Category Archives: Unemployment

Media 71: Peter Burgess tells the truth and pulls no punches

jeremy-corbyn-2Much of the media is taking its usual stance referring to Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘handlers’ as though he were a pit bull terrier. The Times has determined that he was making a bid to relaunch his leadership which has been derailed and Jim Pickard in the FT, author of many hostile articles, focusses on pay caps but not pay ratios.

It is good to turn to sane and rightminded commentators such as Peter Burgess (Times comments) and Maisie Carter (recent article). Peter spells out the Corbyn message with absolute clarity and rather more bluntly than JC:

  • It is very clear he wants top execs pay to reflect that of the lowest paid worker for them to earn more and not rely on tax payers to boost their salaries and for the top execs to earn a decent salary but nor one that is obscene (sadly so many Tories want to see the poor get poorer and the rich richer).
  • He also wants to ensure that we continue to bring in workers when needed but ensure they don’t depress wages for British workers.
  • Of course those at the top getting obscene salaries want to disgrace Corbyn because the last thing they want is for their salaries to fall under £500,000 a year.
  • There’s big and there’s obscene especially when they are telling others to tighten their belts, can’t afford to pay you more then handing themselves 7 and 8 figure salaries and bonuses.
  • What shows double standards are all those commenting on here who think salaries of over £100,000 a year are too much if somebody is running the NHS, a local authority or running a Union.
  • I do find it difficult to understand how anybody can find the policies which have allowed so many workers to have their wages and working conditions deteriorate whilst CEO’s are paying themselves up to 700x the salary of their employees as being fair and something they’d support.
  • I would add that labour to their shame played an important part in allowing these obscene differentials since Maggie was in office. Some of them thought £500,000 a year for them and their friends was not enough.
  • Yes Corbyn needs to keep shaming all those, including some labour MP’s who’ve happily supported the policy of “austerity” that have hit the poorest whilst allowing the richest to continue to get richer.
  • I’d support a return to the differentials back in the days of Maggie. Top execs back then were hardly struggling. 20x / 30x acceptable 700x isn’t!

Endnote: Maisie Carter’s appeal

“Unite around Jeremy Corbyn’s ten point programme, which proposes the building of one million homes in five years, a free national education service, a secure, publicly provided NHS, with an end to health privatisation, full employment, an end to zero hours contracts, security at work, action to secure an equal society, a progressive tax system, shrink the gap between highest and lowest paid; aim to put conflict resolution and human rights at the heart of foreign policy.  On the last point, as the wars waged or aided by the West are the cause of mass immigration, we must step up foreign aid and instead of spending £37bn a year on foreign wars as our government does, invest in helping to rebuild these war torn countries”.

Read Maisie’s article in full here.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Jeremy Corbyn: The PM’s most influential adviser on the political economy

On 14th July a Moseley reader emailed to say “Theresa May’s speech yesterday sounded more left wing than your mate JC!”

theresa May

My reply was a one year snapshot of her actions in office which belied this humanitarian stance, published earlier on this site:

  • In 2010 she suspended the registration scheme for carers of children and vulnerable people.
  • On 4 August 2010 it was reported that May was scrapping the former Labour Government’s proposed “go orders” scheme to protect women from domestic violence by banning abusers from the victim’s home.
  • This was followed on 6 August 2010 by the closure of the previous Government’s “ContactPoint” database of 11 million under-18-year olds designed to protect children in the wake of the Victoria Climbiéchild abuse scandal.

“Rewarding hard-working people with higher wages”.

This is another of Ms May’s Corbyn-like soundbites made shortly after Corbyn’s description of what he saw as the difference between the  Conservative and Labour offerings, in the form of a question:

bbc kuenssberg 1 

“Do you want to be bargain-basement Britain on the edge of Europe, cutting corporate taxation, having very low wages, having grotesque inequalities of wealth? Or do you want to be a high-wage, high-investment economy that actually does provide decent chances and opportunities for all?”

We read that Theresa May has launched a cabinet committee on the economy and industrial strategy, which she is to chair; it will bring together the heads of more than ten departments and focus on “rewarding hard-working people with higher wages”.

