So Barbara Ellen of The Guardian wants to leave the Labour Party?
Of all the distortions and braying nonsense in this poisonous article in The Guardian, this is the stand-out line:
How has it come to this – when did “moderate” become an insult?
This is a tiresome and childish trick – Corbyn’s supporters are painted as intolerant so neoliberal extremists like Tony Blair, Chukka Umunna, Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper, so feted by The Guardian, can be painted as ‘moderate’ when they are nothing of the kind.
The Guardian has been hawking this trick for months because they are desperate to repair the electric fence that politicians and the corporate media have built around Westminster. This fence has for decades excluded everyone who gave a fuck about anything or anyone.
The Guardian paints the landslide democratic victory for the Socialist moderate Jeremy Corbyn as an ‘extremist’ development but its the sheer popularity of his moderate policies that has them scared and bewildered.
Lets remind ourselves of some of these ‘extremist’ policies of Labour under Corbyn:
(a) Let us not spend £100 billion on nuclear weapons.
(b) Let us not commit to destroying the world in a nuclear war.
(c) Let us bring those responsible for the Iraq War to account.
(d) Let us make sure huge corporates pay their fair share of tax.
(e) Let us oppose the savage cruelty, unfairness and ideological dishonesty of austerity.
(f) Let us renationalise the railways
(g) Let us begin a dialogue that leads to a lasting peace with all sides in the Middle East.
(h) Let us not drop more munitions on Syria.
(i) Let us abolish the Bedroom Tax
(j) Let us find ways to reverse the growing inequality between rich and poor.
(k) Let us make sure nobody is left homeless and hungry in one of the richest nations on earth.
(l) Let us allow democracy to decide policy in the Labour Party
(m) Let us honour our existing commitments to slow climate change and do more to reverse climate damage.
(n) Let us not bend the knee to the royal family.
None of these policies are extremist, not one – what is extremist is the narrow right wing consensus which has dominated discourse in the UK since the arrival of Tony Blair.
Our current government represents the vested interests of the wealthy, the powerful and their conspirators. The sad truth about Barbara Ellen, the blue Labour rump of the Parliamentary Labour Party and The Guardian is that they do too – and their relevance is declining daily in the face of a popular revolt against neoliberalism and imperialism.
The ever so cosy relationship between Westminster, wealth and the media has been upset – an uppity populist intruder called Jeremy Corbyn has given the moderate majority within the Labour Party (and tens of thousands of their disenfranchised former supporters) a chance to speak and be heard.
I am tired of living under the heartless and destructive ideological tyranny of neoliberalism – that doesn’t make me or any of Corbyn’s supporters an extremist – it just means we care and won’t allow people like Barbara Ellen or Robert Webb or the corporate media define for us what is reasonable and desirable.
There will be those who enjoyed the days when the Labour Party stood for nothing but getting elected and happily lived inside the cosy bubbles of power and privilege that excluded ordinary people from having a voice – but for now at least, those days are over.
It is the moderate majority that has reclaimed the Labour Party. If Barbara Ellen had any credible interest in democracy or anything remotely progressive she wouldn’t have survived for so long at The Guardian which is an enemy of both.
The crass and banal attempts to restrict debate within a tiny window of ‘acceptable’ opinion is not done to make Labour ‘electable’ – it is a self serving attempt to shape public opinion in service of power and wealth and to protect the media’s relationship with power and wealth.
The vicious campaign against Corbyn by The Guardian has finally exposed them as a right wing tabloid. Happily, there is no indication that all the poison, hated and derision is working – Corbyn’s popularity is undimmed, brighter if anything as people see what he is up against.
The supporters of Corbyn are not extremists, we are not fooled and we won’t be brow beaten. We have many clear policy disagreement with the corporate media, its shills and a right wing faction within The Labour Party – that makes us clearly moderate.
The Labour Party is immeasurably better off without people like Barbara Ellen and Robert Webb – we need not fear their departure, we should celebrate it as a powerful indication that moderate politics are alive and well within The Labour Party.
John Lynch
“The vicious campaign against Corbyn by The Guardian has finally exposed them as a right wing tabloid.”
You’d have thought Seamus would have noticed.
