Something I keep hearing, from People™, the MSM and VT is that Jeremy Corbyn is ‘unelectable’. What does that even mean?
Inigo Montoya must be facepalming right through the back of his head.
For a word that did not even exist till the 1960s, it’s been given a lot of power hasn’t it? Been said a lot of times, hasn’t it?
(Source: Collins Dictionary.)
WHY even use such a word? In basic terms, it means ‘very likely to be defeated at an election’. Even the writers of dictionaries do not say they WILL be defeated, only that they probably COULD be defeated. Dictionaries also ally this with a whiff of extremism being the reason for the low probability. But the word has ‘un’ as a prefix (on the beginning) suggesting an absolute certainty in the NEGATIVE.
Already, the word itself is a lie.
The Oxford dictionary kindly provides us with some example sentences:
Aha! NOW we hit the nubs!
- absolute negative
- under the political system we have, a radical candidate not possible
- based on polls.
So what they are REALLY SAYING is that ‘public opinion’ indicates that a candidate that stands against the status quo (no, not the rock band) or establishment does not stand a chance. Who says? History doesn’t. Only History is almost always taught in terms of radical candidates causing widescale chaos, misery and death.
WHY do you think the ESTABLISHMENT teaches ‘us’ that moving AGAINST the establishment never works?
Corbyn knows his History- every time he visits an area to give a speech or attend a rally, he starts with a brief history of the area and what he intends to do to help the area. Why do you think this was part of his election speech?
1. absolute negative
Even primary school kids are taught that some probabilities are certain rather than absolute. Here is the ever-present ‘spinner’ question that turns up in their exams (thank you, ks2-maths-sats.co.uk.) Notice the phrases ‘least likely’ and ‘more chance of’ (highlighted) below.
We as adults need to realise, like we did when we were kids, that there is no such thing as an absolute in life, let alone in politics, and stop absorbing this media message.
And instead ask ‘what if?’
Right, so the implication is that Corbyn is an extremist. What’s one of those? Let’s return to the dictionary.
Can even his most virulent enemies really say, hand on heart, that this describes Corbyn? Illegal?
Corbyn is KNOWN for being a stickler for due process. It’s the very reason he is being criticised half of the time (three line whip on the second reading of the EU Bill, for example. I have debunked that in my blog too.)
He was awarded The Gandhi Foundation International Peace Award in 2013.
He was arrested for protesting against the violence in South Africa.
One of my first political acts was defending the North London gay community centre as a Haringey councillor.
The National Front decided the centre was offensive to the entire community and tried to barricade the place and abuse anyone that was using it. They didn’t reckon that the local community would support the centre.
Again we find another nub. What does ‘militant’ mean? Back to the dictionary we go.
Again, we are back to violence.
Back to anger.
Back to irrationality.
Back to being a troublemaker, trying to cause pain and distress to the people™.
Does Corbyn do ANY of this?
But what is actually going on?
As usual, its a political smear. ‘Militant‘ is also the name of a far left organisation that used to have a large voice in the Labour party.
And we’ve heard that flung at him like an insult haven’t we?
Hard left, far left, ultra left, even communist have all been used to try and discredit him.
As I said in my Tom Watson blog, the MSM and even some LP MPs have deliberately used these phrases, and tried to make Momentum, the unaffiliated movement set up to support Corbyn, equivalent, when Militant even at its peak had no more than 8000 members and Momentum has about 20,000 members, still not a drop in the ocean compared to even the amount of Labour party members!
Why is the same venom not directed towards Progress, the right of the Labour party, a group that IS affiliated to Labour and gets rather a lot of wodges of cash from rich benefactors? Why is Labour right ‘better’ than Labour left?
Extremists, even the dictionary admits, are more often ‘right’ than ‘left’.
Again, what are they really saying?
‘But he sides with terrorists’… ah yes, that old chestnut.
