Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Thursday, 4 August 2016

Corbyn, Crowds, And Reality

Here on Zelo Street, we try to give Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn a fair press. That means passing adverse comment on those who do nothing more than recycle talking points from the right-wing press, and others who believe they can bring back a younger version of the sainted Tone. But it also means being straight with readers about the shortcomings of his leadership - and the misconceptions of many of his supporters.
That, inevitably, brings us to this week’s Corbyn hot topic, which is crowd pulling ability. Jezza journeyed to Liverpool, where he addressed a rally on St George’s Plateau. The crowd grew to such an extent that it spilled over on to Lime Street, which had to be closed to traffic as a result. This was surely proof that the polls were wrong, and the idea that Corbyn was not electable had been swept aside.

Indeed, the Liverpool Echo reported thatDespite rain at the outset of the rally massive crowds - one estimate put the numbers at between 7 - 10,000 - turned up cheering and carrying banners”. Later in the week, the circus moved south to Brighton, and here too the venue for Jezza’s rally was packed to the gunwales. The Independent admitted that there had been “huge crowds”. But not all were happy.

As the Staggers told, “the Labour leader of Brighton and Hove City Council, Warren Morgan, a supporter of Owen Smith in the leadership contest, said he would stay away from Corbyn’s rally. He tweeted: ‘Brighton and Hove doesn't need mass rallies of political activists. It needs a Labour Govt delivering fairer funding and opportunity for all.’ Another councillor said the event was purely for Momentum supporters”.

So is the reaction of those in Brighton and Hove who are not Corbyn fans justified, or is it just so much sour grapes? Is this genuine discontent, or merely more disaffected Blairites, or even nothing more than a bout of nervousness brought on by recent opinion polls? A look at what is happening Stateside may prove instructive.

As Politico has reported, “Donald Trump said he’s puzzled as to why he’s not leading Hillary Clinton by large margins at a rally Wednesday night … ‘We go to Oklahoma, we had 25,000 people. We had 21,000 people in Dallas. We had 35,000 people in Mobile, Alabama. We have these massive crowds … You’ve got thousands of people outside trying to get in [today], and this is one hell of a big stadium’”.
He went on to muse “I hear we’re leading Florida by a bit … I don’t know why we’re not leading by a lot. Maybe crowds don’t make the difference”. But “A Fox News national poll published Tuesday showed Trump trailing Clinton by 10 percentage points, 49 percent to 39 percent”. It was worse in some swing states. As Susan Page Tweeted, “today's new surveys: Clinton +9 [Michigan], +11 [Pennsylvania], up +15 [New Hampshire]”.

Sure, Jeremy Corbyn is not a right-winger, nor a rabble-rouser, and certainly not a bringer of hate and intolerance. But the point on crowds is the same. The crowds come, and all venues can be filled to overflowing, yet the polls show a looming defeat. Worse, in the case of the USA, no-one seriously believes any other result to be likely.

As I said before, it feels hot to all those Corbyn supporters, but no-one else seems to notice. Labour is still heading for a horrible defeat - unless something changes soon.

25 comments:

john riches said...

I've asked you before Tim - what should change then?

The only option on offer is Owen Smith, someone who is - currently, but never before - espousing Corbyn-like policies but has the demeanour of Ed Miliband, a proven loser.

What do you suggest?

john riches said...

By the way, apart from one or two on Twitter I don't think I've seen any voice - from Momentum, in the press, Labour, or elsewhere - say that 'the polls are wrong' because Corbyn draws large crowds. It's a straw man you're raising there.

If you're in a campaign, you go out on the stump. That's what he's doing.

Anonymous said...

You're not comparing like with like, here. Trump only became the Republican nominee a fortnight ago (he was just another contender till then, and it was a genuine struggle between party factions).

Clinton was declared the Democratic nominee presumptive (as in, it was in the bag for her) on 6 June, nearly two months ago, and only had to see off Bernie Sanders (who was a strong candidate on principled support, but not outside that school of thought).

So GOP voters haven't been asked to line up behind Trump till very recently, while Dem voters knew a long time ago what they were buying.

