As Glasgow’s Daily Record put it: “Cameron had no good answers and looked like a PM finally being held to account for the all damage his policies are doing. It really was an absolutely terrible day at the office for David Cameron. And quite possibly the day when Tories started taking Jeremy Corbyn seriously”.
As even the right-wing press salutes Jeremy Corbyn’s questions in Wednesday’s PMQs, two of the Telegraph’s journalists – hopefully their worst – pounce.
- One is Dan Hodges, who describes himself as a ‘tribal neo-Blairite’.
Dan has been a parliamentary researcher, a Labour Party official, GMB official, and as director of communications for Transport for London under Ken Livingstone. He left the party in 2013 after the government lost a crucial vote in the House of Commons which was designed to pave the way for a military intervention in Syria. Nice guy.
He writes: “The Lords are in open revolt. Caesar has been brought low. Or George Osborne, who has a haircut remarkably similar to Caesar’s, has been brought low. The barbarians are at the gates. Jeremy Corbyn has finally had a decent PMQs, using the tax credits issue to back David Cameron into a corner”.
He later refers to “Jeremy Corbyn’s besting of David Cameron at PMQs”
Reading around one gathers his attempted ‘downing’ of Osborne and Cameron is due to his support for Boris Johnson, first shown when he voted for him in the London Mayoral elections.
- The other is Angela Epstein, a columnist for the Jewish Chronicle and some right-wing British publications
Under the title, ‘Jeremy Corbyn is too thick to be Prime Minister’, she focusses on his exam results and lack of what she calls ‘natural talent’. It appears that she is a person whose disapproval amounts to an accolade. Read this devastating analysis of her mindset by Kate Smurthwaite, comedian.
Attacks by such people only highlight Corbyn’s decency and the popular welcome for the Labour Party’s policies for building a fairer society and redeeming Britain’s besmirched international reputation.
Compare Jeremy Corbyn’s record with that of the many ‘highly educated’ psychopaths in and out of power. They have successfully connived at the deaths and destruction in so many countries of late – whilst increasing their fortunes by their alliance with subsidised arms traders, multinationals who have taken over most of Britain’s energy, health, water, financial, communications and transport services and those who periodically attempt to make the struggling taxpayer accept mass medication (fluoride, statins, the polypill) GM technology, nuclear power stations, polluting incinerators and fracking – totally disregarding the welfare of the 99%.
David Edwards of Media Lens responds to a Guardian article by Polly Toynbee in which she suggests that voting for Jeremy Corbyn would amount to a ‘betrayal’ of the electorate by quoting Ian Sinclair’s argument that in fact it is Toynbee, not Corbyn, who is out of touch with public opinion.
Sinclair noted that Corbyn supports a publicly run NHS, a position supported by 84 per cent of the public, according to a November 2013 YouGov poll. In addition:
- ‘He supports the nationalisation of the railways, a position backed by 66 percent of the public, including a majority of Conservative voters, according to the same poll.
- ‘He supports the nationalisation of the energy companies, a position supported by 68 percent of the public, including a majority of Conservative voters, according to the same poll.
- ‘He believes the Royal Mail should be publicly owned, a position supported by 67 percent of the public, according to the same poll.
- ‘He supports rent controls, a position supported by 60% of the public, including 42% of Conservatives, according to an April 2015 YouGov poll.
- ‘He opposes the retention of Trident nuclear weapons, a position John Curtice, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, notes is supported by a “smallish plurality” in “the majority of polls”.
- ‘He strongly opposed the 2003 Iraq War, which was also opposed by the more than one million people who marched through London on 15 February 2003.
- ‘He has long pushed for the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan, a position favoured by 82 per cent of the public, according to a May 2014 YouGov poll.’
Thus: ‘Corbyn’s key political positions are in actual fact supported by a majority of the British public.’
Edwards ends: “Like Blair and the rest of the establishment, the Guardian and other corporate media claim their motivation is to preserve Labour’s electability, rather than to attack any and all politics that stray off the ‘centrist’, ‘modernising’ path.
“In reality, it could hardly be more obvious that this collection of profit-seeking, corporate enterprises – grandly and laughably proclaiming themselves ‘the free press’ – is opposing a threat to their private and class interests”.
In a recent blog, Jonathon Porritt opened: “I’m always rather heartened by the fact that the Prime Minister takes his holidays in Cornwall – for the simple reason that at least once a year he gets to see wind turbines in action, happily churning around (as they do most of the time in Cornwall) . . . But I wish these holidays would simultaneously stiffen his somewhat flaccid sinews in terms of sorting out the mess that is this country’s energy policy. Not just on wind, and other renewables, but on nuclear, fracked gas, energy efficiency, prices, regulation etc etc etc”.
In July 150 ‘solar champions’ wrote to the Prime Minister in support of an appeal from the Solar Trade Association to stop disadvantaging this country’s amazingly resilient solar industry. He replied that large-scale solar PV, under the Renewables Obligation, is deploying much faster than previously expected and can’t be allowed to go on because of the impact on consumer bills.
Is this a sick joke?
Jonathon, one of the 150, points out the glaring inconsistency of such a reply from a Prime Minister who has personally authorised the allocation of vast sums of public money to build the most expensive power stations in the world at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
Mr Cameron: solar and wind are not ‘niche’ interests in Germany
He continues, “the PM’s letter arrived on the very same day that the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany published a new report showing that Germany generated 31% of its electricity from renewable energy sources throughout the first six months of 2014:
- The country’s solar power plants increased total production by 28%
- and wind by 19% compared with the same period in 2013.
- Consumption of coal was down 4%,
- nuclear down 2%,
- and natural gas down 25%.
“Meanwhile, as Germany so powerfully demonstrates, if keep on consistently ramping up investment in wind, solar and biomass (all of which get cheaper every year, and require less and less government support as a result), you get greater energy security, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and (in due course) an excellent deal for the consumer . . . “.
Jonathon Porritt also asks why nuclear energy companies aren’t being required to compete in the same game, if the government is so keen on cost-effectiveness:
“Why are they not required to put in their bids against solar, wind, biomass, other renewables and energy from waste?”
Read on for his answer, for news of the ‘Contracts for Difference’ which will replace the outgoing Renewables Obligation and for a reference to Cameron’s ‘madcap fracking fantasy’. He ends:
“Come, on, David. See those wind turbines for what they really are next time you’re down in Cornwall. It’s nuclear that’s the niche, not renewables”.