The ILikeCorbynBut website addresses that like this:
Jeremy has always believed that war needs to be last course of action and peace is always preferable. He believes in pursuing diplomatic or political solutions rather than putting the lives of British soldiers at risk. Like many politicians during the troubles with the IRA, Jeremy was attempting to bring together both sides to broker peace and his belief in transparency meant that unlike other politicians he did not keep this secret. We now know however that the UK Government were involved in secret talks . Despite the hysteria around Jeremy’s interest in diplomacy these ideas are not new – indeed in 2009, David Miliband spoke of drawing from our experiences with the IRA to engage in talks with ‘moderate elements’ of the Taliban.
As a life-long campaigner against fascism of all forms – Jeremy has taken a very clear approach against racist and discriminatory ideologies. He has said that he would not negotiate with fascist groups like ISIS – but instead of bombing the countries that they occupy, killing innocent civilians, he sees the solution in a political process starving these groups of the funds they need to survive.
John McDonnell also has this to say:
Do the accusers call the wonderful Mo Mowlam a terrorist or terrorist sympathiser?
The former Northern Ireland secretary was respected for her frankness. She was blunt in a way that the public found truly refreshing for a top politician. On one occasion she even told Ian Paisley to “fuck off”, said political editor Toby Helm in the Guardian. It was she that led the peace talks, till Blair removed her from office in 1999 on the advice of Peter Mandelson. This is despite the fact that without her, and the co-operation she obtained from the Irish representatives The Belfast/ Good Friday Agreement, reached on Good Friday, 10 April 1998 may never have happened. It was an agreement, between the British and Irish governments and most of the political parties in Northern Ireland, about how Northern Ireland should be governed. Was the fact, discovered afterwards, that she was fighting a malignant brain tumour whilst doing this, the thing that stopped the accusations? ‘We’ are often wary of being nasty to people who have died of cancer.
And talking of the Good Friday agreement, this was reported in the Times two years before it:
Mo was not the only one talking with the IRA. Look at this screenshot of all the other politicians that did, too:
We also see articles like this:
- where Conservative peer Lord James of Blackheath admits “My biggest client was the IRA and I am pleased to say that I managed to write off more than £1bn of its money” through his contacts with the Bank of England (Article from 2010.)
- where in 2011 the BBC report “Thatcher took part in negotiations with the IRA during the 1981 Hunger Strikes, and took place through an MI6 officer and a secret back-channel to the IRA code-named ‘Soon’.”
- Where in 2014 the Telegraph reported “Margaret Thatcher’s government granted a royal pardon to a convicted IRA terrorist [Donal Donnelly] just months after the Brighton bombing, it has emerged.”
- in 2016 the Belfast Telegraph talk of excessive force used by the SAS with Thatcher’s approval.
- Also in the Belfast Telegraph, in 2015, proof of Thatcher’s collusion with and funding of paramilitary loyalists to extend the conflict in Ireland.
And if BEING in the IRA
is no bar to being a Conservative representative now
why does Corbyn and indeed John McDonnell too get called terrorist sympathisers? THE MEDIA. The English media at any rate. They twisted facts. They insisted Corbyn praised the IRA and ignored British troops. If only people™ looked at the IRISH papers instead. There it was reported accurately, that
Corbyn abhors all violence.
Here is an excerpt from the Belfast Telegraph, an Irish newspaper.
English papers have tried to smear Corbyn with this for decades. But they have all had to print retractions because it is not true. Here is a retraction from The Times in 1987!
He’s also no fan of unfair trials.
Today (14/05/17) the Sunday Times ‘can reveal’ Corbyn was arrested (for obstruction) in 1986 (er, we know, this is the opposite of news) for protesting outside the Old Bailey for a fair trial for Patrick Magee, later convicted for the terrible Brighton bombings. Not to ‘get him off’ but for a fair trial. Corbyn was not charged or convicted of any crime. Oddly enough the Star is the only MSM outlet I can find that put both sides of the event even close to fairly, including the VT that shows it was a statement by another man at the demo that caused this MSM storm, and NO in-depth investigation. And anyone that suggests all IRA suspects were given fair trials during the Troubles is at best naive. Look at the treatment of the Guildford Four for example. Or the Birmingham Six pub bombers. As Emily Thornberry Labour former Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said today to known apartheid supporter Conservative defence Minister Michael Fallon: “There were negotiations going on behind the scenes and there were people speaking openly and this is something which has been known for 30 years and it has been dragged out at this particular time because there is a General Election on.”