Is Corbyn the most powerful, though least acknowledged of Theresa May’s advisers on the political economy?

If only she would heed him on nuclear and foreign policy issues.

 

 

 

Is the only response a progressive alliance?

With thanks to the reader working in Uganda who sent this link from which we give extracts:

Peter Hitchens writes:

peter hitchensIt will be good for Britain if Jeremy Corbyn wins his fight to stay as leader of the Labour Party. I agree with the late Queen Mother that the best political arrangement for this country is a good old-fashioned conservative government kept on its toes by a strong Labour Opposition.

There’s no sign of a good old-fashioned conservative government. But Mr Corbyn speaks for a lot of people who feel left out of the recovery we are supposed to be having, and they need a powerful voice in Parliament.

There is nothing good (or conservative) about low wages, insecure jobs and a mad housing market which offers nothing but cramped rooms and high rents to young families just when they need space, proper houses with gardens, and security.

I wish the voiceless millions of conservative patriots had a spokesman as clear and resolute as Mr Corbyn is for his side.

globalisation imagesThe truth is that both major parties have been taken over by the same cult, the Clinton-Blair fantasy that globalism, open borders and mass immigration will save the great nations of the West.

It hasn’t worked. In the USA it has failed so badly that the infuriated, scorned, impoverished voters of Middle America are on the point of electing a fake-conservative yahoo businessman as President.

So far we have been gentler with our complacent elite, perhaps too gentle. Our referendum majority for leaving the EU was a deep protest against many things. But it did not actually throw hundreds of useless MPs out on their ears, as needs to be done. They are all still there, drawing their pay and expenses . . .

If Mr Corbyn wins, our existing party system will begin to totter. The Labour Party must split between old-fashioned radicals like him, and complacent smoothies from the Blair age.

And since Labour MPs have far more in common with Mrs May than with Mr Corbyn, there is only one direction they can take. They will have to snuggle up beside her absurdly misnamed Conservative Party. And so at last the British public will see clearly revealed the truth they have long avoided – that the two main parties are joined in an alliance against them.

And they may grasp that their only response is to form an alliance against the two big parties. Impossible? Look how quickly this happened in Scotland.

greenhouse header

Is such an alliance gathering now? See http://greenhousethinktank.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/3/2/48324387/green_house_progressive_alliance_july_2016.pdf

 

 

 

American blue collar workers are angry (The Times); Martin Wolf adds a growing and widespread sense that ‘elites are corrupt, complacent and incompetent’

pinn blue collar workers

Today the Times interprets unusual polling results in the United States. Like many American media commentators, it predicts that “blue-collar workers who are worried about the effects of globalisation on American jobs promise to shape the November election”.

In the Financial Times, analyst/economist Martin Wolf expresses a belief that the ‘native working class’ are seduced by the siren song of politicians who combine the nativism of the hard right, the statism of the hard left and the authoritarianism of both.

’A plague on both your houses’?

He writes: “The projects of the rightwing elite have long been low marginal tax rates, liberal immigration, globalisation, curbs on costly “entitlement programmes”, deregulated labour markets and maximisation of shareholder value. The projects of the leftwing elite have been liberal immigration (again), multiculturalism, secularism, diversity, choice on abortion, and racial and gender equality . . . As a recent OECD note points out, inequality has risen substantially in most of its members in recent decades. The top 1% have enjoyed particularly large increases in shares of total pre-tax in­come”.

pinn church v state moral missionDavid Cameron responds to church leaders’ attacks by saying that the reforms are part of a moral mission

Wolf continues: “In the process, elites have become detached from domestic loyalties and concerns, forming instead a global super-elite. It is not hard to see why ordinary people, notably native-born men, are alienated. They are losers, at least relatively; they do not share equally in the gains. They feel used and abused. After the financial crisis and slow recovery in standards of living, they see elites as incompetent and predatory. The surprise is not that many are angry but that so many are not”.

