Follow by Email

Monday, 31 August 2015

Former Bullingdon Club member uncovers another threat to national security

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/31/jeremy-corbyn-poses-national-security-threat-george-osborne


Jeremy Corbyn poses national security threat, says George Osborne 

 

 

 Gideon Oliver Osborne (changed his name to George when he was 13)



Gideon is an idiot.There are hundreds of thousands (if not more) people in this country who are opposed to the renewal of Trident. Are we all a "national security threat"?  If we are, we should all be arrested under the "Anti terrorism" acts and held in prison (usually without charge or trial) to protect the public.
The flaw in this of course, is that Gideon and his wretched colleagues in this government (and the one preceding this lot), are careering along the "austerity" road and have inflicted so many cuts that they do not have enough prison spaces to hold us all.
As someone once said "Osborne you are a plonker"


Sunday, 30 August 2015

Is this really the "final plea" from Tony Blair? We can only hope that he is telling us the truth for a change.

 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/29/tony-blair-corbynmania-alice-in-wonderland#comments



Corbynmania is ‘Alice in Wonderland’ politics, says Tony Blair in final plea




We hope that this will be Blair's final plea on anything




Blair led this country into a war using a fairy tale as an excuse.Why should anyone listen to his warped stories now? He counts his £millions fortune and gives "advice" to the Labour party which he, Mandelson,Brown and Campbell destroyed.
The headline says "Tony Blair's final plea" .We can only hope that this is true and this is his final contribution to anything.


Sky News persists with its campaign to influence the ballot, no matter where their contributions come from

http://news.sky.com/story/1543803/blair-corbynmania-is-alice-in-wonderland


Corbynmania Is 'Alice in Wonderland'. In a new warning against a Corbyn victory, Tony Blair says supporters of the Labour race frontrunner live in a "parallel reality".



Another intervention from Tony Blair




Sky News giving wide coverage as they play the “Blair Card” again.
This comes as no surprise as Sky News, their faceless editorial staff from “upstairs”, their predominately biased news anchor's and certainly their Paper review's at 10:30pm and again at 11:00pm, every evening, have clearly shown over the past weeks, an almost hysterical anti Jeremy Corbyn slant on every possible occasion. The Blair intervention has been on every news bulletin for at least 10 minutes since the “story” broke and pushes all other news items onto the back burner. Just why Sky News should give such hard coverage to a story (apart from taking another opportunity to attack Corbyn) of an intervention from a man who led this country into a war using a fairy tale as an excuse and along with Mandelson, Brown and Campbell destroyed the Labour party, is a complete mystery.
Sky News however is only seeking to carry on its campaign to “Stop Corbyn” and adds this latest intervention to the Paper reviews on their evening programme. Over the past weeks, successive “reviewers” have occupied the sofa to pour out their frequently ill informed and always nasty comments about the Labour leadership election generally and about Corbyn in particular. 

Vincent Graff






Roya Nikkhah


















Niall Paterson: Sky News



I have commented previously about Carole Malone, Jackie Smith, Iain Dale and others, but last nights contributions exceeded even that of Carole Malone for sheer spite and venom. I refer of course to the Saturday night (29th August 2015) Paper review featuring one Roya Nikkhah a Telegraph (who else?) journalist and Vincent Graff a journalist who writes for both the Mail and the Guardian, claims to have been a Labour party support and member for many years and is supporting Liz Kendall in the leadership election, which of course says a great deal about the man and his position within the party.
Between them, over the time that was allocated for the “review” by the, often equally anti Corbyn, Niall Paterson, the “reviewers” Nikkhah and Graff seemingly competed against each other to be the most cutting in their journalistic crusade, but only managing to render the points they were seeking to put across almost meaningless in the general tirade of spite directed against the Corbyn camp.
During the past weeks of the leadership contest, and no doubt for the next 10 days or so until the voting ends, Sky News has amongst all the media, been perhaps the most vehement in its eagerness to influence the result of the leadership contest.
Clearly, they will use contributions from whatever sources may become available and yet another intervention from Blair adequately serves their purpose.



Saturday, 29 August 2015

Tom Baldwin fears "surge in support for Corbyn’s straight-talking manner and anti-austerity brand of politics".