Whether Trump's position will get stronger or weaker as Republican voters get used to his candidacy (I'm guessing the former) remains to be seen - the election is not till November!

Anonymous said...

All this article demonstrates is just how far democracy has fallen in this country......the "triumph" of illusion over substance.

Typically, Corbyn's speech at Liverpool was almost obliterated from the national news, as were any pictures of the true size of the crowd. Censorship by omission. There is no reason why people who think for themselves should accept that as fair or even reasonable. Which is why there is so much revulsion at mainstream media and its jobsworth information clerks.

Intentionally or not, placing Jeremy Corbyn in the same space as the empty-headed Trump is both offensive and misleading. Just plain bad taste.

The mere notion of a snake oil salesman like Owen Smith taking the leadership tells you all you need to know about the cowards who've pushed him forward. People like Benn, Mann, McTernan, Kinnock, Mandelson and all the other suited up spivs and spivettes, exactly those who brought mass murder in the Middle East, division to Britain and economic disaster to everyone but their rich chums.

If May doesn't call a quick general election, there are four years to the next one. During that time the economy will worsen and likely there will be further military genocide. We'll see what happens then. If the electorate want more of that then they'll fully deserve the tories, New Labour, thieves society and corrupt politics they get. Far right monopolised media or no far right monopolised media.

In the case of Jeremy Corbyn, bleating about public relations image-making is immaterial. Mainstream media would seek to destroy him and his message as much as they did Milliband - who could hardly be termed left wing. That's how right-wing corrupt they are.

What this article signally fails to recognise is that people have had enough of the lies and propaganda, of being patronised into poverty, of being held in contempt and attacked because they had the courage to stand up and dissent. Sooner or later that will build to a groundswell whether Corbyn is at its head or not. And then it won't need image-makers and propagandists.

As John Adams said in the Amistad slavery case......"Maybe it will take civil war to resolve. If so, bring it on." A few decades later it was so.

Sometimes dissent has to be visceral before it can no longer be smothered. Britain creeps closer to that moment with every passing day of wilful ignorance.

The twentieth module Owen Smith is no answer and I suggest the majority of Labour voters know it. We've been here before and it was called Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband.

Enough is enough.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 1715 trump became the presumptive nominee in early May https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/05/republican-nomination-donald-trump-campaign-state-primaries-delegates-convention

Man From Atlan said...

I really wouldn't consider opinion polls, considering they are usually skewed towards older people on landlines. It would be especially unfair to apply to Corbyn when the G.E. might still be 4 years away.

Yes, there's a trend away from Trump, but even if he loses the G.E., it's very unlikely the Democrats will win the House.

Anonymous said...

Anon 18:10 makes some very good points.
The only thing I would add to the mix about the mainstream media is a basic observation about human behaviour, networks and relationships:

The current zeitgeist suggests many are sick and tired of professional politicians, those slick, oleaginous types who morph from uni, internship, political researcher then safe seat parachutee via a Westminster bubble career that avoids the real world but dips into parallel universes via the revolving door of PR consultation, business directorships and the odd, paid newspaper article. A closed world that the public are becoming ever alienated from.

In fairness the above stereotypical description borders on parody but it's elements ring true with the politically cynical or disposed.

That is why Corbyn appears to be a breath of fresh air. It this lack of corporate connection may also explain some of the Establishment antagonism with this outsider. There hasn't been years of networking at corporate jamborees, cosy dinner parties with influential media players. Take this to the lower levels of human relationships - the grassroot hacks and young administrators and the rapid rise of Team JC and Momentum must feel like the enemy at the gates. An unwashed hoard. The "other" deserving of emotional, polarised vitriol and demonisation rather than rational debate.

Interesting times. No doubt new relationships will be forged over the months and years ahead but the very nature of the media may have changed by then. Print media for sure.



mc said...

I wouldn't set any great store by opinion polls at the moment. Theresa May is still in her honeymoon period and the country is too punch drunk with Brexit, or the prospect of Brexit, or not, to make sense of anything. It may be true that should she call a snap election, Labour is sunk but in that case, it will be sunk regardless of who is at the helm.

