Since Jeremy Corbyn’s first successful Labour leadership election the media that occupies the assumed centre has focussed on undermining his leadership. The relentless and baseless attacks on him and his colleagues from The Guardian, New Statesman and Independent have been assisted by the Progress mob in the parliamentary Labour party. But, that assistance to the media in their anti-Corbyn diatribes has diminished due to said MPs’ focus on the upcoming election. Despite their objections to Corbyn’s politics, the majority of the Progress MPs want to retain their own seats in parliament and, thus, will reign in their criticism of him during the election campaign. Some have departed and – for the benefit of the Labour party and of the country – it would have been better if they all had gone and allowed genuine candidates to stand: Progress mob should go, but most have stayed and are now concentrating on trying to win at the general election even if that is only to maintain their own respective careers.
The media hacks have been cast adrift, for now, by their “sources” and co-complainers in the parliamentary Labour party. The former’s creative analyses of Corbyn stand alone unsupported by a ready supply of destructive quotes and leaks from private meetings. How are these guardians (no pun intended) of the imaginary centre of British politics handling their isolation? Let’s have a look at a few samples written in the last few days.
New Statesman’s George Eaton eschewed facts entirely. A (right-of-centre) candidate for leadership of UNITE union, Gerard Coyne, was suspended by the union when voting in the union’s leadership election had ended; the suspension was the result of Coyne’s alleged breaches of rules (and law) related to the use of databases of Labour members to assist his leadership challenge. In Eaton on Coyne Eaton discussed the suspension but, oddly, made no mention whatsoever of the mis-use of databases despite constant public discussion recently among UNITE members and Labour members about Coyne’s access to contact details that he should not have had. Eaton’s omission of these allegations was deliberate. He claimed that Coyne may have won the election, a claim that had no basis in fact or intelligent deduction. (The result of the election – announced after Eaton’s article – was a victory for Len McCluskey.) The article was designed solely to smear McCluskey, a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn.
In Eaton’s sauces he claimed an unnamed Tory MP was worried that complacency among voters could mean that the Tory majority would not be as huge as the party is expecting at the election. Eaton’s motivation for this claim, and for his comment that “for most in Westminster, the only question is how large the Conservatives’ majority will be,” was to express his disdain for Corbyn as dismissively as he could. Citing a Labour source, Eaton asserted that “[Labour election] leaflets will be free of references to Corbyn and national policy.” This is untrue, and, as Eaton knows, any signs of division within Labour will harm its electoral chances. Eaton did not cite a factual statement, he made a suggestion that he hopes will lessen Labour’s chance of success.
In a rambling piece that pretended to assess the logic behind Theresa May’s decision to call an election – Eaton rambles – there was a paragraph dedicated to random put-downs of Labour: “Labour MPs have long feared that their party will perform still worse than the polls suggest” and “Labour MPs will struggle to make a credible case for him to be prime minister” were followed by a childish twisting of a quote from Corbyn in order to suggest that Corbyn fears a big loss in the election.
Eaton has no analysis to offer. He is a confused child yelling “you smell.”
The title of Polly Toynbee‘s Guardian article is a clear demonstration of her political stance. Corbyn is rushing to embrace Labour’s annihilation was a scrambled list of all the usual creations and misdirection that are thrown at left-leaning politicians by the defenders of liberal politics. Toynbee is angry that Labour agreed to the election; does she prefer cowardice and evasion? She welcomed Tory victory: “Never mind if the cure – [Tory government] – is worse than the illness – [Corbyn’s leadership]” she declared recklessly. Toynbee despises socialist tendency so much that she would prefer the Tories to continue destroying the livelihoods and lives of millions of people rather than have a left-of-centre government. Her hatred of socialism is not just ideological: Toynbee objects to the marginalisation of woolly centrist liberal nonsense within which she sits, uselessly. In her article Toynbee said “Labour’s fate will be well and truly sealed if other non-Corbynites jump ship: Their duty is to stand and fight” but, as she is well aware, Labour’s chances would be enhanced if all the Progress mob formed their own party and allowed genuine Labour candidates to take their places. That is, Toynbee stated the exact opposite of the truth. She expressed her fear that Tory election manipulator Lynton Crosby’s grotesque attacks on Corbyn will affect the election result and, thus, she revealed her contempt for the intelligence and moral fortitude of the British public; that is a very typical stance of the liberal elite.
