If Jeremy Corbyn decided to stand down as leader of Labour there are many good potential successors in the parliamentary party who would be willing and able to pursue a similar political direction.
If there were to be an election for leader then there must be only one left-wing candidate to ensure the left-wing vote won’t be split. There would need to be an agreement, or even a pre-election vote, to select a single left-wing candidate. Undoubtedly, potential candidates are aware of the need for only one left-wing contender.
Opponents of socialism will do all they can to try to split the left-wing vote. They will want more than one socialist candidate, preferably several. To achieve this they will seek to create division among possible candidates. Accusations of major policy differences and personality clashes and false reports of underhand tactics or private criticism will be splattered throughout a variety of dishonest articles and live comments on TV by anti-socialists. Their “sources” will be working hard.
For example, in a Times article on Sunday (September 29th) Caroline Wheeler and Tim Shipman splurged a ridiculous concoction of nonsense about a “power struggle” between Rebecca Long-Bailey and Laura Pidcock that “escalated dramatically in recent days” and “exploded.” Every word from Wheeler and Shipman was trash but it indicated how anti-socialists intend to disrupt a Labour leadership election and how absurd they will behave.
Obviously, potential candidates won’t be fooled by anti-socialists but the latter’s claims of division will be for the eyes and ears of voters in a leadership election to encourage them to demand certain candidates stand against other left-wing candidates. Fortunately, those who can vote in a Labour leadership election and who wish to vote for a socialist candidate will not be swayed by drivel from the right or from the centre.
There is no imminent need for a change of leadership of course.
Boris Johnson’s government will try any trick to achieve its aim of no deal Brexit. Disaster capitalists, market gamblers and other parasites would receive a huge windfall at the expense of everyone else if no deal Brexit happens. For them it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the largest quick buck they could ever make.
The Tories have shown how much they are willing to break the law and by-pass parliamentary procedure to enable no deal and they will continue to do so. Nothing is beyond them because they have no interest in what is fair, just or lawful. The no deal prize for their sponsors and for themselves is unlikely to be repeated and is so large that they placed no limit on their trickery.
Predict a riot Throughout history authoritarian governments used emergency powers if law or rules got in the way of their plans. Normally, such powers were used (or invented) as a supposed response to public disorder or the possibility of public disorder. Every time emergency powers were used it was not to deal with riots but to achieve other aims; the riots were convenient for the government.
There is no doubt the Tory government included the imposition of emergency powers, in particular, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, in its list of possible con-tricks to utilise to impose no deal Brexit.
Tories and other no deal supporters are demanding riots. Constant references to “anger” of Brexit voters have been accompanied by surprise that riots haven’t already happened. Both Johnson and his senior adviser Dominic Cummings responded to reports of threats and violence against opponents of Brexit by saying the threats and violence would stop when Brexit was done which was exactly the same as saying they would continue if Brexit continued to be delayed.
The encouragement of violence against opponents of no deal Brexit incited some people to act. Examples include
A man attacked the parliamentary office of Labour MP Jess Phillips and yelled violent threats
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was punched on the head
People’s Vote activist Femi Oluwole was struck by a flag-pole by Bruges Group member Niall McCrae
MP Anna Soubry was physically harassed by far-right extremist James Goddard close to parliament
More incidents will occur and could be more violent; all would be a direct consequence of the rhetoric of Tories and their fellow no deal supporters. Violence against opponents is not necessarily the specific intent of the advocates of rioting but they don’t care if it happens.
An excuse to declare emergency powers drives Tories’ desire for disorder, damage and injury. This trick has not gone unnoticed. Labour’s Brexit spokesperson, and former DPP, Keir Starmer said
“Whipping up the idea of riots or even deaths if we do not leave the EU on 31 October is the height of irresponsibility. But it is also pretty obviously being orchestrated. If this is part of a government plan to misuse powers under emergency legislation, I can assure the prime minister we will defeat him in court and in parliament.”
Knowledge of the Tories’ intent is welcome but it won’t stop them from continuing to make reckless statements that encourage violence.
A person is racist because of what they say or do. If someone says something racist or does something racist then that defines them as a racist.
However, the BBC disagrees with the logic above. The BBC does not accept that a racist comment defines a person as racist.