Wolf sees the electorate turning to ‘outsiders’ to clean up the system in Britain, the US and many European countries and advises ‘the centre’ how to respond:

  • People need to feel their concerns will be taken into account, that they and their children enjoy the prospect of a better life and that they will continue to have a measure of economic security.
  • They need once again to trust the competence and decency of economic and political elites.
  • There must be a fundamental questioning of its austerity-oriented macroeconomic doctrines: real aggregate demand is substantially lower than in early 2008.
  • The financial sector needs to be curbed. It is ever clearer that the vast expansion of financial activity has not brought commensurate improvements in economic performance. But it has facilitated an immense transfer of wealth.
  • Taxation must be made fairer. Owners of capital, the most successful managers of capital and some dominant companies enjoy remarkably lightly taxed gains.
  • The doctrine of shareholder primacy needs to be challenged. With their risks capped, their control rights should be practically curbed in favour of those more exposed to the risks in the company, such as long-serving employees.
  • And, finally, the role of money in politics needs to be securely contained.

Wolf concludes pragmatically: “western polities are subject to increasing stresses. Large numbers of the people feel disrespected and dispossessed. This can no longer be ignored”.

Self interest rules OK! The threat to the status quo is paramount – the ethical dimension totally ignored.

Sanders and Corbyn: sounds familiar. Next?

99%-3

In Canada, Britain, Greece, Italy and Spain, ‘a sense of revulsion at the political elite’ is leading a popular vote for those seen as trustworthy candidates, who care for the 99%.

In the New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary, Senator Bernie Sanders has gained 60% of the vote, compared with Hillary Clinton’s 38%. As noted earlier on this site, Sanders has a Corbyn-like appeal for younger voters and is attracting far larger audiences than expected. He has assembled an online fundraising operation and ‘electrified’ the youth vote with promises of a “political revolution” that would bring Scandinavian-type policies to the US.

bernie 2 sandersThe Times reports that, in a speech to his supporters after the contest, Mr Sanders said the result marked a new era, adding: “What the people here have said is that given the enormous crises facing our country, it is just too late for the same old, same old establishment politics and establishment economics”. 

“A message that will echo from Wall Street to Washington”

Sanders’ message that that the government of our great country belongs to all of the people and not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors and their Super PACs [political action committees] and that the economy is rigged in favour of a “billionaire class” struck a chord among New Hampshire voters who did not trust Mrs Clinton and her ties to Wall Street, reference being made to the “1%”.

According to exit polls, income inequality and jobs – two central themes of the Sanders campaign – were the top issues for Democrat voters. More than half said they were dissatisfied with the current state of politics.  Just as people in Britian cared more about a candidate’s trustworthiness than about experience or electability, the same ranking of priorities has favoured Bernie Sanders.

Corbyn and Sanders offer the hope of peace and justice to a divided people, currently exploited by the wealthy 1%.

British values 2 – a trawl though our database

Following on the commentary on our British values encapsulated on Facebook, we found more extensive contributions about British values from six people:

1. Taken over by greedy merchants so that the rich benefit at the expense of the poor, as well as at the expense of the planet (endpiece from Christine Parkinson’s first book, 2002)

She continues “I mainly refer to the people who trade in all kinds of goods for their own benefit, regardless of the effect this has on the stability of the world, its ecosystems, its mineral and animal resources, its local economies and cultural traditions . . . the capture and international trade in rare species, ivory, fur, immature primates etc; the development of animal foodstuffs from animal carcases (creating cannibalism in ruminant species and diseases like BSE and CJD); the holding of developing countries to ransom by powerful banks, through exploitative usury; a similar use of oil (itself a dangerous pollutant) by oil-producing countries; the development of powerful, polluting and dangerous motor vehicles for their owner’s enjoyment; the development of genetically-modified foods for commercial purposes; the unnecessary transport of foods across continents, adding to the pollution and global warming; currency speculation – an international casino in which unscrupulous traders destroy the economies of whole nations; multi-national trading by powerful companies, which destroys local cultures and gains profits by avoiding national controls; the siting of polluting factories close to human populations. The list could go on….