Like Eaton, Toynbee is a small child, and she has just dropped her ice-cream.
In Bush on polls Stephen Bush asked if the polls underestimate Labour’s support and then answered his own question with a ‘no’ via a half-assed analysis. He concluded with “a poor performance from [Corbyn in TV debates] – or a strong one from Caroline Lucas or Tim Farron – could spell further disaster.” But, as Bush knows, Corbyn is a very good debater and the addition of the spurious qualifier “further” is dishonest.
In Four Bush thoughts Bush declared the criminal investigations into the Tory fraud at the 2015 election to be dead – (it is news to discover that Stephen Bush is a qualified judge) – and he suggested that Tim Farron could be a success in the televised debates. That is the same Tim Farron who, recently, could not decide if gay sex is a “sin” or not.
Yvette Cooper is the subject of Bush coopers. “Just because there isn’t a vacancy, doesn’t mean there isn’t a [Labour leadership] contest” opined Bush. If and when there is another Labour leadership contest there will be a left-wing candidate on the ballot and that candidate will win easily due to the majority of Labour members being Corbyn supporters. Bush ignored this by failing to mention the upcoming change to the process of nominating a candidate that will reduce the minimum percentage of parliamentary members needed for each nominee. Instead he merely discussed support within the parliamentary party for potential candidates. This approach by Bush was deliberately dishonest and was designed to be deceitful.
One of worst, though thankfully short, political articles I have read is Bush’s Corbyn’s strategy in which he claimed that Corbyn presented “an address in which he riffed off the ‘big argument’ contained within his Easter policy blitz: that Labour will do something for everyone funded by those with the most.” What Corbyn presented was a socialist argument within a democratic structure. Straightforward, sensible, honest politics that attempt to tackle the criminal capitalist exploitation that the Tories feed at the expense of the vast majority. An opposition to a government of financial gangsters’ gimps. Bush invented quotes from Corbyn’s colleagues as a tool to describe Corbyn’s strategy as simplistic as the Vote Leave strategy. Clearly, Bush perceives a genuine challenge to the gangster economy as incomprehensible and weird. The article is horrible and stinks of useless liberal elitism which, oddly, is referred to in the article.
Bush is the small child who can’t work out how any of the toys work so he eats them.
In May’s gamble Jonathan Freedland took a break from libelling Jeremy Corbyn and declared his admiration for the odious Lynton Crosby. (Crosby is managing the Tories’ election campaign; a synopsis of his tactics here: Lynton Crosby.) Gleefully, Freedland praised the underhand and disgusting Crosby methodology:
“Conservative strategists all but slaver at the juiciness of the prey they will now hunt. I’ve heard Tories speak with delight at the prospect of reminding voters that, for example, Corbyn was prepared to see a marriage break up rather than sanction his child going to a selective school. They think such titbits mark Corbyn out as a ‘weirdo’, utterly out of step with mainstream, aspirational Britons.”
If that is all Crosby has then Corbyn needn’t be alarmed. The fact that Freedland thinks that is significant is a demonstration of Freedland’s tenuous relationship with ethics and morality.
Freedland is the small child who laughs at how the other children play.
These useless hacks are detached from any popular political support base. They feel estranged by the Brexit vote and have fought relentlessly against Corbyn.
The industry of centrist liberal media is floating aimlessly but kept on life support by the circle-jerk nature of broadcasting wherein liberal voices are presented, erroneously, as alternatives to conservative voices.
Fake liberal opposition leaches onto any passing opportunity. Cast adrift, it withers and dies.