Why Britain is a Flawed Democracy 151

This graph tells you most of what you need to know about what passes for democracy in the UK today.

The shaded area at the right represents the period in which election law obliged the broadcasters to give fair and balanced coverage during the election campaign. The result is obvious.

Of course, it has not been that fair and balanced. We can identify four definite areas where it has been anything but. These are:

a) Demeanour towards different parties. Labour and SNP candidates were, as a matter of plain verifiable fact, interrupted far more often than Conservative candidates. That can be empirically verified eg both Paxman and Neil interrupted Corbyn over twice as often as they interrupted May. Qualitative analysis is trickier, but opposition candidates were in general treated with more scepticism and hostility, eg Keir Starmer being told by John Humphrys yesterday that he would not care about human rights if his own daughter had been killed.

b) Selection of the agenda. The Conservatives had different subjects they wished to concentrate upon, notably Brexit and security, and for the most part the media followed, in lockstep, this agenda. So Tories were quizzed mostly about the subjects on which they wished to be quizzed. Difficult subjects like the Tory relationship with Saudi Arabia were never raised. Labour however were quizzed ad nauseam about the IRA and lack of enthusiasm for nuclear holocaust, and very seldom quizzed on the NHS, education etc. With the SNP this was even more evident with a focus on almost nothing except a report on failings in the Scottish schools system, and zilch on Westminster, non-Holyrood affairs which are appropriate to this election. In the last week the media concentrated everywhere almost exclusively on security issues, as though nothing else matters.

c) Papers reviews. All broadcast media feature lengthy reviews of the national newspapers. As these are overwhelmingly owned by offshore billionaires and rabidly right wing, this gives an opportunity to further reinforce the right wing agenda

d) “Independent” commentators who are anything but. The paper reviews are one example of an area where “independent” commentators are almost always brought in to discuss the papers, and these commentators span the spectrum from UKIP to right wing Blairite. Throughout the election a very right wing commentariat was brought on to “assess” election news items. Uber-Tories like Alex Massie and Fraser Nelson appeared in this context, not allocated against Tory time share. Paul Mason is the only left wing individual I ever saw invited. This is reinforced by the appeal to the authority of right wing think tanks which are presented as independent and authoritative. The banker financed Institute of Fiscal Studies was frequently used, and we also saw bodies like Migration Watch, Policy Exchange and the Henry Jackson Society. None of this was identified as right wing comment or counted against Tory allocated time.

So the coverage was hardly fair and balanced, but despite this it was a great deal more fair and balanced than it normally is, because it was impossible for broadcasters to avoid giving a certain amount of unmediated time to Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon, and even to Caroline Lucas and Leanne Wood. The result of even this limited fairness was that collapse in the Tory lead.

Here is the important bit. This is not because Theresa May was below par, or Jeremy Corbyn was above par. The speeches of Jeremy I have watched have been a little below his normal standard, possibly due to overwork. May has always been this wooden. She is completely lacking in charisma and not very bright. Cameron kept her in position as a sop to the right wing of his party and precisely because he did not want a more capable right winger in high office.

No, the truth is that the media have been systematically selling us a lie for years; a totally false image they had portrayed of Theresa May’s competence and personality, and an equally false image of Jeremy Corbyn, had been drummed into people’s minds. Remember the only impression 99% of people had of either was what the media had told them. And it was a lie. It was a lie so blatant and obvious, that even the limited exposure to the truth over this past four weeks, with every attempt by the media to counterbalance that truth, has led to massive changes in the public perception of both May and Corbyn.

One reason I think Labour might do better than expected today are those likeability measures. It is the one marker which consistently goes with the winner. Blair was viewed as more likeable than Major, Bush more likeable than Gore, Cameron more likeable than Brown, Obama more likeable than Romney, Cameron more likeable than Miliband, and Trump more likeable than Clinton (that last is an extremely low bar). You can survive politically being viewed as less competent or even less honest. It is hard to win when nobody likes you. May now is viewed as significantly less likeable than Corbyn.