In July the BBC gave airtime to a supporter of Donald Trump’s racism. In response, the presenter of the show, Naga Munchetty, said
“Every time I have been told, as a woman of colour, to go back to where I came from, that was embedded in racism. [I am] absolutely furious and I can imagine lots of people in this country will be feeling absolutely furious a man [Trump] in that position thinks it’s OK to skirt the lines by using language like that.”
Naga Munchetty rightly observed that Donald Trump’s racist comments are a problem.
Two months later the BBC’s Complaints Unit upheld a complaint from a supporter of Trump’s racism about Ms. Munchetty’s comments and said
“[the] persistent and personal nature of the [Munchetty’s] criticism risked leaving her open to the charge that she had failed to be even-handed.”
David Jordan, Director, Editorial Policy and Standards at the BBC doubled-down on the Complaints Unit’s position:
“The line is not about calling out racist comments – which is perfectly acceptable when things are clearly framed in racist language – it’s about how you go on to discuss the person who made the comments and make assumptions or remarks about that.
In the politics of the present, when we are in a politics of name-calling and insult, I think it’s probably unwise of the BBC to be calling out people for being liars or racist. What is really important is that we look at the things people say, we analyse them, we describe them objectively. If someone’s told a lie, we call it out for being a lie. If someone’s made a racist remark, we make sure people are aware that they’re inherently racist.
The issue is about when she went on further to discuss President Trump himself, what his motivations were for that, and that breached our impartiality requirements. Our audiences should not be able to tell from BBC output the personal opinions of our journalists or current affairs presenters on matters of public policy, political, or industrial controversy.”
As Jordan Explained, the BBC does not think racist behaviour makes a person racist. The BBC separates the act from the perpetrator. It is an old apologist confidence-trick. It is the passive tense dodge. According to the BBC a racism comment was made in the ether detached from its speaker. The BBC objected to Ms. Munchetty attaching the racist comment to the speaker.
Jordan adopted a familiar far-right stance of complaining about the fact that a racist was called a racist. He posited the racist as the victim of “name-calling.” Far-right voices relentlessly cast themselves as victims of criticism as a ruse to deflect attention from what they said or wrote and Jordan endorsed that approach.
He stated that opinions of presenters on important issues should not be obvious to the viewers or listeners. What he opposed was a presenter’s observations, analysis, deductions and description of facts.
Context of BBC’s response to Naga Munchetty’s comments BBC Director-General Tony Hall stated in this year’s Annual Plan that
“making sure all sides of a debate are heard – all different views and voices – is fundamental to our mission. It is essential if we are to continue to be the place people know they can trust to get to grips with what is truly happening in the world, and to hear the broadest range of views.”
His commitment to the “broadest range of views” means that all debates and discussions on BBC news programmes are “balanced” with a contrary view regardless of how dishonest, corrupt and wrong that view is. In particular, racists are given platforms in debates on racism. That is Hall’s (mis)understanding of “balance.”
Further, his vision is that presenters should be parrots and verbal stenographers and allow any nonsense to be spoken without response.
Dual entrenched failure at the BBC The Complaints Unit asked for “even-handedness” from presenters; the BBC wants offensive and stupid people to be given the same respect as everyone else. That demand from the BBC is driven by both a lack of intelligence and by a lack of morality.
The intellectual failure is a basic lack of aptitude to understand issues of balance in news presentation. Tony Hall exudes fear and stupidity and those features are passed down the management structure at the BBC.
The moral failure is the enabling of far-right views via gifts of platforms to charlatans that are not based on knowledge but only the fact that the views are contrary to those of others, and by the support given to far-right complainants who object to their heroes being criticised.
Both the Complaints Unit and Jordan tried to claim that the BBC’s aim is “impartiality.” But, adherence to impartiality is not the same as handing a platform to every opinion and allowing no comment on what is spouted from such platforms.
Luciana Berger’s justification for theft of a parliamentary seat in February was her claim that voters voted for her not for Labour (in 2017). But, seven months later, after switching again – to Liberal Democrats, and again not calling a by-election, she said
“It became clear there was not a groundswell of support for something new at that time. I am joining Jo Swinson and the Liberal Democrats today, in the national interest, to offer a vital, positive alternative to Johnson and Corbyn and help build a future that our country deserves. I’m excited by Jo’s leadership and want people to have something positive to vote for not just the least worst option. It’s time to break up the tribal two-party system.”
That is, she decided a second time that she knew what the voters in Wavertree wanted even though she admitted that she was wrong about what they wanted in February.