The point about Corbyn's pull at rallies is not that it contradicts the polls but that he has a genuine grass roots appeal. Let's not downplay it. Let's not demean it. Let's celebrate it. Let's show the skeptics that there is something tangible and real going on, pour encourager les autres. Lord knows there's enough negativity coming from all other quarters. Let's not add to it.

SteveB said...

The problem with most politicans and political professionals is that they live on Planet Politic and commute into the real world for occasional appointments. In this country that creates a big problem - most people don't like politics. It's all very well being able to fill a square in Liverpool but take away the people who travelled from other towns and cities and how many Liverpool voters did he attract? And what proportion of the electorate is that?? Even in a city with a greater interest in politics he's only scratching the surface. Big crowds at prearranged meetings may mean something on Planet Politic but here on the Real World what counts is how many people tick the box on election day.

Corbyn may be a breath of fresh air on terms of policies, especially when discussed in political meeting. But in a real people situation he doesn't inspire. Boris Johnson was once described as the life and soul of the party, can you imagine New Years Eve with Corbyn? Don't go all high and mighty and say that's shallow, the voters of Real World think that way. Any party needs a leader who has the ideas but who can also switch off the politics and connect with ordinary people at all levels.

Corbyn is simply not a leader. Forget politics, could he lead a fire evacuation? I don't think so.


And then there is Smith. Or "Who?" as he is known in Real World. Obviously at present he has to concentrate on the politically minded because to get that leaders job it's their votes he needs. But how good will he be in the real world afterwards. I'm not confident.

I'm afraid I can't see another Labour Government until Dan Jarvis is leader - and he doesn't want the job. Corbyn and Smith are fighting for the chance to defend second place from UKIP.

Anonymous said...

Adolf Hitler drew big crowds as well. What's your bloody point because from this article it isn't quite clear except you seem to be saying Black ids actually White?

Anonymous said...

Churchill drew big crowds as well.

But others won the war.

And those "others" booted out Churchill and his rich man's party after they won the war. And despite a totally hostile press. And with a completely "charisma"-free leader who became Britain's greatest ever peace time prime minister.

Stuff "charisma," stuff "image," stuff "spin doctors," stuff mainstream media, stuff Owen Smith and his Windbag2 impression, and stuff opinion polls too.

The Scottish Independence referendum and Brexit showed people are beginning to wake up. And sooner or later there won't be a damn thing the establishment can do to stop it.

Jeremy Corbyn is just the beginning, win or lose.

LiamKav said...

Unfortunately when people begin to "wake up", it does't mean that they are going to vote socialist. They could very easily move to UKIP or other parties like that. It's all very well being seen as a party with huge grassroots support, but if (as said above) the people who don't really care about politics but still vote don't like you, you're not winning an election.

Likewise, drawing huge crowds in Liverpool, a Labour city through and through doesn't actually mean anything. Go to Bolton or Telford and draw huge crowds and it might actually mean something.

Anonymous said...

@LiamKav.

"...Liverpool, a Labour city through and through..."

Wrong.

Check the facts and political history.

You don't seem to know much about how political movements grow. Or how New Labour sabotaged the Labour movement over many years, and then paid the price (even by your own apparent political "analysis" method).

I'm willing to bet too that "huge grassroots support" means a great deal to the "grassroots" concerned. As it will once it gets full traction against far right propaganda, and as it obviously does even in its embryo state. Even though you think it "...doesn't actually mean anything." It's called democracy...but I don't expect you to understand that while conducting your "analysis."

The alternatives of tories, LibDems and New Labour have destroyed British society for thirty seven years now. It won't be reversed overnight. And it certainly won't be achieved by falling for the very lies and methods that brought us to the present disaster and far right thievery.

Public relations bullshit is no substitute for genuine democracy and constructive policies. But we've now known that for said 37 years. Not that people like Smith, Benn, Mann, McTernan, Eagle and all the other spivs could give a shit about that, not while they are fellow travellers of the far right.

