Interesting to see someone thinks as I do about New Labour. I constantly hear on the BBC and elsewhere that Blair and Co were right-wing whilst I was always of the opinion that Blair was in fact extremely left-wing and smashed those left-wing policies into the British Establishment, culture and society…yes he cosied up to the banks but even Lenin told us that Capitalism was a necessary part of establishing Communism…it needed the funds Capitalism provided in order to fund the revolution…and of course we had the massive expansion in tax/borrow and spend…so very old socialist Labour. Blair turned democratic government upside down with his sofa powered cabinet, the evisceration of the civil service, the attempts to undermine just about every national institution and the infiltration of those institutions with Labour placemen and women…never mind the huge project to ethnically cleanse the British population and change not only its physical makeup and identity but also the political views and outlook that the population would then hold..for example importing millions of Europeans would probably ensure any referendum on Europe keeps us in Europe, whilst Labour’s open door to world immigration meant that grateful immigrants were likely to vote for Labour. Blair’s apparent centrist politics were a means to an end. The reality can be judged by what he actually did.
Peter Hitchens thinks Blair’s New Labour was as much a menace as Corbyn’s brand of far-left politics….
The hard-Left menace we ignored
The continued rage about Jeremy Corbyn’s rather dated Leftism baffles me. Most British journalists weren’t (as I was) members of the Labour Party in the 1980s. In the months before I quit, I used to be angrily called to order by the chairwoman of my local party. She was cross with me for (as she put it) provoking too much heckling from noisily pro-IRA, ban-the-bomb types.
Meanwhile, the real Left worked by stealth. That is why our political media never understood that the Blairites were in fact far more Left wing than Jeremy Corbyn. The Blair faction’s ideas came from a communist magazine called Marxism Today. The magazine, in turn, got the ideas from a clever Italian revolutionary called Antonio Gramsci. He wanted a cultural revolution, a Leftist takeover of schools, universities, media, police and courts (and of conservative political parties too). That is exactly what New Labour did.
An astonishing number of senior New Labour people, from Peter Mandelson to Alan Milburn, are former Marxist comrades who have never been subjected to the sort of in-depth digging into their pasts that Jeremy Corbyn faces. Why is this? Is one kind of Marxism OK, and the other sort not? Or is it just that most political writers are clueless about politics?
The BBC has always opposed a change to the licence fee funding model on the grounds that subscription would be technically too difficult and would cost too much…..not to mention of course that the licence fee is easy money at the moment and a guaranteed source of income regardless of what they produce and who watches.
On the other hand it has decided that it is technically feasible and presumably financially sound to make viewers of the iPlayer abroad sign in with a special code….how then is that model not transferable to British viewers in the UK who can choose to pay a lump sum up front or pay on a subscription basis daily/weekly/monthly or per programme?
The BBC is planning to allow licence-fee payers to access its iPlayer abroad, it has emerged.
This would enable British holidaymakers to watch award-winning programmes – including The Great British Bake Off, Strictly Come Dancing, and Match Of The Day – on sunny, foreign beaches.
At present, the licence-fee-funded iPlayer is supposed to be watched by only UK TV viewers.
Under the proposal, licence-fee payers could be given a secret code to log on to the iPlayer while abroad – but this code would be designed to expire within several weeks, according to The Times.
This would prevent non-licence-fee-paying expats from illegally using the code, it is reported.
A BBC spokesman told MailOnline in a statement: ‘While there are a range of technical and legal complexities, this is an area where we’ve already started work and agree with the idea of licence fee payers being able to access programmes on BBC iPlayer when they’re on holiday overseas.
‘We’ll carry on considering how this can be made to work.’
The BBC’s ‘Sunday’ carries on as usual with its unusual world view that is at so odds with everyday folk.
We had a piece on the pages of the Koran found at Birmingham University. The BBC did ask some very awkward questions for Muslims that these Koran pages raise…such as the carbon dating may show that this Koran may show that ‘Islam’ may have been in existence before Muhammed, the man who allegedly ‘invented’ the Koran…which is kind of awkward. However the carbon dating was only done on the paper used for the Koran, and there was no control reference material to compare the dating process results with….so there could be few genuine conclusions about this Koran either way really. Anyway all that was dismissed by someone expert from Birmingham who said, in his opinion, that he didn’t think that any of that was true….the Koran couldn’t predate Muhammed. Yes…‘in my opinon’ or ‘I think’.…..a valuable ‘expert’ insight.
