Blog Archives

MSM fails to mention the crowds who turn out to hear Jeremy Corbyn

Below in Broxstowe last weekend


And young supporters are also not swayed by media, career-minded ‘independents’ and deputy leader


Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said:

“I’ve had a very interesting week in politics. I’m obviously very sad at some of the things that have happened and very sad at some of the things that have been said. Walking away from our movement achieves nothing. Not understanding where we have come from is a bad mistake.

“Because when people come together in a grouping, in a community like the Labour Party, there’s nothing we can’t achieve together for everybody . . .

“Labour, for me, is my life – and I’m very sad at people who have left our party. I really am. I say this to them: in June 2017, I was elected on a manifesto, Emily was elected on a manifesto, Richard was elected on a manifesto, Gloria was elected on a manifesto – it was the same manifesto . . . the Labour Party believes in equality and justice, that is what was the centre of our manifesto, and that will be at the centre of our next manifesto . . .

“When the media talk about the bravery of those who walked away, Anna Soubry voted for austerity and said it was a good thing. Almost immediately after leaving Chris Leslie tells us that we should not be ending university fees … and we should be cutting corporation tax and increasing the burden on others.

Mr Corbyn also addressed the anti-Semitism issues within the party, which MPs Luciana Berger and Joan Ryan both cited as they quit Labour this week:

“When people are racist to each other, then we oppose it in any way whatsoever. If anyone is racist towards anyone else in our party – wrong. Out of court, out of order, totally and absolutely unacceptable. Anti-Semitism is unacceptable in any form and in any way whatsoever, and anywhere in our society.”

He added: “I’m proud to lead a party that was the first ever to introduce race relations legislation and also to pass the equality act and the human rights act into the statute book.”





Agents who portray Jeremy Corbyn as unelectable: Plastic Hippo

Via the Brummie, Political Concern has discovered the Plastic Hippo’s list of agents who wish the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn to be seen as unelectable:

  • the five right-wing billionaires who own the printed press,
  • the small group of anonymous Tory strategists running the country,
  • the state broadcaster flirting dangerously close to charter compliance
  • and about 170 Labour MPs worried about future employment

plastic-hippoHippo presents evidence from two separate academic reports which have concluded that UK news outlets are blatantly biased against Jeremy Corbyn. A study by the London School of Economics found that three quarters of newspapers either ignore or distort Corbyn`s views and comments and act as an aggressive “attack dog” rather than a critical “watchdog”.

A second study by Birkbeck University and the Media Reform Coalition found “clear and consistent bias” against Corbyn in both broadcast and online news feeds with his opponents being allowed double the coverage than his supporters.


 Welcomed by socialist leaders in Brussels

The study described a “strong tendency” within the BBC for its reporters to use pejorative language to describe Corbyn and his chums with words such as hostile, hard core, left-wing, radical, revolutionary and Marxist.

Hippo adds: “With my very own ears I heard a senior BBC radio correspondent describe the Labour leadership election as “a battle between Marxists and moderates”. And the strange conclusion is:

“After a year of astonishing negativity, utterly preposterous smears, brutal personal attacks, nasty digs, front bench resignations and a vote of no confidence from Labour MPs who accuse unelectable Corbyn of disloyalty and fracturing the party, the bloke was re-elected as party leader increasing his share of the vote to 61.6 %.

“Unelectable? maybe not if the electorate actually has a full rather than half a brain”.

Read the Plastic Hippo’s article here:






Have serving MPs from the Cabinet of 2003 the moral right to represent their constituents following such poor judgement and its consequences?

An article on a Jamaican blog ends: “As we digest the contents and impact of Chilcot’s report, I am reminded of the late Brian Haw (1949-2011) who lived in front of the Houses of Parliament for almost 10 years protesting against the Iraq War”.


brian haw

The late Brian Haw

African Herbsman writes: “One of the sad aspects of the Chilcot report is that most of its contents was known at the time leading up to the Iraq War in 2003, through Whitehall & various media sources – e.g. Govt leaks, Private Eye magazine and documentaries made by Panorama and Dispatches”. He continues:

“That is why –  with the exception of the late Robin Cook – Tony Blair’s cabinet of 2002-3 must also shoulder blame for their support for the war. Former cabinet ministers such as Jack Straw, Jack Cunningham, David Blunkett, Margaret Beckett, Stephen Byers, Geoff Hoon and Deputy PM John Prescott are as culpable as Tony Blair”.

Now some of those ex-ministers are expressing various forms of denial, but the author is unrelenting: “Today, say they didn’t have all the facts or felt shut out by Tony Blair at the time. Yet these ministers voted to commit young men and women to an illegal war. Unforgivable”.

