Category Archives: Uncategorized

Corbyn said to have won more votes than anyone in history

With thanks to Felicity Arbuthnot for this link

It was satisfying to watch David Dimbleby elicit praise for Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign and results from Labour MPs like Tom Watson, John Woodcock, Yvette Cooper Chukka Umunna who ultimately had to ‘eat their words’ – most reluctantly.

Then came these news items about the vote in Corbyn’s constituency, Islington North:

  • It had the highest turnout (73.3 per cent) since 1951,
  • the Labour leader won 40,086 votes
  • His majority was 33,215.

This despite the attempt to manipulate public opinion – a Times/ YouGov poll last year found that 97% agreed that the “mainstream media as a whole has been deliberately biasing coverage to portray Jeremy Corbyn in a negative manner” and earlier this year the BBC Trust upheld a complaint against the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg, ruling that one of her early reports on Jeremy Corbyn breached accuracy and impartiality guidelines.

Laura Kuenssberg has now lost that round and rapidly found a new target to taunt.

 

 

 

kkkk

Corbynize This Trumped Up World

Robert Green, who now coordinates the New Zealand Peace Foundation’s Disarmament and Security Centre in Christchurch with his wife Kate Dewes, draws our attention to this article by David Swanson.

Making Jeremy Corbyn the Prime Minister of the U.K. would do more for the world and everyone in it than either of the two available outcomes of any recent U.S. election could have done. Here in the U.S. I always protest that I am not against elections, I think we should have one some day. Well, now we have one — only it’s across the pond.

Corbyn’s record is no secret, and you don’t need me to tell you, but I have met him and spoken at events with him, and can assure you he’s legitimate. He’s been a dedicated leader of the peace movement right through his career. He had the decency last week to point out yet again that invading and bombing countries and overthrowing governments produces terrorism; it doesn’t somehow reduce it or eliminate it or “fight” it.

Britain is the key co-conspirator in U.S. wars. One real-life Love Actually refusal to bow before Emperor Donald, and the facade of super-hero law enforcement will begin to crumble, revealing a rogue serial killer standing naked in his golden hotel suite.

The world needs an actual popular elected response to U.S. aggression against the world’s poor and the earth’s climate. A ho-hum housebroken Frenchman who’s not a fascist isn’t the same thing. Corbyn supports successful Scandinavian socialism, demilitarization, environmental action, and aid to those in need. He works within the government and is held back by his party. But he doesn’t lie. He doesn’t sell out. He makes the case for wise and popular policies as powerfully as he’s able.

Want people to believe representative government is compatible with capitalism? Want well-behaved voters the world over to imagine that the corporate media can actually be overcome? Stop grasping at Congressional candidate gun-nuts who happen to be Democrats. Stop telling vicious lies about Russia in an attempt to travel back in time and cause a corporate militarist hack to win the White House. We actually have an election between an actually good candidate and one of the usual monstrosities we’ve become so used to.

Contact every young person you can who can vote in this election. Contact every possible organization and entertainer who might help spread the word. Get every Hollywood star who ever tried to rock the vote but didn’t have anyone to promote who people actually wanted to vote for to notice this golden opportunity. Telling young Brits to get out and vote for Jeremy will do more to spread democracy than destroying Syria, starving a million children in Yemen, or occupying Afghanistan for another 50 years.

Young people, sadly, have seen through our scams. They’ve heard us cry wolf too many times. Yet if you ask them who they would have voted for, they tell you the better candidate. Now here’s an actually great candidate, and their televisions are telling them that they are powerless to do anything. And they refuse to see through that scam. You have to help them see through it! You have to find somebody hip enough to help them! Young British people are our last hope, and it’s your job to encourage them.

We could have a world in which a leading wealthy “democracy” has a government that responds to majority opinion. We could have a world in which London says to Washington: “You want another war, we won’t help you pretend it’s legal. In fact, we’re drafting a brief for the prosecution and will see you in court.”

The people of the United States need that fig leaf torn away, need the pretense that mass murder is legal and necessary ended in our own minds. The peace, prosperity, sustainability, and friendship awaiting us is too much for us to even imagine. What might help us do it, what might make us believe that “hope” and “change” and other concepts we’ve almost come to despise could actually be possible would be making Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister.