The mantra of freedom and the market economy:

There is a belief in freedom – but freedom for its own sake, without responsibility, without compassion . . . “Politicians promote a market economy as if it were a good thing but I saw that it was at the root of the cycle of destruction. Left without controls, it leads to competition and materialism, acquisitiveness spreading like a cancer, greed, the exploitation of one group, nation, or species by another, the concomitant resentment triggering jealousy and wars, with the end result being the ultimate destruction of our beautiful world by selfish people. Rather than assessing needs to develop standards, values and strategies, the vagaries of the market determine priorities and direction, so that the rich benefit at the expense of the poor, as well as at the expense of the planet…..”

2. We comfortably accept gross inequality: says India’s Mari Marcel-Thekaekara (1999)

“We were hit by the reality of the poverty surrounding us in Glasgow: “Most of the men in Easterhouse hadn’t had a job in 20 years. They were dispirited, depressed, often alcoholic. Their self esteem had gone. Emotionally and mentally they were far worse off than the poor where we worked in India, even though the trappings of poverty were less stark. We’d fallen into the trap of looking at poverty only from the point of view of material benefits. The Easterhouse people looked better-off than the Asian poor, but in reality they suffered as much social deprivation. The Easterhouse men who’d been jobless for twenty years felt far more helpless than people in India who scrabbled in garbage heaps to sell scrap metal, paper and rags to feed their children. Both groups were at the bottom of society”.

3. We still see the lordly disdain and defensive disapproval of an upper and middle-class generation: prosperous without much effort: Libby Purves – The Times, Comment: 7.9.99 (no link available):

“Many of these good little 1950s boys and girls in Clarks sandals appear to have grown up into the very people who

  • get rich by feeding pornographic violence (“ironic” and otherwise) to modern children,
  • who created the step-parent and weekend~access culture,
  • who use compu­ter games and junk television as a babysitter
  • and who gaily abandoned both family meals and any, attempt to police their adolescents’ social lives.

“Moral decline” is intimately tied up with economic decline and blocked opportunities. The under-class culture of surly disaffection is mirrored by the lordly disdain and defensive disapproval of a middle-class generation that are prosperous without much effort. Harsh cries of “On your bike! To the job centre! Abort that baby immediately! Go to prison!” will not do the trick. It will take investment (but the Exchequer is awash with money, compared with recent decades). It will take infrastructure, understanding, doggedness. Unlike the cynics, I do not mind Mr Blair talking morality and vision and the big idea. I just long to see him do something about it”.

4. We are increasingly “politically correct, image-led, crony-run, promptly obsolescent, fragmented, pseudo-democratic, media-conscious, user-friendly corporately sponsored, celebrity-endorsed and of little consequence”: Graham Lane, Independent on Sunday: 16.1.00:

“The Dome is clearly the perfect metaphor for our age”: technology-driven, superficially educated, culturally hybrid (somewhere between shopping mall and theme park), designer-green, politically correct, image-led, crony-run, promptly obsolescent, fragmented, pseudo-democratic, media-conscious, user-friendly corporately sponsored, celebrity-endorsed and of little consequence”.

5. We have, in general, lost the principles of chivalry, self-restraint, service to others: Dr Peter Mullen

“A Spectator debate was held in 2007, the motion being “We should not be reluctant to assert the superiority of Western values”. “But what are these values?” asks Dr Peter Mullen (scroll down to his letter). His answer: “Lowbrow hedonism, sex & shopping, abortion on demand – in fact as a means of contraception, a lewd and trivial entertainments industry and a vile popular culture. What we are seeing is not a society that differs a morally serious challenge to militant Islam, but one which has lost its nerve and the principle of chivalry, self-restraint, service to others and examination of one’s own conscience”.

He asks: “Who does Whitehall serve?”

6. The political-corporate “buddy system”: an answer from the FT’s Elizabeth Rigby, 2011

“Vince Cable, business secretary, is to champion the interests of Britain’s oil and gas sector overseas as part of a push within government to boost the UK’s export market as well as attracting inward investment. Lord Green, the trade minister, has been working for months on plans to pair ministers with dozens of top companies in the UK, as he seeks to inject more commercial prowess into Whitehall. Under the scheme, unveiled in February, David Willetts, the universities and science minister, will be looking after life science companies such as GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and AstraZeneca. Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, will be working with the information and technology sector, while Mark Prisk, the enterprise minister, will be the point person in Whitehall for the car industry.

“The government first flagged that it would be pairing top exporters with ministers in February when Lord Green and Mr Cable unveiled a white paper aimed at enlarging Britain’s export markets. “Ministers will play an active role in developing and sustaining winning relationships with investors, as well as the UK’s top exporters,” said the UK Trade and Investment strategy paper. “These customers will be able to call on expertise and resources across government to ensure they receive a seamless ‘one-stop’ service”.

This “buddy system” is just one of a number of measures the government is putting in place to increase exports.

And only now, with the advent of Jeremy Corbyn, do we see any hope of a better future.

Goodbye British made steel: would a Corbyn-led government say “we can’t favour domestic production in the face of Chinese dumping”

british steel demo football match

The 99% don’t agree with this government policy

Why not favour British production? As festivities celebrating the visit of President Xi Jinping proceed apace, Richard Murphy’s Green Deal colleague, Colin Hines, describes the collapse of the steel industry as “A triple whammy forced on Europe by the Treaty of Rome’s open borders diktat”. He adds – in the Guardian:

The Magic Money Tree: there is a way out of this – and a funding source to finance it

  • The EU must be reformed by a “treaty of home”, allowing national economies to flourish via border controls to goods, money and people. The problems of protecting domestic sectors like steel could then be overcome.
  • Future mass migration could be limited once its causes are tackled; in the interim massive aid should be given to those countries hosting refugees.

David Cameron’s recent assertion: ‘let me tell you a plain truth: there isn’t a magic money tree’, is contradicted by Peter Spence in the Telegraph and Isabel Hardman in the Spectator:

cameron magoc money tree

“The Bank of England’s quantitative easing programme has created £375 billion of magic money, which keeps interest rates artificially low, thus engineering a recovery, or at least the illusion of one. But this sort of magic money tree is more at home in a Grimm’s fairy tale than a modern one where everyone is destined to live happily ever after. Because not everyone’s a winner under QE. If you’re rich and you’re able to borrow, then you’re laughing all the way to the bank as it boosts the value of assets and keeps debt cheap . . . But if you’re prudent – a saver, or a pensioner – then you see the opposite happen”.

And Positive Money points out that creating money is as easy as the flick of a pen and the clattering of some computer keys. While the UK’s “magic money tree” is currently controlled by the private banking system, the UK government is quite capable of altering this situation. All it requires is the political will to act.

Colin Hines recommends that next month, the ECB could instead print:

  • €20bn of “migrant QE” to help cope with the refugee crisis,
  • €20bn of “jubilee QE” to deal with the continent’s debt problems and secure the future of millions of future global warming migrants and
  • €20bn of “climate QE” put on the table at next month’s climate change conference in Paris.

*

As Scots rescue their shipyard the government merely says “Goodbye British made steel” and buys shares in foreign steelmakers.

Corbyn would do better: the banks have had more than their share: now for migrant, jubilee debt and climate QE.

PMQs: Lutz in the Birmingham Press got it right. Corbyn impressed

A recent article by Richard Lutz in the Birmingham Press opened: “The Prime Minister will have to have change his upper class bully boy tactics once he faces new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

As Lutz recounted: “PMQs is hardly polite. In fact, it is so red in tooth and claw that the Speaker had to recently warn baying Parliamentarians to calm down as some of the more demure MPs said it just wasn’t worth showing up any more . . . but with the chance to perform for TV, it has become more and more nasty, personal, vindictive and, ultimately, void of any real content”. He referred to Cameron: “braying personalised attacks at those sitting across the House from him”.

Watching PMQs today – recorded here.

jc magisterial pmq firstElderly readers of the Times who have been voicing concerns about his appearance will be reassured by the fact that he was wearing a tie – a concern which also seems to loom large in the mainstream press.

Corbyn, with considerable gravitas, opened – to Labour applause and opposition silence – by referring to the public’s perception that conduct in ‘this place’ is too theatrical and out of touch. He remembered welcoming Cameron’s 2005 promise to end the “Punch and Judy” politics of PMQs, sadly unfulfilled.

Over 40,000 people sent in questions for Mr Corbyn’s consideration. Of the 2500 on housing he selected Marie’s focus on the chronic lack of affordable housing and thanked the PM for his polite, “more adult” reply. We learnt that the government’s July order to cut rents in social housing by1% for the next four years has already led to 150 job cuts in a Stevenage housing association and will mean less money will be available to spend on maintenance and housing. Elsewhere we read that it will also reduce housebuilding by housing associations.

Paul’s question, conveyed by the new Labour leader, doubted the wisdom of taking £1000 from each of 3 million working families in April through family tax credit cuts, as these credits were essential to avoid reliance on food banks.  

A relatively minor level of shouting from Labour benches (by PMQ standards a murmur) was reproved by the prime minister as not being in keeping with the new style advocated by Corbyn.

Cameron answered that employment is at an ‘all time high’ and wages are rising, and referred to those who choose to live on welfare payments rather than work. Corbyn answered gravely that many people don’t have the choice. He then cited the findings of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that 8000 families would suffer a 26% loss.

Gail provided the next question, which opened with the dramatic statement that all accept that the mental health service is ‘on its knees’ and David Cameron appeared to agree. He said the parties should ’work together on this’ adding an oblique reference to the media fables about the Corbyn economic agenda: “there can be no strong NHS without a strong economy”.

The question from Angela, a mental health professional, referred to the lack of available beds which meant that patients were left without accommodation or moved far away from family and friends. Mr Cameron agreed: “We need to do more as a country; beds are important”, but then alleged that mental health issues are often not treated when patients go to their GP.

After fifteen minutes, Jeremy Corbyn’s questions ended and there was a change of tack, which could be described as indirect sniping – when questioners no longer had to face a Corbyn reply.

SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson says his party “looks forward to working with Jeremy Corbyn and against government austerity” adding “particularly on Trident” – but had to ask ‘What happened to the new PMQs?’ after Cameron asked him in a jeering manner if ‘the SNP is frit?’

Nigel Dodds (DUP) belligerently referred to shadow chancellor John McDonnell’s remark that we should “honour” IRA members who died in the armed struggle – a remark set in full context in a careful report of the proceedings in the Independent.

Conservative bloomer, surely?

Julian Knight stressed the importance of Britain having an independent nuclear deterrent – which actually does not exist, as many point out, Alex Thomson for one: our “independent” Trident missiles in reality come from Lockheed Martin in the US and are maintained by the US Navy. So we are being asked to spend around  £100bn to maintain and replace an “independent” nuclear strike capability – which does not exist. David Morrison adds: “If Britain doesn’t maintain friendly relations with the US, then it won’t have a functional nuclear weapons system, despite having spent billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money on it – because the US would simply cease providing Britain with serviceable Trident missiles”.

Other MPs questions followed, making references – probably planted to provoke – to increased defence spending, NATO membership, traditional values and the national anthem.

Lutz was right on target:

david cameron pmqCameron did ‘play it cool’, not going for ‘the teenage nastiness that has sadly stained the current level of PMQ debate in the last years’.

He did stick to answering questions, and for the time being he appeared to be “growing up”.

My neighbour said drily, ”Only another 25,000 questions to go.”

Devil’s advocate? Henry Chu pretends to be puzzled by the support for Jeremy Corbyn

henry chuWe are indebted to investigative journalist Felicity Arbuthnot for this link to a refreshingly lighthearted article in the Los Angeles Times by Henry Chu, born in Indianapolis, raised in Southern California, served as bureau chief in Beijing from 1998 to 2003, Rio de Janeiro from 2004 to 2005 and New Delhi from 2006 to 2008 before locating to London in 2009.

His subject is Jeremy Corbyn, an ‘unabashed’ left-winger, not quite sure why he could have needed to be ‘embarrassed, disconcerted, or ashamed’ of his eminently sensible and public-spirited policy proposals, but there it is.

Chu opens: “Jeremy Corbyn says ordinary workers didn’t cause the 2008 financial crisis but are paying for it through austerity cuts” but nevertheless finds that support for him “is surprisingly on the rise in British politics “ – surely cause and effect?

22-year old Aisling Gallagher, speaking at the Robin Hood demonstration pictured below, values the Islington North MP’s position against austerity – something other leadership candidates lack. “Governmental economic policies (ie cuts and “reforms”) have a hugely devastating impact on women and even more so on black women, migrant women, disabled women and so on”, she says.

robin hood style supporters

To those who once revelled in Robin Hood films, the comparison of this newly emerging hero with a legendary one is quite pleasing, and indeed Nottingham, where lives one of many gifted Corbyn allies – former Labour MP and environmentalist, Alan Simpson – already has much to be proud of, including:

  • its exemplary public transport system,
  • its coalfield regeneration,
  • and now its Robin Hood Energy Company, first council-taxpayer owned energy firm to operate on that basis since market was nationalised in 1948

Corbyn, for the common good

Jeremy Corbyn tells ‘hundreds of merry men and women’ – actually well over a thousand and merry/happy indeed – at the North Circus Street venue and the overflow in the courtyard behind Nottingham Playhouse , that the government needs to stop concentrating wealth in the hands of the have-a-lots and start investing in public services and welfare benefits for the have-nots. After all, he continues, single parents, nurses and other ordinary workers didn’t cause the 2008 financial crisis; bankers bent on “grotesque” profits did. Yet the rest of society is paying the price as the state slashes spending after doling out billions to rescue the banks.

Unelectable: scruffy, rumpled and non-telegenic?

casual corbyn

That’s debatable, one could instead describe his appearance as casual, relaxed and confident – decide for yourself. Chu describes Corbyn’s three rivals: “younger, slicker and, so far, fairly hopeless at firing up the public imagination” and their well-groomed youth is not of interest to Corbyn’s newly hopeful support base.

formal corbynAnd if so moved he will spruce up, wearing the totally pointless necktie and suit. See – and hear – the 2013 Oxford Union debate.

“He steps outside of the paradigm,” says Nottingham cafe owner Tres Gretton-Roche. “There’s something that feels very different. The whole thing that surrounded Blair was spin; there was something unreal about it. But what Jeremy Corbyn has is a real rhetoric, a real connection.”

Corbyn ‘clings to’ (Chu’s expression) – or rather is faithful to – causes such as nuclear disarmament. Would Chu value him more if he trimmed with the wind like most other politicians? I suspect not. He is also said to cling to a proposal to re-nationalise the country’s energy sector – for obvious reasons as the 99% are exploited and profits fly abroad.

Chu notes that Corbyn favours Britain’s withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – no so outlandish: several eminent commentators have said that NATO has outlived its purpose and exceeded its original mandate – see US army Lt. Col. Robert L. Bateman, Nick Witney, Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, formerly the European Defence Agency’s first Chief Executive and others. The thousands who protested at the NATO summit in Cardiff last year obviously agree.

Chu’s reference to Margaret Thatcher is a great cue for tomorrow’s post – a comparison of the two politicians, also lighthearted, which would indeed encourage Corbyn if he ever finds time to read it.

Are anti-Corbyn attacks prompted by politicians and their wealthy funders for religious or economic reasons?

As the Facebook blog  Jews4Jeremy is taken down without explanation, online articles with allegations of anti-semitism proliferate.

jews2 jeremy

The wealthy and their dependents – professing all religions or none – will fear the growing support for Corbyn’s socially valuable economic policies – some named in a blog based on a Birmingham Press article to be published here tomorrow:

  • a high tax economy for the wealthy,
  • re-nationalisation of the railways (by not renewing private sector franchises) and private utilities in the energy sector,
  • removal of all elements of privatisation from the NHS,
  • re-introduction of rent controls to reduce the amount the state pays to private landlords,
  • funding of infrastructure by quantitative easing,
  • a rebalancing of the economy away from a reliance on financial services to the manufacturing sector,
  • tightening of banking regulations (Osborne intends relaxing them further),
  • re-introduction of a 50% rate of income tax,
  • raising of corporation tax (currently at a historically low level) by 0.5%, as a means of paying for the abolition of tuition fees.

Such measures would reduce investor and rentier profits or even remove their sources, in the case of re-nationalisation.

jc text3

Do readers believe the denunciations of politicians with corporate allies, or the statement by Jeremy Corbyn?