To return to the first graph, what we see is that political fortunes change massively when the mainstream media is obliged to give even a degree of fair exposure. But it is also evident that the sustained damage done over years of completely biased attrition, is probably too much to retrieve in a month. It further shows that the broadcast media is still extremely influential. “Independent” media is owned by offshore billionaires. The BBC hierarchy is openly Tory – the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the BBC Trust, the Head of News James Harding, Sarah Sands, Nick Robinson, Andrew Neil etc. are all open Tories.

A certain amount of free debate, and a tiny gesture towards balance, is allowed for four weeks every few years in the broadcast media. The print media does not do even that. In that four weeks, the people may start to change their views radically once the stream of propaganda carries some nuggets of reality, aided by social media. You cannot call this controlled exercise in temporary permitted dissent “democracy”. It is more a pressure valve in a system of corporate oligarchic control.

Get out today and vote against the Tories. In Scotland, SNP.

Liked this article? Please consider sharing (links below). Then View All Latest Posts

151 thoughts on “Why Britain is a Flawed Democracy

1 2
    • J

      Yup. A century of “public relations” which only capital entities can regularly afford to avail themselves of or own outright.

  • Ishmael

    Just voting is a far greater flaw.

    The choice of only really endorsing others as democracy. And It would still be deeply flawed given media balance. Though granted, not as.

    If any system has this much control over our lives it can (and will) give and take…..life. That power is illegitimate.

  • Alex

    Hi Craig, I agree. Anecdotally, where I live in Ringwood, in New Forest West, it is staunchly Conservative, but interestingly, there is barely a pro-conservative (or UKIP) sign anywhere, which is the complete opposite of the previous general election here or last year’s EU referendum in which whole swathes of streets and cul-de-sacs, local farmer’s fields etc., were plastered with vote-Tory (and UKIP) signage. So, I do agree, that something feels different this time. Certainly on Twitter it seems that Corbyn has the upper hand by easily 2-to-1, maybe more. Perhaps it’s apathy (“too much politics” / ‘get on with Brexit’), but maybe, just maybe, the mask has slipped enough to allow an ‘upset’ and maybe the older generation (which is the predominant demographic here), realize that actually they benefited from some of the things that Corbyn is offering (NHS, education without debt, kindness/community politics, rather than greed and violence and spite)… Here’s hoping. By the way, I just visited Scotland for the first time in many years, with my 2 young children: what a generous of spirit and fantastic country it is. Also great whisky. I tried a Glenlossie ’82 which is the year of my birth and now my favourite whisky.

  • DtP

    I’m not convinced that we can rely on the Scots to vote the right way anymore now they are given to the evils of nationalism over internationalism.

    The solution would be quite simply to kill two birds with 1 stone: the refugee crisis and SNP problem.

    Millions of people in North Africa and the Middle east are desperate to escape the Syrian civil war and their lack of welfare, so simply bring them in but base them in Scotland.

    Scotland has a really low population density, it could easily absorb several million immigrants which would provide an enormous boost to Scotland economy as well as shifting their politics firmly back towards internationalism and Labour.

    Plus Islington where I live has probably already had enough diversity, its time to share those benefits at the other end of the country now.

    • J

      “I’m not convinced that we can rely on the Scots to vote the right way anymore now they are given to the evils of nationalism over internationalism.”

      That would be the same Scots who wish to remain in the EU? Please clarify…

    • Brian Fleming

      Scotland is already an very internationally oriented country. So it does not need any supercilious comments from Islington, of all places. Also, Scotland could certainly accommodate millions more people, if it had control over its own economy. In fact, if not for the Union, Scotland would most likely already have millions more people.

      • Habbabkuk

        “Also, Scotland could certainly accommodate millions more people, if it had control over its own economy.”

        I somehow suspect the Scots, headed by the SNP, would scream blue murder if the idea advanced by DtP at 12h35 were ever realised .

        Of course it won’t – can’t – be in a liberal democracy such s the UK: hence my suspicion will never be put to the test.