 

 

 

 

Accountants’ verdict: Labour manifesto ‘good for the UK’. . . UKIP/Tory verdict: a black hole

Richard Murphy writes “As I have predicted the questionhow will you pay for it?” is being asked of Labour”. He refers readers to his earlier explanations of how current spending commitments can be paid for from tax revenues: the spend creates the capacity to pay – made here and here. He continues: “The only real question is how Labour will pay for nationalisation” and cites precedents:

  • How were the banks were bailed out?
  • How was £435 billion was found for QE?

Answer: “Neither, directly, cost the taxpayer a penny. The money was created to achieve both out of thin air”. Murphy advises that renationalisation could also be done in the same way: “Issue bonds for fair value. Make them redeemable in not less than thirty years, and maybe longer. Make the interest rate the very low ones on offer now. In net terms these are likely to be negative throughout that thirty year period.  And what is the net cost of renationalisation? Next to nothing. Or less. Problem solved”.

Mike Parr comments on the same website – as others have pointed out – that there is no need to pay anything for the train operating companies, merely do not renew the /operating licences as they lapse, but no doubt there will be other expenses and a need for investment.

Prem Sikka reports on the Labour Party’s proposals for reinvigorating the economy set out in its manifesto launched today creating the conditions for economic growth.

This manifesto:

  • redistributes,
  • invests
  • and provides help for the disadvantaged.

“The necessary condition for building a successful economy is that people must have sufficient purchasing power as without that they cannot buy goods and services”.

Sikka notes that due to wage freezes, low national minimum wage, never-ending austerity programmes and zero-hours contracts, people’s purchasing power has been severely eroded. Between 2007 and 2015, the real wages of UK employees fell by over 10 per cent, almost the largest fall among major industrialised nations.

In a comparatively rich country, 40% of the working-age population has less than £100 in savings. Millions rely on food banks to secure their next meal. The poor become victims of the payday loan industry and end up paying exorbitant interest rates. Personal debt now stands at record £1.529 trillion and ordinary person’s ability to stimulate economic demand and investment is severely eroded. Under successive government wealth has percolated up, leaving a few crumbs for many

In recent years, Sikka points out, public investment has been sidelined, adding that the Labour Party is now making a decisive break and offering the key to rebuilding: redistribution of income/wealth, decent wages and state intervention in the economy.

The Labour manifesto promises:

  • an annual stimulus of £48.6 billion, current expenditure: investment in education, the NHS, social care, the police, firefighters and border guards
  • to abolish all tuition fees and relieve the debt burden on many young people
  • to protect the real value of state pensions
  • to restore Housing Benefit for under 21s
  • to abolish bedroom tax and employment tribunal fees
  • to lift the one per cent cap on the wages of public sector workers.

Expenditure will be matched by revenues of £48.6 billion – not achieved by a rise in VAT, income tax or National Insurance contributions for 95% cent of workers. Measures include:

Reversal of recent corporation tax cuts, raising £19.4 billion.

£6.4 billion from increases in income tax for the top 5% of taxpayers, lowering the threshold for the 45p additional rate to £80,000 of income and reintroducing the 50p rate on earnings above £123,000.

£.13 billion raised from a levy on companies (not individuals) paying out megabucks to few.

A 2.5% levy on earnings above £330,000 and 5% on those above £500,000.

A Robin Hood tax on speculative transactions, raising £5.6 billion and another £6.5 billion will be raised from various measures to eliminate tax avoidance opportunities.

VAT on private school fees will raise £1.6 billion.

A novel feature of the manifesto is unprecedented transparency. Each pledge of expenditure and revenue-raising is carefully costed and shown line by line in the manifesto. Each line is then supported by further background papers.

In addition to the above, Labour has a programme of investment in social infrastructure and nationalisation of key industries, such as railways, gas, water, electricity and Royal Mail. This will be over a period of time. Contrary to the propaganda, some of this has little cost – see earlier comments and Sikka’s article: Corbyn promises a Britain ‘for the many, not the few’ at manifesto launch.

Richard Murphy, yesterday: “I have had my differences with Jeremy Corbyn, but this is a good manifesto for the UK . . .

In summary these increases make complete sense. Labour proposes to increase GDP by Government spending on health, education, social care, education and the result will be growth, creating the capacity to pay the tax that funds the growth

The downside? None at all for most people, Murphy suggests – only for those in the top 3 or 4% of income earners or are a large company or bank: “And let’s be clear, these groups have the capacity to pay”.

