Why Critical Social Justice is a Jedi mind trick.

Critical Social Justice underpins the Black Live Matter movement, Antifa and ideas such as intersectionality. It aims at changing the moral landscape and has evolved from ‘illiberal’ elite academics, principally utilising postmodernism as its bedrock. In their enlightening article of 2018 Lindsay, Pluckrose and Boghossian coins the phrase “grievance studies” as an umbrella term to describe these theories. Previously, politicians, CEO’s and establishment members for decades have attempted to quell the masses by controlling the narrative regarding how the world works, using bogus theories such as trickle down economics or by suggesting the world is a meritocracy. Now, we have professors in elite universities pushing the idea of Critical Social Justice (CSJ) in an effort to regulate what we say, how we think and how we behave in society.

The rich have been repeating the fable that humans are inherently selfish since the late 70’s early 80’s, adding to the myth of greed being good, while claiming poverty is due to a lack of a strong work ethic and moral principles. In a similarly simplistic vein, academics in grievance studies have in recent times been announcing that all white people are inherently racist and complicit in maintaining a system of ‘whiteness‘. Everyday law abiding citizens are suddenly labelled oppressors due to immutable traits they cannot change, such as skin colour. Like the neoliberals, the identarian left are using a particular lens in which to view and explain human nature, as a justification for their radical actions and demands. This is nothing more than a calculated attempt to control society, in order to remake it in accordance with their deeply flawed worldview.

Kimberle Crenshaw

Kimberle Crenshaw is one of these inferred academics and major contributor towards Critical Social Justice Theory, creating an idea called intersectionality. Her seminal 1989 paper is titled; “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics” is still considered a vitally important paper within this ideology. The main argument presented by this black feminist is that an experience of a black woman cannot be totally understood simply in terms of being black, or a woman, but must be include interactions of the two.

Ms Crenshaw began academia at Cornell University obtaining her bachelors degree in Government and Africana studies. From there she attended Harvard Law School receiving her JD (Juris Doctor) and finally the University of Wisconsin Law School where she gained her LL.M (Master of Laws). While at Harvard Law she originated the term Critical Race Theory. Over her career she has taught at UCLA Law School and Columbia Law School, attending what are generally considered some of the best universities in America. Interestingly, her academic baby, intersectionality came from an idea called ‘invisible privilege’.

But what about Ms Crenshaw’s academic privilege? Ideas that constitute Critical Social Justice Theory state that privilege is not simply about finances. Indeed not, but with this in mind it’s worth pointing out that only a very small percentage of people would ever get the opportunity to attend one of these aforementioned prestigious academic institutions in any form, student or teacher. Yet, many leading proponents of Critical Social Justice Theory have had a similar privileged academic journeys and are now lecturing others who are less fortunate than themselves, that they are the oppressors and possess power purely due to skin colour.

Beliefs such as these have not only gained massive traction in western elite academic institutions, but are the backbone of societal movements such as BLM, while these egregious ideas are also permeating into the workplace. Young, middle class, university educated people, predominantly women have found Critical Social Justice Theory hugely appealing. It seems that this has created a major shift in the political debate for many people who see themselves on the left, a movement which once challenged issues concerning economic inequality, now almost exclusively concentrates on identity politics, particularly in the US.

I find this distraction technique fascinating, although adherents to this group claim they are pro equality, their focus is undeniably identity based. This has the effect of removing any moral responsibility from this group in relation to economic privileges which many may well have benefitted from, onto a group who can do nothing about their predicament. Under this particular lens the biggest transgressors in society are not the rich and powerful anymore, but generally people who are white and male. By effectively manipulating these ideas, a white working class man with limited education, power or money could be considered more privileged than Kimberle Crenshaw. That my friends is one clever mind trick.

Critical Social Justice Theory is especially pernicious, as it seeks to control language, not only changing the meaning of words such as racism, but also who can say what and when. A hierarchy of importance has been developed deciding whose ‘truths’ are of greater value, based not on reason or science, but identity and ‘lived experience‘. This is an important mechanism as it serves to silence dissenters, critics and free speech, creating an echo chamber of self congratulatory confirmation. Hate speech is now considered anything that challenges this moral orthodoxy and perpetrators are often on the receiving end of vicious attacks on their character, while losing forums in which to speak up.

Objectivity, logic and facts have now given way to subjectivity, lived experience and ‘my truths’ aka opinions. CSJ is inherently anti-science, thus cultivating a place whereby, lived experiences of a person deemed the most oppressed using this arbitrary hierarchy carries the most weight. Expertise in a certain area of study, objective evidence and the scientific method, are all considered irrelevant. Furthermore, science is generally thought of as construct of whiteness or colonialism. It’s of no surprise, therefore, how fake news and bipartisanism has grown exponentially in recent times. In a post truth world all that is required is a convincing story, conveyed to a receptive audience, et voila, “my truth” is born.

In the age of the internet and the creation of echo chambers complete with disciples willing to agree with any shaky narrative that appeals to them, the truth is suddenly whatever you chose it to be. It doesn’t require, knowledge, research, statistics, peer reviews or objective confirmation, all that is needed are feelings; “I feel this way, therefore, it must be true”. These significant changes in how we interpret the world can be witnessed in all political corners, such as; Trump denying the realities of an election result, through to BLM claiming all white people are racist.

Identity politics is marinated in this peculiar belief system and has proven to be a powerful weapon. An example of this would be the use of anti-Semitism to discredit and ultimately remove Jeremy Corbyn not only as the leader of the Labour Party but from the Labour Party entirely. However, the idea that the Labour Party is riddled with anti-Semitism is based on no objective evidence as found in the Chakrabarti Inquiry. Of course this is not to suggest racism as a whole which includes anti-Semitism is absent from the party, but that the extent to which it exists and the damage it causes has been highly exaggerated. Needless to say, this narrative has benefitted many powerful people who saw Corbyn as an existential threat to their ambitions and their way of life. Furthermore, it was also in the interest of the billionaire owned press and the Tory Party to wholeheartedly back this fairy-tale.

Shami Chakrabarti

What Critical Social Justice Theory which includes Critical Race Theory serves to change is any current definition of a word that does not fit with their myopic radical viewpoint. Critical Social Justice Theory pressurises society to change language until it suits their narrative, thus, presenting as a worryingly Orwellian concept akin to Newspeak in the book 1984. In recent times Critical Race Theory has endeavoured to alter the definition of racism dramatically, shifting it from, conscious abuse that an individual or group inflicts on another party, to a system of power and oppression that has nothing to do with intent. In fact, by simply not admitting to your sins of being born white, you are perpetuating this proposed system of oppression and are therefore, racist.

To a large extent these ideas have been mirrored by the right side of the UK Labour Party throughout the anti-Semitism debate. By simply stating that anti-Semitism is not as prevalent as repeatedly claimed by those who oppose Corbyn, this is often more than enough to be labelled anti-Semitic. The CSJ strategy of redefining words has also been heavily utilised by the right of the Labour Party, in order to suit their agenda of purging the left. It appears anti-Semitism is not about hating Jews anymore, but now includes being opposed to Zionism and the Israeli government, particularly when discussing the treatment of Palestinians.

With this relatively recent arrival of fluid meanings, the absence of objectivity, the dismissal of rigorous enquiry, the rejection of science and the ascendancy of feelings over critical thinking will undoubtedly lead us to a very dangerous place. When everything or nothing is the truth, plus the only accepted social currency is your identity and the corresponding ranking within an arbitrary league table of oppression, chaos will ensue. What will occur, is that the truly rich and powerful within society will harness this destructive weapon to maintain the status quo. In the end poor people and the working class will continue to suffer, as the middle classes are hoodwinked into buying into the allure of identity politics in a vain effort to remain on the right side of history. For the sake of a cohesive functioning society, we need to reject Critical Social Justice as soon as possible.

Time to leave the abuser: The left needs to break free from Labour.