        In general, the following is true : it is always easy for people to ask for more money to be spent on the NHS or social security or for tuition fees to be abolished provided that “someone else” pays. It is equally easy for people to pose as perfect internationalists when the proportion of foreigners living and working where they live is low compared to other parts of the country. It is always easy for people to call the UK a “fascist” country from the safety of that very same liberal democracy which allows them to express such absurd views without let or hindrance.

        The only question about such people is whether they truly believe what they say or whether they are just compulsive grousers looking for an outlet.

        Vote Conservative today .

    • Aim Here


      If you knew anything at all about Scottish politics, you’d have known that the SNP are rather internationalist (they’re very pro-EU and explicitly pro-Immigration) – and immigrants do reciprocate, with the South Asian community on the West Coast being particularly pro-SNP, and pro-Independence.

      I’m sure Scotland would be willing to welcome more immigrants (‘several million’ is obviously ridiculous for a country of 5 million people), and I’d expect that these new refugees would be amenable to voting SNP.

    • Gordon McAdam

      Haha… the internet rarely fails to amuse or deliver reasons for deep despondency but that little diatribe really does leave one very confused as to the appropriate response.

    • Brianfujisan

      Pathetic Ignorant Comment.

      Remember that the SNP Never refer to Refugees as Immigrants, Oh, and always Vote against All the Bombing Sprees.. That cause the desperate, and deadly dangerous Fleeing..The Mediterranean is a Sad Sea these last few years.

      Good Luck to Nevermind and all those working for J.C in England.

      And To the SNP here in Scotland… Lets get rid of the Torturing Tories Folks.

      P.s Fuck the bbC

      • Ba'al Zevul

        And when Scotland reaches England’s population density, with Latvian being the main language heard on the foreigner-welcoming streets of Auchtermuchty, hey, what an improvement that would be.


        Auchtermuchty’s main terminal illness, the modern social leprosy known to most intelligent people as the clique. If you are not a fully multiple-kid ridden member of one of the local cliques, there is the distinct possibility that no-one might speak to you, as your “face isn’t from around here”. The only way to bypass such crass rear-end level elitism is to either marry or get one of the local clique members loaded up with a mutant bun in the oven, or otherwise face the very real possibility of moving out of the village and making your home elsewhere. There is however, a very maverick route, which is to completely ignore the lot of them and treat it like a dormitory town, which in truth is infinitely preferable.

    • Soothmoother

      An independent Scotland with membership of the EU, might result in a Calais situation on the border. Scotland far too wet and cold.

  • Malcolm Ramsay

    That’s certainly one major reason why Britain is a flawed democracy, Craig, but there are several others which are at least as important:

    1. The fact that we only have ‘occasional democracy’. (The spontaneous democracy that I advocate would allow jury-moderated petitions for initiating recall motions and referendums.)

    2. The lack of integration between different levels of political representation means Westminster has unfettered authority over local government.

    3. First-past-the-post voting system, obviously (though, for anybody who doesn’t want to see the party system entrenched, the emphasis on PR poisons that debate).

    4. There’s no requirement for law to be consistent with generally-accepted, uncontroversial principles! So (among other things) everyone agrees that equality of opportunity is important and yet our inheritance laws give the Duke of Westminster umpteen billions while millions of people inherit nothing.

    5. No separation between Parliament and the Executive means that our representatives, who should be holding government to account, are instead jostling for ministerial positions.

    I’ll spare you the other reforms on my list. But I don’t think there’s any chance of getting the media to be balanced until we properly address the flaws in how government works. For that, we need a party focused on constitutional reform.

    • nevermind

      Thank you Malcolm, I always thought to be in the minority here, your description is spot on.
      Id like to add that any politician that calls himself a representative should be enamoured to want to improve his constituents voters, deal with their causes and better their accountability, they should be concerned that there is no fair proportional system racked by election fraud in many places.

      When politicians grudgingly agreed and choose AV plus as their best replacement, rather than offering us the choice on systems, as they had done in NI, Wales and Scotland, they could not envisage having to fight for ‘safe seat’, the pits in any proper democracy, or to loose their favourite electoral tricks to gain more votes.