The one massive underlying theme is that of bringing to an end the neoliberal era. And that – Murphy says – is good enough.

 

 

 

 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

Financial Times: extracts from the account of ‘the official launch of the Corbyn campaign’

Surrounded by supporters in Salford before the launch

Joshua Chaffin, a European Union correspondent for the FT, who writes about trade, environment and energy policy, reports on the official launch of the Corbyn campaign in an auditorium on the outskirts of Manchester. The following are positive extracts from his article.

He met Stan Webster, a retired teacher from Wigan, who left Labour while it was led by Tony Blair; Stan recalled the sensation when he and his wife first listened to Jeremy Corbyn, the socialist leader of the Labour party. “For the first time in my adult life, we were beginning to hear policies that resonated with our daily lives.”

Mr Webster disdained “the window-dressing of infrastructure spending” and said industrial communities did not want mere support schemes. “You want independence. You want the right to work.”

“Brilliant!” Jan Smith, a woman with an anti-fracking pin in her lapel, said afterwards. “This is the core of our values,” her friend Lin Partridge, a retired National Health Service worker, enthused. “This is the proper Labour party!”

For many such supporters, Mr Corbyn feels like the first real alternative they have been offered after a generation of lookalike centrists whom they view as milder shades of the Conservatives.

“What’s the point of being in power if you’re just doing Tory policies?” one asked. That attitude is also a result of the shallow legacy — as they see it — left by Mr Blair’s New Labour, particularly among many northern voters who felt their lot did not meaningfully improve despite increased public spending and urban regeneration projects.

In Mr Corbyn they have selected an unapologetic socialist who, according to a leaked draft of the party’s manifesto, wants to renationalise the railways, postal service and parts of the power industry, restore the sway of once-powerful trade unions and abolish university tuition

Paul Longshaw, a local Labour councillor, said Corbyn policies such as shoring up the health service and boosting the minimum wage appealed to many voters when they heard them without the filter of a hostile media.

Maggie Smith, a retired teacher at the Salford rally, said Mr Corbyn “brought me back to Labour. I left because of Tony Blair”. Surely New Labour had accomplished something, she was asked? Eventually, Mrs Smith cited the Sure Start programme — introduced in 1998 to improve health and early education for children — but then noted the Conservatives had demolished it.

Standing nearby was James Butterworth, 30, a teacher from Prestwich. He said he would vote for Labour for the first time after shunning the party “because of Tony Blair” and his participation in the Iraq wars — an issue that still festers in the party.

He was not interested in supposedly practical alternatives, saying: “If you feel passionate about something, you have to stick to your principles.

 

.

.

 

Jeremy Corbyn: standing ovation from hundreds of head teachers for his speech about Labour’s education policy

The mainstream press will give Corbyn’s speech minimal publicity, and hardly any of the scant coverage that does appear will frame the speech in terms of the rousing ovation that it received.

[Introductions] …

Go to: https://watershed2015.wordpress.com/articles-addresses-worth-reading/jeremy-corbyns-2017-election-address-to-head-teachers/

 –

Source: Thomas Clark, via Felicity Arbuthnot

 

 

 

 

 

Monbiot: I will vote Labour on 8 June . . . I urge you to do the same

Lesley Docksey draws an article in the Guardian to our attention: in it we learn that George Monbiot has decided to vote Labour in the general election. He trounces the Blairite MPs who have been so disloyal to their elected leader: “Those who tolerated anything the Labour party did under Blair tolerate nothing under Corbyn. Those who insisted that we should vote Labour at any cost turn their backs as it seeks to recover its principles.

“They proclaim disenchantment now that it calls for the protection of the poor, the containment of the rich and the peaceful resolution of conflict.

“They proclaimed undying loyalty when the party stood for the creeping privatisation of the NHS, the abandonment of the biggest corruption case in British history, the collapse of Britain’s social housing programme, bans on peaceful protest, detention without trial, the kidnap and torture of innocent people and an illegal war in which hundreds of thousands died”.

He sees these Labour MPs helping to grant Theresa May a mandate to destroy what remains of ‘British decency and moderation’ – refusing to see the good that a government implementing Corbyn’s policies could do.

The popularity of Corbyn’s recent policy announcements leads Monbiot to believe he has a chance, albeit slight, of turning this around. His pledge to raise the minimum wage to £10 an hour is supported by 71% of people, according to a ComRes poll; raising the top rate of tax is endorsed by 62%.

