The BBC and corporate media coalesce around an extremely narrow consensus of political thought, and ensure that anybody who steps outside that consensus is ridiculed and marginalised. That consensus has got narrower and narrower. I was delighted during the general election to be able to listen to Nicola Sturgeon during the leaders’ debate argue for anti-austerity policies and for the scrapping of Trident. I had not heard anyone on broadcast media argue for the scrapping of Trident for a decade – it is one of those views which though widely held the establishment gatekeepers do not view as respectable.
The media are working overtime to marginalise Jeremy Corbyn as a Labour leadership candidate on the grounds that he is left wing and therefore weird and unelectable. But they face the undeniable fact that, Scottish independence aside, there are very few political differences between Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon. On issues including austerity, nuclear weapons, welfare and Palestine both Sturgeon and Corbyn are really very similar. They have huge areas of agreement that stand equally outside the establishment consensus. Indeed Nicola is more radical than Jeremy, who wants to keep the United Kingdom.
The establishment’s great difficulty is this. Given that the SNP had just slaughtered the Labour Party – and the Tories and Lib Dems – by being a genuine left wing alternative, how can the media consensus continue to insist that the left are unelectable? The answer is of course that they claim Scotland is different. Yet precisely the same establishment consensus denies that Scotland has a separate political culture when it comes to the independence debate. So which is it? They cannot have it both ways.
If Scotland is an integral part of the UK, Jeremy Corbyn’s policies cannot be unelectable.
Nicola Sturgeon won the UK wide leaders debate in the whole of the United Kingdom, despite the disadvantage of representing a party not standing in 90% of it by population. She won not just because she is clever and genuine, but because people all across the UK liked the left wing policies she articulated.
A Daily Mirror opinion poll following a BBC televised Labour leadership candidates’ debate this week had Jeremy Corbyn as the clear winner, with twice the support of anyone else. The media ridicule level has picked up since. This policy of marginalisation works. I was saddened by readers’ comments under a Guardian report of that debate, in which Labour supporter after Labour supporter posted comment to the effect “I would like to vote for Jeremy Corbyn because he believes in the same things I do, but we need a more right wing leader to have a chance of winning.”
There are two answers to that. The first is no, you don’t need to be right wing to win. Look at the SNP. The second is what the bloody hell are you in politics for anyway? Do you just want your team to win like it was football? Is there any point at all in being elected just so you can carry out the same policies as your opponents? The problem is, of course, that for so many in the Labour Party, especially but not just the MPs, they want to win for personal career advantage not actually to promote particular policies.
The media message of the need to be right wing to be elected is based on reinforced by a mythologizing of Tony Blair and Michael Foot as the ultimate example of the Good and Bad leader. These figures are constantly used to reinforce the consensus. Let us examine their myths.
Tony Blair is mythologised as an electoral superstar, a celebrity politician who achieved unprecedented personal popularity with the public, and that he achieved this by adopting right wing policies. Let us examine the truth of this myth. First that public popularity. The best measure of public enthusiasm is the percentage of those entitled to vote, who cast their ballot for that party at the general election. This table may surprise you.
Percentage of Eligible Voters
1992 John Major 32.5%
1997 Tony Blair 30.8%
2001 Tony Blair 24.1%
2005 Tony Blair 21.6%
2010 David Cameron 23.5%
2015 David Cameron 24.4%
There was only any public enthusiasm for Blair in 97 – and to put that in perspective, it was less than the public enthusiasm for John Major in 1992.
More importantly, this public enthusiasm was not based on the policies now known as Blairite. The 1997 Labour Manifesto was not full of right wing policies and did not indicate what Blair was going to do.
The Labour Party manifesto of 1997 did not mention Academy schools, Private Finance Initiative, Tuition Fees, NHS privatisation, financial sector deregulation or any of the right wing policies Blair was to usher in. Labour actually presented quite a left wing image, and figures like Robin Cook and Clare Short were prominent in the campaign. There was certainly no mention of military invasions.