      The unfortunate situation of the Electoral Commission is that it is accountable to political parties, not us voters, they are understaffed and would not see what is going on and their financial dependency on the party in power is crucial, they should be funded by law, not patronage, equally the SFO.
      I like your term ‘occasional democracy’, so apt for the House of Lords which should be exchange by a chamber of Citizens, chosen at random from every constituency, with a right to refuse and instant selection of another, a lottocracy that is regulated only by gender balance, a male is followed by a female and visa versa.

      I’d scrap the tax law wholesale and replace it with one sentence. ‘if you want to sell and or operate in this country, you will pay tax in this country the amount of which is decided by HMRC ( the latter should be regionalised, not be centralised so HMRC can specialise according to the variants their region produces. I would like to be able to allocate High Street prime sites to companies that pay full tax in this country, rather than give any tax avoider best choice all the time.

      much appreciated your ‘little list’, I bet others here have lists too….

      • Geejay

        Yep, a citizens’ Deliberative Democracy and an end to professional politicians. See: The End Of Politicians: Time for a Real Democracy by Brett Hennig

  • Ozzy F

    ‘Politics is the shadow cast by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance…power today resides in control of the means of production, exchange, publicity, transportation and communication. Whoever owns them rules the life of the country.”
    John Dewey’s insight has never been truer. Genuine democracy is impossible in a system of concentrated private control and increasing inequality. The underlying pathology of capitalism will always generate these symptoms.

    • Johnstone

      Yes ozzy..finally some sensible ‘politica’l comment … to the root of the disease instead of quibbling about symptoms

  • Geoff

    I’m hoping that the opinion polls are skewed in a way I haven’t seen mentioned.

    I understand historically there has been ‘shy tory’ syndrome, but given the media’s outpouring of vitriol for Corbyn and especially with their fabrications of his support for terrorism, I’m hopeful that there are more than a few ‘shy labour’ voters this time around. The vicious tory approach to, well, everything has become more ‘acceptable’ discourse in my experience outside of platforms such as this.

    • Aim Here

      Polls are likely close to the mark, sadly.

      What they show is that Corbyn has been successful – he’s on track to easily get a bigger percentage of the vote than Miliband or Brown and might even beat some of Blair’s figures (and that’s despite the implosion of Scottish Labour).

      The trouble is that the goalposts moved. UKIP and Liberal votes have both collapsed in recent years, which has helped the Tories. Corbyn can get a higher percentage of votes than Blair won with in 2005, and the Tories will still likely get a majority.

    • nevermind

      coalitionofdoom meant to say that his Knuckle just brushed coarse concrete and that his daily newspaper used to be this one


      But Rupert Murdoch might not like it if any of the other racist editors would re-start it, after all this publicity for our terror attractants in power, who would have know she meant herself when she uttered ‘the nasty party’.
      he is predicting the rise and revival of dirty scum politics, our new barometer of doom.

  • J

    The central function of tuition fees is the same as zero hour contracts. It’s not just money, it is also to indenture future creatives, thinkers, workers, doctors and nurses to capital. To create total dependency to capital. The kind of dependency that only those who had previously experienced joblessness understood, and to expand this dependency to working people throughout the nation and then export this model across Europe and the rest of the world.

    Essentially, control of wealth is a moral good in this world view. To have achieved control of wealth is the highest moral good and justifies any future act, no matter how extreme. One has to go further back to discover the fundamental philosophical flaws which underpin these ideas, but they are there and they do rely upon misappropriations and misrepresentations of biological and evolutionary theory. Those in turn serve to give a pseudo scientific basis to the arguments, which form the pillars of the later economic theories for example. Undercut those and the entire house of cards collapses at the theoretical level, which is the heart of the stranglehold at every subsequent level which derives from them.

    • D_Majestic

      Yes-let’s have a ban on intellectuals. Worked well in fascist dictatorships, didn’t it?