In a relationship the abused often defends the abuser by making excuses for them. Claiming, “they’ve changed”, “they didn’t mean it” or maybe “I deserved it”. All this sounds eerily like the left when it comes to their precarious position within the Labour Party. Lets be honest, socialists have not been welcome in the party for decades. Usually resigned to warming the back benches in parliament, while the neoliberal Tory reserve team lead the way. However, for four hopeful years Jeremy Corbyn was the leader and that man was a socialist.

I fall short of declaring that Jeremy was in control, as the Labour Party bureaucratic leadership made sure that wouldn’t occur. A fact that was clearly documented in the now conveniently forgotten 800 page plus report, explaining the lengths the party HQ would go to in order to keep him out of number 10. Furthermore, parliamentary MP’s and the media also contributed to the fate of Corbyn by weaponising anti-Semitism, while wildly overestimating the prevalence of this within the Labour Party, eventually leading to Corbyn’s demise as the leader.

Shami Chakrabarti

It’s sad that we have to rake over old coals, but in an effort to make it abundantly clear, I will state anti-Semitism as with other forms racism is certainly not acceptable in the Labour Party or any other group. However, within Labour as stated in the Chakrabarti report the number of incidences are very small. Unfortunately, in the age of perpetual outrage, identity politics and fake news, non of this matters as Jeremy Corbyn was put to the “purity sword” in a desperate attempt to return the Labour Party back to the path of neoliberalism.

This latest instalment of “get Corbyn” centres around his suspension from the Labour Party by current leader Sir Keir “Mr Forensic” Starmer. The debacle was based around comments Corbyn made in the wake of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) which investigated Labour and claims of anti-Semitism. Corbyn rightly announced that anti-Semitism was “dramatically overstated for political reasons”. Cunningly (or not), Starmer forensically (of course) used this to oust Jeremy Corbyn, further utilising anti-Semitism as a political tool, while simultaneously devaluing the seriousness of racism.

Following Starmer’s banishing of leadership rival Rebecca Long-Bailey to the political wilderness without so much as a whimper, I suspect at that point he felt emboldened to pursue Corbyn. Starmer rose to the position of party leader claiming to be a leader for unity. If by unity he means muting and purging the left, then I guess he’s well on his way. The idea that Labour is a broad church and that it needs to stand together against the Tories, is comparable to an abuser claiming they “won’t do it again” after an incident, or suggesting, “it will be better from now on”. The left need to be aware of the power imbalance in this relationship, recognise it as abuse and move on.

It has been suggested that there is a need to stay within the Labour Party in order to set it back on the path to socialism, but this is delusional. Do you really think the Labour right is going to relinquish the reins of power, when their recent nightmare of Corbyn becoming Prime Minister nearly came true in 2017? Sometimes in life you need to know when to walk away, confident that you did everything you could to make it work. It has been said on numerous occasions that a split will mean endless Tory governments. This may well be true, but sometimes you have to hit rock bottom before you can make changes.

Exchanging the colour of rosette for another while colluding in maintaining neoliberalism is totally pointless. A Government that tinkers around the edges is not what the UK or the world currently needs. A protest party attacking the status quo using socialist core beliefs, has greater moral value than pandering to a failed system and indeed party. The illusion of any political progression within the status quo is exemplified every time the UK has a change of government. There are feelings of optimism and hope quickly followed by emptiness, despair and abject disappointment.

Frankly, the right of the Labour Party have more in common with moderate Conservatives than the party’s left. This stance, therefore, ideologically prevents any radical ideas from gaining traction. Labour are beholden to the establishment as are the Tories, while the left unsuccessfully continue to push for systemic change. One thing most people on the left agree on is economic inequality is a major issue, negatively affecting our health, education, crime rates and societal cohesion. In contrast, issues concerning massive economic inequality as witnessed in the UK is a pressing matter the ruling elite would rather people forget about. However, for any left leaning party to be worth its salt, addressing this area has to be a priority.

While the Tories are unabashed capitalists, who rule for the rich and powerful, Labour claim to be for everyday people. Regrettably, Labour’s adherence to slow incremental change very much underpinned by a Fabian 3rd way ideology will barely keep people a float during these challenging times. Fifteen members of the shadow cabinet are Fabian’s including Keir Starmer. This is a group that’s more concerned with appeasing their corporate masters than making life better for the most amount of people.

Lets be honest, this an internal struggle the left cannot win. Staying will just result in more compromise and deep regret. Encouragingly, pro Corbyn members made their thoughts and feelings apparent at the recent NEC conference by walking out. It has been strongly suggested that the Labour Party leadership “lobbied” for the establishment sweetheart Dame Margaret Beckett as Chair of the NEC (Labour’s guiding body), while current Vice-Chair Ian Murray was ignored, a role which generally goes to the Vice-Chair.

Margaret Beckett

It has been proposed that Mr Murray, a senior member of the Fire Brigades Union has been bypassed primarily because he criticised Keir Starmer’s decision not to re-admit Mr Corbyn to the parliamentary party. An action effectively rendering Jeremy an as independent MP. However, Labour Party officials have predictably claimed that this was democracy in action. I would suggest the NeoLabouralism Party has used this moment to further marginalise what’s remains of the left, in their bid for pro establishment dominance.

It’s time to leave folks, the games up, the Labour party appears a dead duck and even if it wins the next election no discernible change will occur. As Neil Sedaka sang ” breaking up is hard to do”, but this is now a must for the left to flourish and influence society without ideological roadblocks. We must be mindful that politics extends beyond Westminster and the bickering elites that reside there. Outside of this bubble is surely now where many of the battles must be fought and victories gained if the left are to have any influence on the fate of society.

Corbyn’s suspension and the death of Labour as credible opposition.

Yesterdays suspension of Jeremy Corbyn in the aftermath of the Equality and Human Rights Commission report, signals a culmination of a 5 year witch-hunt in order to remove the former Labour leader. Mr Corbyn was suspended from the Labour Party following comments in relation to the EHRC report stating “anyone claiming there is no anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is wrong”, but “the scale of the problem was overstated for political reasons by our opponents”. By “opponents” he primarily means adversaries within his own party.

This tireless campaign to oust Corbyn, resulting in the suspension of him from the party has lasted half a decade and has been thoroughly documented on numerous occasions. Furthermore, this hasn’t just centred around anti-Semitism, with further accusations of him being an IRA sympathiser, a Russian stooge and even a Czech spy. However, it’s the anti-Semitic narrative that has stuck and caused the most damage.

Attacks on Corbyn have come from multiple directions, but mainly from the media, the UK establishment and opposing factions within the Labour Party. Without doubt, Jeremy Corbyn threatened a sizeable shift towards left wing policies, proposing the biggest shake-up in decades, thus, the establishment coalesced in a desperate effort to defeat him. Ultimately, anti-Semitism was chosen as the vehicle to derail Corbyn eventually leading to his political demise. Despite a distinct lack of evidence confirming that the Labour Party is inherently anti-Semitic, this tactic gained traction and in the end produced the desired effect.

Jeremy Corbyn is without doubt the most maligned Labour MP of recent times and was the most targeted party leader in history. Major players within the party bureaucracy made it their mission to destroy Corbyn from the inside, while business elites, Tories and the media pursued the same goal externally. Insider treachery and betrayal was highlighted in a leaked report, documenting that senior members of the party HQ repeatedly sabotaged Jeremy Corbyn’s bid to become Prime Minister in 2017.

However, looking at the bigger picture regarding this recent suspension, undoubtedly this is another blatant attack on the left from the Labour Party’s right wing. At a time when the UK’s patently cruel and vicious government is systematically destroying peoples lives, the Starmer led Labour Party is using this to purge the left from their ranks. This is clearly actions of a controlled opposition, a party which is more intent on waging an ideological war within the Labour Party than holding Johnson and company to account during a pandemic.

I mention controlled opposition simply because Labour’s continued infighting, it’s reluctance to challenge the Tory government, to fight for discernible systematic change is a definite victory for the seemingly permanent neoliberal state the UK inhabits. The ruling elite hold all the cards in order to maintain the status quo; money, power, government and the media, while all the left can possibly hope to achieve is obtaining support from the masses.