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/28/ed-miliband-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership#comments




Ed Miliband not to blame for Jeremy Corbyn's rise, says former aide





Tom Baldwin
Tom Baldwin


Just when we thought that the Guardian was running out of ideas for trashing Corbyn and those in the party who support him, Rowena Mason, has dragged out Tom Baldwin (Tom who?) to add his “weight” to the "Don't vote for Corbyn" campaign. In another existence, Rowena Mason was probably the other soothsayer sitting on the steps of the senate in ancient Rome repeating the message, "The ides of March are come! All in well in the House of Caesar!”
The Guardian has dragged out the thoughts and quotations of Tom Baldwin as if they represent the beam of enlightenment which will finally ensure that their preference in the contest, Yvette Cooper, will be the next leader of the Labour party. However, an examination of what Baldwin is reported as saying reveal contradictions and distortions which are selected, presumably to support the Guardian
editorial slant.
Baldwin reveals his Blairite leanings with the comment that, “Labour must begin by reaching people outside the party and bringing them in – just as Blair did 20 years ago”. A policy of promising all things to all people in exchange for their votes, which, in turn, led to declining membership of the Labour party and a fall in support at subsequent elections resulting in two successive defeats, as well as the growth of the electorate's disillusionment with politics and the “Westminster bubble” status quo as well as the Labour party.
The comment that the Labour party is “justifiably suspicious at the prospect of being led by someone who rebelled against the last government more than any other MP” is a remarkable piece of double talk which Mason implies as some sort of criticism of Corbyn's integrity and principle.
The Parliamentary Labour party, including Cooper, Kendall and Burnham, supported ConDem coalition policies of cuts in benefits, welfare, trade union legislation and other measures and even abstained on the Welfare reform bill in a recent Commons vote. Before that, the PLP as a government, has supported measures which have resulted in creeping privatisation of services against the interests of ordinary people and has even taken this country into an illegal war based on a fairy tale. The fact that Jeremy Corbyn voted against the PLP on these issues should be commended not criticised.
Tom Baldwin completes this intervention with a comment in respect of the leadership election reforms introduced by Miliband (Minor) and enthusiastically endorsed by the Labour party and those candidate and supporters who now criticise the process at every opportunity, presumably because they do not like the distinct possibility that Corbyn may actually win. The new system of 1 member 1 vote, was ironically, a system proposed by Constituency parties back in the 1970's but which was resoundingly rejected by the PLP and other right wing elements in favour of the “Electoral College”.
The headline “Ed Miliband not to blame for Jeremy Corbyn's rise, says former aide” does not really prepare the reader for what the article actually contains, but that is not unusual for the Guardian, particularly over the last few weeks during this leadership election contest.


Friday, 28 August 2015

Sky News finds another sneering, patronising reviewer for their Paper Review. Sky News 10:30pm and 11:00pm

 Carole Malone and her "contribution" to the Sky News Paper review




Carole Malone





Sky news paper review, last night (27 August 2015), featured  Carole Malone, the woman with the motorised mouth and sneering features who thinks that the death of 6 children in an arson attack was “an accident waiting to happen” and that  illegal immigrants receive "free cars".
Her contribution to the Sky News paper review, centered mainly on her demand that the Labour party should elect as their leader a person that "the public" want in the position. (Not, you will note who the party members want, but who the public want). She did not elaborate (thank God. She has the most irritating and affected mannerisms that you could imagine) on how "the public" could be asked the question. Presumably she would take the opinion from one or other of the media outlets or most probably, she would make the decision herself. Should she ever pause for breath in her endless ramblings, perhaps someone could observe that she could have paid her £3 and had a say herself.
Awful woman.

Labour Party membership will determine policy and that petrifies the "establishment".


 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/27/jeremy-corbyn-labour-membership-policy-leadership


Jeremy Corbyn: Labour membership will determine policy, not me 

 


Labour membership will determine policy. Not me.



It is the idea that Labour party policy will be made by Labour party members and not the MP's of the Parliamentary Labour party, that is a major feature of why many of the PLP are so opposed to Jeremy Corbyn and the campaign for him to become Labour leader. It is this prospect which unites the PLP with the hysterical crusade in the media and on television, with its smear, distortion and lies in the "anyone but Corbyn" operation which has been raging for weeks.
However, the Labour party has historically, held the position that the party manifesto and therefore its policy, would be determined at Annual Conference and where Conference resolutions and decision were passed, those resolutions would be included in the Labour party manifesto. The flaw in this process was/is that even if Conference passed resolutions, the content could be bypassed by the PLP and manifesto committees and consequently never appear in the document finally presented to the electorate as the Labour Party manifesto.
This has over many years festered into a growing rift between many sections of the party and the PLP who have been seen as drifting away from the party members to pursue their own agenda after their election to the Commons.
Jeremy Corbyn is merely stating what has been the position for many years and that under his leadership, the party will determine policy rather than the PLP and a small clique of "advisers" setting the programme. That is the way it should be and how it will be should Corbyn be elected.