We then had a Muslim councillor from Birmingham tell us that this showed the Koran was unchanged for 1400 years…’unlike’, he slipped in, ‘other religions’. Now that is kind of aggressive isn’t it, a bit unnecessary. Why mention that? If I was a Jew (Though I believe the Torah is itself unchanged and considerably older than the Koran) or Christian living in Birmingham I would be thinking that this councillor clearly has no respect for other religions and looks upon them as false….therefore what does he think of ‘us’? Curiously the BBC didn’t ask, or didn’t broadcast the question and answer, about the questions raised of the authenticity of the Islamic narrative about Muahmmed and the Koran. Possibly the answer was somewhat detrimental to the tolerant image of ‘Islam’..much as the ‘unlike other relgions’ is.
We also had a piece that portrayed East Germans as prejudiced, backward hill-billies who hated religion and immigration…and hating immigration and religion was a bad thing, not allowed in the BBC’s view (an irony really when the BBC has spent so much time and effort trying to smash and discredit Christianity despite the lip service of Songs of Praise). Who did the BBC have on to discuss the issues, and it all related to immigration of course, a Christian and a Muslim, Rev Dr Christophe Tylermann and Dr Riem Spielhaus, no other voices appeared to put any view other than the one that said East Germans were essentially racist, atheist barbarians….unmentioned went Hungary, which I suspect was the real target. Curious how you are not allowed to have anti-immigration views.
We also had on Alister McGrath, an extremely aggressive Christian (a fanatical convert from Atheism justifying his own personal journey?) who steamrollered Atheism, shouting it down in effect, ironic in that he attacks Dawkins for being an ‘extremist’. The presenter seemed to be in happy agreement with him as he claimed and wished for the end of Atheism….the presenter suggesting Atheism perhaps, as a ‘movement’, was a ‘busted flush‘ and asking when we might expect the ‘funeral of the new Atheism’. Colourful eh?
McGrath said that Atheism was a ‘hopelessly outdated way of looking at things’….unlike the 2000 year old Christian world view? No explanation of what Atheism actually represents and why it critiques religion, and no reasons why religion is good for the world, better than Atheism. We also heard that there was no contradiction between science and religion. Somehow that doesn’t seem to be the real picture does it?
No voices putting the other side here which would have been fascinating given the aggressive, bombastic nature of McGrath. Christopher Hitchens is well missed.
The BBC also looked at this ‘Bishop Michael Nazir Ali, expresses his concerns on the latest stage of the government’s plans for ‘countering extremism’ which will be discussed at the Conservative Party Conference this week’ which I’m sure we’ll hear a lot of as it is a narrative that the BBC seems all too ready to follow…that it is the government’s anti-extremism programme that is driving radicalism itself….a BBC narrative that we have just looked at.
The BBC was sure that Clockboy was the victim of injustice, prejudice and misperceptions perpetrated by a society that has been polluted by an Islamophobic narrative driven by the right-wing press. It seems that ‘Chopperboy’ in the UK may also be a victim of similar prejudice, his threats to behead and murder so many people merely an articulation of his rage against a society that doesn’t value or accept him.
The BBC’s Domininc Cascianni tells us the boy was angry with his teachers and that the threats to kill were merely a negotiation tactic to pressure them to allow him to phone his mum. Sweet.
“I felt angry, very angry with all of them,” the boy has since said of his school, according to defence submissions.
“I just wanted to get excluded. You couldn’t run away, it was secure with locked doors. The best way to get out and go home was to threaten staff with beheadings.
“I found the more I did this the more free time I had and I could get home on my phone.”
Of course family circumstances meant he was ‘vulnerable’ to exploitation….and he took up a deep interest in ‘foreign affairs’. Really, he was a scholar? Does Casciani really mean he was watching beheading videos on the internet and soaking up the anti-Western propaganda that pours out from Muslim sources, and not just the recognised ‘extremist’ ones, propaganda that pumped out images of Muslims being killed…though not who really kills them…as it is usually other Muslims, the same people pumping out that propaganda ironically….of course he could just have been watching the BBC’s coverage of the Middle East, that would warp anyone’s understanding of the world….
A boy who attempted to incite a man in Australia to carry out an Anzac Day “massacre” has become the the youngest person in the UK to be convicted of a terrorism offence.
But could more have been done to challenge and stop the development of his violent mindset?
The boy’s slide into extremism began more than two years ago, at a crucial period in his development.
His parents had separated, he changed schools, and he was developing a deep interest in world affairs.