The game of the elite has always been to divide and conquer. So, while we are fragmented; the homeless will multiply, the poor will go hungry, worthwhile well paying jobs will become scarcer, the working class will become poorer and more people will die. Meanwhile, the 1% will accrue ever more riches and power, leaving the rest to fight over the scraps off the table, while being told to be happy with it.

Betrayed: Is it time for the left to leave the Labour Party?

In all honesty, the recent Labour Party leak has done little more than confirm what many on the left already suspected about the party. This being, that labour since possibly the mid to late 80’s has been led by the right side of the party. The apparatus and the bureaucracy surrounding the Labour Party are soaked in neoliberalism. With a new leader this faction will be desperate to maintain control of the party at all costs, while showing zero interest in improving the lives of working class people around the country. The recent leak has proved yet again that Labour consists of two parties under one roof, each side indistinguishable from the other, while the centrist shadow deeply damages the socialist cause.

The left in general have always looked towards radical change. But now more than ever, the world needs a real political shift, requiring big bold ideas that can burst open the straitjacket of capitalism. The right of the party in contrast claim to be pragmatists, incessantly declaring that nothing can change without power, but nothing perceptible will change if you sell out to attain power. What this recent leak has shown is the disdain certain senior staff members at Labour HQ had for the hundreds of thousand of members who joined because of the ideals that Jeremy Corbyn represented.

JC Tranmere

To remain as a member or even a casual supporter of the Labour Party as it stands now, would be to adopt the role of “a useful idiot” as Noam Chomsky would say. Remaining would serve the party’s right wing by bolstering the numbers, putting money in their coffers, while they arrogantly think of you as scum. We had a small window of opportunity to elect a truly socialist Labour leader as Prime Minister, that moment has now passed. Members and supporters of Labour have been repeatedly betrayed by people who were supposedly on the same team. For decades it has been an abusive, one sided relationship and now I suggest it’s time to walk away.

The newly leaked report (full report here) emphatically dismantles claims that The Leader of The Opposition Office (LOTO) was responsible for sabotaging the efforts of the Labour Party tasked with dealing with anti-Semitism. On the contrary, it was the Blairite right wing of the party fuelled by hatred of the left that were the ones who made a conscious decision to drag their heals over any complaints regarding anti-Semitism. Thus creating a crisis that was conveniently blamed onto Corbyn and his team. This report also dismisses any notion put forward on the BBC’s Panorama programme that Corbyn’s office was to blame for this failure.

The upper reaches of the party HQ have been implicated in this treachery, including former General Secretary Iain McNicol. With further spotlight on the Governance and Legal Unit (GLU) largely responsible for disciplinary issues within the party. The report uncovers that the GLU failed to act on the majority of complaints, including those related to anti-Semitism. This inaction created a huge backlog which was egregiously used to imply Corbyn was soft on anti-Semitism. Information to support these alleged actions has been accumulated via extensive What App messages involving 6 top Labour Party Officials.

Further to this, there are examples in the report of officials within Labour’s HQ deliberately giving false information, suggesting these complaints were being dealt with quickly and professionally. Worryingly, the Chakrabarti Inquiry, which stated that the Labour Party was clearly not overrun with anti-Semitism was repeatedly ignored by members of GLU. The GLU also argued that the findings of the inquiry should not be uploaded onto the Labour website. It is fair to say, that this current leaked report does a good job of correcting the record regarding the failures of dealing with anti-Semitism and the people responsible for such failures, but it does contain flaws.

Where it falls short is the lack of acknowledgment regarding the weaponisation of anti-Semitism, while repeatedly stressing the word “denialism” throughout. To refute any incidences of anti-Semitism or racism in general within the Labour would be to ignore the reality of British society. However, “denialism” in this case has been utilised to rubbish any potential discussion around the use of anti-Semitism for political gain. Accounts of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party are tiny, compared to those both in wider society and the Conservative Party. Sadly in this case, context and proportion were concepts wilfully dismissed in order to sustain a political project.

Moving away from the issue of anti-Semitism, it is blatantly obvious reading the content of the What App messages that certain members of Labour HQ wanted Corbyn to lose in 2017. One Labour staff member even declared that, Corbyn’s good result in 2017 was against everything they had been working for over the last 2 years. Electoral disaster was clearly what certain high ranking members of the Labour Party were hoping for, realising that this would strengthen their case to boot Corbyn out.

Further to this 5th column activity, any MP who was considered even marginally on the left was labelled a “Trot”, including moderates such as Andy Burnham, Ed Milliband and Sadiq Khan. Meanwhile, members of Corbyn’s team were given derogatory nicknames by top staffer Emilie Oldknow such as, calling Corbyn’s political secretary “pube head”, while she mocked black MP Dawn Butler for bringing up the issue of racism in the party. In fact, Oldknow seems to have a particular penchant for verbal abuse, calling Karie Murphy one of Corbyn’s team both “fat” and the “Medusa Monster”. This group within the Labour Party HQ also discussed hanging, burning and shooting Jeremy Corbyn.

emily oldknow

What’s deeply disturbing about all of this is, Emilie Oldknow was a top pick of Keir Starmer to take over as General Secretary of the Labour Party. I have no doubt that there will be a concerted effort by the Labour right to sweep this under a very large carpet. Starmer has proposed an investigation, but I wouldn’t get too excited if you’re hoping for a thorough and fair probe into what occurred at Labour HQ during this time. Judging by the outline of the investigation, it would appear the new regime seem more intent on investigating the “whistle-blowers” rather than the people named in the scandal.

This is a good example of what moderate or centrist technocrats think of politics. To them politics is just a charade, a game of chance, a way of feeding their egos, while using their wits and backstabbing treachery to gain an advantage over the other lot, be it socialists or the Tories. It’s a world devoid of principles or any notion of making the world a better place, except of course for themselves. These people ooze entitlement and privilege, a group who genuinely think they are suitably qualified to decide the fate of the Labour Party and indeed the country.

Obviously this sort of duplicitous behaviour wasn’t solely confined to the Labour Party HQ. The Parliamentary Labour Party also had a significant hand in engineering a Corbyn defeat in both elections. In 2016 the vast majority of Corbyn’s shadow cabinet resigned and 172 MP’s passed a motion of no confidence regarding his leadership. In 2019 nine Labour MP’s left the Labour Party, again blaming Corbyn’s stewardship, whilst suggesting a prominent culture of bullying and anti-Semitism. However, judging by recent accounts these activities seem to have been performed generally by the right of the party, with their claims of victimhood now presenting more like an elaborate “gaslighting” exercise.

This group would possibly describe themselves as part of the “intelligent minority”. This was a term given by the American writer and political commentator Walter Lippman whose stated function was to “practice democracy” by manufacturing consent. In Lippman’s world public opinion was not to be trusted, in his view, decisions should be made by a “specialised class” capable of social and economic management.

This report strongly indicates that this particular “specialised class” of MP’s and high ranking party staffers, over an extended period of time, arrogantly chose what was best for the Labour Party. This is despite the fact that Labour Party members, which still numbered over 500,000 in August 2019, overwhelmingly supported Jeremy Corbyn. This persistent deceptive behaviour demonstrates that the right of the party have no interest in democracy, whatsoever. However, this group and those they politically represent now have the audacity to ask lefties to support the current leader. A request such as this after 5 years of subversive behaviour is astonishingly contemptuous.

This centrist dim view on democracy is supported by figures, in 2018 the New York Times reported that centrists were more suspicious of democracy than both the far right and the far left. Furthermore, it states that this group are least likely to support free and fair elections. Even scarier still, centrists appear to be the least likely to support liberal institutions, such as civil rights. Finally, the centre are much more inclined to support authoritarianism than the far left. Disturbingly in the UK and the US, it is reported that centrists would also be more likely endorse an authoritarian than the far right, which kind of takes us back to the ideas of Walter Lippman.

Centrists and lefties have many irreconcilable differences. Centrists believe in a rigid, bureaucratic top down system of slick professional politicians, good speakers and party staff whose sole existence is to win elections. As principles are of little consequence, centrists are free to adopt or reject ideas dependent purely on whether they gain votes or not. Additionally, centrists will attempt to manufacture support, often by making promises they have no intention of keeping (see Obama for a case study). Or they will simply ignore public opinion under the auspices of doing “what’s best for the country” (see Blair and weapons of mass destruction for details).

