A Tale of Two Summers and the Electable Jeremy Corbyn


The Electable Jeremy CORBYN



As a child I learned of honestly, fairness and justice, and I learned about socialism. These philosophies go hand-in-hand. But in my lifetime, The Labour Party I loved has become fearful of the truth, and has lost the trust of the electorate. For the second consecutive summer, we are facing a Labour leadership election, a protracted civil war in a party which no longer represents those it purports to exist for.

The summer of 2015 took the establishment by surprise as alongside carbon-copied neoliberals, someone talking honestly, among people, listening to them, ignited the disaffected with hope and optimism. Jeremy Corbyn, with  anti-austerity policies was elected leader of the Labour Party with a huge mandate  on 12th September 2015.

The summer of 2016 took many by surprise because the referendum on EU narrowly resulted in a “Leave” majority. Examination of those results clearly shows the EU was rejected by those who had nothing. If you have nothing to lose, why would you want to keep everything the same? While there were some on the Left, advocated a break from the  corporate stranglehold of EU, the Labour Party and leadership campaigned to remain in the EU, to make changes with other socialist groups to bring about change.

There were a number of reasons why the message was not heard.

The main culprit is the collective bias of the mainstream media. The leader of the opposition was given hardly any coverage (4%) , despite country wide meetings, while Nigel Farage, not an MP was shown repeatedly. Labour’s remain campaign  (after the effect of a shared platform at Scottish referendum), quite rightly did not share a platform with David Cameron despite Harriet Harman doing so. Corbyn campaigned extensively but the media did not show it.

The sad and tragic death of Jo Cox may not have resulted from the vile, divisive, and racist reports of the right wing press, but there was certainly a lack of responsibility, and a biased presentation can indeed incite anyone with extreme views or mental illness to behave in a certain way. It was unforgivable.

What this amounts to is a total lack of understanding of the feeling of many people in society, who feel abandoned, neglected, who feel despair, hopelessness, and in some cases hatred.

And in order to begin to repair our divided nation, and indeed world, we have to understand how this has come about. It results from the flawed economics of neoliberalism. It results from the erosion of democracy, which has become a sham.

In recent years, regardless of whichever party becomes the government, no elections have achieved the great change as  Labour did in 1945 because of the establishment’s stranglehold. There are immense riches for some and yet the state’s responsibility to its ordinary citizens has been eroded.

Solidarity, socialism, and neighbourliness,  are words from the past which we are told was some far-left extremism and  has no place in the future.  That fear of being destitute, of being alone and helpless is a direct result of neoliberalism.  Austerity, created by the IMF and described in the Zombie Economy was hatched seventy years ago in New Hampshire, has been pursued around the world ever since.

They have overseen the transfer of power from the State to the private institutions and corporations.

Ordinary people in the UK, as around the world know that austerity has failed,  yet increasingly they feel that their votes will achieve nothing. What do they say to politicians who ask for their votes on the doorstep?

“There is no point in voting; they’re all the same.”

“They’re all in it for themselves.”

“They are all liars!”

“They only want to know at election time.”

“I like Labour, but we can’t trust you with the Economy.

“Too many immigrants taking our jobs.”

“Foreigners are flooding into Britain”

“I’m not interested in Politics.”

That may be a fair assessment of the situation from their view but I am filled with despair. The Labour Party’s recent abstentions on the Welfare Bill resulted in it being carried. 47 Labour MPs did oppose the vote on Trident renewal. Please refer to this list.

  The vote to spend masses on Trident when finances and resources would be so much more wisely spent on jobs, houses, NHS and infrastructure, was supported by many Labour MPs who should be ashamed.  Why is this happening? Nothing will change until Austerity is challenged and the truth is out. There are people challenging the neoliberal consensus, and one of these is Jeremy Corbyn. He is immensely popular, and has support of 80% of CLPs.

Such is the fear of the establishment of real democracy and change that the press and majority of the PLP have bullied, orchestrated a coup and attempted to push out our democratically elected leader. The NEC and Iain McNicol has blocked democracy by cancelling political meetings, suspending CLPs and even encouraged a challenge to automatically putting the incumbent Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn, on the ballot paper, and agreeing to a date which was post nomination time and which could have led to the sole remaining challenger, Owen Smith being automatically made Labour leader.


This in itself was questioned by the judge, and it has been ruled that Jeremy Corbyn should be the defendant, rather than Iain McNicol.

This is a real threat to democracy of the Labour Party, and of our parliament. It must be challenged.