Again if we look at Irish media outlets we do not get the hypocrisy of the English ones. Guess for the latter it’s more important to badmouth Corbyn that it is to admit that 800+ years of oppression, starvation, land grabbing and murder was perpetuated by the English against the Irish. Here’s a somewhat different view, I guess one ‘man’s’ ‘terrorist sympathiser’ is another ‘man’s’ “tireless campaigner”:
Today the Skwawkbox blew the final lid off all these accusations for GOOD.
Jeremy Corbyn’s was an envoy of the British government who played a vital role in the Northern Ireland peace process.
Not only that, but he met – and was highly regarded by – senior figures in both republican and loyalist groups.
Corbyn’s meetings with figures such as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have received plenty of – usually negative – publicity. So this article will focus on his contacts with loyalist figures, without neglecting the significance of his discussions with republicans.
David Ervine, in his younger days, was a member of the UVF (Ulster Volunteer Force), an armed loyalist group, and was arrested I 1974 while driving a car containing a significant quantity of explosives. After his release from prison in 1980, he stood as a local candidate for the PUP (Progressive Unionist Party) and later became the leader of that party. As a socialist, he was invited in 1994 to attend the annual conference of the Labour Party and confirmed the Irish Times that he would attend:
During his attendance at that conference – which as the article above shows was also attended by senior republican figures – he met with Jeremy Corbyn and his team.
One week later, a ceasefire was called in Northern Ireland.
Valerie Veness, Corbyn’s former assistant, confirms that she and Corbyn met David Ervine on at least four or five occasions over a period of years.
Mr McMichael is a former leader of the now-defunct UDP (Ulster Democratic Party). He played a key role in the early days of the Northern Ireland peace process – and a vital role in that 1994 ceasefire.
He also met with Jeremy Corbyn on several occasions.
Rev Ian Paisley
Neil Latimer was a member of the ‘UDR Four’ – four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who were convicted of the murder of Catholic Adrian Carroll in 1983. In 1992, three of the men had their convictions overturned but Mr Latimer remained in prison in spite of three appeals that many felt should have been upheld.
The Reverend Paisley was involved in supporting Mr Latimer’s case. Jeremy Corbyn wrote to Latimer in prison on a number of occasions and became friendly with Paisley, with the two men conversing regularly by telephone.
Mr Paisley’s widow, Eileen, told the Belfast Telegraph:
[Paisley and Tony Benn] were very close even though Ian said he was a bit of a republican. I remember watching them embrace once and there was such warmth between them.
Ian knew Jeremy Corbyn too, and he liked him. He didn’t share his politics and he didn’t approve of Jeremy Corbyn meeting Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein people when the IRA campaign was still going on. But he always found him very courteous and polite. He said Jeremy was a gentleman.
Corbyn’s role in mediating with loyalist figures is now a matter of established fact.
Mrs Veness, Corbyn’s former assistant, talked to the SKWAWKBOX at length about the Labour leader’s involvement in Northern Ireland in those days. She told this blog:
A huge amount of garbage has been written about Jeremy and Northern Ireland. He’s never claimed to start the peace process, but he did play a vital role. He always said you’ve got to talk to all sides if you want to find a solution.
John Major said he would be sick to his stomach to talk to Gerry Adams, but he already had secret back channels.
Jeremy never lied about his contacts or involvement and it’s what made him so respected. The first breakthrough in Northern Ireland was when a Tory minister announced britain has no selfish interest there. That was something the republicans had been waiting for.
There were three things the repubican movement wanted:
- equality of esteem
- a declaration that if a majority of the people voted for united ireland, the UK government would respect that
- release of prisoners – there were thousands, both loyalist and republican
The issue of the prisoners was incredibly complex – a tangled nightmare. Jeremy helped unpick it. The republicans trusted him to do it in a way they wouldn’t have trusted other uk politicians.
Mo Mowlam (late Northern Ireland Secretary under Tony Blair) needed someone shecould trust and who was trusted by the republicans. She asked Jeremy.