Bush Blair US Britain

In contrast, lefties are bound by a certain ideology, largely based around the idea of constructing a fairer, more just world, which centrist would determine as naïve. The problem is, this instantly binds the left to principles which can become our undoing when faced with people who recognise politics as nothing more than a pursuit of power. Many lefties will look at this recent report and acknowledge that this underhanded mutiny contributed to a lost opportunity, which aimed to make the lives of many people much better. They may also reflect on this betrayal and wonder how many more people have died needlessly due to politics of austerity at the hands of the Tories following Corbyn’s defeat.

Ethics and principles can place you at a strategic disadvantage when grappling with people who value nothing but narcissistic glory. This is why I firmly believe the two factions need to split, and soon. Neoliberal centrists need the left much more than we will ever need them. They require our votes to win an election, in order for them to gain power and control. After all, this is their only concern. In contrast, socialists need to divorce the centre in order to re-evaluate what principles are important to the left without constantly deferring to soulless political chameleons. If I had to choose between principles and vacuous power, I’d pick principles every time. However, I can’t lie, both would be nice.

Now what for the left? Labour lurches back to the centre.

Many centrists, moderates, 3rd wayers or whatever you might to call them (I have some suggestions), will be rejoicing within the Labour Party as the ‘charismatic’ and ‘dynamic’ Keir Starmer has been elected to lead the party. What a joyous occasion! Boris Johnson must be shitting himself. A slick, corporatized, centrist politician who is a pro-EU Londoner and a middle class lawyer has been sent to gain the vote of the Brexit supporting, working classes, largely from the North. Yeah, good luck with that.

Wow, we all thought politics was dead, hopefully this appointment may speed things up.  I’ve not been this happy since my dog died. Labour is back! Back to centrist, bureaucratic drivel, underpinned by a neoliberal doctrine that is severely lacking and outdated, peppered with social justice platitudes. Come on! Lets get this rather irrelevant party started! What shall we call it? How about Newish Labour?

The left have now had their scraps for at least another generation. We had four years of hope for change and a new way of running society, led by a man with rare ethical integrity. Now it’s time to head back to the cheap seats or even the exit, as the smarmy “moderates” are here, more emboldened and irritating than ever before. We have already been warned on many a forum on this inter webby thing that “it’s a broad church”, “the left experiment has failed”, “you had your chance”, as the cocky chorus of centrism continues to chime their hideous tune. The left are now expected to shut up and bolster the numbers within the Labour Party. After all, “the last time the Labour Party had a moderate leader, we won 3 elections, don’t you know”. But I’m sure you’ve been told this ad nauseum.

Blair brown

The problem is quite simple, Labour consists of two parties under one roof. Personally I have about as little in common with centrists as I do with Mussolini. I would even argue that they irritate me more than the average right wing, Oxbridge bigot. Centrists basically agree with the right, primarily that unbridled capitalism is still the way we should run a nation, however to distinguish themselves from the Tories, they subscribe heavily to the misguided doctrine of identity politics.

This political direction is already on display, Starmer has stated he will toughen the party rules on anti-Semitism. This is almost like the US/UK forces looking for weapons of mass destruction. As if by magic, these persistent accusations of anti-Semitism levelled at the Labour Party coincided with a Corbyn led shift to the left and an increase in scrutiny of Israel. These allegations may also miraculously disappear now Starmer is the leader.

In truth, Labour have continuously been reported of having exceptionally low levels of anti-Semitism. Out of the 228 MP’s as of 2016, one had been suspected and suspended for anti-Semitism, equating to 0.4% of all Labour MP’s. Among the 7000 councillors 0.07% had been suspended and of the 388,000 members (2016), 0.012% were suspended. Additionally, a 2017 survey found that the Labour Party were unsurprisingly less likely to hold anti-Semitic views than both the Conservative Party and UKIP.

In a 2015 YouGov survey in the UK looking at varying groups, Roma/Gypsies were suggested as providing the most negative impression with 58% of the vote, Muslims at 40%, black people 8%, gay people 9% and Jewish people picking up 7% share of the vote. In this survey it concluded that Jewish people in the UK were perceived more favourably than 5 out of the 6 groups investigated. While in all the other countries surveyed, Sweden is the only nation who identifies Jewish people more favourably than the UK.

Despite all this, anti-Semitism seems to be top of Keir Starmer’s agenda, despite the problem being relatively minor. We will always have people in our midst who are racist, trying to eradicate all of these people is impossible, in any institution. To consider it as a major problem as ‘moderates’ suggest, you have to define what constitutes a problem and be able to measure it, therefore, you can judge whether any strategies you employ have improved the very situation you have highlighted. Additionally, the ultimate goal needs to be achievable. Eradicating all racism everywhere really isn’t realistic, no matter how much you would like this to happen.

In 2018, Deborah Maccoby wrote in the Medium that, “anti-Semitism is at a low level and is almost never threatening”. She continued suggesting that trying to completely eradicate it may well be counter-productive, curtailing freedom of speech and thought. She offers that possibly the best way to deal with this would be to keep people who espouse these ideas marginalised in society.

As groups, the Gypsy/Roma and the Muslim communities are infinitely more ostracised, and yet very little is spoken about it, certainly not in the press or within parliamentary parties. Considering centrists appear to champion identity politics, you would expect them to support all minority groups, however, it would seem these are the wrong kind of minority groups, offering little influence in the corridors of power. We must consider that while the ‘moderates’ are at the helm, anti-Semitism will be used as the leash to keep the left at bay.

As far as the centrists are concerned it’s now their ball and they’re not going to give it back. I would suggest Labour is probably not a place for lefties anymore. Some people may well exercise caution, seeing how things develop before making a decision regarding their political allegiances. But many on the left vote on principles, not on the colour of the rosette. ‘Moderates’ talk about winning, spouting that you can’t enact change if you’re not in power, but you can’t implement real change if you have discarded all your principle along the way.

Lefties will be cast out into the wilderness yet again, resigned to the role of a protest faction. Unless the world suddenly realises that we can’t continue with neoliberalism, or we can somehow unify the left, the working class and the disenfranchised, we will remain outsiders. Logic suggests than when the people realise this system does not have the answers to the problems we face, this may initiate discernible change. Judging by what is occurring around the world with; Trump, Modi, Johnson and Bolsanaro to name a few, this would indicate that the reality is very different.

johnson and bitch

Both the US and the UK entertained the notion that they may be on the cusp of a sea change regarding the political narrative, but this has been extinguished by the ruling elite and their useful idiots. Both nations are invited to vote in their respective elections every 4 (US) and 5 (UK) years. Their citizens are led to believe that they are at the forefront of democracy, that they live in a free country, but nothing could be further from the truth.

On either side of the Atlantic two older, socialist gentlemen have recently highlighted that this is a fallacy. Preserving the ruling elite will always be given special preference over the general population. Anyone who challenges this neoliberal orthodoxy will find themselves, systematically dismantled by the people who really control these two countries. Now, Labour will revert back to the role of a controlled opposition after a brief flirtation with the heady ideas of systematic change.

 

Defending the oligarchy: UK media and the manufacturing of a Tory victory.

Nobody should be surprised that the majority of the media were complicit in their manufacturing of a narrative that contributed to the defeat of Jeremy Corbyn during the recent election in December 2019. Nor should we expect any easing back of these tactics if a Labour leader is elected who is deemed unsuitable to the establishment oligarchs. Jeremy Corbyn at one point was seen as serious threat to the ruling elite in the UK, advocating wholesale changes to the way the rich and powerful operate. This included higher tax rates for the rich, a clampdown on tax evaders and avoiders, plus plans for the nationalisation of certain industries and services. Corbyn without doubt was considered a problem and had to go.