It’s always someone else’s fault….there doesn’t seem to be any recognition from Casciani that it might well just be that the boy was so disposed as to want to do these things and follow that path willingly and that his perceptions of the world have been long shaped by a narrative he has been brought up with all his life…Islam. It is remarkable that there is no mention by Casciani of the role of Islam in his ‘indepth’ exploration of the issues….surely that is at the heart of this…the explicit Islamic obligation to fight for the religion. To fight for the religion against those who allegedly attack it. So you have to ask is Islam under attack? Unfortunately if you watch news from organisations like the BBC which give credibility to the Jihadi narrative, such as Iraq was an illegal war against Muslims, a ‘crusade’ as the BBC often called it, and that Mulsims in the UK are under an Islamophobic assault, then the narrative of an Islam under attack is all too easy to believe and then act upon especially when reinforced by bloody videos purporting to show Western forces slaughtering Muslims.
The major factor in the boy’s extremism is his religion. It’s an unavoidable conclusion…only Muslims are fighting in the name of Allah. The connection is undeniable. Which is why the BBC presumably avoids that connection.
Casciani scripts a long tract explaining away the boys behaviour blaming the anti-radicalisation programme for its ‘failure’ and then disingenuously asks…
Did Channel make mistakes? Could it have done more or were its officials simply confronted with someone they could not turn around?
He has the grace to add this get out clause after having spent the majority of the piece blaming Channel and the authorities….
Well, we don’t really know.
Casciani could ask ‘What did the Muslim community do to change its own anti-Western narrative, to change the Muslim grievance narrative about Islamophobia, to change the Islamic religion itself and its extreme teachings all of which fed the boy’s mindset?’ But no. That’s not open for discussion. Casciani knows who is at fault and its not Chopperboy himself that’s for sure. He’s the real victim here. In reality the only thing he is a victim of is a theology that predisposed him, primed him, to be a martyr for the cause.
Massed cheerleading from the hard-core believers is not the same as mass popularity.
On another note…try replacing Black Cabs (BC) with BBC in the narrative in this video and see if the sentiments are the same….a group that doesn’t want competition ...’it’s just protectionism…the last closed shop’…and ‘is it not always going to be the way that the ones who had the monoploy in the past are the ones who are going to resist…there’s never going to be a moment when you’d welcome [change and competition]?’
Obama not also claiming these lost boys for his virtual family then?
The BBC is in a bit of a quandary….a mixed race killer who likes the IRA (one of the BBC’s favoured terror groups)…..they can’t avoid mentioning the IRA but perhaps, as with the Hispanic George Zimmerman, they can pass Harper off as purely white and settle for rolling their eyes in disgust at the white race…never mind that the mass killer Chris Harper Mercer is mixed race…half black…this is his aunt apparently…
In fact the BBC manage to avoid mentioning his race at all, which is unusual for the BBC…..if he’d been white/white you can guarantee it would have been mentioned, repeatedly…they had to settle for ‘conservative/Republican’ to try and damn him.
Though the BBC mentions that and his penchant for the IRA they don’t mention his link on his MySpace page to this fellow Mahmoud Ali Ehsani who has some interesting photos, and captions to go with them…one being ‘“my brave soldiers keep on fighting for the liberation of Palestine against Israel. fuck Israel. Kill the Jews. jews are the only infidels.” The rest all tag the ‘brave’ Mujahadeen…should add Mercer says he’s not himself religious…..
Now Harper isn’t a Muslim so why avoid mentioning the link whilst mentioning all the other interesting connections on his Myspace page?
I’m wondering where the campaigns are to call this man a terrorist as with the white supremacist Dylann Roof?
It looks like they are less keen on another 14 year old Muslim schoolboy’s talents…the BBC merely reported on the news bulletins that he had been discovered due to his behaviour at school but didn’t expand on that. They slipped in this less than expansive and informative comment buried deep, deep in their web article…
The court previously heard the teenager had been referred to the authorities by his school on several occasions for threatening behaviour, including telling one teacher he would “cut his throat and watch him bleed to death”.
The BBC then tries to explain away his actions…
The youth had found an online jihadist community through his first smartphone which “filled a void” caused by problems he was having at school and at home as well as a degenerative eye condition.
Poor lad…I’m sure the teacher would have had a Robert Fisk moment as their throat was being cut and think...’I deserve this, I’m white, privileged and have the blood of countless natives on my hands due to Western colonialism’….
“It doesn’t excuse them for beating me up so badly but there was a real reason why they should hate Westerners so much.
“I don’t want this to be seen as a Muslim mob attacking a Westerner for no reason. They had every reason to be angry – I’ve been an outspoken critic of the US actions myself. If I had been them, I would have attacked me.”