    • J

      Bollocks. Whatever happens we are already fully aware of attempts to subvert the democratic will of this country through years of Main Stream Media propaganda, the first level at which this subversion occurs. Form there on down to the basest level, brute force election rigging, note the explosion of postal vote irregularities already on the radar. They will not get away with it if we do not allow them to.

      They will not get away with it if we do not allow them to.

  • Ishmael

    The most significant democratic event here in my lifetime was the occupy movement and subsequent actions. Inspired by the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, without which we wouldn’t be having this kind of vote at all.

    Considering this throws into focus a sharp devision that should be seen in how it was put down. Id like to see that articled within labour more come what may.

    No group has actually done more democracy than that voting. And the police just followed orders.

    I think there needs to be a better understanding what democracy is. And what limited rights over land an assembly some people should have… To preserve democracy.

  • Itsy

    Reports on Twitter say that turn-out is much bigger than usual, and the number of young people voting is much higher than usual. Both good for Labour.

    I know there are hours to go yet, but I am very hopeful.

    • nevermind

      As long as they watch the ballot boxes when their moved.
      if you are part of a counting team, be at the count as early as possible and watch like a hawk that no voting slips, once on the table are moved anywhere else but on to the central table.
      Ask to see all the postal votes before they are mixed in, watch for postal votes that are not folded, or only folded once and then ask to take down some sample numbers.
      Ask how many postal vote have been issued at the last minute, and ask the operator to check them against the numbers of postal votes that have already been delivered weeks ago.
      Have a look behind room dividers in the hall should there be some, demand that you see all documents that are at the count, in whatever box they are. Watch that the ballot boxes come in with a seal.

      good luck and don’t forget to blink, your eyes get dry from watching intensely.

  • Mark Livingston

    Agree entirely with this blogger – esp. in relation to the BBC. I’ve found Sky News less biased throughout the campaign. It’s chock-full of gratuitously sneering, repellent, and triumphalist Tories but, all in all, it’s less biased than the BBC.

  • Ishmael

    hmmm, was just thinking what clothes for outdoors…?

    Guess it’s red today…

    • Ishmael

      Ps, I think we need to resist but also accept this is reality right now. Not to like but expect and plan for it. Power does not investigate itself. Returns nothing without a demand.

      This is the terrain, if were not busy making the alternative there won’t be one.

    • J

      *Admittedly it was a small mountain, at 3x, equivalent to just under two thousand metres elevation.

  • David Penn

    How I wished I had campaigned for the SNP to fight for labour in this election.
    This election is about one supremely important thing. We can at last establish socialism in this country – and that includes Scotland – or continue to suffer the evils of the most cruel right wing government anyone can remember. This opportunity has not come our way for a very long time, and may not in the future.
    So it’s importance cannot be underestimated. Every right-thinking person should be doing everything possible to that end.
    That means, among other things, that the SNP must do all they can to help.
    The SNP has a single, very important item on their agenda, to become independent.
    As they acknowledge, this cannot be done now; not enough people have been persuaded and we don’t know the outcome of the Brexit negotiations.
    But most importantly, the SNP must not be allowed to interfere with the only item on the agenda for this election – socialism or evil.
    So the SNP should have campaigned for Labour. Until the Blairites spoiled everything, most Scots kept Labour in. They are naturally left wing. When the choice was Blair or SNP (or the Tories), it was obviously going to be SNP, the only non-evil party. Now the choice is socialism or SNP – or the Tories. And by not stepping aside, the SNP will cause a split in the left vote and, hey presto!, five more years of Tory rule.
    They must fight for independence when they know what the outcome of the brexit negotiations are. Their electorate can be persuaded to vote labour; after all, that is what they did before Blair made them unelectable in Scotland.
    The SNP do not need to be in Westminster. When they get independence – which they surely will, in only a few year’s time – they will be able to undo all the Westminster-induced damage.
    Meanwhile, wait. Give all their seats to Labour, just for this General Election, to get a socialist government throughout the UK, including in Scotland, where it is needed and wanted most.
    Or, split the left vote and let the Tories in, and suffer five years more of their unbelievable nastiness.