In the UK, the print media is primarily owned by billionaires and these individuals help to maintain the sanctity of the establishment. Predictably coming down hard on anyone who threatens this hierarchy. The names of some of the people who help to preserve the status quo are;

  • Lord Rothermere – The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and The Metro.
  • Rupert Murdoch – The Sun, The Sun on Sunday, The Times and The Times on Sunday.
  • Alexander and Evgeny Lebedev – The Independent, The Independent on Sunday and The Evening Standard.
  • Richard Desmond – The Daily Star, The Star on Sunday, The Daily Express and The Express on Sunday.
  • David and Frederick Barclay – The Telegraph and The Spectator.

What appears obvious during the last two elections of 2017 and 2019 is, the majority of the print media were deeply critical of Corbyn and his proposed policies. This sustained criticism also occurred from supposed friends of Labour, such as the Guardian. However, most of this vitriol appeared in right wing rags, who persistently produced pages of propaganda and outright lies to concoct a powerful anti-Corbyn narrative. This rhetoric lasted four years, but notably increased in intensity over the 2017 election and stepping up a further gear over the 2019 campaign. It is proposed that the hostility towards Labour and in particular Jeremy Corbyn doubled from the 2017 to the 2019 election.

Corbyn bias 2

Positive/negative items published in the print media five weeks prior to the 2019 election. For clarity Labour is in red, Conservatives are in Blue.

The final week in the run up to the election saw the onslaught against Labour become steadily more vicious, in contrast coverage towards the Tories became friendlier over the same period. Among the highest circulating newspapers namely the, Sun, Telegraph and the Daily Mail the gloves were off, as these outlets effectively became the propaganda wing of the Conservative Party. In a study by Loughborough University it was clearly noted that more space was given to Johnson’s pre election proposals than Corbyn’s in the week before the election. With of course, most of the media coverage focusing on Brexit.

To get a taste of the savagery towards Corbyn, here’s a list of some of the most ridiculous claims levelled at Jeremy Corbyn over this 4 year period, all of which were completely unfounded. Of course, in this world the truth is irrelevant only the result matters. The original propaganda pieces are linked to subject matter.

  1. Corbyn met a Czech communist spy during the cold war.
  2. Corbyn is a Marxist extremist intent on bankrupting Britain.
  3. Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser.
  4. Corbyn thinks the death of Osama Bin Laden was a tragedy.
  5. Corbyn wants Britain to abolish its Army (see below)
  6. Corbyn is an IRA supporter.

Sun lies

This coordinated campaign worked exceptionally well. To reaffirm this success, all that would be required is an engagement with someone who is anti Corbyn, ask them why and then listen to them repeat the faux headlines from one or more of these listed publications. One of the most damaging themes seized upon by the print media across the entire spectrum of the mainstream media, was that Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party were anti-Semitic. The primary problem with this smear was many of these baseless accusations came from the identarian left paper, The Guardian. In the link you’ll find 105 articles from the Guardian that they ran against Corbyn on the subject of anti-Semitism up to 2019.

This narrative was broadly constructed on two fronts. The first stemmed from the Labour Party’s refusal to accept a definition of anti-Semitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Secondly there was a perception from anti-Corbyn Labour members that the party was too slow to condemn and punish anti-Semitic acts, while suggesting there was a general increase in anti-Semitism within Labour.

In response to the first issue, in 2016 the Labour party accepted in full the definition of anti-Semitism as proposed. What Labour adopted was the text in the box (see below), but not all the examples that followed. This approach was supported by leading high court lawyers who suggested that, accepting the entire ‘package’, which regularly conflates the criticism of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism, could have a profound effect on any criticism of Israel and on free speech in general.

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Accusations of anti-Semitism levelled at the Labour Party coincided with a Corbyn led shift to the left and an increase in scrutiny of Israel. In truth, Labour has exceptionally low levels of anti-Semitism. Out of the 228 MP’s as of 2016, one had been suspected and suspended for anti-Semitism, equating to 0.4% of all Labour MP’s. Among the 7000 councillors 0.07% had been suspended and of the 388,000 members (2016), 0.012% were suspended. A 2017 survey found that the Labour Party were unsurprisingly less likely to hold anti-Semitic views than both the Conservative Party and UKIP.

I think it’s fair to surmise that suggestions of an anti-Semitic tidal wave within the Labour Party were purely a political creation devised by Corbyn’s detractors. It has been pointed out that the media coverage regarding this subject lacked both context and perspective, often relying on a handful of Corbyn’s critics to paint a particular picture. This was accomplished without declaring their political motivations or any balance seeking initiatives from the media. One such agent was Margaret Hodge, who accused Corbyn of being a fascist, ironically, Ms Hodge has a history of appropriating fascist language for political gain. There is no doubt that this was all part of the continued attempt to discredit Corbyn.

Moving away from the print media, the BBC also played a significant role in protecting the establishment from a left wing shift. The BBC used a multitude of methods to present the Conservatives in a far better light than what was deserved during the lead up to the election. So lets looks into these purposeful decisions by the BBC to maintain the establishment. Firstly, on Remembrance Day 2019, the BBC replaced a clip of Boris Johnson’s chaotic laying of a wreath (upside down), with a smarter more polished performance going back to 2016. This was shown on the BBC’s Breakfast programme the next morning.

A further cover up occurred during the leaders Question Time programme. This occurred when the BBC edited audience laughter following a question, asking Johnson if he believed it was “important that he told the truth”, instead using audio that contained only applause. Throughout the election build up, it had been noted that Laura Kuenssberg the BBC political editor had become increasingly more reliant on obtaining private briefings from Boris Johnson’s Chief Political Strategist Dominic Cummings. In addition to this, when the Prime Minister was caught in front of the press at a hospital while being quizzed by an anxious father over his sick daughter, Kuenssberg came to the rescue, rapidly discrediting the father, tweeting that he was a Labour activist.

kuenssberg

Kuenssberg continued to distribute lies even in the final few days before the election. Following Boris Johnson’s awkward incident at a hospital in Leeds, whereby, he refused to look at a photo of sick child on a makeshift bed of coats and pocketed the phone off the reporter. Alas, Kuenssberg again was on hand to distract the public. She was quick to circulate falsely, that an advisor to Health Secretary Matt Hancock had been punched by a Labour supporter. While two days later on the 11th, she sent a tweet suggesting that postal votes appeared to be favouring the Tories, even though counting the votes at opening and commenting on them is forbidden. However, the BBC covered this up by removing any evidence of Kuenssberg’s statements.

Of course the bias within the BBC is much more than Laura Kuenssberg. Andrew Neil’s twitter feed was constantly spewing out retweets from the Sun and the Spectator, the latter being a right wing publication of which he is on the board. So why does the BBC seem to naturally protect the Conservative Party? One theory is that there is a revolving door between the BBC and the Tories. It is well known that senior political journalists at the BBC have regularly gone on to work for Tory government’s and visa versa .

So lets looks at some of these characters, starting with Nick Robinson. Mr Robinson is an ex political editor at the BBC, who now presents the Today programme and is a former president of the Oxford University’s Conservative Association. James Harding who was director of news until 2018 is the former editor of The Times, while the TV political presenter Andrew Neil briefly worked for the Tories, but made his name within the Murdoch empire. Robbie Gibb a former editor on Neil’s Daily Politics show went on to work for Theresa May in 2017, incidentally he is the brother of Tory Minister Nick Gibb. Meanwhile, former Conservative Ministers Chris Grayling and Michael Gove are also ex BBC employees.

Of course, Labour politicians have also gone back and forth between the BBC and politics, but rarely do people from the political left occupy senior editorial positions. These places are generally reserved for white, upper-middle class Oxbridge types, who end up becoming decision makers at the BBC. If nothing else, this revolving door must raise serious questions regarding the BBC’s ability to hold the government to account or to even to understand anything outside of the world of formal parliamentary politics, hence their continual confusion around Corbyn’s popularity.

This article of course wouldn’t be complete without looking at the effects of social media. It is widely thought that rather than a coordinated strategy on social media, the Tories won the battle on the internet primarily due to older Tory voters willing to engage in political activism by posting blatant lies. To exemplify this we must return to the Leeds Royal Infirmary incident, where many right wing keyboard warriors chose to smear the family of the sick boy on the floor by suggesting it was staged. This shameless attack was then shared by other like minded individuals, who desperately wanted this to be true in order to justify their own ideology.