Anonymous said...

the Labour leader of Brighton and Hove City Council, Warren Morgan, a supporter of Owen Smith in the leadership contest, said he would stay away from Corbyn’s rally. He tweeted: ‘Brighton and Hove doesn't need mass rallies of political activists. It needs a Labour Govt delivering fairer funding and opportunity for all.’ Another councillor said the event was purely for Momentum supporters”.

It's good that Warren Morgan is so neutral in this.

It's not like he helped smear someone for alleged spitting, and played a hand in getting the CLP suspended, an member's election overturned, said nothing about a racist hate crime in a pub, or is a supporter of Progress or anything.

LiamKav said...

"Wrong.

Check the facts and political history."


Granted, I should have been more specific. Since the 1990s, Liverpool has strongly voted Labour or Liberal Democrat. The only real area the Tories have a chance of winning on Merseyside is on the Wirral, especially post boundary changes. Fighting there would have a meaning. Liverpool itself is a Labour stronghold. The 4 MPs directly elected from the city itself won their seats with at least a 50% majority in the last general election (under Ed, remember, although I no longer know if he's supposed to be a Blairite or not). When I say that getting more people to vote Labour in Livepool "doesn't mean anything", I mean "it doesn't increase your chances of winning a general election". I don't like FPTP, but we are stuck with it. If you want to win a general election, you have to work with the system, target swing areas and convince Tory/UKIP voters to switch to Labour. And if you don't want to win a general election, you have no business being in opposition.

Anonymous said...

Nice of you to concede you got it wrong. You'll have an equally hard job explaining why the LibDems do well in local elections in Liverpool and why the tories have been routed in almost every major Northern city. It's perfectly obvious what you were up to: Even the citizens of Bolton and Telford would understand that.

Also, you seem unable to grasp an understanding of plain decency and conscience. All in favour of "winning a general election" in a thoroughly corrupt political system, a system that demonstrates time after time how elected representatives betray the wishes of those who voted for them once they get into Westminster.

As for losing an election - let the tories, LibDems and New Labour do their own dirty work and then face the consequences. But we already know how New Labour tries to deal with opposition, it lies, distorts and bad mouths anybody who holds a mirror up to them. Like all cowards, New Labour hates its victims. Back in power, it would betray yet again.

Corbyn is only the advance guard of what is coming.......And you know what? There isn't a thing you or anybody else can do about it - always assuming they don't send the kids of to fight and die for them in another war.

LiamKav said...

So, what are you saying? The current political system is "thoroughly corrupt", and that Corbyn is the "advance guard of what's coming". What does any of this mean? You don't care about losing an election? You don't care about the direct impact a Tory government will have over a Labour (even a New Labour) one? You don't care that, for instance, the NHS had one of it's highest satisfaction ratings under New Labour, and under the Tories is has one of the worst? The increase in waiting times, the disillusionment of Junior Doctors, all of this is a direct result of the Tories winning a general election. It's not the Tories facing the consequences, it's anyone who has to go to a hospital. That's why winning a General Election is important, because it's the only way you actually get to pass rules that have an impact on people.

And I didn't say I got it wrong. I tried to clarify my point. It's great that the Tories don't get a look in in most Northern Cities, but the country is made up of a lot more places than Sunderland and Manchester. I'd still like to know exactly what the plan is for winning back Telford (a place that voted Labour from 1997 until 2015 when it switched to Tory), and places like that. Or doesn't it matter?

(I'd also love to know what I was up to? I thought I was just arguing how a political party in opposition needs to try and get itself elected, but apparently you think it was something else?)

Anonymous said...

Tell me, which part of "thoroughly corrupt" do you not understand?

What element of "Let them do their own dirty work" is beyond your ken?

What short sightedness prevents you from seeing provable "New Labour......lies, distorts and bad mouths anybody who holds a mirror up to them"?

Most of all, you seem incapable of understanding that it took years of fighting by the Labour Party membership to achieve all the social gains and improvements now under threat from the Troika of tories, LibDems and New Labour. The fight is now restarting after years of betrayal - not just of the Labour Party but of the entire country. A country which is saying "We've had enough."