Essentially Blairism was predicated on the singular belief that if you can’t beat them, join them. Blairism can be roughly identified in both word and policies as late Thatcherism.This capitulation by social-democracy to money power was not confined to the UK; it was and is a trans-European phenomenon.
As for its belief system, it doesn’t really possess one; or more accurately, it is a statement of ‘What is, is Right’ to quote Alexander Pope. Which this actually boils down to a belief in nothing – nothing except power for its own sake.
Turning to the esteemed lady, here you have the view from Islington. In the nebulous universe of post-modernism, reactionary ideas – neoliberalism, neo-conservatism, consumerism, individualism, are rebranded and sold as something trendy and cool, old wine in new bottles perhaps. This project is usually referred to as ‘modernization’. Identity politics has replaced class politics, the latter being indescribably fuddy-duddy, and passe. And of course socialism belongs to the stone-age, being neither possible or desirable.
This cultural assimilation of sections of the middle-class to American values is to be expected in the age of counter-revolution – a counter-revolution which began with the Thatcher-Reagan ascendency.
Ms Ellen represents the cultural and political archetype of this social/political stratum. An establishment journalist – fid def – enjoying a tenured and amply rewarded position, one of the ‘winners’ in the new order. Her political views are easily comprehended.
I can just imagine her tapping out her articles on her tablet in some fancy Islington restaurant whilst sipping latte.
These people are frankly the enemy within, the fifth column, their exit from the Labour party is to be welcomed. If they had any principles (which they clearly don’t) then they should at least have to guts to fight for them. But no, guts are in short supply in this neck of the woods.
To avoid any misunderstandings. The Labour party’s brief was to change the world not to adapt to it. Like the man said:
”The Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways, the point is to change it.”
Spot on and very well written. Don’t suppose we could tempt you into an article or three for The Haze? We can reward you with lashings of gratitude…
“Lets remind ourselves of some of these ‘extremist’ policies of Labour under Corbyn”
Yes, let’s:
(a) Let us not spend £100 billion on nuclear weapons.
That’s not Labour Policy
(b) Let us not commit to destroying the world in a nuclear war.
A tragic misunderstanding of how a deterrent works. Fine for Corbyn to put ‘don’t fire’ in the letter in the sub’s safe, not fine for him to tell everyone that’s what’s there. Never try playing poker.
(c) Let us bring those responsible for the Iraq War to account.
Which is also Conservative policy… and no-one’s disagreeing we’d all like that report out now.
(d) Let us make sure huge corporates pay their fair share of tax.
Define ‘fair share’, and if you have evidence of evasion, take it to HMRC. Also, be great to see how you’d like to achieve this within the constricts of the EU.
(e) Let us oppose the savage cruelty, unfairness and ideological dishonesty of austerity.
Fine – but another dishonesty is pretending that can be achieved without tax rises on the middle class. Haven’t heard that spelled out yet…
(f) Let us renationalise the railways
Why? Other than ideological commitment. Which is alright, but you’ve just used ‘ideological’ as an insult, viz. (e)
(g) Let us begin a dialogue that leads to a lasting peace with all sides in the Middle East.
Lovely. Tell me when you’ve figured out how to book a meeting room and biscuits in Raqqa.
(h) Let us not drop more munitions on Syria.
Shall we restate that more honestly as “Let us not drop more munitions on ISIS in Syria’? No-one is suggesting bombing ‘Syria’ or ‘Syrians’, per se, what is suggested is bombing ISIS in Syria.
Which, by the way, there is a UN Resolution to do – I thought you were supportive of international engagement?
(i) Let us abolish the Bedroom Tax
See (e)
(j) Let us find ways to reverse the growing inequality between rich and poor.
See (e), and that’s a goal, not a policy.
(k) Let us make sure nobody is left homeless and hungry in one of the richest nations on earth.
See (e), and, again, that’s a goal, not a policy.
(l) Let us allow democracy to decide policy in the Labour Party
You mean, via free votes? Which Corbyn won’t commit to in the case of Syria?
(m) Let us honour our existing commitments to slow climate change and do more to reverse climate damage.
Conservatives and ‘New’ Labour agree
(n) Let us not bend the knee to the royal family.
Literally, or metaphorically?
Your attempt to respond to all points in this manner speaks volumes.