It was only once Labour were in power that Blair shaped his cabinet and his policies on an ineluctably right wing course and Mandelson started to become dominant. As people discovered that New Labour were “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”, to quote Mandelson, their popular support plummeted. “The great communicator” Blair for 90% of his Prime Ministership was no more popular than David Cameron is now. 79% of the electorate did not vote for him by his third election
Michael Foot consistently led Margaret Thatcher in opinion polls – by a wide margin – until the Falklands War. He was defeated in a victory election by the most appalling and intensive wave of popular war jingoism and militarism, the nostalgia of a fast declining power for its imperial past, an emotional outburst of popular relief that Britain could still notch up a military victory over foreigners in its colonies. It was the most unedifying political climate imaginable. The tabloid demonization of Foot as the antithesis of the military and imperial theme was the first real exhibition of the power of Rupert Murdoch. Few serious commentators at the time doubted that Thatcher might have been defeated were it not for the Falklands War – which in part explains her lack of interest in a peaceful solution. Michael Foot’s position in the demonology ignores these facts.
The facts about Blair and about Foot are very different from the media mythology.
The stupid stunt by Tories of signing up to the Labour Party to vote for Corbyn to ridicule him, is exactly the kind of device the establishment consensus uses to marginalise those whose views they fear. Sturgeon is living proof left wing views are electable. The “left unelectable” meme will intensify. I expect Jeremy Corbyn’s biggest problem will be quiet exclusion. I wish him well.
Anybody aware of any known strong connections between the Magic Circle & Satanism ?
Had a quick look myself, but nothing substantial, however was surprised to learn from Wiki that “Satanism is now allowed in the Royal Navy of the British Armed Forces” !
Special musical treat for Habby ! 😀
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCdy9MzAcQE
” @Lysias, do you think that the chapel location could indicate satanism ?
Exactly what I was thinking. Janner, remember, is a former member of the Magic Circle.”
____________________
I think that Lysias may well be onto something very important here and has pointed to a line of enquiry which the authorities would be well advised to pursue with the utmost vigour.
Let us not forget, in this connection, that magicians (some of whom might well be members of the Magic Circle) are often hired to perform at….young children’s birthday parties!
Is further proof needed?
“(Saddam) we travelled to Britain to buy reliable British goods”
_________________
It is comforting to learn that there was at least one group of consumers who found British goods to be “reliable”. A view not shared by a lot of Eurupean, Alerican and Commonwealth consumers, I fear.
“..even our plugs are three pin like British one’s (sic)”
______________________
And that, I submit, is conclusive proof that Saddam Hussein was a British stooge in the Middle East.
A google search for “magic circle” and “satanism” yields 64,100 hits.
“Saddam is said to have been a great admirer of Stalin.”
__________________
I’ve heard that as well. Tyrants tend to admire other tyrants, for reasons even the most obtuse amoung us understand.
“Saddam Hussein was a tyrant Habbabkuk but he was OUR tyrant just as Gaddafi was.”
_______________________________
This, I’m afraid, is just the sort of childish comment one has to deal with when posting here.
Unfortunately, Western nations have to deal with unsavoury regimes and it’s not always pretty. To expect a consistently moral approach given the nature of these places would be a nice idea, but these are decisions which people with responsiblilty have to take.
Unlike you, Dougie.
Actually, the Baath government in which Saddam was already a leading figure came to power in Iraq in a coup in Feb. 1963 (one of the less creditable events in the presidency of John Kennedy) in which both the U.S. and the UK appear to have been complicit. Ramadan Revolution:
The Coup That Destroyed Revolutionary Iraq:
Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam’s Party in Power:
Resident Dissident
24 Jun, 2015 – 7:45 pm
“when William Hague called killing a thousand Yemeni civilians for the loss of six Israeli soldiers “disproportionate”
Since he was talking about the Israeli invasion of Southern Lebanon – I very much doubt those killed were Yemenis. And BTW Hague, and also David Miliband who made the point first were both absolutely right.