A two-day sentencing hearing was told on Thursday that the youngster, who had a troubled family life, had frequently threatened to kill his teachers, including one who he told he would “cut the throat”.
He told another “you are on my beheading list” and said he had moved “above” another teacher.
He threatened a teaching assistant with a pair of scissors and told another “your time has come”.
Why totally ignore that in news bulletins and minimise it to the extreme in the web report?
Perhaps the BBC thinks people might make a connection between how they reported so sympathetically on the ‘clock’ that looked like a bomb and the claims of injustice and islamophobia that must have inspired the reaction to it and the BBC’s latest reports as they look and see a 14 year old Muslim boy in the UK threatening to behead teachers and the BBC downplaying his threats. It would then be obvious that even 14 year olds cannot be so easily dismissed as potential ‘Jihadis’ and therefore the reaction to ‘Clockboy’ could be seen as entirely justified and wise… his clock did after all look like a bomb…..
David Dimbleby presents tonight’s fun and games from Cardiff. Joining him are Conservative secretary of state for Wales Stephen Crabb MP, Daily Telegraph columnist and Margaret Thatcher’s biographer Charles Moore, singer and campaigner Charlotte Church, Labour MP Stephen Kinnock (now where have I heard that name before?) and Plaid Cymru Leader Leanne Wood AM.
‘After years of trying to make sense of extremism, I want to understand the lives of ordinary Muslims, to go behind the walls and dispel the mystery and suspicion felt by non-Muslims on the outside’
The BBC has just broadcast what can only be described as a very provocative piece of pro-Muslim propaganda for the East London Mosque which has a well deserved reputation for extremist teachings (any search on Harry’s Place will confirm that…or Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph). The BBC programme by Robb Leech was deliberately naive, shallow and very restrictive in its scope as to what it investigated in an attempt to avoid and downplay ‘Muslim’ issues. As said the ELM is well known for its extremist associations and it looks like the BBC has set out to whitewash those concerns and paint a picture of brave British Muslims under siege from both government and the media….Leech repeatedly suggesting that the racism of the 70’s was back in the form of ‘Islamophobia’….and yet he made little, no, attempt to delve into the most controversial aspects of Islam that give rise to very serious and credible concerns about its teachings preferring instead to concentrate on how Islam segregates women….an issue but hardly the one that is relevant to radicalisation and joining ISIL.
Rather astonishingly even Mishal Husain on the Today programme (08:47) found Leech’s narrative of Muslims under siege not credible saying, when Leech and a Muslim guest from the Mosque suggested that Muslims were being unfairly targeted, besieged, as likely subjects of radicalisation, that that was because most terrorists were Muslims. Leech jumped in to say his brother had been radicalised proving that it’s not just Muslims being radicalised…Husain pointed out the obvious flaw in his argument…his brother, the Jihadi, had converted to Islam and then been radicalised.
Leech is always keen to claim that his brother converted to ‘an extreme form of Islam’…he ‘hastens to add’. However there is no moderate or extreme Islam, there is just Islam….as any Muslim would have told him. However Islam, everyday, conservative Islam, is extreme in relation to a Western society….something Leech was trying to hide.
Leech’s programme was simply a long, disingenuous piece of highly misleading film that gave a very one-sided view of the Mosque and Islam. Where were the critics of the Mosque, where were the claims about what the Mosque had been doing, where were the indepth explorations of Islamic teachings? Nowhere to be seen.
Leech gave us a film that said Muslims are lovely people, just like you and me, yes they may have ‘conservative’ values but you know what, live and let live, we must ignore such alien and scary beliefs and values being fostered in our midst.
Here’s a taste of Leech’s thoughts…
The general reaction in Britain to Islam…it’s another form of racism comparable to what happened in the 70’s….it makes Muslims feel different….hmmm…the whole film showed them to be different…because their religion taught them to be that way…..an Imam in the programme said if not submit to God, the teachings of the Koran and Hadith, then Islam is compromised….so to be a good Muslim you must be fundamentalist….that seemed to pass Leech by.
We heard that the families of the three ‘Jihadi Brides’ were ‘just normal East London families’ and that Leech was ‘just as puzzled as the families as to why the girls were radicalised’…he was ‘struck by how ordinary the families were’.
Unfortunately we know that at least one girl’s father was a radical himself…Leech slipped round to his house for an explanation….apparently the father knew nothing about it, he had no idea the protest was radical…despite all the flags, banners and chants of death to America and no’s to democracy.