The Tory social media strategy was simple, pick a few lines about Labour, regardless of their validity and repeat it continuously on every platform available. Their second tactic was to make up a Labour policy, add a random price tag and then concoct a tax policy that they proclaimed will be used to pay for it and then post it to as many people as possible. Of course, none of this required any truth just a wild imagination, simple repetition, a lack of moral integrity and a rudimentary grasp of a laptop was all that was required.

It is pretty easy to surmise that the truth or morals are not a top priority for the Tories, But this was particularly evident when prior to the recent election it was reported that 88% of all Conservative Party Facebook ads were misleading or simply a lie. This compares to the Labour Party, whereby, zero ads paid for by Labour were considered misleading.

Out of 6,749 paid for by the Tories during a four day period over 5,000 claimed that they would build 40 new hospitals. This was considered bogus, as there had been no costings performed for 40 hospitals. Furthermore, the Tories had only allocated funding for upgrades on 6 hospitals by 2025 and upgrades on a further 38 hospitals between 2025-2030. At no point had there been any mention of constructing 40 new hospitals within this information.

40newhospitals

A second big lie which was found in 500 paid ads, consisted of the Tories pledging to create 50,000 new nursing jobs, however, 18,500 of these included in the total were existing nurses. A final example of this misinformation campaign was the misleading and inaccurate claims regarding Jeremy Corbyn’s tax plans, which featured in 4,000 ads circulated at the beginning of December. Notably, all of these above ‘porkies’ were discovered by First Draft, a non profit organisation created to debunk fakes news.

What is undeniable throughout the lead up to the last election is the establishment be it print media, TV or social media, made a concerted effort to undermine the result of the election. This ranged from a four year campaign to discredit Jeremy Corbyn in the traditional print media, to a covering up of Boris Johnson’s many inadequacies by the BBC, all the way through to right wing wannabee activists making up lies as they go. Evidently, this combination of activities proved to have a devastating effect on Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party and the eventual result.

The whole campaign has been propaganda masterclass by the Tories. Much of this is straight out Edward Bernays’s and Walter Lippman’s playbook as described by Noam Chomsky in his 1988 book Manufacturing Consent. But, as it stated on the 90’s TV show the X Files, “the truth is out there”, only now we will have to work much harder to uncover it.

 

 

Just like that: How the Tory magic trick was done.

In the aftermath of the UK election, the Labour Party have now started to rip themselves apart. With centrists crawling out the woodwork to reclaim the party apparatus, while political vultures pick over the still warm carcass. Many have used this election result to discredit any ideas of socialism in the near future and indeed this result may have sent shockwaves down the left side of the political divide. But to focus purely on this, would simply be sidestepping what actually occurred on Thursday the 12th December 2019.

There are clearly two distinct themes that are emerging; firstly Corbyn was deemed not trustworthy by much of the public and secondly people were totally consumed by Brexit. So the question must be asked; how did a party with one of the most progressive manifestos since WWII get so soundly beaten. I’m sure lots of people will suggest that between 2017 and 2019 Corbyn took a wrong turn regarding Brexit. This was seen in many eyes as a major change of position from supporting the outcome of the referendum, to one of fence sitting. Although, this may well be true, it also misses a key point. A better question would be, how did Brexit become so emotive, to the extent that people voted for this over well funded health care, education and public services.

Rationally this makes no sense at all, the idea that people would vote against their own best interests is hard to fathom, but this in effect is what has occurred. There lies a crucial part of the problem, Labour’s campaign was built on logic, whereas, the Tories tapped into people’s emotions. All the Conservatives had to offer was a slogan “Get Brexit Done”, no tangible policies, just 3 simple words. Clearly, this was enough to mobilise the masses who have been thoroughly convinced that this will solve the bulk of their problems.

knobhead

When encountering a potential Tory voter on social media or even in person it is noticeable that there is a distinct lack of critical thinking involved during any discussion. You are repeatedly hit with a barrage of short phrases which are very tabloidesque, such as; “we need our country back”, “it’s because of free movement” or “Corbyn’s a traitor”. If this fails, you are often told to shut up and respect their point of view, no debate just blind obedience. It rapidly became apparent that, the more Corbyn supporters hit back with stats, academic papers and 9 years of historical proof the more entrenched opposing views became.

Simply put, you cannot combat tribal inspired politics, driven by emotion with logic or reason. This has been recognised for over 100 years, starting with people such as, Edward Bernays and Walter Lippman, two of the main founders of propaganda. Their job was to elicit an emotional response for a particular goal to aid the ruling elite. Noam Chomsky described it as manufacturing consent in his 1988 book and this is exactly what occurred last week. The Tory campaign understood the importance of this much more than Labour. They quickly realised that Brexit was a powerful tool and had split the nation by more than geography, political party, education and class. This was an extra tear in the fabric of society that an unpopular and desperate government could utilise.

Brexit has dragged on for 3 years. If the government wanted to “Get Brexit Done” they could have, but they didn’t. They used this anger towards a lack of movement on Brexit as political capital, a situation which they had themselves created to fuel leave voters. Once Corbyn had decided to take the Labour party away from supporting Brexit in an effort to unite the people, the trap was set. The Tories had in effect created a huge tribe with one unifying goal, that was to leave the EU and nothing else mattered. This sentiment was cultivated by the Tories using the politics of fear, which was considered by the Athenians centuries ago as one of the three strongest motives for action.

A narrative needed to be created to invoke a sense of being under siege. This can be demonstrated by people who casually suggest that immigrants have taken their jobs, or that their presence in the UK has lowered wages for UK born citizens. None of this is true, as many academics have documented, but this didn’t matter for this election, it was the reaction of the people that was important, for the political right. The working class in many former industrial areas had a bogeyman to fight, created by the very people who had caused the problems, the neoliberals. Now this tribe felt they had an enemy whom they could vent their fury at, that being; the EU, people who supported it and immigrants.

The ruling elite diligently manufactured the consent of many of the working class, all to maintain the status quo. This is an establishment made up of billionaires and millionaires, with the resources to construct a sustained campaign to both create an illusion and discredit any opposition. Billionaires almost entirely own the media in the UK, while the BBC have generally colluded with any government narrative throughout this current Tory stranglehold. Noam Chomsky talks about the 5 filters of mass media; here’s a short film to explain this. As a bit of fun, try and pick out how many of these strategies you think were being used by the Tories and the media during the lead up to the election.

These methods of course are not unique to one political side or another, but the Conservatives this time around utilised these techniques extremely effectively, while Labour attempted to communicate with the electorate using facts. The result ultimately was a landslide. Once the right wing created fear among the populace, they miraculously found a cure and that was Boris Johnson. Johnson is a right wing populist, this type of a politician tends to use rhetoric around restoring order be it, fighting crime, preserving a particular culture or as in this case “getting the country back”.

There is now reasonable evidence to propose that populism thrives when people feel a lack of political power or control, that life is unfair and at times when they feel they are not getting what they deserve. But for populism to work it requires two opposing factions, this was already established in the form of leave and remain voters. Opposing views and the formation of identities can occur rapidly in the age of social media, as people connect often with others they agree with, creating an echo chamber.

The curious thing about Johnson is, populist candidates generally portray their campaign as a fight against the establishment. However, Boris Johnson is a member of the establishment, he therefore, had to reframe the terms of reference. Firstly, he labelled the EU as a cruel regime, oppressing the people of Britain. This manoeuvre allowed him to position himself in direct opposition and declare himself as a heroic figure rescuing the nation from the tyranny of Brussels.

A further necessary component of this magic trick was to portray Jeremy Corbyn as a danger to society, a traitor and untrustworthy. Not only was this done by an eager mainstream media, but this image was further embellished by centrists within his own party. Daily lies about the Labour Party’s unfounded anti-Semitism, his baseless links with the IRA or any other terror groups has been ceaseless over a four year period. The media used their considerable power to wage the biggest campaign of persecution against a politician in recent memory. The reasoning was simple, at the time Corbyn was a huge threat to the elite and this had to be prevented at all costs.