Not quite sure what you mean by that.
I’ve taken the time, as a longstanding ‘moderate’ Labour member, to engage with those who would look for disharmony, and point out that several of these ‘policies’ aren’t Labour policy, or workable, or in some cases, policies at all. That being the case, why are you trying to split the party over them?
If you think this is an unfair response, you might reflect on the filter that Corbyn actually gets to ‘real people’, through the Tory leaning press and the Tory party themselves.
The article never claimed the points listed were Labour Party policy – they are the positions consistently advocated during Corbyn’s landslide victory in the leadership election. It is these positions that the Blue Labour rump in the PLP and corporate media shills are so anxious to rubbish.
You take up a position against the overwhelming mandate of the party’s members and affiliated supporters and smear them with a one-size-fits-all insult “those who would look for disharmony’ and follow it up with an insulting and inflammatory question about splitting the party – as if a total ban on disagreement was healthy.
You tout yourself as a ‘long standing moderate’ but the way you try to frame the democratic process within in the Labour Party leaves me cold.
Why not try the Lib Dems if you need some careerist politicians wedded to the neoliberal consensus?
Just because neoliberalism and imperialism are en vogue in the media doesn’t make any of it ‘moderate’ – we must each decide that for ourselves. Your hectoring of those who disagree with your assessment serves only to strengthen my resolve to make up my own mind.
Are you kidding me? Does my response accuse people of twisted hate, or braying nonsense?
No.
And, sorry, but the line before that list of points, which I also quoted, refers to Labour policies under Corbyn. You can’t claim all his positions automatically become Labour policy, and also claim to be interested in democratic decision making.
And it’s interesting no-one has so far engaged with any of the criticism.
No your response lumps everyone who disagrees with you into one breezy dismissive smear.
Make a constructive remark and somebody might be interested.
(b) Let us not commit to destroying the world in a nuclear war.
A tragic misunderstanding of how a deterrent works. Fine for Corbyn to put ‘don’t fire’ in the letter in the sub’s safe, not fine for him to tell everyone that’s what’s there. Never try playing poker.
This policy simply maintains the control of the nuclear powers over others. If it was a real factor in maintaining peace why are we constantly at war – these wars are being started by the nuclear powers in nearly every case.
If it was fair, why can,t Iran develop a N bomb to counteract the threats by N power Israel?
By the way there is a better way to peace based on social justice, discussion, stopping the predatory policies of Western nations who are prepared to destroy countries like Libya and Syria to control the distribution of oil.
As for bombing ISIS not Syria that is a dirty lie. The allied forces were supposed to have been bombing ISIS in Iraq not Syria. But the US and NATO did not do any significant bombing in Iraq allowing Al Qaeda/IS to more dramatically expand their control of territory after the so called bombing campaign than before it.
Did you know that the UK via NATO and the USA had special destabilisation forces in Syria as early as 2010 who were training Al Qaeda/ISIS to destabilise the Assad Government using violence and with weapons provided by the Western bombing alliance?
http://www.sott.net/article/305832-History-of-Western-involvement-with-the-Mercenary-armies-destroying-the-Middle-East
Here is the methodology used by subversive special forces in Syria
https://publicintelligence.net/usarmy-special-forces-manual/
Knowing that Cameron has been committing war crimes in Syria places him on the same criminal footing as Blair. No wonder the Blairites supported Cameron hypocritical and deceptive program to use ISIS as ground troops against Assad.
Thanks for engaging with one of the points I made, but the problem is you’ve also engaged with several I didn’t.
I don’t say that Iran can’t develop a bomb.
Forgive me, but I don’t see the links you post as credible sources. I think it’s widely accepted that the US led airstrikes in Iraq have stopped the expansion of Daesh (refer to the wiki and its sources, which claim a 30% reduction in Daesh territory in Iraq). Those sources also claim over 50,000 strikes to date on Daesh in Iraq – are you simply ignoring this?
It seems an odd position to claim the US has been very active in ways that nearly no-one is claiming (special forces ops supporting Al Qaeda (really?!)), but not at all active in the widely reported, highly visible, manner that is claimed. In fact – it’s an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence, and you supply none.
It’s also a funny definition of ‘war crime’ that includes action in support of a UN resolution.