2. 1983 Manifesto was too left-wing – a myth to be challenged

One claim from the right of the Labour Party is that a Corbyn-led party would be unelectable, because of “extreme” left-wing policies, and that was why Labour failed to gain power in 1983 under Michael Foot.

Labour’s 1983 Manifesto was not extremely Left Wing. Some examples include:

  •  In 1983 Labour promised to invest in homes, transport, new technologies and industry.
  • It promised to work for equality, for women – equal pay, maternity pay and assistance for child care
  • Planned for Investment in Education, and Provision for under-fives
  • It proposed to improve the environment, to tackle pollution and to conserve energy.
  • It planned initiatives to promote peace and development around the world, and to cancel Trident and not to co-operate with Cruise Missile deployment,
  • Labour would have expanded services for social care and to reverse Tory cuts in the maternity grant.
  • Begin a Strategy to Eliminate Low Pay.
  • Open immediate negotiations with our EEC partners, and introduce the necessary legislation, to prepare for Britain’s withdrawal from the EEC, to be completed well within the lifetime of the Labour government.
  • Rebuild British industry , and up these steps with a new National Investment Bank, new industrial powers, and a new Department for Economic and Industrial Planning.

These are immensely popular policies, and so are those of Jeremy Corbyn. Expanding on the details here show refreshing, positive policies describing a world I wished we could have seen.  It was not this manifesto that led to Labour’s defeat in 1983. They called it the greatest suicide note in political history. It looks more like a survival note for a thriving society. Neil Clark in the Guardian, describes how that defeat determined how the resistance to neoliberalism crumbled.

See Capitalism, Neoliberalism and Plutonomy and Neo-feudalism

“That moment in 1983 was the last great opportunity to derail the neoliberal bandwagon before it did lasting damage to the UK’s economic and social fabric. Labour’s emergency programme of action would have halted the de-industrialisation of Britain and removed the spectre of mass unemployment from the land. The re-imposition of exchange controls would have put a brake on the growing power of international finance; thanks to Thatcher’s deregulatory measures – money power was soon to rule the roost.”
The yawning wealth gap, already starting to develop in 1983, would have been reversed by Labour’s staunchly progressive tax policies.

3. Popularity Of Austerity policies and Thatcherism

In 1981 and 1982, the Tory cuts were very unpopular, and Michael Foot’s Labour Party was well ahead of the Tories in 1982. But Margaret Thatcher’s gamble to send a task force to the Falklands ignited a false patriotism where flag-waving citizens cheered the task force on its way. Thatcher’s gamble paid off. In times of austerity, it was like some kind of hysterical party.  It was a close thing, but without victory in the Falklands it is unlikely she would have remained in power.

‘The nation drank deep of an experience it had not enjoyed since 1945: a clear military triumph. The victory dragged Thatcher’s leadership from the brink of collapse. She won global celebrity, in both the United States and the Soviet Union, and 10 points were added to her poll rating. She was at last in the lead over Labour. The emergent Social Democrats never recovered. Thatcher wrapped herself in the flag, denouncing all sceptics and crudely boasting the renaissance of the British people as a world power against dictatorship.’

We have witnessed a greater gap between rich and poor, more deprivation and a disturbing rise in right-wing nationalism. The recent vote on Trident was unnecessary, but served to position Theresa May as Thatcher-like and reinforce the current divisions among the PLP. Austerity has failed, and it is opposition to austerity and neoliberalism which is behind the surge in political activity and a rise in Labour Party membership to over half a million people. Let us build, not divide. Let us oppose neoliberalism, together.

4. DIVIDED LABOUR in 1981 and 2016

It is a cliché, but true that as a Labour movement , we are strong when we have a common aim which is cohesive. United we stand, divided we fall. It was the split in Labour which cost us victory over Thatcher in 1983. The divisions in Labour at the moment  has cost us the lead we had just built over the Tories. It seems there are some in the PLP who do not share the aims of the Labour Party. As representatives of their  democratic socialist party, many Labour MPs are behaving in a destructive way again. They look to neoliberalism and not socialism.  There is no place for neoliberalism within the Labour Party. There is no room for disunity and disloyalty either. The membership is overwhelmingly supportive of Jeremy Corbyn and there is an incongruence between the membership and the PLP, which must be overcome in some way. As John Prescott, so succinctly put it recently in the Daily Mirror, The Labour Party is its own worst enemy scoring own goals like the England football team.