Thursday, 27 August 2015

The Labour party protecting itself from its own members in order to maintain the satus quo?

 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/27/how-will-labour-top-losing-the-election-by-losing-its-own-leadership-contest


Francis Martin Patrick "Frankie" Boyle is a Scottish comedian and writer, well known for his pessimistic and often controversial sense of humour.



‘Every photo of the candidates looks like the staff room of a failing comprehensive feigning amusement at being photobombed by the janitor.’




The Labour party hireachy, or the establishment, have always been pertrified of it own party membership. That is why, for decades past, the Party conference has been dominated by the Conference Arragements Committee and its numerous sub committee's, the "Resolution Compositing Committee", (to deal with troublesom resolutions usually from Constituency parties) and the Parliamentary Labour Party (or PLP)
The Labour Party hireachy in collusion with the PLP, will go to any lengths and use any tactics, in order to prevent the rank and file members having any influence or control of their own party.


How you vote in a General election should be secret,

 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/26/labour-leadership-election-party-to-check-voting-history-of-new-supporters



Labour leadership election: party to check voting history of new supporters



Secret ballot



What happens in the voting booth on Polling Day is a secret between the ballot paper and the voters conscience isn't it?
How is it that the Labour party can "check voting history of new supporters "?
If this headline is true, then the Labour party " secet police" and their methods of obtaing such information should be exposed and investigated and if necessary subjected to prosecution under the "Representation of the People Act"
Or is it that this "story" is just another pathetic piece of journalistic nonsense from Rowena Mason and the pro Cooper campaign being waged by the Guardian?




Wednesday, 26 August 2015

A suggestion up for discussion, not a proposal set in stone.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/26/jeremy-corbyn-backlash-women-only-train-carriages-cooper-kendall


 

Jeremy Corbyn faces backlash over women-only train carriages idea 

 

 

Labour leadership rivals Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper condemn "proposal"

 

 

I recall that when going to school and later to work in the "Strand", I travelled on the "Southern Region" trains. The stations, Putney, Clapham Junction, Vauxhall and the others on the railways system, had "Ladies Only" waiting rooms on all of the platforms in addition to "Ladies Only" compartments or carriages on all the trains. The greatest objections, when British Rail decided to remove this "facility" from trains and stations all over the country, came from women and women's organisations. As this suggestion from the Corbyn camp would be introduced after consultation, should the idea of separate travelling arrangements for female passengers be "welcomed by women", it is strange that the idea should provoke "reaction" in the way that this article suggests.
This seems to be today's episode of Andrew Sparrow and the Guardian scraping another barrel in order to find some snippet of "news" to distort, spin and use in their anti Corbyn campaign.





Tuesday, 25 August 2015

The blackest period in the history of media and television "reporting"extends by another day.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/25/labour-leadership-andy-burnham-yvette-cooper-liz-kendall-want-extra-voter-checks



 The "witch hunt" continues in the Guardian

 


Rowena Mason, Political correspondent of the Guardian.




This morning, I posted a Blog on, "This is the blackest period in the history of media and television "reporting".
This afternoon the story appeared in the Guardian to the effect that "Burnham, Cooper and Kendall demand extra checks on voters"
Rowena Mason, Political correspondent and her Guardian paymasters are determined to draw out this witch hunt to the very last minute. The michieveous interventions, even after the Stevenage "meeting" with Harriet Harman, seem to indicate that they at least have not given up hope of installing their prefered candidate as leader of the Labour party and will resort to any trick, distortion orsubterfuge to acheive that objective. Certainly, this "report" bears little if any resemblance to the televised statements from Burnham, Cooper, Kendall and Harman or even Corbyn, after the meeting.
The Guardian is intent on preventing from voting, as many new Labour party members or Labour supporters as possibble, on the assumption that many will be voting for Corbyn, rather than the Guardian's prference. The figure quoted in the main article of 60,000 people being dis-enfranchised is in itself an indictment of the Guardian bias and indicative of a squalid attemp to corrupt the election process in favour of their candidate.
In the long run, it is more likely to create divisions within the Labour party membership and destroy any beleif in the democratic process.
McCarthy is alive and well and resides in the editorial offices of the Guardian.

The daily dose of Sky News bias.

Sophy Ridge joins the "Stop Corbyn" team on  Sky News. 




