Labour Party/government Watch

[UndercoverElephant]

UE, I'm surprised you have quoted such complete, utter crap. The author is, in my opinion, a poisonous, devious and thoroughly nasty individual.

Of course he is. As is the rag he writes for.

I posted it because even though he is as about as far away from most of the people taking part in this discussion, politically, as can be imagined, a lot of what he is saying is true, and it is directed at readers of the Daily Mail!

I’d much rather have a lone and awkward Jeremy Corbyn, respectfully staying silent during the singing of a song he didn’t agree with, than the ghastly pretence of Anthony Blair’s fake welcome to Downing Street in 1997, when Labour Party workers were bussed into Downing Street and ordered to impersonate a patriotic crowd.

Do you disagree with this?

When H i t c - h - e - n s looks at Corbyn, he feels the sort of respect that I had for Margaret Thatcher. Politically, I despised her, and wish she'd never been born. But at least she didn't pretend to be anything she wasn't. She told it how she saw it and had no time for people who pussyfooted around trying to avoid upsetting people. She had real beliefs and principles, and stuck to them. So does Corbyn. 99% of modern politicians do not.

[UndercoverElephant]

Superb article IMO

http://www.fairobserver.com/region/euro ... our-12004/

What lies ahead for Jeremy Corbyn and the British Labour Party?

When Jeremy Corbyn squeaked onto the ballot for the British Labour Party’s leadership race, he was a 100-1 outsider. Nobody expected him to win—least of all a demoralized, fragmented and weak left. While his victory is a huge boost, the odds in the war ahead remain stacked against both him and us.

This is not defeatism, nor must it be confused with or degraded into a rejectionist cynicism that values hermetically sealed ideological “purity” over risking one’s predictions of failure by engaging with what is still an imperfect and limited reformist phenomenon. It is, however, a necessary starting point for developing any effective strategy. That strategy, clumsy and error-ridden as it will inevitably be, must be based on expectations of lengthy and patient engagement, rather than on any illusions of a power that Corbyn’s win does little to increase.

More specifically, if Corbyn’s support base is to develop resilience, it must create its own autonomous capacity to organize, communicate and act. In other words, the nascent popular agency that has been evident in recent months at rallies and meetings must consolidate itself into a genuine social movement, supportive of—yet not dependent on—a Corbyn-led Labour.

In parallel, Corbyn faces the challenge of transforming Labour itself into an entirely different type of institution: not an electoral machine, but a catalyst and focus for self-organizing campaigns that both work within and transcend its boundaries. If both these things can be done, they may energize one another to a degree that surprises us all. Everyone on the left should welcome the sudden opening of political space around a whole range of issues that had seemed solidly occupied by the reactionary right—from economics, housing and public ownership, to immigration.

Each aspect of this strategy, however, faces serious obstacles. Only if Corbyn’s win gives his supporters greater confidence to conduct their own struggles in workplaces, over housing and against all forms of discrimination and exploitation can we start talking about a significant and lasting realignment in British politics able to resist the inevitable counterattack—or to simply survive possible electoral “failure” with its networks of mobilization and potential for further radicalization intact.

Secondly, in transforming Labour into an organization capable of working with such popular movements, Corbyn faces a huge task. In no way does this involve “reclaiming” the party via a return to “Old Labour values.” Labour has never been, and has never wanted to be, the kind of institution that is now required.

[continues]

[raspberry-blower]

Very interesting article by Jonathan Cook on the dilemma of the Guardian and Observer over Jeremy Corbyn's victory

But where does this leave the Guardian and Observer, both of which have consistently backed “moderate” elements in the PLP? If Corbyn is exposing the PLP as the Red Neoliberal Party, what does that mean for the Guardian, the parliamentary party’s house paper?

Corbyn is not just threatening to expose the sham of the PLP as an alternative to the Conservatives, but the sham of Britain’s liberal-left media as a real alternative to the press barons. Which is why the Freedlands and Toynbees, who are the keepers of the Guardian flame, of its undeserved reputation as the left’s moral compass, demonstrated such instant antipathy to his sudden rise to prominence.