He cites Labour’s 10 pledges, placed some time ago on this website, which could – incorporated in its manifesto – appeal to almost everyone. They promote the theme of security:

secure employment rights,

secure access to housing,

secure public services,

a secure living world.

Compare this with the attitude of the major funder of the Brexit campaign, billionaire Peter Hargreaves: ‘Insecurity is fantastic’.

Those who question Corbyn’s lack of experience and competence should remember where more ‘credible’ politicians led us:

Blair’s powers of persuasion led to the Iraq war.

  • Gordon Brown’s reputation for prudence blinded people to the financial disaster he was helping to engineer, through the confidence he vested in the banks.
  • Cameron’s smooth assurance caused the greatest national crisis since the second world war.
  • May’s calculating tenacity is likely to exacerbate it.

A progressive alliance/tactical voting?

Much advice follows; the most congenial is that Labour should embrace the offer of a tactical alliance with other parties:

“The Greens have already stood aside in Ealing Central and Acton, to help the Labour MP there defend her seat. Labour should reciprocate by withdrawing from Caroline Lucas’s constituency of Brighton Pavilion.

Such deals could be made all over the country: and as the thinktank Compass shows, they enhance the chances of knocking the Tories out of government . . .”

Monbiot (left) ends:

“The choice before us is as follows: a party that, through strong leadership and iron discipline, allows three million children to go hungry while hedge fund bosses stash their money in the Caribbean, and a party that hopes, however untidily, to make this a kinder, more equal, more inclusive nation I will vote Labour on 8 June . . . I urge you to do the same”.

 

Corbyn press interview: enlightened self-interest, inequality, housing policy and privatisation

From our archive: Jeremy Corbyn talks to the Huffington Post UK 

Extracts:

“Inequality is a terrible waste of time, a waste of people’s resources. Low ages are counter-intuitive to an expanding economy, inefficient. You pay more in wages, get more in in tax, you get people living a higher standard, you get more money. It’s a kind of circle.”

Interviewer Paul Waugh asked how Corbyn could appeal to the Tory voters in the south and in marginal seats that he needs to win an election. Would  he appeal to their self-interest or just tell them Labour cares more than the other parties?

“There is a self interest in voting for a society where there is health care for all, where there’s a mental health service for all, where there is education service for all,” he replies.

“And above all a housing policy that doesn’t end up with young people staying in their parents’ home until their 30s or 40s because they can’t afford to rent, they can’t have a council place, they can’t afford to buy.

“I absolutely get it on housing. I represent a community that is being socially cleansed. Socially cleansed of people who rely, often in work, on housing benefit to survive. The benefit cap prevents them staying they have to move out and the whole area churns, children leave school they have to go somewhere else.

“So what do we do about housing? One, recognise there is a huge housing shortage. Two, recognise that there a lot of deliberately empty properties through land banking. Three, that the sale of council housing and housing association properties is creating a crisis as deep as created by Right to Buy by Margaret Thatcher.

“In the borough we are in the moment, if the Conservative proposals go through on forced sale, we will be forced to sell 6,000 properties when there are probably 10 to 15,000 families in desperate housing need, it makes no sense at all.”

“My priorities are one, invest in council housing with lifetime tenancies. Two, regulate the private rented sector on quality on length of tenure and in areas of high rent levels like London there has to be maximum rent levels put in by region or by income level there’s got to be an affordability there. Germany has a very large private rented sector, it has long term investment, it is fully regulated.”

Privatisation

“So my message to them is: think about the kind of world the Conservatives are creating where the disposing of state assets, shrinking the state and in the end you and your children are going to have problems. And adult social care may not be available for those that desperately need it. If we want to live in the kind of decent, cohesive society that I think everybody aspires to, then listen to what we are saying and think about it.

 

 

 

 

Against Corbyn: five right-wing billionaires, anonymous Tory strategists running the country and Labour MPs worried about future employment

Via the Brummie, comes the Plastic Hippo’s second article about Jeremy Corbyn with a list of agents who wish its leader, Jeremy Corbyn to be seen as unelectable:

  • the five right-wing billionaires who own the printed press,
  • the small group of anonymous Tory strategists running the country,
  • the state broadcaster flirting dangerously close to charter compliance
  • and about 170 Labour MPs worried about future employment

plastic-hippoHippo presents evidence from two separate academic reports which have concluded that UK news outlets are blatantly biased against Jeremy Corbyn:

A study by the London School of Economics found that three quarters of newspapers either ignore or distort Corbyn`s views and comments and act as an aggressive “attack dog” rather than a critical “watchdog”.

