for Leader (and RB for Deputy?); these two are the only geuine Corbyn-movement-endorsed candidates and need Unite in order to get through to the next stage? Obviously, if true, I hope the estab fall on their faces and McCluskey/Unite/Skwawkbox stays around. We must fight for our Corbyn Movement; keep it going – the estab seem very afraid of it continuing.

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1218151073510236165

Tallis Marsh
Tallis Marsh

* details

* like the other unions