Sophy Ridge: Sky NEWs



I am getting very fed up with Sky News and their almost daily anti Corbyn rhetoric and slanted "news" stories. This mornings effort is from Sophy Ridge who chips in with a story about "legal challenges" to the election result.
Having trained at the News of the World and now with Sky News, she is well versed in bias.
By the way Sophy, as you were at St Edmund Hall, Oxford reading English Literature ( Lit rather than Language, not that it should make much difference) you really should know that the word "schedule" is not pronounced as skedule but shedule.


This is the blackest period in the history of media and television "reporting"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-party-now-fears-infiltration-by-bnp-supporters-10470069.html



Labour fears leadership contest has been infiltrated by BNP supporters






 
The hysteria in the media and on television and not least of all in the Independent, in the campaign to "Stop Corbyn", is being whipped up into frenzy and will become even worse (if that is possible) over the course of the remaining days of the leadership election campaign.
During my years in politics, I have seen a number of nasty, negative and vicious campaigns waged against one or other of the camps involved, but without doubt the campaign waged against Jeremy Corbyn over the past few weeks, is the most vicious, distorted and spurious I have witnessed.

Today's contribution from the Independent alone offers,in addition to this BNP nonsense, the accusation of "deluding youngsters" and "threats to seize assets". A media tenaciously intent on preserving the status quo of the "establishment" and the "Westminster bubble" no matter what the cost in terms of truth, honesty or principle.


In times to come, when the hysteria of this election has calmed down, observers may take the view that in terms of journalism and media coverage of events, this leadership election period was the blackest period of Journalistic history and the media and television should be ashamed of their coverage.
However, the evidence suggests that far from being ashamed they will probably be quite unrepentant.



Monday, 24 August 2015

Another government attack on Disabled people and those too sick to work

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iain-duncan-smith-calls-for-urgent-esa-overhaul-as-part-of-drive-to-cut-down-welfare-costs-10468503.html




Iain Duncan Smith calls for urgent ESA overhaul as part of drive to cut down welfare costs



Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan-Smith


 
This story clearly exposes why the people of our country should not be expected to go through another 5 years of this wretched government with its malicious and divisive policies of austerity and resultant the destruction of the fabric of society.
Iain Duncan Smith warns that Employment and Support Allowance, the benefit paid to the sick and disabled will be urgently overhauled. Weasel words to conceal yet another attack on those least able to defend themselves against the excesses of a government intent on creating a Tory dominated society with a totally subservient people where business and private organisations are allowed to enrich themselves at the expense of ordinary people.



Iain Duncan-Smith in a more typical pose



The country demands an effective and active opposition to this and those other punitive measures to come over the next months. We have already witnessed how three of the candidates in the Labour leadership election campaign have acquiesced to government proposals on the Welfare bill and abstained on the crucial vote. Moreover, their policies are little different from those of the Conservatives except in the shape of the box in which they are presented. Unless the Labour party adopts a robust and effective opposition to this government, the United Kingdom will not be a pleasant place to live in, particularly if you are sick or disabled.

Sunday, 23 August 2015

Corbyn’s Economic Plan is Not Crazy. An analysis you will not find in the "mainstream" media.

http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2015/08/05/jeremy-corbyns-economic-plan-is-not-crazy/comment-page-1/#comment-214357


The following text is reproduced from "BENJAMIN STUDEBAKER".

 

Jeremy Corbyn’s Economic Plan is Not Crazy

by Benjamin Studebaker

Over the past week, I’ve been hearing the rumors. They’re saying that Jeremy Corbyn is crazy–that he’s released an economic plan so radical, so incendiary, so madcap that no reasonable person could possibly support him for Labour leader. I thought to myself “Oh no Jeremy, what could you possibly have done to get these folks so riled up?” So I read the plan. It’s not crazy–indeed, there is significant support in the literature and in recent experience for what Corbyn is proposing.


Jeremy Corbyn: Educated at Adams' Grammar School in Newport, Shropshire



Corbyn believes that the economy has not fully recovered and that economic demand is depressed:
To date, we have seen only the most feeble of upturns:
• We have had the longest period of falling real wages since the 19th century
• A disastrous investment and productivity record
• A swelling balance of payments deficit
• The creation of army of low-paid, low skill, insecure, zero hours, bogus self-employment jobs. People are still worse off today than they were in 2008. The average household is still awaiting recovery.
He believes demand will still be depressed in 2020 and that there will be room for growth. He wants to unlock this untapped economic potential, improving the government’s fiscal position by increasing revenues and reducing demand for benefits by raising incomes.
 