There is simply no way Adams or McGuinnes would have signed up to the peace agreement without resolution of the prisoner issue, so it’s true to say that Jeremy’s role in the peace process was extremely important.
New Labour lied saying he didn’t help, but without him there would have been no deal.
Jeremy was trusted because he had long shown solidarity.In his very first advice surgery as an MP, Paul Hill’s (see below) aunt and uncle came looking for help.
When Drumcree banned loyalist marches and the town was surrounded by loyalists, Jeremy, I and others went over to show support – we had to walk across field to get there. That earned him the respect of republicans.
The idea he would support bombing campaign absolute nonsense. You need to remind people that one reason he’s slightly careful when he answers questions on Northern Ireland is that he spent years working on miscarriage of justice cases and he doesn’t want to compromise anyone.
Paul Hill from the Guildford Four was in prison and getting married. Jeremy was his best man – the Sun never apologised for smearing him as a ‘mass murderer’s best man’ on their front page, not even after the Guildford Four were exonerated and released.
Jeremy was criticised for bringing a ‘bomber’ into the House of Commons. That was Ronan Bennett – he was subsequently exonerated and is now an internationally recognised playwright. Again, the media never apologised.
He, Tony Benn and Ken Livingstone felt only a political solution could possibly help Northern Ireland – and you can’t have a political solution without the republicans on board, so the fact they had kept lines open was crucial – without that Sinn Fein would never have joined the negotiations.
Remember, at the time Thatcher was saying we don’t speak to terrorists but they were doing it through backchannels, via civil servants. The difference is, JC was honest and up front about it.
There was huge oppression of the republican community in Northern Ireland. You even had English kids being pulled over under Prevention of Terrorism Act when visiting their Irish grandparents.
I worked for Jeremy on the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four cases, as well as on the prisoner issue.
Even then, the papers gave him a hard time – they wanted to preserve the status quo, repress republican communities – you had three generations of kids, all they knew was soldiers on streets. The press attacked Labour’s left to maintain the status quo, which is the same as now
When the Birmingham Six came out of prison, the Mail and Sun said outrageous things against some of them, until they started legal action in ireland and the papers backed down immediately and paid up.
Jeremy’s work laid ground for eventual peace negotiations to take place – but he didn’t get the recognition he deserved because Mo was replaced by Mandelson.
The peace process is still fragile, but the media don’t care about Northern Ireland – they’re only interested in destroying Jeremy.
But he said he was ‘friends of Hamas and Hezbollah‘. *sigh* Even in that link, he talks of the parliamentary context of ‘friends’- to get them to talk, to move towards peace. Corbyn has explained over and again that the political use of ‘friends’- David Cameron tried to attack Corbyn on this but deliberately did not mention (see first link) all the words Corbyn said- is not the same as someone you ask to come to tea.
Unlike Thatcher with Pinochet. Or Thatcher funding the Loyalists to extend the Conflict in Ireland.
WARNING: PHOTO OF THATCHER (with Pinochet) FOLLOWS.
So this is about Israel.
I could (and many have) write a book on this. In my Tom Watson blog I have put forward arguments about why Israel (who of course are bitter enemies of Hamas and Hezbollah over land and religious ideology) are so contentious within the structure of the Labour Party, keeping my tin foil hat firmly in the drawer, and won’t repeat them here.
But he’ll ban all bombs and let people attack us. Oh for goodness’ sake, he wants to stop wars with negotiation, and knows that will take time. He IS against nuclear weapons and here he explains why. However, Labour’s From the Defence Policy Review of 2016: “The safety and security of the British people must always be our first priority. This can only be achieved by a defence and security policy which is strategic, informed by expert opinion and supported by a strong evidence base.” And 2% of the GDP will remain, for now, spent on defence, keeping with NATO guidelines.
Plus, if we stopped bombing people, maybe, just maybe, we would be in less danger of being attacked ourselves.
But he’s UNPATRIOTIC! He didn’t bow at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday (he did, are we REALLY the Protractor Protocol Police?)
Would you rather he bent himself in half or stay after the service actually talking to soldiers in the cold and wet, or sod off to the free lunch where all the other MPs went?