A second study by Birkbeck University and the Media Reform Coalition found “clear and consistent bias” against Corbyn in both broadcast and online news feeds with his opponents being allowed double the coverage than his supporters.

The study described a “strong tendency” within the BBC for its reporters to use pejorative language to describe Corbyn and his chums with words such as hostile, hard core, left-wing, radical, revolutionary and Marxist.

Hippo adds: “With my very own ears I heard a senior BBC radio correspondent describe the Labour leadership election as “a battle between Marxists and moderates”. And the strange conclusion is:

“After a year of astonishing negativity, utterly preposterous smears, brutal personal attacks, nasty digs, front bench resignations and a vote of no confidence from Labour MPs who accuse unelectable Corbyn of disloyalty and fracturing the party, the bloke was re-elected as party leader increasing his share of the vote to 61.6 %.

 

“Unelectable? maybe not if the electorate actually has a full rather than half a brain”.

Read the Plastic Hippo’s article here: http://www.thebrummie.net/strong-message-here/

;

*

ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 

Update to ‘Jeremy Corbyn: the rail system’

As the Department for Transport is considering taking direct control of Southern Rail and placing it in civil service hands until another private operator can be found, a reader adds:

“Southern Railways, whose senior directors have paid themselves huge, unwarranted dividends, would welcome the chance to walk away. Some commentators think they have been operating a cynical strategy to provoke the government into sacking them rather than being seen to walk away from it. That way they can blame the Unions and avoid being seen as incompetent or unable to run such an enterprise, avoid massive financial penalties and manage their reputational damage”.  Another observer continues,

“The taxpayer and traveller will pick up the bill and a couple of civil servants will pick up a knighthood.

“How long before the present operators of Southern Rail pop up, reinvigorated, to run another section of John Major’s legacy to the nation?” 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/southern-rail-franchise-at-risk-of-being-renationalised-sb5nv7xcd (paywall)

 

 

 

I, Daniel Blake – prologue

holy-trinity-camp-hillIn the 90s, a volunteer at a night-shelter in Camp Hill (right), watched in horror as payments were delayed and records lost, causing huge distress to claimants. At that time, fear of their anger, born of frustration, caused screens to be erected to shield staff from physical attack.

Many job centres in the city were dismissive and unhelpful, some lacking basic information, until complaints about one particular centre reached Cllr Theresa Stewart. She, who later became an excellent council leader, arranged a survey of these centres by a researcher assumed to be an out of work claimant. The recommended changes compiled from good practice seen in some centres were made and on revisiting the failing centres the researcher found a very different regime in place.

However, once the Labour government with all its failings had been superseded, and the bank funded private sector property bubble had caused an economic crash, full rein was given to politicians urged on by wealthy corporate donors, to squeeze the poorest in the land, dignifying their extortion as austerity.

Elite opinion continues to focus on slashing deficits, using the alleged dangers of debt and deficits to justify cuts in benefits. They continue to call for hard choices and sacrifice – by others.

Despite good advice from distinguished economists Paul Krugman (Princeton) and Richard Layard (LSE) the vocal New Labour residue still accepts the need for making substantial cuts in the years ahead whilst acquiescing in tax concessions for the wealthy.

Krugman and Layard presented the widely supported ‘Manifesto for economic sense’ in 2012, pointing out that budget cuts are not inspiring business confidence because companies only invest when they can foresee enough customers with enough income to spend.

Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, agrees

jc-2-economy-coverIn one of a series of 2015 policy documents, given little or no media coverage, he advocates a strategy for a more highly skilled, productive economy that works for the many not the few, in which the state has a vital role to play:

“Without that role, we have the casino economy and the chaos of underinvestment, debt bubbles, and grotesque inequality between rich and poor, and a widening regional inequality. Our vision is of an economy that works for all, provides opportunity for all, and invests in all – rich and poor, north, south, east and west. It means we judge our economy not by the presence of billionaires but by the absence of poverty; not only by whether GDP is rising, but by whether inequality is falling.

 

Meanwhile we havedisbenefits, dysfunction and despair’.