There’s a good argument that Britain is underperforming in the ways Corbyn highlights. British real wages have been falling consistently since the economic crisis:

Productivity has not kept up with the historical trend line:

This is not an ailment that afflicts all countries equally–Britain has lost ground against all the other G7 countries since 2007 (UK = 100):

It is also true that in the last five years, the UK’s current account deficit has grown much larger:

Britain’s underemployment figures have been improving lately, but it still trails many European countries (many of which are stuck on the euro, which should seriously handicap them and give Britain an advantage):

So Corbyn’s criticisms of the UK economy under the Conservatives check out. To solve these problems, Corbyn wants the state to make some big investments in technology and infrastructure (energy, housing, transport, and digital). Ideally, these investments would create high skill, high wage jobs and improve Britain’s productivity and industrial competitiveness, allowing Britain to improve its current account and generate sustainable economic growth.
There is a good case for this–one of the advantages the state has over private investors is its ability to absorb large short-term losses in the interest of achieving far larger long-term gains. Investments that would bankrupt any private sector company are practical for the state because it has a lot more money to work with and a lot more access to credit. For these reasons, the state has long played a pivotal role in supporting major national projects, like the construction of the railroads or the grid. Many private sector innovations have their roots in technologies originally developed for military purposes by the state.
The question everyone wants answered is how Corbyn believes the UK can to pay for this. He proposes two strategies:
  1. The Bank of England Strategy: replace quantitative easing with an equivalent program that invests new money directly into technology and infrastructure, bypassing the banks.
  2. The Soak the Rich Strategy: eliminate tax loopholes and tax subsidies for the wealthy and corporations and use the money raised to create a National Investment Bank, similar to the sovereign wealth funds that countries like Norway have.
Corbyn’s opponents allege that the first strategy will create inflation and that the second strategy will undermine Britain’s financial sector and hurt growth. Let’s take a closer look at each of these debates.
The Bank of England Strategy
The key thing that must be understood is that the Bank of England has already printed very large amounts of money and injected it into the economy. This was part of its quantitative easing (QE) strategy, which was also employed by the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan, and, most recently, the European Central Bank. QE was first employed in the immediate aftermath of the global economic crisis. The goal of QE was to recapitalize the banks by taking governments bonds from the banks and exchanging them for newly printed currency. It was hoped that this would stabilize the financial sector and boost the wider economy by increasing the amount of money available for lending to the private sector.
At the time, the right was livid, warning that QE would lead to hyperinflation. In 2010, a number of business titans and economists wrote an open letter published in the Wall Street Journal warning the Federal Reserve of deadly consequences:
We believe the Federal Reserve’s large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called “quantitative easing”) should be reconsidered and discontinued.  We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances.  The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed’s objective of promoting employment.
What happened? The warnings proved unfounded–inflation did not skyrocket in the US:

The UK hasn’t experienced high inflation either:

Indeed, in both countries, inflation is now dangerously close to zero. Deflation is very damaging to the economy–falling prices encourage people to wait to buy things, and this can rapidly bring the economy to a halt.
Why didn’t QE trigger significant inflation? QE sounds very inflationary–the state is literally printing money and handing it to banks–but if the economy is depressed, QE can maintain the level of economic activity necessary to prevent a recession without triggering a boom. QE was also criticized by the left because it gave the new money to bankers rather than consumers or the government. Because economic demand is depressed, banks and firms have little reason to spend the money they receive from the banks on expanding supply or on new projects. Instead, they invest the money in each other, inflating the stock market without creating enough job and productivity growth. Even as productivity and wages continue to lag, the FTSE 100 has performed very well over the past 5 years:

From where Corbyn is sitting, it appears that we’re printing money but failing to put it to use. So Corbyn wants to bypass the banks and directly fund his technology and infrastructure projects. Corbyn could do this with no significant adverse effects up until the point at which the economy really is running at capacity and inflation rises. In effect, his spending would be governed by the inflation rate rather than by the government budget. This is a radical, creative, and innovative government policy, and it would likely work. Britain’s current inflation rate is very close to 0%, so Corbyn could print and spend quite a bit of money through the Bank of England without seeing above-target inflation. Indeed, a little bit more inflation would be a good thing–most central banks try to run 2% inflation, and some economists recommend a high inflation target of at least 4%. So Corbyn would have lots of flexibility here.
The Soak the Rich Strategy
Alternatively, Corbyn also believes that he could find the money by closing tax loopholes and increasing enforcement of extant tax laws. Corbyn believes he could find £120 billion:
The £120bn figure is made up from:
• about £20bn in tax debt, uncollected by HMRC which continues to suffer budget and staffing cuts (only partially reversed in the last Budget)
• another £20bn in tax avoidance
• and a further £80bn in tax evasion.
The right argues that even if this money theoretically might be collectible on paper, the act of trying to collect it will cause it to vanish. This is because the right believes that there is no substantive difference between reducing tax debt, avoidance, and evasion and tax increases–both of these policies take more money from taxpayers, albeit by different legal means. The right believes that tax increases will cause brain drain, as innovators and investors flee the UK’s high rates. They also believe that increases will discourage private sector investment. Since enforcement and rate increases both collect more tax, the right believes both policies will have the same results.
There is truth to this–Corbyn would certainly be taking significant amounts of money out of the hands of investors. Corbyn can defend the point by appealing to what I said before about how the FTSE is growing while productivity and wages stagnate. Corbyn can argue that the financial sector is not growing the real economy and that the money these investors have is idling. Corbyn can claim that by taking this money from them and having the state invest it in technology and infrastructure, Corbyn could generate more growth than the money presently generates idling in the stock market.
This is a direct challenge to the Conservative view that financialization is good for Britain and that more investment is always positive. Corbyn is implicitly alleging that the financial sector is not adequately distributing investment and that the state must step in to put the money to good use. This is very counter-intuitive to many people who have been taught to believe that the government is never more economically efficient than the private sector. This is why so many people are dismissing Corbyn’s plan as bonkers–they think it is impossible that Corbyn could increase growth by transferring money from rich private investors to the state because they think that rich private investors are the only true engine of growth. For this reason, they argue that any effort by Corbyn to collect the tax would result in a decrease in economic activity that would eliminate any revenue gains.
Who do you think is right? Thankfully, we don’t have to guess. Economists have already conducted significant research to determine the optimal tax rate for the rich, i.e. the rate that would raise the most real government revenue, taking into account the effects of taxation on work and investment. The research shows that the Conservatives dramatically underestimate the amount of tax that can be collected at gain–Diamond and Saez suggest that the top rate of tax could be 70% before the losses surpass the gains. They reviewed the literature on the Elasticity of Taxable Income and found a median value of 0.25 for the rich. This means that for every £1 increase in taxes, the rich will report £0.25 less income. That’s significant, but it’s much smaller than most people on the right believe, and it suggests that Corbyn really could find this money with the appropriate legislative toolkit. Add to this that there’s significant evidence that the specific things Corbyn wants to spend money on are really needed, and there’s a pretty good case for this policy.
There’s significant support in the literature for the claims Corbyn is making. The QE experience shows that Corbyn could definitely print and spend a significant amount of money on technology and infrastructure without pushing inflation above target. The research on optimal tax rates suggests that Corbyn will likely be able to find the tax revenue he’s looking for if the legislation he enacts is sufficiently robust. I am extremely confident that the Bank of England strategy would work and reasonably confident that the soak the rich strategy would as well. Corbyn should be taken seriously–those who oppose him must be made to engage with the optimal tax rate literature and they must be made to engage with what we’ve learned from the QE experience. The flippant dismissal we’re seeing of Corbyn and his ideas should not be allowed to pass unchecked.

 

 

Friday, 21 August 2015

The media are scrapping the barrel looking for "smears"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-compares-actions-of-isis-to-us-military-and-says-some-of-what-they-have-done-is-quite-appalling-10464596.html



Jeremy Corbyn compares actions of Isis to US military and says 'some of what they have done is quite appalling'





Jeremy Corbyn addressing another packed meeting





The media, this time the Independent", are really scrapping the barrel as they leap onto the anti Corbyn bandwagon with another distorted smear.

What Corbyn actually said was:

 "Yes they (ISIS) are brutal, yes some of what they have done is quite appalling. Likewise, what the Americans did in Fallujah and other places is appalling".

He is absolutely right,what happened in Fallujah was appalling and ISIS are brutal.
Why the media should be so aroused by someone speaking the truth has more to do with their hypocrisy in reporting "news"designed to smear Corbyn (again) than with any sense, however misguided that what they report  is even relevant. Moreover, this "news" is over 12 months old and is only reproduced now as an attempt to damage Corbyn's image. In this, the "Independent" joins the BBC and other media in their barrel scraping operations which succeed only in emphasising their own failings in responsible journalism.

Thursday, 20 August 2015

The Independent trying a new tactic.