Leech tells us that ‘It’s not hard to see how a man like [the father] might feel lost and seek identity and empowerment in a protest whether extremist or not.’ WTF! Really? Is Leech really saying that for some reason the father is ‘lost’ and that that is an understandable reason to become a ‘radical’? Does Leech really believe that the man had no idea what he was doing at that protest?
We then heard from Leech’s mosque guide that ‘Young people are MADE to feel not part of Western society so of course there is an attraction to something which welcomes them, invites them to join and makes them feel valued’ OK…except it is Islam that tells them they are not part of Western society, and why is an ELM official justifying and almost endorsing radicalisation?
We then had an Imam come on to tell us that the ELM was progressive, it is the media that is wrongly portraying it as extreme, that Muslim values were the same as British values…Leech declaring that he didn’t even know what British values were…thereby trying to suggest perhaps that they didn’t exist and therefore Muslim ones can’t be ‘alien’ to British society.
Leech says ‘I can see how Muslims can feel victimised by government policy and besieged by the media.’ The Imam prefers ‘moral clarity’ to ‘interference from government’ i.e he wants Muslims to be left to follow their religion whatever form that may take…without ‘draconian‘ laws restricting their fundamental beliefs.
Leech again sympathises uncritically with Muslims saying ‘I understand the predicament that Muslims find themselves in, under constant siege they lack the confidence to have a loud and clear voice.’ That is just complete rubbish…there is no more vocal and aggressively loud and demanding group than the Muslim community and government is constantly pandering to those demands with money, influence and political positions handed out to placate them.
When Ofsted visits the school at the mosque Leech is shocked that they ask the pupils how they felt about the Islamic state and if they support its views and actions….Leech thinks this is only being asked because they are Muslim…and therefore is unjustifiable…hmmm…yes it is being asked because they are Muslim, because, as Mishal Husain pointed out, most of the terrorists are Muslim. Leech thinks this is forcing Muslims to ‘prove they are British’…and that’s ‘not a good thing’. Curiously, paradoxically, at the end of the film he asks exactly the same question to some young Muslims…and they all denounce ISIL….have they proved to him they are British?
Leech concludes that any radicalisation, such as with the three Jihadi Brides, was purely a social media phenomenon and nothing to do with the Mosque…or indeed Islam….we are told the girls didn’t even go to the ELM and yet that’s not true and the first port of call for the families is….the ELM.
Leech is constantly confronted by evidence of fundamentalist, conservative Islam, especially amongst the young, and yet he manages to dismiss the importance of that and suggests that it has nothing to do with ‘radicalisation’ or that it may pose a problem for a Western, democratic, liberal society.
He talks to three youths who are part of their college Islamic society and are devout Muslims….we know that such societies are ‘hotbeds’ of Islamic fundamentalism and yet Leech doesn’t have any recognition of that….he makes absolutely no connection between the strong conservative Islamic values held by the young Muslims and potential radicalisation.
Finally he concludes that the level of conservativism on display at the Mosque maybe ‘alien and scary‘ to non-Muslims but these are normal British people with British values….so he seems to know what British values are when it suits his narrative…apparently they come from the Koran.
He tells us that (I paraphrase) ‘What I’ve seen is a community under siege, the younger generation suffers racism because of their faith just as their parents did for the colour of their skin. I don’t believe the mosque is a hotbed of radicalisation. The people here are British with British values, values which mean accepting and celebrating our differences together’.
Lovely sentiments….pity Islam doesn’t teach that. Pity Leech doesn’t actually do a proper investigation of the mosque, its activities and its associates and the real meaning and teachings of Islam.
This whole programme was badly misconceived….firstly we have a film maker who is unable to separate his own feelings from the reality and instead of analysing that reality gives us his own naive, sentimental and overly sympathetic interpretation of events. The film didn’t get anywhere near a genuine investigation of the claims about the ELM’s association with extremists, nor did it explore Islam and why its teachings alienate its followers from a Western society and may lead to radicalisation. Instead we had an uninformed, misleading rant against the government, the media and non-Muslim society putting the blame for alienation and radicalisation squarely at their door.
The BBC is highly irresponsible in producing such a one-sided and deliberately misleading programme that paints Muslims as victims of a racist society and thus incites radicalisation by encouraging that feeling of alienation and ‘disenfranchisement’ we are so often told they suffer from….which the BBC ‘proves’ that they do.
Well, the BBC did all they could to spin Corbyn’s “straight-talking” speech, didn’t they? I note they casually dismissed the fact that a section of it was written years ago for Neil Kinnoch. I note they overlooked he read out directional advice from the autocue. Straight-talking? Anyway, here’s a mid week open thread and the last one of this month!