…………………………………………………………..
ResDis it would help when you quote others if you gave details of the time, date and name of the post you are referring to then others may be able to understand where you’re coming from.
“It is comforting to learn that there was at least one group of consumers who found British goods to be “reliable”. A view not shared by a lot of Eurupean, Alerican and Commonwealth consumers, I fear.'”
_________________________
I shall over look the spelling mistakes,unless I’m mistaken,and Alerica,has declared independence recently from some far off superpower.
Yes I suppose you’re correct on that matter,that at one time Britain, produced the goods, or so to speak.
A prime example of this is of course the rise and demise of British Leyland,and before you jump in,yes the unions played a part in its ultimate downfall,but so did management.
Why was it allowed to fail? Ultimately it sounded the beginning of the end,for mass production of affordable, British cars.
Craig
“The stupid stunt by Tories of signing up to the Labour Party to vote for Corbyn to ridicule him, is exactly the kind of device the establishment consensus uses to marginalise those whose views they fear.”
I don’t think fear has anything to do with it. Remember that the Tories used to applaud Ed Miliband at PMQs. It’s a recognition that the opposition hasn’t a chance of success and is destined to failure, just like Corbyn and the left.
RoS
“the unions played a part in its ultimate downfall,but so did management.”
___________________
Happy to agree with you there, RoS. And I think we could further agree to add “the govt”.
Macky
24/06/2015 6:33pm
That is true of much of the book, but not of Mark Essex, who was a mass murderer in a similar way to others we have recently seen; that is why I mentioned him particularly.
“Mass murderers kill the same way soldiers do, without personal hatred for their victims but to right some large social wrong.”
I’m afraid I am quite cynical about that. It makes them sound almost heroic. The former FBI profiler John Douglas, who wrote an extremely interesting book called The Anatomy of Motive in which he examined, among many others, the mass murderers Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane) and Charles Whitman (University of Texas), points out that most mass murderers are white male antisocial loners, and they regularly employ this kind of grievance justification as a mask for their personal resentments and inadequacies.
I don’t think I would have a lot of liking for Douglas’s politics, if any, but I don’t have much sympathy to waste on someone who shoots a bunch of innocent people and says it’s because the world is unjust.
I do think that the author of the article is on to something, but I think he has it a bit backwards. It’s not that mass murder is war writ small, but that similar motivations drive mass murderers and warmongers, and that war can emanate from the most remarkably banal and childish motives (“I want what you’ve got and I can’t have it, so I am going to snatch it!” “You humiliated me and did not show me respect, so I am going to bash you!”).
Soldiers may well not have personal hatred for their opponents. But somebody had the power to order them on to the battlefield, right? For what motive? It’s initially quite hard to believe (although it gets easier for me every day) that so-called statesmen and stateswomen can act from the most extraordinarily base motives of plunder and resentment, but actually I think that they do, a great deal of the time.
So, war may be mass murder writ large, rooted to a large extent in the personal characteristics of people who happen to have the power to order others to kill for them, rather than mass murder being war in microcosm.
Kind regards,
John
What the CIA did in Iraq in 1963 — sponsor a coup and give the coup leaders lists of people to be purged — it proceeded to do in Indonesia in 1965. (Obama, his mother, and his stepfather, a colonel in the Indonesian army, lived in Indonesia in the years immediately after that coup under circumstances that suggest a CIA connection. The Soetoros and the Indonesian Massacres 1965-1999. On the Indonesia purges, see the marvelous movie The Act of Killing.)
Although he does not say so, the links on Iraq given by Lysias at 20h32 are to that well-known, impartial and respected online newsletter “Counterpunch” and the writer of the Counterpunch article is one Raza Naeem, who is ” an Arabic-speaking Pakistani social scientist, literary critic, translator and political activist (of the Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party)”.
