Congratulations to Jeremy Corbyn 318


I am unreservedly delighted at Jeremy Corbyn’s election. He made a quite excellent speech, specifically rejecting an attack on Syria, marketization in the NHS and the new anti-union legislation. Hopefully the scale of his victory will give pause to the Blairites who will realise they are not as all-important as they thought.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of the Labour establishment, as represented by the people in that hall, are hostile to Corbyn. The question now is whether Corbyn can overhaul party mechanisms in such a way as to bring the opinions of the membership to bear on policy and override that right wing “elite” who have been in charge of the party.

The first few weeks are key. Most Blairites are above all careerists. If they think Corbyn can carry through his personal dominance into control of policy and party mechanisms, then many of the Blairites will look at their constituency members and suddenly discover they had left-wing principles after all. If the Blairites think that a resistance and undermining campaign against Corbyn will succeed (and there will certainly be one), they will go for that. In short, most “Blairites” are out for themselves and will join what they perceive will be the winning side Corbyn’s winning margin, and the fact he won overwhelmingly among full members, gives him a very strong base.

I have shared anti-war and pro-Palestinian platforms with Jeremy, and have the greatest respect for him. I also expect that he will have the strength to stand against both the smothering blandishments and the attacks of the neo-con establishment. The “Corbyn’s election is a disaster” narrative is being pushed by the BBC relentlessly in every question and comment – for example they just asked Ed Miliband “In retrospect was it a mistake for you to resign the day after the election?”, the clear sub-text being that Corbyn’s election was undesirable.

Ever since I realised that Blair’s New Labour was entirely subservient to the neo-con agenda I have regarded Labour as the enemy, as a fake opposition so close to the Tories as to make no difference. I viewed its leadership as utterly unscrupulous careerists fully signed up to a vicious pro-wealthy agenda at home and completely subservient to US/Israeli foreign policy abroad. This new careerism tied in very nicely with a pre-existing rotten borough corruption in Scotland and Northern England. I utterly detested the Labour Party.

So it is difficult for me to find the Labour Party led by a man whom I know, nuch respect, and with whom I disagree on almost nothing except Scottish independence. I also continue to believe that once consolidated, Jeremy will make it clear he has no hostility to Scottish independence and will support a second referendum whenever the Scottish government wants it.

But the problem is that the Labour Party hierarchy, and particularly their parliamentary party, is still full of people who are neo-cons, Red Tories, appallingly corrupt, careerists and in several cases war criminals. To know what attitude to adopt to the Labour Party must depend on how the battle for control of the party pans out. The scale of Corbyn’s victory, and the total rejection of the direct interference of Tony Blair, give Corbyn a great start. Those Blairite bastions – the Guardian and the BBC – are spluttering incoherently.

Jeremy Corbyn has just won the battle for party leadership. But the battle for control of the Labour Party just started.


318 thoughts on “Congratulations to Jeremy Corbyn

1 9 10 11
  • Resident Dissident

    “There’s been a sudden U-turn in the way the Tories are dealing with Corbyn”

    Well there’s a massive surprise – not. Of course during the election they want there preferred choice i.e. the easiest to oppose elected so that they can now reap the political benefits. Just a guess but I suspect that George Osborne is currently wearing a massive smile!

  • N_

    Anon1

    Clearly if a party leader announces his intention to unilaterally disarm while states hostile or potentially hostile maintain their nuclear capability then that is a threat to national security.

    “Clearly”, you say?

    Countries like nuked-up France?

    You slipped your premise in there, didn’t you? If Britain gets rid of its nukes, no country is going to nuke it.

    Heard of Germany? Heard of Canada?

    No national security without nukes? Get a clue, mate.

  • N_

    Anon1 – Do you know anything about strategic nuclear warheads? They are a weapon designed to obliterate cities. The very possession of them should be designated a war crime.