They and the paper followed the rightwing media in keeping the focus resolutely on Corbyn rather than recognising the obvious truth: this was about much more than one individual. The sudden outpouring of support for Corbyn reflected both an embrace of his authenticity and principles and a much more general anger at the injustices, inequalities and debasement of public life brought about by neoliberalism. Corbyn captured a mood, one that demands real, not illusory change. He is riding a wave, and to discredit Corbyn is to discredit the wave.

Guardian's terrible dilemma over Corbyn

[UndercoverElephant]

Very interesting article by Jonathan Cook on the dilemma of the Guardian and Observer over Jeremy Corbyn's victory

But where does this leave the Guardian and Observer, both of which have consistently backed “moderate” elements in the PLP? If Corbyn is exposing the PLP as the Red Neoliberal Party, what does that mean for the Guardian, the parliamentary party’s house paper?

Corbyn is not just threatening to expose the sham of the PLP as an alternative to the Conservatives, but the sham of Britain’s liberal-left media as a real alternative to the press barons. Which is why the Freedlands and Toynbees, who are the keepers of the Guardian flame, of its undeserved reputation as the left’s moral compass, demonstrated such instant antipathy to his sudden rise to prominence.

They and the paper followed the rightwing media in keeping the focus resolutely on Corbyn rather than recognising the obvious truth: this was about much more than one individual. The sudden outpouring of support for Corbyn reflected both an embrace of his authenticity and principles and a much more general anger at the injustices, inequalities and debasement of public life brought about by neoliberalism. Corbyn captured a mood, one that demands real, not illusory change. He is riding a wave, and to discredit Corbyn is to discredit the wave.

Guardian's terrible dilemma over Corbyn

Yep, excellent article.

I am perceiving the ground shifting. Cracks are appearing all over mainstream "neo-liberal" politics, and the media. It isn't just the Guardian and Observer that aren't quite sure how to deal with what has happened, although they are at the sharp end.

[biffvernon]

The Independent has run several rather pro-Corbyn articles. Perhaps they sense an opportunity to grab readers from the Guardian.

[johnhemming2]

The Independent has run several rather pro-Corbyn articles. Perhaps they sense an opportunity to grab readers from the Guardian.

Which is an interesting perspective on the reasons why articles argue any particular viewpoint.

I accept, however, that normally media outlets do not wish to challenge the preconceptions of their readers/viewers/listeners.

[AutomaticEarth]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... 1970s.html

[UndercoverElephant]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... 1970s.html

I have reached my online limit of Telegraph articles so I currently can't read this.

What is the story here?

Man has brief relationship with woman; it ended, and they remained on good terms.

Scandal!!!!!

Meanwhile, Cameron stuck his c*ck in a dead pig's head?

[PS_RalphW]

He had a relationship with Ms Abbott and 10 years later he had a relationship with another MP! The Damaging Revelation was quietly confirmed by senior colleagues who said "Yer, everyone in party knows about that."

[Little John]

This is ordinary private human behaviour and so has no public interest whatsoever. Meanwhile, Cameron’s disgusting antics are receiving the most timid and euphemistic of coverage. Even the damned Guardian is seeking to minimise the story by pushing the line of it just being about "posh kids getting wasted".

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ord-secret

Just imagine what they would do to Corbyn with such a story...

[kenneal - lagger]

Meanwhile, Cameron stuck his c*ck in a dead pig's head?

Is that story kosher?

[Blue Peter]

Meanwhile, Cameron stuck his c*ck in a dead pig's head?

Is that story kosher?

Very few people know. You may read this.

Biff's link is also worth a read. It's the story behind the story that matters, secret societies which suggest other loyalties, and societies which seem to get a kick from despising the poor.


Peter.

[Tarrel]

I think you missed the gag.

[kenneal - lagger]

I think you missed the gag.

He did!

The real implication of the piece in the Leveller is that all the members of that society probably did the same initiation or something equally bizarre.

[biffvernon]

I think you missed the gag.

He did!

The real implication of the piece in the Leveller is that all the members of that society probably did the same initiation or something equally bizarre.

Noo, surely it's all about class and the attitudes of the rulers. The relationships with the pig are not important.