Politics is concerned with the well-being of the nation. So, naturally, one of the preferred ways of demoni[s]ing opponents is to accuse them of siding against the country.
There are plenty of ways to question someone’s patriotism: call them “unpatriotic” or “anti’ [British]”; accuse them of wanting to weaken the country, or refusing to defend it; praise the “real” parts of [UK] (as opposed to the fake ones); suggest that they put party before country. “Treason,” “traitorous,” and “betray” are also words that serve the purpose. [Square brackets and italics are my additions.]
KNOW YOUR ‘ENEMY’!
IT’S NOT YOUR NEIGHBOUR, OR FELLOW VOTERS.
IT’S PEOPLE THAT COME OUT WITH THIS BULLSHIT-
people that run the media, that run the government.
In what other ways could Corbyn be called an extremist?
Let’s have another look at those.
When people™ are asked about these policies an actual majority appear to like them, even when they know they are Corbyn’s policies.
Are they radical? Are they extreme? Only if you compare them to years of Conservative austerity politics and years before that of New Labour who (after a very decent start) went Con Light and brought in ATOS to weigh judgment like some kind of Anubis with a clipboard, over the poor and disabled of this country.
Ok, then, so he’s not an extremist.
3. under the political system we have, a radical candidate not possible
What is our current system? I have explained it in my handy voting blog guide. We have First Past The Post here, something that tends to ensure that a large or mainstream party will get enough votes to win, and all other votes are disregarded. So yes, the system is unfair. But it is said that ‘people don’t like change’ (Here the Harvard Business Review explains 10 possible reasons why, but they basically boil down to fear of the unknown and vested interest– i.e. the establishment have a reason (usually money/power) to keep the system the way it is. It is why the Conservatives, as I explained in my voting blog, won’t back PR and don’t want 16-18 year olds to vote.)
But we have had radical candidates and policies-
- Candidates like Aneurin Bevan that built the NHS in a ravaged post war Britain.
- Candidates like Keir Hardy, who spent years championing peace, equality and women’s suffrage (the RIGHT for women to vote, touched upon in my voting blog, which did not happen till 1928. YES, 1928, less than 100 years.)
- The entire creation of the Labour party in 1906, the party that wiped out the Whigs (Liberals), was a radical move.
- The minimum wage was a flagship Labour policy in 1997. And the 1998 Act (yes, 1998- not even TWENTY YEARS that we have had this) brought this into law.
- In 1908, the Old-Age Pensions Act, approved under a Liberal government under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, laid the foundation for a modern welfare state.
- In 1912 the National Insurance Act (also under a Liberal government) introduced the concept of sick pay, maternity benefits, and unemployment benefits for wage earners.
Back then these were seen as radical.
Even now, we have had DECADES of media poison about benefit ‘scroungers’ (see my blog on this for more info as to why this is utter rubbish).
Even now, Corbyn’s call for a £10 minimum wage is being seen with horror, just as when it was first brought in.
Even now, Corbyn’s call for a clampdown on tax avoiders is laughed at.
Even now, the Labour Party Bill to actually give the NHS funding that the Conservatives promised has been blocked THREE TIMES by the Conservatives.
Even now, his call for proper social housing is deemed unnecessary as ‘if we got rid of the immigrants’ housing and services would not be in crisis, when we KNOW the NHS would collapse without them and when in fact it is AUSTERITY POLITICS has caused the housing and service crisis.
When what people NEED to look at is: what is so EXTREMIST about fair rents and decent housing for all?
Even now, his call for rights for EU citizens who live here and pay taxes, has been blocked by the Conservatives.
Even now, the LSE study proves that the media have been deliberately lying and twisting anything Corbyn says and does so to engender hate. Against a man who wants a better Britain for the 99%.
Why do you think Corbyn makes political and social history his introduction in rallies and speeches?
Because he knows how important knowing about our political and social past IS,
and he knows that most people do NOT know it, thanks to History being decimated in our schools’ curriculum (and there, as a History postgrad and now a tutor, I can agree.)
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.