    • J

      Labour have to learn to work with the SNP. I’m going to be making the argument whatever happens. A Labour/Green/SNP/Lib Dem alliance wouldn’t be a bad thing.

      • Jo

        The visceral hatred between the SNP and Labour in Scotland has been a gift for Davidson.

    • DLL

      Most Labour candidates are Blairites in nature and so wouldn’t necessarily votes in favour of Corbyn’s policies. So it’s better that SNP maintain their ground in Scotland.

    • marydoll

      I don’t think you undestand that Scottish labour is not the same party as the labour which Corbyn is trying to bring in. Scottish labour are well-named ‘Red Tories’. What Scottish Labour does not get is that once independence is achieved ( and would be achieved quicker if they got on board), Scotland will probably return to getting power.

  • Loony

    You are correct – there is little that is fair or balanced from any actor in the UK public arena.

    No media outlet has asked any politician of any political party whether in office they would enforce the rule of law.

    No political party has any intention of enforcing the rule of law, and no political party has intention of telling the electorate that if elected they will do everything in their power to ensure on going lawlessness and ensuring ongoing impunity from the law for their favored lawbreakers.

    So, when going to vote ask yourself – do I prefer the crimes of HSBC or are Barclays my favorite criminals. Am I in favor of the EU and if so does that mean that my favorite criminal enterprise is Deutsche Bank. Am I in favor of Scottish Independence and if so does that mean that I am in love with the crimes of RBS. Or perhaps you are a committed globalist – if so maybe JP Morgan is your favorite criminal organization.

    Whatever your political leanings always remember that there is a criminal bank for you to support and cheer on.

    Vote for who you want – but whoever you vote for you are voting for criminals.

    • Ishmael

      Are you from the US? …Or part of you.

      If so I think we are closed today.

  • mog

    This is a brilliant article.
    I am new to party politics, but surprised by how many I’ve met on the Left pay lip service to the issue of media bias.
    I am convinced by arguments of Chomsky, Herman, Pilger, Miller, Cromwell, Edwards and so many others: that media reform is theissue in representative democracies. All discussion of other potential reforms happen within a mental sphere which is effectively controlled by those supportive of elite interests. Broadcasting and the press still constitute the ‘medium’ in which all political ideas are discussed, and their structures have a predetermining effect. It just seems so obvious, yet so widely overlooked or downplayed. I am convinced that a democratised media would produce a radically different political discourse.
    If May wins a majority today, I think the Tories will go all out in trying to shut down the nascent people’s online media (and will ultimately fail).

    BTW- Similar critiques can be made of the monetary system and the security state, in that they can, in effect, ‘define reality’ before any supposed contest of ideas takes place within that reality.

    • Malcolm Ramsay

      “media reform is *the* issue in representative democracies. All discussion of other potential reforms happen within a mental sphere which is effectively controlled by those supportive of elite interests.”

      But all discussion of media reform happens within a legislative framework which is also effectively controlled by those supportive of elite interests. Is there some mechanism for us to enforce media balance when the levers of power are controlled by people who benefit from its prejudice? I’m not aware of one. It may be an uphill task, but at least there is a mechanism for getting control of the levers of power and changing the way the system operates.

      It’s good to recognise how daunting the challenge is, but aiming for something impossible instead will only distract from actually getting the system changed.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Still think that the media’s failure to cover the departure of Met Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick in charge of counter terrorism in 2009 was important in causing its failure, especially after there had been a sanitized article about his tenure in The Guardian about how reduced police funding had hurt efforts to curb terrorism, and it shortly thereafter disappeared without a trace.

    Quick was forced to resign for allegedly compromising successful mission Pathway, but really went for knowing and complaining about the media’s hacking scandal of important private people at the expense of the police’s counter intelligence efforts..

  • Leonard Young

    Excellent post.

    It is not just in politics that the media fails to identify an interviewee’s agenda. A large proportion of medical or health related “research” is carried out by big pharma in order to push their over-expensive drugs, and many “surveys”, for example about house prices, housing demand, industrial productivity, food, diet, education, and a host of other relevant and data-led issues are routinely twisted and presented as fact by commissioned research, the origins or motives for which are never discussed.