The current New Labour Parliamentary MPs are the worst right wing scoundrels even the party has had to endure. Simply going along with them yet again will ensure this country becomes even more of a de facto far right one party state.

Your version of "electability" is nothing short of a phony PR exercise without conscience or humanity, let alone genuine policies, an accountancy diatribe that knows the price of everything and the values of nothing. You might as well have a society based on an abacus or a column of figures, not on humanist values and needs. Altogether the political correctness of New Labour despised right wing spivvery.

LiamKav said...


Your arguments still fail to say anything specific. There's revolutionary talk, there's comments that the people have "had enough" (despite the fact that "the people" voted in a Tory government just last year, after 4 years of a partial Tory govermnemt). If you think that large numbers turning up to Corbyn rallies reflects the average British voter, I suspect are not as in tune with the man on the street as you think you are.

"Thoroughly corrupt" is also not a definable statement. Do I think there are elements of corruption in our government. Certainly. Do I think it's on the level of, say, Russia? No, it's not even close. Likewise, calling even the current Tory goverment "far right" is ridiculous, unless you have a different definition of "Far Right" that doesn't include Golden Dawn, or Marine Le Pen.

You have said that the "Tories, LibDems and New Labour have destroyed British society for thirty seven years now" and that "it took years of fighting by the Labour Party membership to achieve all the social gains and improvements now under threat from the Troika of tories, LibDems and New Labour." So you think all worthwhile social gains were done by (old) Labour, and all New Labout, the LibDems and the Tories have done is destroy them? Just with very basic research:

- New Labour and the Tories are both partially responsible for equal marriage (granted, with the irony that the Tories pushed against it twenty years ago).
- Sure Start centres were launched by New Labour.
- The minimum wage was introduced by New Labour.
- Major's Tory party and New Labour were both partially responsible for the Good Friday Agreement.
- New Labour implemented the Human Rights Act.
- New Labour introduced the Freedom of Information Act.

Those seem like a good mix of quantifiable, accountable social gains. All introduced in the last 25 years.

And I'm still not clear on your end goal. So rather than have this repeat again and again, let's cut to the chase. Pretend I'm a complete idiot. Pretend I have literally no idea what to do regarding politics and I'm begging for direction. What exactly you mean by "Let them do their own dirty work" with regards to losing an election? What exactly do you want to happen in terms of getting a bunch of new, socially progressive laws passed? I genuinly want to know.

Anonymous said...

@LiamKav.

Not one of the “social gains” you list has made the slightest material difference to the condition of this country.

We still have “austerity” (read: thievery). We still have a wretchedly divided society. We still have a quarter of the population living in poverty. There are still millions unemployed – anybody who believes the figure is under three millions is living in cloud cuckoo land. There are still millions “existing” on zero hours contracts – effectively nothing more than casual employment like the dockers welt or builders lump. Northern Ireland is still a sectarian mess (and always will be until it reunites with Ireland). We still have bankers looting wealth. We still have military mass murdering in the Middle East – Cameron even admitted he is a drone murderer. We still bear guilt for the destruction of society in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Scotland still wants out of the Union. Social housing has almost disappeared as a priority while “developers” hoard sites in land banks to keep the property and mortgage scam going. The rest of the country outside the London area is still deliberately starved of vital investment. London-based spivs still loot any company they can get their thieving mitts on. Students are now forced into a debt scam for most of the rest of their lives. Schools and hospitals are still the object of PFI profiteering – companies have even created a “market” in selling them on. Mainstream media is still monopoly owned by far right propagandists employed to do nothing other than lie and rig the “news.” The National Health Service is deliberately underfunded and sabotaged in favour of profiteers and privatisation. There is still deindustrialisation of the country in favour of the Canary Wharf spivs and frauds. Working class institutions such as unions are still subject to the worst far right restrictions in Europe. Time after time the British establishment is exposed as culpable in the most appalling crimes – Hillsborough cover-up, child abuse, warmongering, police corruption, MPs corruption, deliberate impoverishment of regions outside London. We still even have an unelected second chamber in Parliament and an unelected head of state. We still have no “peace dividend” after the end of the Cold War. We still have paper-waving jingoes in the Commons at the prospect of bombing yet another helpless civilian target. We still have New Labour MPs who three times voted against an inquiry into the Iraq war.