In 1983, the British electoral system was very much a two-party affair, and as we have seen recently, in a first-past-the-post electoral system, a divided opposition inevitably leads to defeat. In 1981, four former Labour cabinet ministers Bill Rogers, Shirley Williams, David Owen and Roy Jenkins had crossed the floor and formed the SDP. In 1983, ten days before the General Election, an SDP-Liberal Alliance was formed. Their agreement not to oppose seats resulted in Thatcher’s biggest ever electoral landslide. The lesson of the need for Party  unity, I hope was learned. In this betrayal, we have all paid dearly.

The Falklands war and the SDP-Alliance splitting the vote,  swung it for Mrs Thatcher not the Labour manifesto whatever the press and Blairites say. I remember it as clear as it was day, what a shock it was. The press was wicked. That is what started fear of the truth.

As we know the victors write the history.  The massive privatisation policies of the Thatcher years, which continued under Blairism, is still continuing today, though we have little left to sell off, would have been averted. Despite claims, there is evidence that Corbyn’s challenger this summer, Owen Smith, believes in neoliberalism, and many have observed that  “he is more Blairite than Blair”.

What resulted from these divisions was neoliberalism for 30 years , a parasitic, out-of-control capitalism which  grew exponentially. Manufacturing declined further, unemployment soared, employment rights eroded, and what we have been left with is a growing inequality where fear of being trampled on has led to social divisions and isolationism. Divisions in the Labour Movement today will not bring people together. Many in the PLP have behaved irresponsibly, undemocratically, and unprofessionally, and should unite behind the leader and membership to fight the Tories. Others have been loyal and present the foundation of  the New politics. Jeremy Corbyn wishes to see a reunited party fighting injustice, together. Let’s do that.

5. DEMOCRACY, TRUTH and electability

Listen to Jeremy Corbyn, and  you will hear he talks sensible, pragmatic, socially desirable policies which are supported by the electorate. His approach is courageous and honest, and that is why is was elected in 2015 as Labour leader, and why it is likely that he will be elected again in 2016, and why he is very likely to be elected as Prime Minister.  After the EU referendum, and prior to the coup, under Corbyn’s leadership, the Labour Party was edging ahead of the Tories in the polls. A cynical, and orchestrated attempted coup is an attempt to hold back democracy as people sense a once -in-a lifetime opportunity to make a difference to their own lives by political action.

The fable of the Emperor’s new clothes is well-known. Everyone could see the emperor was naked , but too fearful to challenge so they admired his new clothes. Everyone knows that the very, very rich, are the real scroungers  – representing a hidden welfare state while millions depend on food banks in this country alone. If everyone knows this, then why is our Labour Party still supporting Tory cuts and austerity? It is time to call the Emperor’s bluff.

Truth is always the way. Remember the lines of Tony Benn? “Say what you mean and mean what you say!” Wise words. Jeremy speaks honestly. He speaks the truth. He has integrity, a quality rarely seen among politicians, but one which the electorate respects. He has been proven correct many times, and has remained always true to his principles.

But  Jeremy Corbyn has not attempted undermining coups and exhibited bullying behaviour as we have seen this summer. He is popular, principled, and he is very electable. He believes in socialism, and in democracy.  He welcomes a reunited party. We aim for government and to change politics.

Jeremy Corbyn has my vote, yet again, and very my best wishes and hopes.

The War Game #NotoTrident


In 1965, this film was produced, suggesting what we might experience if there was a nuclear war. Initially it was banned but I watched it in school in 1970.  I was so shaken, and have been opposed to nuclear war, and nuclear energy ever since. There is no sense whatsoever of having nuclear weapons which are horrific, pointless and extraordinarily expensive.  We have had seventy years of senselessness, and it will end when people are made aware of the horrors of these weapons of mass destruction, and that is by real education. There can be no more important issue which we should be educating future generations about.

The war game can be seen on this link 

It is the US debut of the film showing. I could not find a full Youtube link, though there are clips.

war game

A review is seen here on Film Four http://www.film4.com/reviews/1966/the-war-game

An extract of the review is reproduced below,

The BBC and Harold Wilson’s government thought that The War Game was so powerful that it would have a profoundly negative effect on British morale, and conspired to keep it from the small screen – even when it won an Oscar after a triumphant run on the festival circuit. Their perturbation – if not their reaction – quickly makes sense as this chilling 47 minute film plays out. The War Game still ranks as one of the most powerful examples of the docu-drama form (which Watkins had practically invented with his earlier success at the BBC,’Culloden’). He expertly blends statistics, government information, and the graphics and tropes of contemporary BBC news reports with the fictional enactment of the aftermath of a nuclear strike on Kent. The effect of Michael Aspel’s authoritative tones declaring “this could be the way the last two minutes of peace look” over realistic footage of miserable chaos can easily be imagined, especially since the scenario under the Cold War seemed all too likely.


