http://leftfootforward.org/images/2015/09/jeremycorbyn.jpg
"There is nothing so powerful as the idea that finds its moment."
23.8.2016: I think he's improved but some of the suggestions - like waiting for applause to subside before continuing and turning aims into more precise objectives - still apply I humbly suggest. Corbyn is first and foremost an evangelist for a better world and that is what has connected him to the overwhelming wish of his electorate. However utopias do not just appear and have to be sculpted from selfish human nature and corrupt institutions. And idealists may be short on pragmatism. Nor do good intentions necessarily result in improvement in the lot of the majority. However Corbyn scores on consistency, honesty and integrity, which at the moment trump all other attributes. If the people can see this, the fact that Labour MPs have failed to get behind him, and make up for whatever weaknesses he might or might not possess, speaks volumes as to what they really stand for.
10.7.2016: On the face of it - and I'm not a Labour Party member - Corbyn cannot lose if there's another leadership election. Too many members, of which there has been a remarkable surge since he became leader, would cast their vote for him again. But that is all predicated on there being an election. Remember the knives are out on BOTH sides of the Dispatch Box! The National Executive is currently meeting to decide on eligability and other factors that may be used to preclude Corbyn from standing. It appears he would first need 50 MP's to support him unless his existing leadership status is considered sufficient. This may prove difficult to achieve in the face of such Parliamentary opposition. If required to exclude him it would undoubtedly be considered a 'dirty trick' and lead to uproar in the constituencies, deselection and even a split by the time of the next election. If there were two Labour parties competing against each other, this would give the Conservatives a clear run in many safe Labour seats. This must have been all worked out by the strategists on all sides. You have to go back a long way to find a Parliament split so deeply in so many directions, potentially allowing the least popular group to be in charge of policy.
3.12.2015: The decision by Parliament last night was largely based on emotive descriptions of evil ISIS. It may be evil but no one was brave enough to ask the fundamental question of who created it, because if they did the fingers would point directly back to us and our friends and allies in the world. Nor would anyone point out the complicity of Israel in the whole mess or that we are essentially following their agenda. Nor would anyone broach the thorny issue of deception at the heart of government, prepared even to create terrorist events to get its foreign and domestic way. This is a pill too hard to face or admit by any politician but there are undeniable indicators the Paris was indeed such, as were the London tube bombings and the events of 9/11, that set the whole disastrous ball rolling. As a nation it seems we cannot face up to the truth - it is far too painful to be admitted - and therefore keep repeating the same mistakes and the evils we blame others of, who we claim, rather unconvincingly, to be fighting. This is indeed a re-run of 'Alice Through the Looking Glass' crossed with 'Sliding Doors'.
27.11.2015: What private, unpublicised scheme is Gove pursuing? We are all I think agreed that prison is a necessary evil that does little good, filled largely with the products of state institutions in one form or another. It is failure built on failure. A government bureaucracy may not be much good for prisoners but is there any evidence that unaccountable 'private enterprise' is better, for this appears to be Gove's hidden agenda, as with so much of Conservative dogma? The crass waste of money, state assets and resources by this government is simply astounding, only to be refunded later on but paid out to foreign entities. Billions wasted on Crime Commissioners, National Health reform, Free Schools, the railway network, the armed forces - mainly paid for by removing money from the poor. And still Osborne is no nearer his target of removing the deficit or reducing the Nation Debt, which like Topsy, just grows and grows. And what will happen when interest rates again begin to rise? It will bankrupt the nation, that's what! Now we have the 12 billion defence review and the 12 billion reduction in social spending - effectively all those things that go to make a civilized, well ordered society. Oh yes the Tories look good in their suits but the reality is they haven't got a clue what to do and have to fall back to bombing an already devastated region and bolstering a fearful spy-state to puff themselves up with colonial feathers. Corbyn and his team may be lacking statesmanship and intellectual rigour, but the reason they are supported by a sizeable proportion of the British public is because it is sick of the wrong priorities and all the deceit, intrigue and violence that has marked the last fifteen years at least. Britain wants different priorities and Corbyn has enunciated them. There is much room for disagreement but flogging off gaols and privatising them to make more cash for mates, whilst the causes of crime go unaddressed and prisoners rot and fester in them, is not one of them.
26.10.2015: I agree. A great assessment KarlNaylor75 . Philip Collins, a supporter of and speech-writer for, Blair, said in last Friday's Times, that 'Labour's new mantra is blame it all on the Americans.' I suppose that might help to get it off the hook for supporting its leader and the American led military invasion of two countries. But what you and he still fail to address is the issue of the central importance of the 9/11 attack on America that preceded it, without which it is inconceivable that either they or we would have gone to war. Thus the fact that the true nature of that event is still not acknowledged and the truth still suppressed both sides of the Atlantic, is the even bigger issue that must eventually be addressed if we are to fully understand the true and infamous nature of the deception to which the world has been subjected.