What the voters in Wavertree want is a Labour MP because that is what they voted for the last time they had an opportunity to vote. Berger stole the constituency of Wavertree in February depriving the voters who elected a Labour MP of the representation for which they voted. She stole the seat from Labour, she stole votes from Labour voters and she is stealing a parliamentary salary.
With a general election looming later this year she was selected as a Liberal Democrat candidate. But, not in Wavertree. Even though she declared that voters in Wavertree supported her two decisions to switch parties she decided not to try to be re-elected there. Her behaviour displayed utter contempt for democracy, for parliament and for voters.
Spoiler candidate for marginal seats Luciana Berger was selected as the Liberal Democrat candidate for the Finchley and Golders Green constituency for the next general election. It is a marginal seat but it is a Tory/Labour marginal seat. In 2017 general election Mike Freer won with a 1657 majority over Labour. Liberal Democrats were a distant third and are extremely unlikely to win in an election this year. So, why was Berger chosen as the candidate for a seat she will almost certainly not win?
The Liberal Democrat plan for the next general election, aside from holding their current (elected) seats and trying to win Tory/LibDem marginals, will be to receive enough votes in Tory/Labour marginals to ensure that Labour lose to the Tories in each such seat. The second phase of the plan will be to form another coalition with the Tories.
Berger was selected as a spoiler candidate in a Tory/Labour marginal because she is relatively well-known, has easy access to compliant media and demonstrated her willingness to eschew principle and integrity.
Her final act as a politician in the next general election will be to help the Tories hold the Finchley and Golders Green constituency. That will be the final part of her interview for post-politics income.
Who’s using whom? Is the Liberal Democrat party using Berger or is she using them? Both are using each other, happily and with full knowledge of the other’s intent. Lib Dems will dutifully help their friends in the Tory party to cling onto or win Tory/Labour marginal seats and Berger will show further how committed she is to blocking socialism to impress potential employers.
As ever, the voters are being used without consent or gain.
Today, Geoffrey Cox, the Tories’ Attorney General, delivered an absurd performance in the House of Commons in response to an Urgent Question on the Supreme Court’s decision to cancel the government’s prorogation of parliament. Cox took the question because he had given advice to Boris Johnson that the prorogation would be lawful.
Cox was unapologetic about his (alleged) legal advice to the Prime Minister that was rejected as unlawful unanimously by the Supreme Court. He admitted no guilt and he offered no explanation. Caught out as incompetent, dishonest and wholly unfit to occupy the role of Attorney General, he ignored the Urgent Question and adopted the usual strategy of an exposed criminal by launching a fake attack on his opponents as a ruse to shift attention.
Cox’s vitriol at opposition parties and some ex-members of the Tory party, who had had the whip removed by Boris Johnson after they voted against the government, focussed on the fact they had declined to agree to a general election. Cox was aware that the reason the election call was rejected was because, rightly, opposition parties do not trust the Tories to not sneak through a no deal Brexit after an election had been called. He pretended to not be aware of that fact.
“They could agree to a motion to allow this House to dissolve, but they are too cowardly.” “This spineless gang on the [opposition] frontbench.” “Denying the electorate the chance of having its say this Parliament is a dead Parliament. It has no moral right to sit on these green benches.”
It is beyond doubt that the sole reason Johnson tried to call an election was to enable a sneaky, underhand, cowardly no deal departure after parliament was dissolved ahead of the election. This Tory government will try anything regardless of legality or fairness to attain a cliff-fall no deal Brexit because its donors would be among the few who would benefit hugely while the vast majority of people would have their lives affected negatively.
As a performance, Cox’s behaviour and comments were not for the House of Commons; they were for Brexiteers beyond parliament. He was rabble-rousing a mob, deliberately stupidly and deliberately dishonestly.
Cox gave illegal advice to Boris Johnson. He, Johnson and their gang were exposed as having behaved unlawfully by the Supreme Court. Cornered like a rat, Cox’s response was a deluge of conmanship and cowardice. He is unfit. He should be disbarred.
Tory conference starts on Saturday (Sept. 28th) in Manchester. Its speakers will splurge forth a torrent of lies, misdirection and confidence tricks. Below are a few obvious lies that will be ejaculated and their respective translations and corrections.
LIE: “We will spend a lot of money on education.”
Some already assigned funds will be re-assigned and declared as new funds
A lot of public money will be handed to free schools and academies; it will be siphoned off by the schools’ owners many of whom are Tory donors
LIE: “We will spend a lot of money on the NHS.”