    You can’t do much better than to quote Tony Benn’s excellent test for agenda-driven vested interests:


  • Jo

    I have honestly never seen anything like this in politics and I’m fifty-eight years old. The bias has been shocking and, yes, from certain newspapers it’s the norm but the BBC, a broadcaster whose own charter requires it to show impartiality, has been the worst offender.

    I believe it’s possible that a two hour programme could be made, possibly longer, showing glaring examples of BBC bias. I wish someone would do it.

    Corbyn has been a target for the BBC for nearly two years!

    In Scotland, for the BBC, Sarah Smith has repeatedly told the entire UK that the election here is about indyref2 when it isn’t! So we’ve had blatant lies told too. Even Channel 4 has gone that route.

    It has been ghastly and pretty frightening too that the media has had such control over something so important.

    Today I got up and felt that even the weather was on on the act as it’s been chucking it down all day. Those saddos who may stay home today because it’s raining don’t deserve the vote when others gave their lives for us to have it!

  • Ishmael

    “Number XXXX”
    I took the opportunity to shake my fist and cry (in the quietist most polite way of course) ….I’M MORE THAN A NUMBER!

    It went down well I thought.

    • Ishmael

      After dismissing the other candidate I lingered for a second over the Lib Dem choice …just to mock. 🙂

      • K Crosby

        Nonsense, democracy is not vague, unless you like fascist electoral systems.

        • Ishmael

          Fascist is also.

          Unless your a fascist. Where only black and white exist and truth is none negotiable.

          ONE of the definitions of fascism is lack of nuance. I certainly think it a prime feature.

          • Loony

            Fascism was defined by Mussolini as being the merger of state and corporate power.

            This appears an adequate definition and comes direct from an actual fascist. Those with an interest in obscuring the meaning of fascism (perhaps by introducing entirely bogus and made up definitions of their own) serve no obvious purpose other than to provide misdirection and hence cover for actual fascists.

            Hopefully this comment is sufficiently lacking in nuance for you to understand the charge against you.

  • Tom Robertson

    Great article Craig and I 100% agree, but the other negative influences affecting Corbyn’s campaign have come, in a steady stream, from the right-wing of the Labour Party and I would be surprised if some of them were in cahoots with Crosby and his smear campaign. All of these anti-Corbyn quotes were used against him in PMQ’s and by the Tories and media and I think instead of forgiving them AGAIN he should be excising them from the party – they contributed to Labour probably (hope not) losing the election and I truly believe that some of them would rather see the Tories back in power than a left-wing Labour government. As for Scottish Labour, they are (unbelievably) more focused on attacking the SNP than the Tories which means my socialist vote will go firmly to the SNP.

    • Aim Here

      > As for Scottish Labour, they are (unbelievably) more focused on attacking the SNP than the Tories which means my socialist vote will go firmly to the SNP.

      That’s actually a good thing from your point of view – every politician knows that the reason for criticizing party A is if you’re trying to get supporters of party B. If Labour are attacking the SNP, it means they’re going after Tory or Liberal votes which works in favour of the SNP.

  • Matt

    I’m in Wealden,
    Tory since the dawn of time,
    noticeable absence of UKIP, Conservative and even LibDem billboards,
    actually a few Labour billboards!
    first time ever in my 50yrs on this planet there was a chap with a Labour rosette sitting stoically outside the polling station , gave him a grin and a wink,
    inside polling station tense atmosphere, none of the usual smiley small talk from the staff,

    not a usual election for around here,

    fingers crossed,

  • Sharp Ears

    Two things.

    No mention of Kuenssberg in the round up.

    Nor of the Zionist support from James Purnell ex LFoI who, after leaving Parliament, went on to become Director of BiBiCee Digital and now has control of all the radio output.

    Also James Harding ex Murdoch’s Times and others as described here.

    Remember that Jeremy is a lifelong supporter of the Palestinian cause.