Think Left: Seventy Years of Senselessness, Nuclear Weapons are pointless, horrific, and extraordinarily Expensive


The War Game: A Review from Film Four

John Hilary – Social Europe is dead, Global EU lives


John Hilary – Social Europe is dead, Global EU lives


This appallingly dishonest referendum campaign has reduced any debate down to frightening economic projections vs frightening xenophobic immigration statistics.  It is no wonder that most people say ‘that none of them can be trusted’; the exception being perhaps, the ‘reluctant’ 7.5% remainer, Jeremy Corbyn.

The most gaping omission has been the lack of focus on the institutions of the EU.

Laura Cartwright writes:

The absence of any discussion on neoliberalism in the referendum debate smacks of wilful ignorance from both camps, meaning that voters are left completely missing the bigger picture. The ‘Remain’ side is failing to question or critique the EU’s deep commitment to an increasingly discredited ideology which is continuing to increase inequality and stifle inter-generational mobility. The ‘Leave’ side is apportioning blame for our social, economic and political problems in the wrong place and seeking to retreat into a pre-globalised world of nation-state supremacy which no longer exists.

Unless we as citizens begin to ‘join the dots’ and start to question the cogency of a political economic doctrine which is preventing young people across Europe from reaching their full potential, discussions about being ‘in’ or ‘out’ are meaningless. As Irvine Welsh recently argued, whatever the outcome of the referendum the elites will ultimately win. Neoliberalism looks and feels the same, whether it’s imposed by those in power in the UK or the EU.



Paul Mason puts it succinctly:

The EU is not – and cannot become – a democracy. Instead, it provides the most hospitable ecosystem in the developed world for rentier monopoly corporations, tax-dodging elites and organised crime. It has an executive so powerful it could crush the leftwing government of Greece; a legislature so weak that it cannot effectively determine laws or control its own civil service. A judiciary that, in the Laval and Viking judgments, subordinated workers’ right to strike to an employer’s right do business freely.


John Hilary in the video clip remedies the omission.

We on the left, need to understand the imperative to stick together.  We share a very different vision of society from this most rightwing of Conservative governments, and the direction of travel of the current EU.  Whether we decide to vote remain, lexit or abstain, our differences lie in what we believe to be the best strategy for change and not in the outcome that we wish to achieve.  To succeed ‘Solidarity’ has to be our rule.

Who ‘Rules’ is the important part of ‘Divide and Rule’


by Jim Grundy

Throughout history, at least British history as I read it, the debate about the great issues of the day has always been rendered down to little more than identifying an ‘other,’ often a selection of others, and loading upon it/them all our fears, hatreds and general discontent with the state of society.  There was – and is – an infinite appetite to blame all our ills upon an ever-changing gallery of ‘bad guys.’  If only ‘they’ did something about ‘them’ then, the logic (sic) goes, everything would be all right.

The speed, lately the increasing speed, with which the latest group dragging us down is identified and vilified should make us all stop and question whether our lives are really being destroyed by ‘them,’ particularly when last week it was someone else entirely.  It should. But the focus of our attention would be more profitably directed towards the one constant in this fast moving blame game – and that is the origin of practically all stories telling us who to hate next.  Step forward our ruling elite (they have other names but that’ll do for now).

We’re now facing a referendum on our future in Europe.  And the E.U., not without genuine cause, does come in for a lot of criticism.  But anyone arguing that simply (ahem) leaving the European Union would mean that, for example, councils would not be withdrawing care for those struggling with terminal illnesses is one of the dafter examples of wishful thinking anyone is ever going to come up with.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the E.U. (and, let’s be honest, there is a huge subtext about nasty foreigners and immigration underlying it all), does anyone, can anyone believe that Britain out of the E.U. is about to be transformed into a paradise for the benefit of the average person living in these islands?

It seems to me that the more involved and intangible our problems, the harder to understand their root causes, the greater the need to find simplistic, impressionistic answers to them becomes.

I wish simple, easy to implement, solutions would appear.  I also wish the hard-wired instinct to find a scapegoat would disappear.  But I am bound to remember one conversation around the time the ‘Birmingham Six’ were released.  One very angry man said, quite simply, that he didn’t care whether they were, in his words “so-called” innocent, “some bastard’s got to pay.”

Sadly, that ‘bastard’, when you travel along that road, is always going to be us.  Not them.