Jeremy Corbyn: Joining a shrewd operator desperate for power as he visits the North East





Jeremy Corbyn MP





For some weeks now, ever since Jeremy Corbyn had his name added to the ballot paper in fact, the media and not least of all the "Independent", has been engaged in a scurrilous campaign of smear, lies and disinformation aimed at discrediting Corbyn and those who support him. In addition, the descriptions used to ridicule the man have ranged from "Loony" or "Crazy" through to "Bonkers" or "Idiotic" and all points in between.
Now it seems, that having failed to persuade people that Corbyn is a comic figure who should not be taken seriously, the Independent is resorting to a new tactic in seeking to convince an increasingly skeptical public and a dwindling readership, that Corbyn is a dangerous bogeyman,desperate for power (as are the other three candidates but the Independent chooses to ignore that) and with the mental capability to adroitly pursue that objective.
The headline, "Jeremy Corbyn: Joining a shrewd operator desperate for power as he visits the North East" is a remarkable shift in opinion from that of a few short weeks past.

 

Wednesday, 19 August 2015

Miliband major backs Kendall and is prophesying a one party Tory UK, should Labour elect Corbyn

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/17/david-miliband-electing-jeremy-corbyn-risks-one-party-tory-state


David Miliband: electing Jeremy Corbyn risks creating one-party Tory state

 

David Miliband





Liz Kendall is backed by David Miliband
























Miliband major endorses Kendal and predicts a dark future of a "one party state" should Jeremy Corbyn become leader of the Labour party. Still smarting from his rejection in the previous Labour leadership election, Miliband major seeks the return of a Labour government under the leadership of Kendal (or even Cooper or Burnham if Kendal fails to win the September vote) to bring about changes in British society.
However, the Miliband major, Kendal, Cooper and Burnham view of the Untied Kingdom is rather different from the views of thousands of other people.
In the years since Thatcher, how much of the Tory anti Trade Union legislation passed by her government, has the Labour party repealed? How many of the restrictions placed on councils and housing associations have been removed to allow more houses to be built? How much of the "privatisation" of our industries, services and utilities has been rolled back? How much of the NHS has been taken away from the private companies who put profit before patients? Apart (perhaps) from minimum wage legislation, what have the Labour governments of "the right" under Blair and then Brown actually done for the ordinary people or the sick or the disabled or welfare claimants? Burnham, Cooper and Kendal offer more of the same, tired old status quo of the Blair/Brown years, but this time they are adding their own "austerity" package to the mixture. They even abstained on the recent Welfare vote in the Commons. The Blair/Brown administrations did nothing over 13 years and now the Burnham or Cooper or Kendal proposals promise to return this country to those wilderness years, should they (a) become leader of the party and (b) become Prime Minister. Provided of course that they can get over the cat fighting and squabbling between themselves which becomes more bitter and acrimonious by the day. On the other hand, Jeremy Corbyn proposes a programme of reform and policies for the 21st century and for the benefit of all sectors of the people of this country. I know who I am voting for.


 



Tuesday, 18 August 2015

They are running out of Grandees




Labour leadership race: Why is Yvette Cooper so happy to be David Miliband's second choice?





Image result for david miliband






Another "Grandee" discarded by the Labour party and still no doubt smarting from the rejection, crawls out from the woodwork of his little box in the United States to endorse Liz Kendal. Strange how the "old guard" of the Blairite section of the Labour party are sticking together, Straw, Johnson, Campbell, Hunt, Umunna and the rest are hanging on to the hope that, as John McTernan put it, " The Labour party was saved by "the right" and it will be "saved by the right" again". Although in this desperate hope, Miliband major seems to have broken ranks with the others by endorsing Kendal rather than the candidate tipped as being the most able to challenge Jeremy Corbyn and secure second place n the poll. Provided of course that Andy Burnham does not spoil the party. Naturally, Yvette Cooper is a tadd miffed at being passed over for the endorsement, particularly as Kendal's performance over the course of this election campaign can, at best, be described as poor, which accounts for her trailing in 4th place well behind Cooper and Burnham. Cooper is also likely to be irritated following her call this morning for Andy Burham to stand down to leave her as the challenger to Corbyn. However, the growing rift between the three which has been simmering for some weeks, is now in the public domain, becoming more bitter and acrimonious with each passing hour. The interventions of the “Labour Grandee's” have proved less than effective thus far and could be argued as having had the exact opposite to the desired effect. The refusal of Miliband minor to endorse any of the candidates, and then to jet off for a holiday in Australia, leaving behind a barrage of criticism from “ Senior Labour figures” orchestrated by the Times and FT that Ed is somehow responsible for the leadership contest chaos. The “Anyone but Corbyn” camp are running around in circles, seeking more “Grandee's” in the hope of boosting their preferred candidates fortunes, although there are not many, if any Grandees left, and are now publicly tearing themselves apart with their hopes of clinging onto to their crumbling power. We certainly do not want a party remaining in the hands of these individuals and certainly we would not want them in governmentAnother "Grandee" discarded by the Labour party and still no doubt smarting from the rejection, crawls out from the woodwork of his little box in the United States to endorse Liz Kendal. Strange how the "old guard" of the Blairite section of the Labour party are sticking together, Straw, Johnson, Campbell, Hunt, Umunna and the rest are hanging on to the hope that, as John McTernan put it, " The Labour party was saved by "the right" and it will be "saved by the right" again".