Just to give readers a little context, eh. 🙂
ROS,
There’s a rather illuminating chapter in George Galloway’s book ‘I’m Not The Only One’ (Saddam and Me) in which he states (correctly):
“Saddam Hussein could have no legitimate complaint if having lived by the sword – ruthlessly cutting down any and all opposition – he had died by the sword (or the rope) at the hands of the Iraqis.
But that was not the situation. No trial arranged by illegal occupiers could have any validity in law. Nothing legal could come from the invasion of Iraq carried out in flagrant defiance of the United Nations. The people who deserved to be on trial for crimes against the Iraqi people were first and foremost George Bush and Tony Blair. Saddam had committed many awful crimes against his people, most of them when I was demonstrating against him at the time when he was a highly profitable client of the same Anglo-American axis now holding him” (p.103).
Also, this from John Pilger outlining his experience at Baghdad’s Al Raheed Hotel:
“You enter by way of an icon of dark Iraqi humour, crossing a large floor portrait, set in tiles, of George Bush Senior, a good likeness, and the words: ‘George Bush is a war criminal’. The face is forever being polished. I met an assistant manager, who had been at the hotel since the 1980s and whose sardonic sense of western double standards was a treat.
‘Ah, a journalist from Britain!’ he said. ‘Would you like to see where Mr Douglas Hurd stayed, and Mr David Melon [sic] and Mr Tony Newton, and all the other members of Mrs Thatcher’s Government….These gentlemen were our friends, our BENEFACTORS.’
As the subsequent inquiry by Sir Richard Scott revealed these ‘celebrities’ knew they were dealing illegally with the tyrant. ‘Please give Mr Melon my greetings,’ said the assistant manager.” (pp.66-67)
The Medialens editors have produced a sequel to their piece about the Sunday Times/Ivens piece. Craig’s pieces get attributions.
Latest Alert: ‘Address Your Remarks To Downing Street’ – The Sunday Times Editor Deepens His Snowden Debacle
http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2015/795-address-your-remarks-to-downing-street.html
They have produced a list of dubious reporting by the Sunday Times since Murdoch took it over, with reference to the Iraq and Libyan wars, Death on the Rock, Ariel Sharon et al.
Lysias; “A google search for “magic circle” and “satanism” yields 64,100 hits”
The first two random things I thought of, aardvark & teapot, produced 97,600 results, when I thought that maybe aardvarks were somehow a very popular choice to decorate teapots, I tried aardvark & wellington boots, which gave 1,900,000 hits !
This is why I asked for “strong connections” !
During the 1970s and 1980s car design underwent massive changes. There was the best selling V.W. Golf which was the worlds first hot-hatch.
The Ford motor company was perfecting their Capri and rally winning Escorts. Audi was trail blazing the way with its Quattro.
British Leyland responded with the Allegro and the Marina, and if you can remember these models then you’ll know, what I’m talking about, if not lucky you.
Maybe I’m being rather harsh on BL, as I have some fond memories, which include certain models,such as the Austin Princess,and the Maxi.
Another source on the 1963 coup in Iraq, CIA coups in Iraq in 1963 & 1968 helped put Saddam Hussein in power:
Miles Copeland and Roger Morris, mentioned as sources in the article, are well-known former CIA and National Security Council officials.
@Anon1
24 Jun, 2015 – 8:29 pm
The most unsavoury regimes are those in the west, who stomp around the world causing mayhem and murder in the name of corporate profit. Endless war, egged on by a lackey media and huge propaganda machine.
Only complete mugs buy into the “We’re the policeman of the world” BS.
BP are drilling oil in Iraq as a type this.
Yes Daniel, all very true, I recall, something similar in John Pilger’s book, The New Rulers of the World, in which he goes on to say that Iraq was invaded because,it wasn’t dangerous to Britain and America, and North Korea,won’t be invaded,because of the exact opposite reason.
Which brings us nicely onto the eternally late Chilcot report,what’s going on there?