    • laguerre

      It’s funny how the right never bother with truth these days. It’s always full-on lies, without any restraint.

    • nevermind

      Thanks DLL, Hamas was deliberately enabled by Israel as it had more of a communitarian outlook then, which after the Zionist regime took hold changed the character of the relationship.

      Your contribution was far too long for Anon1/Labourgeddon to read, s/he prefers single liners, or 140 characters.

  • Jason

    Craig, I would add voter suppression to your list of flaws. For example, the recent boundary changes has favoured Tories; individual voter registration has led to fewer voters amongst large immigrant families who tend to vote Labour; and the refusal to lower the voting age to 16 and 17 because they tend to vote Labour.

    • Loony

      Why not lower the voting age to 6?

      Could there be any reason not to do so other than they might all vote Labour?

      How can it be fair that voting is restricted to people either living in the UK or registered in the UK? There is no voting in North Korea, so why do the British not prove their munificence by allowing North Koreans to vote in UK elections?

      It is all a plot to disenfranchise potential Labour voters.

      • Hmmm

        No taxation without representation. 16 year olds pay tax so only fair to vote.

    • Shatnersrug

      Stop the voting age at 60 define dementia sets in

      See previous two posts

      • Ishmael

        Maybe those bellow 40 should be allowed to live, sure, but vote?

        I mean it’s not very democratic is it? potentially 20 something years of “political engagement” over a younger persons input?

        I quit now. …Feel better I think.

  • Ishmael

    If this is flawed democracy it’s still amazing how some are obviously so scared of it.

    My synopsis? They are really scared of who they might be if they ever took a look. Around them gather others helping maintain this blindness, thus the hate for ordinary people who are (for the most part) ok with themselves.

    They can run but this election if nothing else has exposed the dirty belly of the beast for all to see. Maybe we can have another? 🙂

    My feeling is the democratic process should be enhanced anyway, And then it may be under far less threat than the easy target many forms of terrorist use, during these rare events that are an exemption rather than a rule. I’e something we often participate in.

    Example. Why could I not have put in a vote a month ago? (or longer under “normal” circumstance) …Even changes like this would still be very minor expansions of the window of participation for citizens. But something.

    As I noted to the Greens. We don’t have a democratic participatory system for people to engage with politics at all really. Nothing has ever really even been envisaged in the UK.

    • Ishmael

      Government (administration) would be far better run like the NHS, except by the patents.

      A political class does the same bad job a milking business owner does (Of which it’s mostly comprised) The results are neither strong, stable, or humane.

      It’s people who have driven these polices we now see. And it’s clear those who now freak out, that’s what really bugs them.

      • Loony

        Your post is not readily understandable, but if you are interested in the NHS understand this:

        A main purpose of the NHS is to act as a conduit through which public money is transferred to private interest groups. Most often this takes the form of transferring stupendous amounts of money to the privately owned and globally controlled pharmaceutical industry.

        Consider that a few years ago the UK government ordered 90 million does of swine flu vaccine or about 1.5 doses per head of population. Only 5 million people ever received the swine flu vaccine.

        21.6 million doses of swine flu vaccine were cancelled prior to delivery. The company that held the contract for the supply of swine flu vaccine did not lose any money as a consequence of the order being cancelled. Even after the cancellation of 21.6 million vaccines the government (through its proxy the NHS) still took delivery of 63.4 million doses of swine flu vaccine that it neither wanted nor needed.

        • SA

          What you state is what the NHS has become since Blair, a Milch cow for private enterprise, but that is not to say that that is what its primary aim is. There is certainly collusion with big Pharma which I have certainly seen increasing in my 40 years in the NHS. But this is why it is very important to expose this and only by voting for Corbyn.

        • Sharp Ears

          What is your point? You are going back to 2009 and before. It had absolutely nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn. There was a world wide panic about H1N1 swine flu at the time.

          Ask the BLiarite new mayor of Manchester for his account. Glaxo Smith Kline did very well out of it.

          Find out if there were any connections in the membership of the committee that recommended the vaccine purchase.

1 2

Comments are closed.