‘As a man he suffers from a fatal incoherence of the intellectual pretensions. He has wonderful dramatic ideas, but doesn’t have the drive or grasp to make a team of them. His politics seems to me to be founded in a real imagination, sinister and very odd…too much smiling insinuation….and a continuous impersonation of reality out of illusion and fantasy combines with dark sideswipes at the ‘evil’ Press in a pseudo display of critical integrity. What a dim muddy glow there is lighting this goldfish bowl of the English intelligentsia…they are a damply steaming compost of bile, saliva, & disntegrated copies of the Communist Manifesto…the pustulence of their own canker, the fungi that sits & swells & sweats & stinks wherever Socialism is gathered together.’ Ted Hughes on Jeremy Corbyn and his grandiose mewlings. Or that’s what I believe Ted Hughes would say if he were still with us.
Corbyn and McDonnell. What to make of them? We are assured, and they work hard to present themselves as such, that they are hail fellows well met…and yet, that’s not true is it? Even as you watch or listen to the faux bonhomie, the reassuring tones and little quips intended to prove they are human you get an uncomfortable feeling that all is not just so, that something else lurks beneath. Both Corbyn and McDonnell come across to me as rather sinister, their attempts at grooming us with their pleasant spiel reminds me of the German soldier in Saving Private Ryan as he spoke quietly and reassuringly to the American soldier he was killing by slowly pushing a bayonet into his chest…
Listen to the BBC and you’d have an entirely wrong perspective on these two. The BBC downplays or ignores their radicalism and their unpopularity. Listen to the BBC and you’d think they really were the face of a ‘new politics’ with a groundswell of popular support from around the country. And yet, that’s not true. Corbyn has nothing new to offer in the content of his politics nor in the way that he serves that politics up. His support comes from a very vocal, very active group of militant supporters who hijacked the leadership election…even the Labour supporting New Statesman acknowledges Corbyn and his policies are not popular amongst the majority of Labour voters and even less so amongst potential Labour voters…so much for Corbyn himself claiming he has the support of the majority of people in the UK….
Corbyn claims his is a new politics, a line that the BBC seems all to happy to echo rather uncritically despite curiously also acknowledging the new politics seemed to have little substance….
In an era of growing disillusion towards politics, voters might like Mr Corbyn’s attempt at straight-talking, honest politics. But voters also like to know what politicians and parties believe in. At some point, the Labour leader’s policy blossom will have to bear fruit. And that is when the reckoning will be had.
‘Straight-talking, honest politics’? You have to be kidding. It’s all spin, it’s all theatrics..starting with PMQs last week. The BBC just doesn’t seem to have noticed….in fact the BBC goes along with Corbyn that his image problems are all a result of the nasty right wing press…
For example, many voters – if they have read anything about Mr Corbyn’s economic policy from his opponents in the press – might think that all he wants to do is raise taxes and print money. Unless the Labour leader acts to challenge that impression soon, it might prove harder to dispel in later months.
Why for instance has the BBC completely ignored the fact that a good proportion of Corbyn’s speech was lifted from something written in the 80’s and rejected by Labour leaders for decades as the Spectator, amongst many others (not the BBC), spells out?
An off-the-peg speech then, regurgitated from the reject pile of history. New politics? Same old same old and the same old politics of spin.
What was the one factor that made Corbyn so attractive in this era of jaded voters according to the BBC? It was that he had remained unchanged for decades, his ideology and politics and the causes he championed stayed the same for 30 years. This was the man of conviction who spoke the unvarnished truth as he saw it and the voters had been crying out for such a man who would break the mould and bring in a new age of principled, straight-talking, honest politics.
Except that’s not true is it? Immediately upon taking office all that conviction and honesty went out the window in an attempt to ‘fool’ the voters that he was not the Marxist ogre he had always proclaimed he was. He dumped his ‘straight-talking honest politics’ and presented us with a ‘moderate’ face designed to reassure us that the 30 years of championing Communism can be brushed aside, he didn’t really mean it, or rather he did but he doesn’t want you to know he did….honest. He now gets upset when reminded of his past utterances and blames the dark forces of the right-wing press for any mis-apprenhensions the Public might have about him and his ideas…never mind that they are his ideas. The New Statesman recognises the deceit…..
In the short term, Corbyn will doubtless compromise on his policy agenda, in order to prevent an immediate revolt by more moderate Labour MPs. We should not be fooled. He is a principled socialist. His long-term aims remain. He is a leopard whose spots have never changed, and never will. In a way, that is to Corbyn’s credit….However, that is not remotely what most of Labour’s other leading MPs want. They believe in capitalism.