African Herbsman, who formerly worked in Whitehall continues:

“These cabinet and backbench Labour MPs voted for war only to boost their career prospects within the government. Gordon Brown was told bluntly that if he did not publicly support the war he would not succeed Tony Blair as PM.

“Today, almost 70 of those Labour MPs who voted in 2003 are still in the House of Commons.  Yet most of them have said little about Chilcot’s report or even apologised for their selfish act. The majority of whom are plotting the bring the current leader Jeremy Corbyn down via Angela Eagle – who voted for the war.

“Some Labour MPs did their devious best to block the setting up of the Chilcot Inquiry. Some tried restricting the Inquiry’s terms of reference and even delay the report’s release.

“Do any of those MPs have the moral right to represent their constituents following such poor judgement and its consequences?

“Friday morning 2 May 1997, was one of the happiest days to be in London. The sun was out and Labour had defeated John Major’s Tory government the night before. We couldn’t believe that for some of us we were witnessing a Labour government in our adult lives. But Tony Blair, his cabinet colleagues, his inner circle and pro-war backbench MPs just blew the goodwill they were given to make the UK a proud, honest and prosperous society”.



Read the article here:




Media 5: unaccountable USA group funds TV advertisements

Bruce Braley, a Democratic congressman from Iowa, has been an outspoken critic of corporations and believes in accountability.

For years he has supported and voted for the rights of shareholders/stockholders to ‘mandatory disclosure’ of the ‘scandalous levels of executive compensation or board compensation’ and  to  have a referendum on such issues.

He was seen as the front-runner in the approaching 2010 elections until, in August, a group called the American Future Fund decided to run advertisements against him.

AFF has spent $1.13m on other attacking advertisements in the Braley race, and more than $8m supporting Republican candidates in 19 other congressional races across the country.

Under US tax law such groups need not disclose information about its donors. Critics see the influx of cash as a threat to democracy, allowing special interests to inject limitless funds into national politics. 

PCU hopes that the British government, already beset by lobbyists and sponsors, will not follow suit. 

Read the main source article.

Media 4: USA – the interlocked military-media complex

A search was triggered by a sentence in an alert from Media Lens, featuring the work of Matthew Alford, author of ‘Reel Power: Hollywood Cinema and American Supremacy’ (Pluto Books, 2010). 

PCU focusses largely on domestic issues but because so many American films are shown in our cinema and on numerous TV channels their provenance is relevant. 

Alford explains that the Pentagon and CIA routinely offer advice, people and equipment to production sets and, in exchange, film-makers are obliged to toe their line; the US military subsidises pro-war films and points to direct links between companies making films and companies making weapons, through people who “simultaneously sit on the boards of major studios and defence contractors”.

This is PCU territory as governments fund the military, subsidising the arms industry and – to a far smaller extent – film production.

More information is given by the Centre for Research on Globalisation, a non-profit independent research and media organization based in Montreal. 

One of their reports relates to the penetration of the corporate media into US boardrooms: it says that there are 118 members on the boards of the ten big media giants, all of whom sit on the boards of 288 national and international corporations. Four of the top 10 media corporations share board director positions with the major defense contractors including: 

William Kennard: New York Times, Carlyle Group

Douglas Warner III, GE (NBC), Bechtel

John Bryson: Disney (ABC), Boeing

Alwyn Lewis: Disney (ABC), Halliburton

Douglas McCorkindale: Gannett, Lockheed-Martin. 

CRG quotes media critic and historian Norman Solomon’s description of the close financial and social links between the boards of large media-related corporations and Washington’s foreign-policy establishment: “One way or another, a military-industrial complex now extends to much of corporate media.” 

More information and analysis can be found by following the links given to the websites of Media Lens and the Centre for Research on Globalisation.

Lord Falconer: “We in Britain pride ourselves on playing by the rules. . . “

Has Lord Charles Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, been incommunicado for the last few months? 

In a recent Financial Times article – disregarding the lobbying and expenses scandals – his opening words were:  We in Britain pride ourselves on playing by the rules. . . “.  

Yes – by those rules which allowed him to suspend the inquest into Dr David Kelly’s death  and to limit freedom of information to prevent it from becoming “a research arm for the media “ 

A true heir of Blair – former flatmate and £10,000 a time speaker – he pontificates: “openness must have a purpose. Openness is not an absolute good in itself.” 

Wrong – as the Observer’s Henry Porter explained at the time: 

“The first point to make is that openness, the flow of information from government to the public, is a purpose in itself. The public has a right to know. That is now an absolute in a democracy. 

“If knowledge improves government performance, all well and good, but Lord Falconer has no business delineating where the benefits must accrue in order for the legislation to be regarded as working properly. 

“Because he has never faced election and relies for his position on the patronage of the Prime Minister, he does not perhaps fully grasp that government ministers are our servants and that openness is a duty, not a privilege to be selectively conferred at the pleasure of ministers and officials.”