  • ------------·´`·.¸¸.¸¸.··.¸¸Node

    Resident Dissident : Of course during the election they want there preferred choice i.e. the easiest to oppose elected so that they can now reap the political benefits. Just a guess but I suspect that George Osborne is currently wearing a massive smile!

    That’s what Anon1 says. You claim to be a New Labour supporter and Anon1 claims to be a UKIP supporter, but I don’t remember you EVER disagreeing about anything. Maybe that’s a clue to why so many are yearning for Labour to return to Socialist principals.

  • Habbbakuk (la vita e' bella!)

    “Not on piece rates like the trolls here but one of the episodes of extreme fatigue and disturbed sleep patterns I experience now. Perhaps it’s one of the side effects of 6 weeks of radiotherapy and a dose of Iodine 131. I fell to sleep after the Proms finished and woke at 4 am. Lights on. TV on. Back door wide open luckily for the sake of my dog. So there it is.”

    ___________________

    You’ve just gotta love the way Mary brings out the personal-pathetic details every time she’s cornered. Very slippery and not very convincing.

  • Habbbakuk (la vita e' bella!)

    Me Goss

    “John Goss “What the Israeli banking families want is world domination.”

    That’s what I said Je.”
    ________________

    Yes, Mr Goss, we know that’s what you said.

    It’s why Je addressed you and (correctly)rubbished what you said.

    Are you sure you got past primary school?

  • Habbbakuk (la vita e' bella!)

    “The clown is now resulting to gratuitous abuse rather than providing evidence of his past support for the two state solution.”
    ________________

    Well noticed. Mr Goss has taken to regularly calling one of the free-thinkers on here a “fascist” and another one a “racist”.

    I think Anon!’s description of Mr Goss is spot on.

  • Mary

    ‘Cornered’? LOL I was replying to the senior troll who accused me of starting early today. Just some info in return. Not soliciting sympathy, (does a troll know the meaning of ‘sympathy’) but stating facts.

    Q Why does the senior troll cut and paste comments made by others when he has nothing to contribute to this blog himself?

  • Resident Dissident

    “but I don’t remember you EVER disagreeing about anything”

    I suspect my views on economics (and in particular state involvement therein) and the EU are quite different. On freedom, protection of human rights and democracy you are right there is less difference.

  • Resident Dissident

    I should also add that I have never claimed to be a New Labour supporter – just a supporter and member of the Labour Party for nearly 30 years. Whether I stay so is dependent on whether the party has room for a Keynesian social democrat, a believer in universal human rights, and an opponent of totalitarian and autocratic regimes.

  • Resident Dissident

    “I have just realized that we started torturing the Kenyan Mau Mau just as the then P Elizabeth aka Her Maj was in Kenya.”

    Something of a record for starting a conspiracy theory – on this blog anyway!

  • glenn

    Habbbakuk (la vita e’ bella!), 13/10/15, 07:38 :

    “Mr Roberts (HM Inspector of Mines) had much to say about the role played by management.
    …The Inquiry brought to light a number of bad practices and even direct contraventions of the Act and Regulations that must be considered in forming an opinion of the way in which the colliery was managed…
    [Under summary of causes…]
    Insufficient ventilation, particularly in regard to the use of the auxiliary fans.
    As a result of weaknesses in the organisation, there was a lack of effective supervision and control.

    And so it goes on.”
    ___________________

    Thank you for that, Winkletoe.

    My immediate reaction is as follows.

    1/. To back up your claim about cost-cutting being the cause of the Easington disaster I should have thought that you would cite that or those sections of the Inspector’s report which specifically mention cost-cutting or, at least, cite that section which best could be interpreted as implicitly blaming cost-cutting.