Now the dust is starting to settle, the country is left with Johnson at the helm. He is an unlikely people’s champion, an Etonian who is related to half the royal families in Europe. Not only is he an improbable hero, he patently isn’t the saviour of the working class. Johnson’s remit was to motivate enough people in order to keep him and the Tories in power. Brexit was merely the vehicle for which to achieve this. The new Prime Minister will not be leading the people into any mythical promised land, rather they will be led like lemmings off the end of a cliff. The population of the nation now have more austerity, economic inequality, privatisation of the NHS and ever deteriorating public services to look forward to, led by a right wing, elitist, populist.

And “just like that“, the trick was done.

Britain dutifully bows down to the ruling elite.

Congratulations to the people of ‘Great’ Britain for voting the ruling elite into power yet again. You certainly do know your place. Now they have a mandate to treat people with disdain and contempt, for the next five years. I always thought people in the US were dumb, but there is a new kid on the block vying for the title. How can a party offering no credible policies, with a history of inflicting misery on millions, with a leader who hides in a fridge when things get mildly difficult remain in power. I could glibly say you get what you deserve, but that would be grossly unfair to the millions who can see through this charade of thinly veiled fascism.

It would appear that many people from where I grew up in the north have had a lobotomy, believing all that the billionaire controlled media had to say pre-election, because surely they wouldn’t lie to the peasants. Would they? Or is it Brexit that swayed them? Now that you have your country back, so you say, is it suddenly going to become compulsory to sing “Ing…….err…….land” at nauseatingly high volumes while consuming copious amounts of beer? Is having a tattoo of a bulldog on your arse from the age of 10, going to be a new kind of branding?

hooligan

Well done, you are now free, from what, I’m not entirely sure. The Conservatives will continue destroying workers rights at a frenzied pace. Expect full steam ahead with zero hour contracts, bogus self-employment, underemployment, all topped off with an ever eroding safety net. So when the walls come tumbling down following a job loss, nothing will exist to help you out of the mess. Well done, you must be very proud. “But we’ve got our country back”, you may cry. Have you, have you really?

The result would suggest that large portions of the populace have little capacity to critically think. “But we’ve got our country back” I hear once more. “But clearly not the NHS for much longer” I reply. I’m sure some will complain that I’m calling people stupid for their political beliefs. To clarify this, yes, that’s exactly what I am doing. If only some of these individuals could have put their crayons down or possibly read a book without pictures at least once in their lives, maybe things might have turned out differently.

In contrast to the US, where they were voting for change, regardless of what that looked like, it was ultimately a vote against the establishment, albeit misguided. Conversely, the UK have voted overwhelmingly for the establishment. I’m sure the Tories are delighted you all know your place in the societal pecking order. At the bottom, with a very expensive Oxford lace up shoe, made by peasants, kicking you repeatedly in the balls, while you ask for more. After 9 years of crippling cuts to public services, austerity, a decrease in wages and a health system which is about to be privatised, you still voted for a Conservative government. Amazing!!! But not in a good way.

Admittedly, the ruling elite’s propaganda machine has been running on all cylinders and it’s clearly worked like a dream. In contrast, vast swathes of people are about to enter a dystopian nightmare, orchestrated by people who just couldn’t care about you any less. Put a fork in the UK, it’s done! Scotland will rightly feck off into the sunset, as England will be led by a man who can barely form a coherent sentence. Supported by a cabinet who know nothing outside of their privileged, privately educated, corporate run universe from which they rarely venture out of.

BRITAIN-POLITICS-CONSERVATIVES

You could have made it more difficult for the establishment, a glimmer of resistance protecting yourself from the bombardment of excrement raining down from billionaire penthouses would have been nice. Maybe more people could have searched behind the headlines of the Sun and the Mail to dig a little for the truth. Instead the population by in large responded to a hollow slogan, “Get Brexit Done”. At which point you ran in like a little puppy dog hoping your master would tickle your tummy. Instead of fighting for something better, you gave up, handing the nation to psychopaths, billionaires, millionaires and right wing ideologues.

The establishment will be laughing their collective cocks off, sat in their private London clubs drinking brandy and smoking cigars. Patting each other on their backs for getting the working class plebs to vote for the abstract construct of Brexit, over real issues such as; healthcare, education, public services and increasing poverty. The people of Leigh, Bolsover, Blyth Valley, and Durham among others should be disgusted with themselves, scoring an own goal of monumental proportions.

You had a chance to elect a decent man, who has fought for peace and fairness all his life, who wanted a better place for everyone. But you blew it Britain. Now you will have to live with the consequences, while explaining to your children and grandchildren what you did on that fateful day in December 2019. My sincere condolences for those who chose wisely, who could see behind the slurs and right wing bile. Good luck in the future, I suspect you will need it.

The Conservative party: For the rich, selfish and naïve.

If you are stinking rich and you don’t give a shit about anybody else, then the Tories is the perfect party for you. In short, they are a bunch of pompous, entitled, unempathic bastards, who I would suggest reflect a large proportion of the people who generally vote for them. You would have to be very well off and/or a self-obsessed moron to think voting for Boris Johnson would be the smart thing to do. As a disclaimer, if you are expecting to read something measured, balanced, with lashings of cold hard facts (although they do appear later on), look away now, as this piece will be unashamedly biased.

For the last few weeks I have tried to get into the minds of people, particularly the working class in an effort to discover why those who have very little would vote Tory. My basic advice at this stage would be to read some information regarding what each party is proposing. However, this is relatively simple to summarise, the Conservatives are offering zero and the Labour Party is attempting to make life better for as many people as possible. So put down the Sun or The Daily Mail spouting some bollocks or other about Corbyn being anti-Semitic and investigate what each party actually wants to achieve. What you should discover is unless you are a millionaire or billionaire, or possibly someone who is dealing with unresolved self hatred, voting Tory is not going to help your cause.

You may be angry about Brexit, your family could be lifelong Tory voters, you might even believe all that the Daily Mail has to offer, such as; Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser, an IRA member, an Anti-Semite, a Russian spy, a traitor or an evil road hogging cyclist. However, non of this rubbish is going to help you to make a rational decision on the 12th of December. All that this will ultimately uncover is that you have been duped by a multi billion pound propaganda machine, that will throw as much money at this election as required to maintain the status quo. You could erroneously be thinking that a Boris Johnson led Conservative Party is ideally suited to “Get Brexit Done” as their pithy slogan implies. My question would be, what have they being doing for the past 3 and a half years? After all, they are currently in government.

jc bike
Jeremy on his mean machine

It’s abundantly obvious what the Tories have done, they have systematically run the country down by using the discredited theory of austerity to supposedly ‘balance the books’. Cunningly the middle class have been coerced into blaming the working class, as shown by their reaction to Brexit and their collective arrogance towards people who chose to leave. Meanwhile, Johnson and Farage have conned the working class into thinking the primary problem is those ‘bloody immigrants’ and that leaving the EU will solve all of their problems. The real culprits of course are the very people who have created this web of illusion and ultimately distraction. This consists of a powerful amalgam of corporate interests plus a right wing government with little concern regarding the wellbeing of its inhabitants.

The Tories has presided over nasty vindictive policies for almost a decade, chiefly designed to penalise the most vulnerable and powerless in society. I have provided a little taster regarding the effects of some of these policies. To start with, there is a general misconception that right wing parties are better for the economy, this is a shameless lie unless of course you are rich. Since 2010 the Conservatives have increased the national debt from £850bn to £2.27tn and counting. Across the country four million kids live in poverty, the number of rough sleepers has increased nationwide by 165% since 2010, while food bank use in the last 5 years is up 73%. Furthermore, the pound is worth approximately 15% less against both the Euro and the US dollar. Economic experts? Maybe not.

On observing employment or the lack of, the OECD calculates that there are about 3 million hidden unemployed people, which works out to be 13.2%. Shockingly, 10 million workers are in insecure employment such as; zero hours contracts, underemployment or false self-employment. Additionally, it’s estimated that 80% of the 5.3 million self-employed workers now live below the poverty line, with workers in general still £13 worse off than 2007. The Conservatives have also been guilty of utilising cruel benefit sanctions and millions have been left with no funds through the Universal Credit system.