How exactly is such a dishonest stance to Corbyn’s credit if he intends later to implement his extreme policies to the full along with presumably having ‘dealt’ with recalcitrant MPs who oppose him?
The BBC takes a similar stance…it’s clever politics……
Now on one level this is smart politics. If this week is designed to reassure voters frightened by what they read in the papers, why should Mr Corbyn rush his fences? Why establish positions in the early flush of electoral success that he might come to regret?
So Corbyn should not mention his long held politics of conviction in case he comes to regret it later….and yet he was voted in on the basis of that politics…like Syriza….is he now selling out…like Syriza? Note once again the BBC is spinning its own anti-Press line, the same one that Corbyn uses….’voters frightened by what they read in the papers.’ So we shouldn’t believe 30 years of Corbyn ‘honest’ rhetoric then? It was all an act?
Here is an issue that the BBC has conveniently decided not to explore which reflects upon Corbyn’s honesty…the issue of the asteroid…..Corbyn started his speech by dismissing this as the rabid anti-Corbyn Press making stuff up about him,…and yet it was true……both Corbyn and McDonnell signed up to a Parliamentary motion that welcomed the destruction of the earth and mankind by an asteroid….
Sponsors:That this House is appalled, but barely surprised, at the revelations in M15 files regarding the bizarre and inhumane proposals to use pigeons as flying bombs; recognises the important and live-saving role of carrier pigeons in two world wars and wonders at the lack of gratitude towards these gentle creatures; and believes that humans represent the most obscene, perverted, cruel, uncivilised and lethal species ever to inhabit the planet and looks forward to the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into the earth and wipes them out thus giving nature the opportunity to start again.
Why would Corbyn be suddenly so embarrassed about his past, a past that he has kept alive right up until he had to put it into action in the real world?
“No, sorry commentariat: this is grown up, real politics where real people debate real issues.”
Not so much. Why would he be embarrassed about such as this?….
“Our job is not to reform capitalism; it’s to overthrow it.” No wonder he has appointed a shadow chancellor whose Who’s Who entry declares his ambition as “fermenting the overthrow of capitalism”.
Corbyn continually attacks the right wing press and blames them for his image problems and yet, as the Spectator shows, the Press is waning and it is the left wing BBC that has enormous dominance of the news narrative….and that last quote came from the lefty New Statesman.
The BBC has been all too ready to accept the narrative that Corbyn is the face of a new politics, a man with integrity, compassion and conscience who has tapped into a widespread feeling across the country and who is attracting voters of all persuasions.
On Monday it was pretty much a Labour love-in on the BBC with hardly a critic in sight….Polly Toynbee and someone from the left wing Demos in one interview and then a whole programme devoted to what Labour thinks of itself..naturally there wasn’t much dissent on open display…..the only bit of reality came when a vox pop showed that the vast majority of voters questioned thought Corbyn was hopeless….the BBC news then picked out the pro-comments and an equal number of anti to give the impression that there was some kind of balance in Corbyn’s support. Is this Miliband all over again with the Public hating him but the BBC insisting they all love him really? The Telegraph notes….
One Labour MP ruefully told me that her party “failed to win the last election because we had a joke of a leader, and now we’ve elected an even bigger joke.”
Sure the BBC asks Labour: Straight talking or old politics? but they suggest, as mentioned, Corbyn is the victim of the right-wing press and not his own failings, his own extreme positioning, or his own compromising of that position.
The BBC is somewhat comfused as to who the speech was aimed at…his core support or the country…Jeremy Corbyn: Speaking to the hall not the nation and yet he talked more of values than politics clearly aiming at the whole country not just the activists or Labour MPs….
“It’s because I am driven by these British majority values, because I love this country, that I want to rid it of injustice, to make it fairer, more decent, more equal.
“And I want all of our citizens to benefit from prosperity and success.”
Shadow education secretary Lucy Powell told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme Mr Corbyn wanted to show that “people have nothing to fear from him” as he shares their values, which he will set out in his speech.
“I know that is a bit boring for people because we always want to see the rabbit out of the hat on the new policies, but that is exactly the kind of new approach to politics that I welcome,” she said.
After all why talk to those clearly already convinced about your radical brand of politics? He was out to reassure us that he wasn’t so radical really.
Mr McCluskey said: ‘Whatever the law says, I’ll be on the picket line when Unite members are on strike and I will not be wearing the armbands with the red triangle, like the trade union prisoners.
‘Remember that’s what the Nazis did to trade unionists in the concentration camps at Dachau.’
A new, more respectful, value-led politics?