    However, you do not do the former and you presumably refer to “insufficient ventilation” as the best example you can find of the latter – and then you swiftly go on to say “and so it goes on”. /

    *

    Hmm. For some reason here, I’m reminded during this exchange of the scoffing of slave-masters, as they loftily demanded details of who, exactly, was to blame – not them surely! – for supposedly poor conditions of transit? One can imagine the justification:

    “It is true, half the cargo perished. But they for-sure were weak and insufficient surplus to the local population upon egress, if one must blame anyone, lay it at the small Kings who granted these volunteers for export. Throwing overboard this hazard (sick even to death, and incapable of recovery) was to both crew and cargo clearly a merciful and judicious duty.”

    But if we are to find fault in the system itself, the Establishment as it were, why would we need to know individual details about who, why, what, how and where? The very facts that such death occurred should be occasion enough to start some serious pondering about the entire setup. Unless they think it’s a good enough career for themselves, and their own children of course. Very doubtful that such apologists would ever choose such an occupation for them and theirs, because what’s good enough for the heaving masses, surely ain’t good enough for them.

    Thousands of people regularly died in mines back in the day, just as they do now in China. Perhaps apologists for the setup then, want to champion China’s current mining standards, practices, and entire ethos of government?

  • Salford Lad

    The failure of QE to stimulate the Economy is down to the reluctance of banks to lend money to Industry. Only 8% of issued money finds its way into Industry.Without investment there is no increase in productivity, employment or wealth in an Economy. Banks are not fulfilling their obligations to the economy, by their mal-investment.

    Quantitative easing is distinguished from standard central banking monetary policies, which are usually enacted by buying or selling government bonds on the open market to reach a desired target for the interbank interest rate. However, if a recession or depression continues even when a central bank has lowered interest rates to nearly zero, the central bank can no longer lower interest rates. The central bank may then implement a set of tactics known as quantitative easing. This policy is often considered a last resort to stimulate the economy.

    below from WIKIPEDIA

    A central bank enacts quantitative easing by purchasing—without reference to the interest rate—a set quantity of bonds or other financial assets on financial markets from private financial institutions. The goal of this policy is to facilitate an expansion of private bank lending;[ if private banks increase lending, it would increase the money supply, though QE does directly increase the broad money supply even without further bank lending. Additionally, if the central bank also purchases financial instruments that are riskier than government bonds, it can also lower the interest yield of those assets.

    Quantitative easing, and monetary policy in general, can only be carried out if the central bank controls the currency used in the country. The central banks of countries in the Eurozone, for example, cannot unilaterally expand their money supply and thus cannot employ quantitative easing. They must instead rely on the European Central Bank (ECB) to enact monetary policy.

    jeremy Corbyns Peoples QE is a misnomer and confuses the policy. What is meant is fiscal/money investment into the Economy to create employment and wealth. A Sovereign country can issue as much money as required,with the proviso that it is invested in productive weallth creating industry,using the natural ressources ,labour and ingenuity of the population.Fiscal deficits do not matter.Money is created from thin air and returns to the ether.

    Money is not wealth, it is a tool, a means of exchange, a token, When issued as debt,it is a weapon of extortion,(see Greece).

    Consider 2 men ,stranded in an arid desert,one with a suitcase full of £1 million pounds, the other with a bottle of water. Who is the wealthiest.?

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Mary, at 1:54pm today. That’s fascinating, Mary. Good on your father! I’m sure he’d be very proud of you. His voice comes through, here, in cyberspace.

  • Bob

    The reason quantitive easing for the banks didn’t cause inflation was that it was replacing money they didn’t have but had already lent.

    To print money when you are going to spend it safely you’d need somehow to have a counteractive measure to limit the money supply elsewhere. I’d recommend forcing banks to increase capital ratios – so they have to acquire capital and take it out of the economy – at the same time you can print money and spend it.

    Kinda the reverse of last time if you like.

  • Rabbitnexus

    I’d agree with most of this as I agree on balance with most of your positions Craig. One can only hope we see something mirroring this result in Australia where we have similar problems distinguishing between the two phoney choices as well with both sides are Neoconised as well as in thrall to the usual suspects.

1 9 10 11

Comments are closed.