In the public domain, government and council departments have been slashed by 25-30%, with half the councils close to bankruptcy. There are 20,600 less police officers, 7,000 fewer prison officers, plus 11,000 firefighters nationwide have been cut. The NHS has 43,000 unfilled nursing posts, which has been compounded by the abolishment of student nursing bursaries. There are also 10,000 fewer medical professionals and a loss of 5 million bed spaces per year. The NHS has persistently been the target of increased privatisation and this is expected to spiral following Brexit, as US corporations will be invited to pick over the carcass.

Grenfell tower

Sadly, I could ramble on for another ten paragraphs regarding callous Tory policies, but hopefully by now you get the point. The Conservatives are offering nothing that would benefit the vast majority of people, in fairness they have had 9 years to do something vaguely positive. I suppose in all honesty they have fulfilled plenty of their objectives for example, systematically destroying peoples lives up and down the country, at the same time as enriching those privileged few. With a victory this week, the Tories will steer more assuredly towards the far right, as the inappropriately named moderates have largely been cast aside. In affect, all the Tory government will provide under Johnson is further disdain, contempt and hatred of the working class.

Cabinet Ministers Liz Truss and Priti Patel described British workers as “the worst idlers in the world“. Dominic Raab has suggested that British employment legislation is a “straitjacket” for the economy. Good old Boris Johnson has previously advocated for charges within the NHS, while Dominic Raab and Michael Gove have both expressed their desire to privatise it. The Conservative’s unimaginative motto is “get Brexit done”, a win on Thursday and the misery will continue unabated, with basic human rights and environmental protections high on their hit list. So, if you happen to be working class and are thinking of voting for the Conservatives, it’s time to stop this masochistic behaviour and do yourself a favour by choosing Labour.

Operation ‘Destroy Corbyn’: A political ‘hit’ on the Labour leader.

It’s simple, the ruling elite cannot allow Jeremy Corbyn into number 10, ever. The Labour leader plans to change life indefinitely for the rich and the powerful. Those sorts, who use their money to secure power, to alter the government machinery to obtain further riches and yet more power are exceptionally frightened. As a result, every mechanism at their disposal is being utilised to prevent any chance of discernible change. Jeremy Corbyn is not fighting the Conservative Party as such, he is taking on the entire neoliberal system and this battle extends way beyond the shores of the UK. Do you really think Donald Trump would be in the least bit enamoured with a Corbyn government?

Labour’s 2019 manifesto has made it abundantly clear that they aim to shift power away from the rich, ensuring more people benefit from government policy. This manifesto has been described as ‘radical’, but to me it just makes total sense. It’s blatantly obvious that these proposals would work well for the vast majority of people, not everyone obviously, but most. Here is a summary of the themes within this document.

  • Renationalising public services.
  • An end to zero hour contracts, universal credit and an increase to 10 quid an hour living wage.
  • Integrating a ‘Green Revolution’ with the economy.
  • Increased workers rights.
  • Control of the education system, with a new National Education Service.
  • The end of NHS privatisation and substantial funding .
  • A clamp down on bankers, tax dodging billionaires, unscrupulous landlords, media tycoons and corporations who pay next to nothing in tax.
  • Only people earning above 80,000 will pay more tax to fund this.

This is just big picture stuff, of course there is much more detail underpinning these proposals. Labour’s main ideas are simple; to improve public services, increase NHS funding, make education work for all, an end to penalising the poor, a commitment to workers rights and effective taxation of the rich. Despite this attempt to roll back unbridled capitalism, some citizens, and not just the wealthy, will vote conservative on December the 12th. If we are looking purely at which party is offering the most beneficial policies for the good of the country, then the choice is relatively simple. However, if we consider this through the lens of our political and social times, such as the easy dissemination of fake news via the internet, things begin to appear murkier and this is completely by design.

Most recently the UK’s political landscape has been shaped dramatically by Brexit. It has dominated political discourse over the past few years and has served to fragment society. Further to this, the UK has suffered 40 years of neoliberalism, a destruction of society replaced by individualism, a value system based almost entirely on money, a mainstream media totally devoted to the ruling elite, capitalism or both, plus a establishment along with a government who gain enormously from the status quo. Within this context, we shouldn’t be remotely surprised that the establishment are using everything within their power to destroy Corbyn. Jeremy threatens all of this, as he plans to bring democracy back to the people and this scares the crap out of the powers that be. Never has a man been more persecuted for trying to make the UK a better place for the majority of people.

Corbyn has been subjected to baseless anti-Semitic slurs, not just from his political enemies, but from his own party. In the press, he’s been accused of being an IRA supporter, claimed to be a Russian stooge, a terrorist sympathiser, as well as labelled a traitor. Any dispassionate research leads to the same conclusion, there is no evidence to support any of these assertions. In July this year, the BBC even went so far as to broadcast a ‘documentary’ entitled, Is Labour Anti-Semitic. Anyone who saw this would have quickly recognised that the makers of Panorama started with the premise that Labour is anti-Semitic and worked back to justify their position. This provided no other purpose than to damage Jeremy Corbyn’s reputation.

Bogus anti Semitic slurs are levelled at Corbyn daily. They are grounded in zero evidence, devoid of fact, but are nethertheless deeply damaging. This campaign against him and the Labour Party doesn’t have to produce people who will vote for Boris Johnson, all that is required is to plant enough doubt in the minds of people to provoke apathy. This collective siege has been unleashed from all corners; party members and former party members such as Margaret Hodge and Luciana Berger. While other offensives have been conducted from so called celebrities such as Rachel Riley and certain figures among the Jewish community, with particular political interests, who proclaim to speak for the entire Jewish community (recently Rabbi Ephrain Mervis).

Rachel the liar Riley

Lets not forget of course that Israel in the form of ‘hasbara’ has been waging political war against Jeremy Corbyn for several years. This has been punctuated by false allegations, by among others an active anti-Palestinian Jewish Labour Movement. Led by characters such as Ella Rose and Adam Langelben, this campaign has been designed unquestionably to force Corbyn and his supporters out of prominent positions within the party. Unfortunately, Corbyn on occasions has made tactical errors, by conceding at times to the demands of these groups. Although, it’s hardly surprising considering the pressure he must be under. This assault has frequently been supported by a media outlet once considered a left leaning source, that of the Guardian, with journalists such as Jonathan Freedland sticking his boot in at varying opportunistic moments.

Contrary to these empty lies, recently departed Speaker of the House, Conservative MP and Jewish man John Bercow, clearly stated that Jeremy Corbyn is not Anti-Semitic, having known him for over 20 years. The political right unsurprisingly have taken a different method in which to sully Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy Hunt, accused the Labour leader of being the new Hitler. In contrast, the Times suggested Corbyn was too frail, both physically and mentally to lead the nation. The same publication also printed an article from a British Army General who ensured that ‘direct action‘ would be taken if Corbyn was ever elected, declaring he was a threat to national security.

What we need to be aware of regarding the war against Corbyn is, the truth is inconsequential for his opponents and it is all just seen as another strategy to be utilised. What is vital, is the defence of the ruling elite and their way of life, at all costs. Truth, logic and the Enlightenment is slowly but surely ebbing away.  Replacing this is a newly manufactured era of subjectivity, emotion, distraction, lies and hyperbole. This onslaught against objectivity has the effect of keeping the populace confused, apathetic, off-balance, mistrustful and with no comprehension regarding what is a fact or indeed fiction.

Without any doubt this is intentional and a pre-requisite in order for power to remain in the hands of a relatively small, psychopathic, narcissistic, privileged group of people. I suggest that everyone who cares about the UK gets off their collective arses and vote Labour on December the 12th. The Conservatives are offering nothing that may improve the lives of people in any way, shape or form. In fact, their entire plan is solely centred around keeping their grubby hands on the reins of power. Voters just so happen to be the tools with which to achieve this, however, nothing of any good will be returned to them for their misguided loyalty.