26.10.2015: I agree. A great assessment KarlNaylor75 . Philip Collins, a supporter of and speech-writer for, Blair, said in last Friday's Times, that 'Labour's new mantra is blame it all on the Americans.' I suppose that might help to get it off the hook for supporting its leader and the American led military invasion of two countries. But what you and he still fail to address is the issue of the central importance of the 9/11 attack on America that preceded it, without which it is inconceivable that either they or we would have gone to war. Thus the fact that the true nature of that event is still not acknowledged and the truth still suppressed both sides of the Atlantic, is the even bigger issue that must eventually be addressed if we are to fully understand the true and infamous nature of the deception to which the world has been subjected.
26.10.2015: Danczuk is a deeply enigmatic character. He probably made his name over the Cyril Smith allegations and was even recorded 'breaking down' in a radio interview about it. He apparently has profited personally from it without evidence that he has devoted any of the proceeds to those affected. This with his record on expenses some might think indicates a certain degree of insincerity or even hypocrisy. According to Wikipedia, Urban Visions Limited, of which he was the leading director, went into liquidation in June 2011, and was wound up owing £222,000 to creditors, including £113,000 to HM Revenue and Customs. He set it up with with Ruth Turner who went on to be Tony Blair’s director of government relations and the chair of his Faith Foundation. In the 2010 he unseated the sitting Liberal MP with a little over a thousand votes. The next year he initiated the prosecution of Chris Huhne with a complaint to Essex police. Two years later (2014) he contributed to the child abuse controversy by publishing with Matthew Baker, the book about Smith (also a Liberal MP) calling him "a predatory paedophile and a prolific offender who would target the most vulnerable boys." This he followed up by the accusation that Leon Brittan, the then Home Secretary, had 'lost' an MI5 file relating to child abuse. He got divorced from his first wife in 2010 and separated from his second in 2015 when he admitted he was suffering from 'depression' arising from his work. He is now involved in an alleged 'smear' spat with the ex-leader of Rochdale Council, Colin Lambert, who says he's going to sue. Entering his income from outside PR activities in the Members lists, slipped his mind apparently, all 125,000 of it. His current campaign to oust Jeremy Corbyn after unprecedented support from the party rank and file, and in the context of a much wider media and political attack, should be seen in this context. The term 'stalking horse' has been used. The question it raises is whether this is purely on his own initiative or whether trojan forces are actually behind it? Danczuk certainly appears to need all the help he can get at the moment.
1.10.2015: It is clear that a leader not prepared to press the nuclear button, must logically destroy its only purpose, the possibility of a retaliatory strike. Of course in the event of a nuclear attack on this country a foreign power would still need to factor in its war game scenario the possibility, that someone else might. We all now know that the thirty years (cold) war (as was its namesake) was based on a much exaggerated and irrational fear, competition and not a little self-blown interest by the American (primarily) 'military/industrial complex' to maintain manufacture of weapon systems following the boom years of the Second World War. As always happens, it is the population that has to bear the consequences, both financial and physical. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), is as its name suggests and as pacifists from Bertrand Russell onwards have attested, is proof of human irrationality. It ill behoves those who support it, to point the finger at Corbyn for highlighting its obsolescence now.
1.10.2015: 'The Eagle has landed'? (Shortly after to take off again!)
29.9.2015: Jeremy Corbyn’s conference speech – the verdict "Too long. Too rambling. Too naively well-intentioned. OK he's been on the back-benches but he has to get used to the front one and that requires more than listening to sixty million disparate voices. It requires personal clarity, focus and leadership. Rhetoric can be empty but it also needs to be mastered. He needs a good script writer and a crash course in public speaking. Specifically the text needs to be honed and sharpened. He had a few good jokes but they all came at the beginning of the speech. Without humour, a long speech becomes a diatribe, worthy or not. Like the secret of a good joke, timing is also important. He needs to allow applause when its given and not interrupt or talk over it. Like a pudding with too many ingredients, he needs to stop repeating and trying to incorporate everything. If he has a theme, and he has, it needs to be reflected in his words. The point is that public speech-making is more than a ramble around worthy aims. Utopias are easy to envisage but almost impossible to achieve and government is only part of the solution. To skate over all the entrenched powers and influences within the global context is to be unrealistic and disingenuous. So a speech is a work of art with structure, colour, meaning and emotional power. Corbyn's deserved a six or seven out of ten and a 'could do better'. I hope he does. The question is can Corbyn utilize others' talent in this area without sacrificing his authenticity and sincerity? If he can he will be a force to be reckoned with. If he can't, he may be remembered as merely Labour and Britain's 21st Century 'Savonarola', or perhaps more appropriately Ramsay MacDonald. Well intentioned and inspirational, but transitory and largely ineffective.