And you still have trouble with “thoroughly corrupt” and “far right”? Still have trouble with which “socially progressive” laws we require?

Then there’s the old chestnut, long discredited, of the “victors” in a British general election. Last year the tories had 11,334,576 votes. “Electable” New Labour had 9,347,326. The registered electorate totalled 46,420,413 – a fall of 1.3% from the previous year. Which means only 24.41% of the registered electorate voted for the reactionary far right tory government, even less for “electable” New Labour – both of them factions in a de facto one party right wing state, with scarcely a paper thickness between them in policies. Which means of course 75.59% didn’t vote for those in power. Still have trouble with which “socially progressive” laws we require?

If you think that reflects decent democracy then I suspect you are even further out of touch with reality than previously thought. Even by your own comical abacus “methods,” ultimately nothing more than the sophist claptrap churned out by Murdoch and Dacre jobsworths.

For "end goal" see clearance of the above. That's what democratic political movements are about, even in the face of far right monopoly owned mainstream media and other apologists. It'll take time because of the terrible damage inflicted since 1979. But - given freedom from outright fascism - it's inevitable. Corbyn is just the beginning. And that's what scares the establishment and its apologists shitless.

LiamKav said...

Okay, at this point we're just going around in circles. You still haven't answered exactly how Corbyn is going to get elected, or even if being elected is the actual end game. You just keep making points about movements and numbers and corrupt governments, arguing that most people don't vote as if this country is full of socialists who just didn't cote last time because there wasn't someone left-wing enough for them to fall behind. So please, just say in a simple, step by step manner what the actual plan is. Please. You can do it.

(I won't even get into the frankly ridiculous argument that the Good Friday Agreement has made no material difference to the condition of the country. The 1800 odd civilians killed during the Troubles would probably argue, if they weren't, y'know, dead.)

Anonymous said...

See above list? It's long enough, though you ignore it except for one item - in the process ignoring the loss of hundreds of thousands of Middle East peoples who are, y'know, dead...and the millions living in, y'now, destitution in this country.

Can you actually read basic English?

Do you even know what democracy is?

And after a generation of the corruption listed above you need a, y'know, "simple plan"?

Try promoting democracy instead of tripping over your abacus. You could even try encouraging more people to actually involve themselves in, y'know, political meetings to get right in the face of the corrupters of our society. It takes time, but, y'know, that's how democracy has worked ever since it's conception. It took two hundred years of daily struggle and suffering before the Labour movement, y'know, really took off.

But actually of course you don't know much at all except for numbers. That's how "simple" your "plan" is. The problem for your type of mindset is that it can see no further than public relations exercises and manufactured propaganda. In other words, like the Troika of tories, New Labour and the LibDems, you're a sucker for the kind of broken society produced by far right policies.

In the end what matters isn't Corbyn or your peculiar half-baked one-dimensional notion of how society improves. It's how people, y'know, gather and decide for themselves. That takes a lot of hard work before it builds to critical mass - which is why mainstream media and the Troika are so set on trying to stop it before it builds, y'know, momentum.

But according to your weird line of "argument" all it takes is a "simple plan." How odd. How very, very sad, and empty.

LiamKav said...

I didn't ignore the list. I challenged one point you made rather than trying to sum up the entirety of 30 years worth of politics. You said that there had been no material difference made to the people of this country. I argued the Good Friday Agreement did. You've suddenly made that an argument that I am apparently ignoring the deaths in the Middle East. You can reasonably argue "the bad caused by New Labour far outweighs the good it did". That is fine. I might even agree with that. You however seem to be arguing that "New Labour never did anything good", which is provably false. But if every single thing I say is going to be countered with "deaths in the Middle East" and repeated use of the word "abacus", then clearly you aren't engaged in a debate... you're just wanting to shout over everyone else.