Image result for Burnham cooper





Although in this desperate hope, Miliband major seems to have broken ranks with the others by endorsing Kendal rather than the candidate tipped as being the most able to challenge Jeremy Corbyn and secure second place n the poll. Provided of course that Andy Burnham does not spoil the party.
Naturally, Yvette Cooper is a tadd miffed at being passed over for the endorsement, particularly as Kendal's performance over the course of this election campaign can, at best, be described as poor, which accounts for her trailing in 4th place well behind Cooper and Burnham. Cooper is also likely to be irritated following her call this morning for Andy Burham to stand down to leave her as the challenger to Corbyn. However, the growing rift between the three which has been simmering for some weeks, is now in the public domain, becoming more bitter and acrimonious with each passing hour.
The interventions of the “Labour Grandee's” have proved less than effective thus far and could be argued as having had the exact opposite to the desired effect. The refusal of Miliband minor to endorse any of the candidates, and then to jet off for a holiday in Australia, leaving behind a barrage of criticism from “ Senior Labour figures” orchestrated by the Times and FT that Ed is somehow responsible for the leadership contest chaos.
The “Anyone but Corbyn” camp are running around in circles, seeking more “Grandee's” in the hope of boosting their preferred candidates fortunes, although there are not many, if any Grandees left, and are now publicly tearing themselves apart with their hopes of clinging onto to their crumbling power.
We certainly do not want a party remaining in the hands of these individuals and certainly we would not want them in government



A very public split




Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper trade blows as leadership contest intensifies


Image result for Burnham cooper




Andy Burnham offers Jeremy Corbyn “a job”, in his Shadow Cabinet and presumably any government cabinet which Burnham may form at sometime in the future. A remarkably magnanimous gesture from a man who claims never to have voted against the party whip in the House of Commons, a man who has consistently advocated further austerity for the UK economy, has frequently demonstrated an ability for evasion, particularly during Ian Dale's LBC Radio programme and along with all but 48 members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, abstained on the vote on the Conservative Welfare Bill last July. Burnham qualifies this offer however, with an appeal for Labour party members who intend to vote for Corbyn in the leadership election, to move over to the Burnham camp to prevent Kendall or Cooper emerging as the winner.
This “offer” of course make two very sweeping assumptions. Namely that (a), Burnham will actually win the Leadership election and consequently be in a position to offer anyone a place in his Shadow Cabinet and (b) that he would actually win a General election at sometime in the future.
Perhaps the observer could be excused for thinking that the member for Leigh is optimistic, na├»ve, a little arrogant or even a mixture of all three. 



Image result for Burnham cooper


 

The “offer” to Jeremy Corbyn has widened and made very public, the split between Burnham and Cooper which has been festering away from public scrutiny for some weeks. The “Anyone but Corbyn” campaign has always had a fundamental problem, in that there are three candidates, all from the “right” of the party, proposing the same old status quo policies and all competing for the same voting support base. The only thing that unites the three is their fear and dislike for Corbyn.
With Cooper now publicly calling for Burnham to stand down from the leadership contest the divisions between her and Burnham and in the background Kendall, have shifted the debate away from the real issues and created a slanging match between three candidates, intent on promoting themselves as the only alternative. In standing away from this spectacle Jeremy Corby maintains his position of putting forward proposals and policies and refusing to become involved in the puerile activity of name calling and personal attacks.
This current hostility between Burnham, Cooper and Kendall, raises a pertinent question. If the only word they have to offer, the only appeal that they can present to Labour party members, the only message that they can offer to people around the country, is that only one of them is the person that can beat Jeremy Corbyn, then why should anyone trust in them to address or even understand, the real issues and problems which face this country today?






 
Homelessness, growing use of foodbanks, problems within the NHS, Welfare Cuts, austerity, education, banks, anti trade union legislation and a hundred other issues are the real priorities and it is only Jeremy Corbyn who is addressing these problems.