The BBC is not getting its hands dirty, it is standing back and offering up warmed-over pap that presumably is intended not to raise any hackles at Labour HQ. The analysis is pretty anodyne and dodges the real dirt that would show Corbyn to be a complete fraud who has abandoned his principles for short term gain and who far from being straight and honest is spinning the politics in a way that Alastair Campbell would be proud of.
I was particularly incensed by the following paragraph:
“You may be familiar with the history of the 1967 Middle East War – a short, sharp conflict in which, Israel captured land from Egypt, Syria and Jordan in a series of lightning operations.”
No mention of why Israel went to war or the threats of annihilation that the state was facing. Also, the implication that the war was Israel’s fault. In particular, it was Jordan that attacked Israel in 1967 after they were warned to not to.
Here’s a nice image from the Labour Party conference. As you can see, the Union Flag is being taken down and replaced with the Red Flag so beloved of the comrades. Funny how the world class BBC missed this one…
A human rights campaigner has been barred from speaking at Warwick University after organisers were told she was “highly inflammatory and could incite hatred”.
Maryam Namazie, an Iranian-born campaigner against religious laws, had been invited to speak to the Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists Society next month. But the student union blocked the event, telling the society that Namazie’s appearance could violate its external speaker policy.
“We have a duty of care to conduct a risk assessment for each speaker who wishes to come to campus. There a number of articles written both by the speaker and by others about the speaker that indicate that she is highly inflammatory, and could incite hatred on campus.”
The student union’s policy says external speakers are “not permitted to encourage, glorify or promote any acts of terrorism” or “spread hatred and intolerance in the community” and “must seek to avoid insulting other faiths or groups”.
Namazie said she hoped to go ahead with the event if Warwick changed its mind. “The student union seems to lack an understanding of the difference between criticising religion, an idea or a far-right political movement on the one hand and attacking and inciting hate against people on the other,” she wrote on her blog. “Inciting hatred is what the Islamists do; I and my organisation challenge them and defend the rights of ex-Muslims, Muslims and others to dissent.”
Namazie, who has written for the Guardian, is the spokesperson for One Law for All, a group that campaigns against sharia and religious laws, and a member of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and the Worker-Communist party of Iran.
Some thought-provoking articles that reflect on how the left/liberal agenda has undermined society and commonsense leaving people unable to cope with the real world and which silences free speech and honest debate…
Students are increasingly seeking help for, and apparently having emotional crises over, problems of everyday life. Recent examples mentioned included a student who felt traumatized because her roommate had called her a “bitch” and two students who had sought counseling because they had seen a mouse in their off-campus apartment. The latter two also called the police, who kindly arrived and set a mousetrap for them.
Faculty at the meetings noted that students’ emotional fragility has become a serious problem when in comes to grading. Some said they had grown afraid to give low grades for poor performance, because of the subsequent emotional crises they would have to deal with in their offices.
President Barack Obama on Monday waded into the debate on political correctness saturating American colleges, forcefully rejecting the idea of tailoring curriculum or cutting funding based on the sensitivities of students.
During a town hall in Des Moines, Iowa, Obama described liberal college students—the kind of students who ban speakers from campus due to their political beliefs, at least—as “coddled.”
“I’ve heard of some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative. Or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African Americans, or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women,” he said, according to The Hill.
“I’ve got to tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of views.”
In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.
Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress.
Ladies, gentlemen, people of indeterminate gender.
There are two reasons you should be freaked out by political correctness.
The first is that it prevents people from saying what they want to say, from expressing what they believe to be true. And it is fundamentally illiberal to stop people from expressing their beliefs and their ideas.
And the second is that it prevents the rest of us from hearing those ideas and deciding for ourselves if they are good or bad. It infantilises all of us through denying us the right to weigh things up, to argue over them, to be the arbiters of what is right and what is wrong.
Instead it gives that role to a dictatorship of do-gooders, who decide on our behalf what words and thoughts are fit for public consumption.
On its own terms, political correctness is self-defeating. It drives away potential supporters, and substitutes linguistic change for social change. It replaces the desire to reform society with the desire to reform manners, and fails to understand that practised hypocrites and seasoned manipulators can meet the demand to observe correct form with ease. Indeed, they will welcome political correctness because it gives them new opportunities to intimidate and control…..Spastic too was once a euphemism that became an insult. In 1994, the Spastics’ Society changed its name to ‘Scope’ because children were ‘shouting you big spastic’ at each other in the playground. No good did the substitution do. As current dictionaries of slang report ‘scopey’ is now ‘a byword for spaz’.