1.10.2015: It is clear that a leader not prepared to press the nuclear button, must logically destroy its only purpose, the possibility of a retaliatory strike. Of course in the event of a nuclear attack on this country a foreign power would still need to factor in its war game scenario the possibility, that someone else might. We all now know that the thirty years (cold) war (as was its namesake) was based on a much exaggerated and irrational fear, competition and not a little self-blown interest by the American (primarily) 'military/industrial complex' to maintain manufacture of weapon systems following the boom years of the Second World War. As always happens, it is the population that has to bear the consequences, both financial and physical. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), is as its name suggests and as pacifists from Bertrand Russell onwards have attested, is proof of human irrationality. It ill behoves those who support it, to point the finger at Corbyn for highlighting its obsolescence now.
1.10.2015: 'The Eagle has landed'? (Shortly after to take off again!)
29.9.2015: Jeremy Corbyn’s conference speech – the verdict "Too long. Too rambling. Too naively well-intentioned. OK he's been on the back-benches but he has to get used to the front one and that requires more than listening to sixty million disparate voices. It requires personal clarity, focus and leadership. Rhetoric can be empty but it also needs to be mastered. He needs a good script writer and a crash course in public speaking. Specifically the text needs to be honed and sharpened. He had a few good jokes but they all came at the beginning of the speech. Without humour, a long speech becomes a diatribe, worthy or not. Like the secret of a good joke, timing is also important. He needs to allow applause when its given and not interrupt or talk over it. Like a pudding with too many ingredients, he needs to stop repeating and trying to incorporate everything. If he has a theme, and he has, it needs to be reflected in his words. The point is that public speech-making is more than a ramble around worthy aims. Utopias are easy to envisage but almost impossible to achieve and government is only part of the solution. To skate over all the entrenched powers and influences within the global context is to be unrealistic and disingenuous. So a speech is a work of art with structure, colour, meaning and emotional power. Corbyn's deserved a six or seven out of ten and a 'could do better'. I hope he does. The question is can Corbyn utilize others' talent in this area without sacrificing his authenticity and sincerity? If he can he will be a force to be reckoned with. If he can't, he may be remembered as merely Labour and Britain's 21st Century 'Savonarola', or perhaps more appropriately Ramsay MacDonald. Well intentioned and inspirational, but transitory and largely ineffective.
27.9.2015: We keep hearing from the press Corbyn is 'unelectable' as PM. The polls tell a quite a different story - as did the quite unprecedented surge of public support at his hustings and in Labour Party membership. This is far more than a temporary aberration. It is a true reflection of a widely held antipathy and aversion to the philosophy and practice of Westminster politics, government and business elites, that is seen to have become introverted and self-serving. The deplorable approach of the media and coterie of past Labour leaders, only reinforces this view and makes the body of opinion that Corbyn at last speaks for, even more determined that this will not be a passing phase, and that the common good will again be asserted against the betterment of the few.
21.8.2015: One might have expected a 'coalition of the willing' to oppose Corbyn but the opposition from his own party, tells us something more. Set against against the almost messianic hustings response, that goes far beyond the traditional Labour voter and not witnessed since the barnstorming days of Lloyd George, it demonstrates the gulf that has emerged between leaders of the party and its membership. Corbyn's opponents emphasise the point. I am not generally in favour of apologies by politicians not responsible at the time, for things they cannot now change. In this sense they are just 'window dressing' and vacuous. However like all things symbolic, it may represent a change in emphasis and direction. It could be a cathartic, pivotal moment for both party and country. Whether symbolism will translate to anything tangible waits to be seen.
30.7.2015: People are crying out for an antidote to Blair, his public relation acolytes and reincarnations. Corbyn has been uniformly castigated by 'new labour' and 'right wing' types, which must speak in his favour. I, in common with many I suggest, know little about him, but in just one appearance in a recent Question Time he impressed and put the other panellists in the shade. He appeared refreshingly free of slogans and the image-maker's mark. They clearly thought he wasn't worth bothering about, although they are probably clustering now. I hope he has the sense to reject them and their dark arts. He spoke rationally, calmly and with an authority that offered at last, a promise of true opposition to the patently selfish money-only ideology of the present government. In fact it may indeed have been a glimmer of the idealism embedded in the original Labour pioneers, long since buried in the sediment of a corrupt international capitalism.