Some already assigned funds will be re-assigned and declared as new funds.
A lot of public money will be handed to privateers posing as healthcare providers; a small percentage of the money will be spent on healthcare
New costs for users of the NHS will spring up everywhere
LIE: “We will fund nursing with a grant for extra training in order to increase the number of nurses.”
TRUTH: Said grant is a tiny fraction of the nursing bursaries removed by the Tories that led to a huge drop in the number of people training to be a nurse.
LIE: “We will build forty new hospitals.”
Six hospitals will have some refurbishment and the costs will be met from existing budget
Almost all of the hospitals are in Tory constituencies or in marginal constituencies
LIE: “Conservative Party created the NHS.”
TRUTH: Labour Party created the NHS. Tory MPs voted against its creation.
LIE: “We will reduce taxation for everyone.”
Inheritance tax will be abolished to benefit the wealthiest
Council tax will rise high above inflation
LIE: “We will hire twenty thousand new police officers.”
Since 2010 twenty thousand police officers have been lost due to Tory cutbacks
It takes several years to train a police officer
The Tories will use under-trained and under-paid security staff and claim they are police officers
Hundreds of police stations were closed by Tories and handed cheaply to property developers
LIE: “Universal Credit helps people into work.”
Universal Credit was designed to cause destitution, debt, homelessness and death as part of Tories’ Social Murder policy
People with severe disabilities and people with chronic illnesses, including people with fatal illnesses, will continue to be forced to be available for work they cannot do and then left to starve
LIE: “We will raise the Living Wage.”
It is the Minimum Wage relabelled as the Living Wage
The rise does not take inflation (or Brexit) into account
Employers are able to bypass the minimum amount and pay less without consequences
It is an hourly rate and includes no guarantee of hours of work
The Tories stated the rise will occur “provided economic conditions allow.”
LIE: “We will support the men and women of the armed forces.”
TRUTH: Military veterans with disabilities (physical or mental) caused by military conflict will continue to be left to die on the street.
LIE: “We will promote social mobility.”
TRUTH: Costs of higher education and interest rates for student debts will continue to rise.
LIE: “There is no place in this country for animal cruelty..”
Fox-hunting is supported by the Tories
Badger-culling will continue for no scientific reason
No deal Brexit would mean removal of legislation that protects live animals
LIE: “We will give billions in aid to developing countries to help tackle climate change.”
Some already assigned aid will be re-assigned and declared as new aid
Aid will be accompanied by political restrictions imposed on recipient countries including commitment to adhere to particular policies
Most of the money will be redirected back to businesses outside the recipient countries
The intent of the aid policy will be to blame developing countries for climate change
LIE: “No deal Brexit is an opportunity to establish new trading links with the whole world for the benefit of everyone.”
No deal Brexit will benefit a tiny elite of wealthy people via disaster capitalism, market gambling and giveaway of public service infrastructure
Public services will deteriorate rapidly and public spaces will disappear
Britain will become a tax haven for the wealthiest and everyone else will rent their lives
LIE: “We believe in upholding the law.”
TRUTH: The Tory government will break the law whenever it wants to.
For more lies please check the twitter account of Tory chairman James Cleverly (above).
Yesterday (September 22nd) former Labour MP and current democracy thief Ian Austin was spotted hovering, loitering and lurking outside the Labour party conference in Brighton. His presence caused some passing interest, accompanied by laughter. The reason for his behaviour was explained when Mainstream announced it had launched itself “at the start of the Labour Party conference in Brighton.”
Extremism versus respectable politics Mainstream intends to “banish extremism from British politics once and for all” and “encourage a return to respectable and responsible politics.”
“Mainstream will focus on combating all forms of extremism in public life” but its literature has no specific mention of right-wing extremism. It discusses only left-wing “extremism” and, further, only left-wing views that are not extreme.
“Labour Party members want to sack the Queen, abolish Britain’s borders and nuclear deterrent and support a general strike to bring down the government. They also blame Britain, rather than the IRA, for terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland and dislike the national anthem, according to a poll that reveals the prevalence of extremist views in Labour’s ranks.” – Labour members
“Marxist zealots have seized control at every level since Jeremy Corbyn became leader and are poisoning the debate with their hardline views.” –Doing a Hard Left
Both quotes above were from Mainstream articles that were based on articles in Murdoch newspapers.