And that kind of power is what the ‘establishment’ fear the most.
4. based on polls.
Oh yes, polls. Let’s have a look at this VT from Yes Prime Minister on polls, a TV show that everyone should watch or at least revisit. This clip shows very cleverly how polls can be slanted to generate answers.
Questions you should ask about polls.
- Who runs the polls?
- What motivation and political leanings do those pollsters have?
- How many people were asked?
- How were those people selected?
- When was the poll asked and what event is taking place soon before or after?
- What other polls with similar questions have been asked over time, to try and establish what the people™ are TENDING to think?
- Have you or anyone else you know, been polled on all these polls we keep on seeing?
There are quite a few polling companies and sites:
Anthony Wells is Director of YouGov’s political and social opinion polling and currently runs their media polling operation for the Sun and Sunday Times.
Anthony also runs the UKPollingReport website; an independent blog on opinion polling that was one of the most popular blogs during the 2010 election and is a widely used source for academics and journalists.
Prior to joining YouGov in 2005 he worked in the Leader of the Opposition’s Office for William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard. [all Conservatives] He holds a degree in British Politics and Legislative Studies from the University of Hull.
2. Kantar TNS.
A market research and market information group acquired in a hostile takeover by WPP Group in 2008. And who runs part of WPP? Martin Sorrell, one time Saatchi&Saatchi operative. In 1997, he was appointed an Ambassador for British Business by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and subsequently appointed to the Office’s Panel 2000 aimed at rebranding Britain abroad. In 1999 he was appointed by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to serve on the Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership. By the 2010 election, he was firmly on the side of the Conservatives.
Yet another huge market research and PR company with an extensive staff. Their polling division, Omnibus is headed by James Crouch, a somewhat shadowy figure, and The Observer newspaper use their polls a lot. James Endersby, the managing director and partner, sounds like an ok chap. However connections from the latter to Lansons, run by Tony Langham who had ‘advised Governments for 30 years’ shows yet again that these polls are run by people with governmental connections- and such cannot be impartial or independent. No outright connection specifically to the Conservatives especially has been found, but if I do, I’ll add it.
4. Com Res.
ComRes is a market research consultancy headquartered in London, UK and operating internationally. Established in 2003 as Communicate Research Ltd, ComRes was a founding member of the British Polling Council in 2004, and is one of the UK’s best known polling companies. They have a large team and their Executive chairman is Andrew Hawkins. Here is just one investigation into their slanted methods. Clients include the Conservative Party, ITN, Sunday Times and The Independent. And here is an interview with him that seems to show he was very much pro-Cameron, the previous Conservative Party leader and PM. If you see an ‘ICM‘ poll? Whoops, that’s Comres too.
Getting the picture yet?
Are you seeing any companies allied to centre government, let alone the left? NO.
And why are there no polling companies that are independent, set up by people who just want to poll, and do not have contacts in ‘the city’ and in government?
So to recap:
Why do some use an absolute when talking about a vote? Corbyn was a 200/1 outsider as Labour leader when he first stood. Now he has a mandate back by hundreds of thousands of Labour Party members; twice over.
Why is Corbyn being called an extremist? Because the current thinking is to have an aggressive foreign policy that keeps the Middle East destabilised and a hold over ‘our’ territories.
Why do we have the voting system we have and does it always mean an ‘establishment’ candidate would win? To keep people™ in their place. And no it does not always do that.
Why are polls used to ‘show’ that Corbyn doesn’t have a hope? To show that people™ ‘do not want’ democratic socialism, to maintain the inequalities we still have, to divide and rule.
I’d say have a read of this website too, don’t just take my word, or anyone else’s for it, but it’s been taken down for now. It wasn’t wrong, or subversive but it looks like site traffic (probably thanks to May in PMQs today (26/06/17) mentioning it but NOT saying it ANSWERED the ‘questions’ about Corbyn. Did she not think people would CHECK? Risible and foolish- NOT ‘strong and stable’). They have helpfully left this on the site for now.
And of course there’s this blog collation and other links till it’s back up…
Find your own knowledge.
And have a good think about ‘unelectable’ and replace it, perhaps, with this: