Blog Archives

Murdoch Times warns of a ‘revolution’ – so always keep ahold of nurse for fear of finding something worse

Today in the Sunday Times leader, the un-named author/s summarised the results of the local elections before moving on to what they called “The real story of these elections . . . the journey towards self-destruction of a once-great political party, the Tories” – opening the way for a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn.

The Momentum myth

They described the ‘hard-left takeover’ of what until four years ago was a moderate, centre-left party continuing. “Should it succeed in taking Mr Corbyn and John McDonnell into Downing Street, the revolution would be complete”. Pictured, so-called ‘hard-left’ revolutionaries in our second city: stable, thoughtful, courteous, concerned.

The so-called progress that has enriched Britain’s 1% since the 1980s – they forecast – would be destroyed in several ways:

  • plans to renationalise the water industry without anything like full compensation for shareholders,
  • which could easily be the template for other parts of the economy,
  • the return of state control
  • and the re-unionisation of the workforce

It could easily happen:

“The Tories and Labour were tied on 31% each in Thursday’s elections. This would be enough, in our first-past-the-post system, to give the Tories 279 Commons seats and Labour 268. Mr Corbyn, under these circumstances, could form an alliance with the Scottish National Party to govern, a prospect that would not only guarantee a swathe of left-wing policies but would also bring the break-up of the United Kingdom much closer”.

And once the Brexit Party is added to the mix, with its capacity to damage the Tories in a general election as well as the forthcoming European elections, Labour’s chances would improve immeasurably. It might just win with a low share of the vote. The Tories would have brought this about, but the whole country would be the loser:

“Mr Corbyn can still win . . . Italy may be the ‘sick man of Europe’ for now, but under Labour that title would be up for grabs again”.

Ed: The 1% might well feel sick, but the 99% would benefit enormously from having a uniquely caring, corporate-free, incorruptible prime minister.

 

 

 

 

o

Corbyn for the 99%: Blair for the rest

99%-3

With Corbyn as prime minister, Britain could become respected peacebuilder, a force for good, with a contented population engaged in worthwhile work.

He would be an honest and consistent Labour Party leader, uninterested in amassing a private fortune from corporate backers – such a change from shifty, conniving ‘successful’ politicians.

The root cause of almost all our problems? Contemptible establishment arrogance

jehangir 2The late great journalist, Jehangir Pocha (right), wrote in an email: “Capitalistic and traditional societies are just not desirous of universal progress. This outright rejection of people by the wider berth of society is the root cause of almost all our problems. In India it is caste, and abroad it is class, isn’t it? !”

Felicity Arbuthnot also refers to this contemptuous rejection of the public interest by the 1% as voiced by Peter Jay, formerly Chief of Staff to Robert Maxwell.

“From today’s performance on BBC Wales, it’s clear that Peter Jay has now become very righteous and correct. He said that only ‘shits’ would want to publish the whole truth on the Bush-Blair correspondence that led to the Iraq War and the deaths of 179 UK soldiers. Is this how diplomats communicate? The loved ones of the fallen had no right to hear the whole truth, Jay explained. Protocol between the UK and USA was a higher priority. His is the authentic voice of yesterday’s contemptible establishment arrogance telling the lower orders ‘ Yours not to reason why. Yours, but to do and die.’”

tony blair foiBlair reneged on the Freedom of Information Act which, he initially said, would ‘signal a new relationship between government and people: a relationship which sees the public as legitimate stakeholders in the running of the country.’ Felicity continues:

“What a long time thirteen years is in politics and after an invasion or two. In his autobiography “A Journey”, published in 2010 he writes: “Freedom of Information Act. Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head ’til it drops off. You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it . . . Scandals will happen … The problem with FOI is that it can be used to expose them.”

She comments: “Scandals don’t get much bigger than embarking on an illegal war, destruction of the “Cradle of Civilisation”, manufactured on a pack of lies”.

foi cartoon


This contemptuous rejection of the public interest by the 1% is more widely perceived than ever before – how can these decision-makers be replaced, and by whom?

American & British ‘democracies’: fit only for the 1%

As concern rises over the latest London/Delhi revolving door revelations we turn to an article written by Edward Luce, Financial Times commentator and columnist based in Washington, which was given the headline: ‘America’s democracy is fit for the 1%’.

99%-3

In the grossly unequal British and American economies, where 1% own a large proportion of the national wealth, the 99% should also worry about their 1% democracy.

The article opened with ‘uncomfortable truth’: “Both US parties are up for rent, and patriots of all stripes should be troubled” and goes on to fear that the US Supreme Court is likely to remove post-Watergate limits on campaign finance.

Luce gave examples – one reproduced below:

 luce text

 Old and New World corrupted

Luce points out that America – forged in opposition to the aristocratic corruption of Europe – has more entrenched inherited wealth than in almost every corner of the old world: “so too are legacy places at Ivy League universities that were once such wellsprings of US meritocracy”.

Both David Cameron and Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to address this form of corruption, but – apart from minimal regulatory changes in both countries – inequality continues to grow and the lobbying/PR industry flourishes.

In effect, is ‘one person, one vote’ being replaced by ‘one dollar, one vote’ in both countries?