ROS,
The quotations from Pilger were actually from New Rulers Of The World. I forgot to mention that in my post.
—
[ Mod: Daniel, you also forgot to mention that you lifted an entire article from socialistworker.co.uk earlier today, at 19:36. Please attribute quotes you make, and a smaller summary with the link would be appreciated. ]
Roger Morris wrote an op ed in the New York Times in 2003 on U.S. and CIA responsibility for Saddam Hussein coming to power: A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making:
I remember reading somewhere a while ago that there was jubilation in the government offices in Washington after the coup.
Barry Lando reveals in his book Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq that “The declassified papers of the British Cabinet of 1963 also disclose that the coup was backed by the CIA and the British. The Guardian, London, January 1, 1994, 5.”
‘Magic Circle’ is, I believe, not being used here to refer to stage magicians and conjurors but to a putative ring of paedophiles operating at the heart of the Scottish legal establishment in the 90s, some of whom it appears may have protected Lord Janner.
93,000 children are classified as homeless. Where? A. In the UK.
Child poverty levels in UK mapped out by new research
One in two children in most deprived areas live below poverty line, while 2.3 million are classified as in relative poverty
A quarter of all children in the UK are said to live in poverty once housing costs are taken into account.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/15/child-poverty-levels-uk-mapped-out-research
Oct 2014
Please sign this petition to Osborne. 189,000 citizens have already done so.
‘The government knows their plans to cut child tax credits will push more kids into poverty. So today they’re trying to cover it up – changing the definition of child poverty to hide the effects of their cuts. They’re panicking about official evidence showing that the number of children living in poverty in the UK has risen for the first time in a decade. [1]
Child tax credits go to the poorest kids in the country, helping to pay for essentials like healthy food and school uniforms. The government wants to sneak their cuts under the radar – so it’s up to us to speak up for the poorest children in our country.
Please can you sign the petition to stop the cuts to child tax credit?
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/child-tax-credit
The 38 Degrees team
[1] The Telegraph: David Cameron discusses changing child poverty target days before embarrassing figures released:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11694735/David-Cameron-discusses-changing-child-poverty-target-days-before-embarrassing-figures-released.html
The Guardian: Tory plan to redefine child poverty as figures set to show first rise in decade:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/23/child-poverty-measures-figures-first-rise-in-decade
In case you missed it, here’s the email from a few days ago:
George Osborne is planning to cut support for children living in the poorest families in the UK.
If the cut goes ahead, it would take away the special help that gives these children the chance of a happy and healthy childhood. It pays for essentials like healthy food and school uniforms.
With only weeks until Osborne makes this official, we have a chance to force him to cancel this cruel cut. The government is split over the decision – so a huge outcry now could make sure they scrap the plans for good.’
E mail from 38 Degrees today.
Interesting post Lysais,thanks, I’ll look out for Lando’s book.
ROS,
You might be aware that Ken Livingstone and David Melon (sorry, Melor) have a weekly phone-in show on LBC Radio. As a rule of thumb I do not phone in to these kinds of programmes but couldn’t resist phoning on a recent occasion when the topic of Iraq came up. I got on air and mentioned Melor’s illegal dealings with the Iraqi tyrant at Baghdad’s Al Raheed Hotel as outlined by Pilger above. Needless to say, after what was clearly an embarrassing and humiliating silence, I was cut off.
I just ordered a used copy of Lando’s book from Amazon.
And, lest anyone wonder how I could quote Lando’s book without possessing a copy of it yet, I read an excerpt that included the footnote I quoted on books.google.com: https://books.google.com/books?id=xJ1AP68bGcIC&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=coup+iraq+1963+%22roger+morris%22&source=bl&ots=vk3wUwL2zK&sig=zVOn770c6HWz0pZ9vGkbSDOzYyI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1RGLVdWENMePuASai4uAAg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=coup%20iraq%201963%20%22roger%20morris%22&f=false