“[Mainstream] will highlight how public debate has been poisoned by increasingly hard-line views out of touch with mainstream public opinion” but its vision of “mainstream politics” is one where like-minded conservatives (small ‘c’) indulge in fake battles like the good old days of Cameron versus Blair versus Clegg.
“Disagreement was always possible, but within the realms of respectful and responsible debate. It felt as if we shared the same mainstream patriotic outlook, even if we disagreed with each other on the best way to achieve a better society and a more prosperous economy.” – About Mainstream
Mainstream promotes the absence of politics. It wants technocratic government with no disapproval or dissent. It is very conservative. Its intent is to stop socialism.
Mainstream voices The wall of stupid at Mainstream is an unsurprising collection.
Ian Austin stole a parliamentary seat from Labour and stole votes from Labour voters when he left Labourin February but refused to call a by-election. His daily peremptory attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and his colleagues are notoriously petulant.
Ivan Lewis left Labour last year prior to an internal party investigation into his behaviour but he did not call a by-election.
Mike Gapes and Ann Coffey left Labour in February and joined Independent Group, later Change UK. Neither called a by-election.
All four former Labour MPs above are democracy thieves. They stole parliamentary seats, they stole voters’ votes and their theft continues. Their opposition to and avoidance of democracy contradicts Mainstream’s support for a Britain that “has long had a strong democracy.”
Eric Pickles and Norman Lamb were members of the Tory/Lib Dem coalition government that started the destruction of society that continues today.
Former Labour MP Michael McCann is director of Israel-Britain Alliance, a political organisation that promotes the opinion of the Israeli government. This sarcastic comment revealed his perspective clearly: McCann sarcasm
Also included are rabbi Jonathan Hughes, actress Maureen Lipman and light entertainment side-kick Rachel Riley.
Comments from the ten named members were blandly on point and screamed hypocrisy.
“I view the emergence of Mainstream as a breath of fresh air.” – Coffey (who now, presumably, does not feel Change UK smells so nice)
“Those of us with the good fortune to live in a democracy have an obligation to call out extremism” – Gapes (who doesn’t practice the democracy he claims to support)
“I am proud to join a cause bringing civility and decency back into the political discourse.” – Lewis (who dodged a Labour party investigation into alleged indecent behaviour)
“[I] saw firsthand both extremism and radical ideas overtake one of world’s great political parties.” – McCann (He meant socialism.)
“It is most refreshing to see a new organization whose aim is to come together on consensus based ideas that connect people across the political spectrum.” – Lamb (who was an MP in a party whose campaign promises in 2010 were binned after the election and it did whatever the Tories asked for)
“Mainstream is precisely the type of movement we need to push back on this [antisemitism], and other, disturbing trends” – Pickles (who was an minister in two governments that used division and prejudice as political tools)
“Who would have thought we’d be seeing extremism and racism in politics in this day and age?” – Austin (who accepted a job as trade envoy to work for Tory government that actively promotes division, xenophobia and prejudice)
“Now is the time for decent people to stand up and fight back [against racism]” – Riley (whose method of fighting is to be abusive on social media toward non-racists followed by attempts to sue anyone who objected to her behaviour)
Mainstream announced its formation in The Sun newspaper. The Sun, during Murdoch’s ownership, has relentlessly promoted, encouraged and used racism, xenophobia and bigotry but Mainstream had no problem being associated with that because it is wholly insincere about its aims of tackling extremism and racism. Hypocrisy is the key component of Mainstream’s propaganda.
De-evolution from Change UK to Mainstream Change UK’s false mantra was a home for the “politically homeless.” It positioned itself as a new type of party and advanced from current politics. It pretended to be a party for evolved future of politics. Mainstream is a movement of false nostalgia. It pretends to pine for an imaginary political theatre where everyone was nice, honest and decent.
The retreat from the future to the past was inevitable. Without vision, invented history is the next comfort blanket to reach for.
Mainstream is an anti-socialist cadre of loud-mouthed nasty ignorant dishonest charlatans who think they found a gap in the talking head market for their incoherent vitriol. Its target is the leftward tendency of Labour. Its tactics are relentless lies, misrepresentation and provocative libel including continuous false accusations of antisemitism.
The Mainstream mob’s language, phraseology and political descriptions are melodramatic and childlike. It is difficult to be sure who is the intended audience for its propaganda given how absurd and daft it is.