I am someone who up to a year ago supported Corbyn. I have gradually become disillusioned as to both whether he is an effective leader and whether he can convince the general population of his arguments. I pray that I am wrong, because another 5 years of Tory rule would be terrible for this country, never mind ten or twenty. I am open to convincing. I want to be convinced. And your arguments, full of snide, sneers and ad hominems have done nothing to convince me. It'll be great living in a socialist utopia in 2036, that's pretty shitty for the people who have to spend the next twenty years living under an unchallenged and empowered Tory government.

I'm sure you'll do a bang-up job uniting the unemployed working-class of Sunderland devestated by the loss of industry, the left-leaning media types who work in London, the entirity of Scotland, the small townfolks worried about immigration who are swinging to UKIP, the Welsh voters swinging to Plaid Cymru, JK Rowling, and the 19 year-old NEETs who don't even know who our current Prime Minister is. Probably via via the medium of "political meetings to get right in the face of the corrupters of our society". And when Labour get wiped out at the next general election, you can just blame the Blairites and the MSN, safe in the knowledge it could never, ever be your fault.

Anonymous said...

Alas, still typical of your mindset. All too ready to ignore the war crimes committed by New Labour and the other tory measures they continued – in the case of PFI actually intensified. The same gang who failed during thirteen years to reverse the horrors of the Thatcher years, who failed to restore working class rights, the same people who created the conditions for working class people in despair to abandon the Labour Party (note: BEFORE Corbyn), and who now have deliberately tried to split the party because enough people have had the courage to face them down democratically.

Frankly, I couldn’t care less who you support or whether you “want to be convinced” or otherwise. Your intention is obvious to anyone reading it – typical of which is the sneer about “a socialist utopia,” a classic load of right wing New Labour nonsense. I don’t believe people like you would ever vote Labour anyway, so no loss whatever. In fact I encourage you to go off and join the tories or LibDems and help them do their own dirty work.

As for sneers, it’s nothing compared to your not-unexpected sneers in your final paragraph at everyone who doesn’t meet your weird version of democracy. I suspect you hate the victims as much as yourself. Which is your tragedy, but nobody else’s.

The wider and much more important tragedy is what has been done to this country and its people since 1979. New Labour was an intrinsic part of that sabotage of decency and fairness and will be held to account. Sooner or later the penny will drop nationwide, as it did, heavily, in 1945. Because by then the pool of victims will be much wider.

Which is why it is necessary to get right in the face of the corrupters and their apologists. Fortunately there has always been enough people with fighting spirit to ensure that tradition never dies. It's that spirit that got the Hillsborough families through to the beginnings of justice, though they had to wait almost a generation for it, including lies and distortion from New Labour. The same thing applies to the families of soldiers killed in Blair's wars and to miners at Orgreave and the jailed union members and surcharged councillors of the 1970s and 1980s. Not that I expect you or your type to even minutely understand any of their spirit, determination and common decency.

LiamKav said...

And I'm done. Your arguments are full of illogical, emotional driving points and basic fallacies, including ad hominems, "No True Scotsman" (" I don’t believe people like you would ever vote Labour anyway, so no loss whatever"), "Moving Goalposts" ("New Labour made no social gains whatsoever whilst in power" "What about child poverty, tax credits, civil partnerships, the Good Friday Agreement?" "They caused lots of wars so those things don't count") and just out and out lies (It was Gordon Brown who started the Hillsborough Independent Panel. Blair should have done it much sooner, definitely, but the situation was finally resolved b ecause of Brown. Or does he not "New Labour"?), there really is no point continuing this conversation.

You have literally said that you don't care if certain people vote for the Tories rather than Labour if they don't fit your ideal of a desirable Labour supporter. You aren't interested in winning an election. You want a revolution, and don't care what another ten, twenty years of Tory rule with no effective opposition will do to the country.. The depressing thing is that when it all falls apart, you'll lack the self-insight to understand why. I can only hope you're not at the bottom of the social ladder, as those are the ones who are going to feel this worst of all.