Sunday, 19 March 2017

Corbyn, Momentum, and more allegations of an 'Entryist Plot' from Watson

The Guardian has really excelled itself this weekend. Giving another platform to Tom Watson, in order to enable him to attack Momentum for fomenting an alleged 'hard left' plot to seize permanent control of the Labour Party, whilst at the same time giving those who it claims are at the centre of this apparent conspiracy no chance whatsoever to answer the charges he and the newspaper have been making against them. I say alleged, because the actual 'evidence' of the supposed 'plot' unmasked by the paper's sister publication, 'The Observer', earlier today, doesn't actually appear to be anything of the sort.

Indeed, the embedded sound recording which currently adorns the Guardian website suggests that it is little more than an attempt to ensure that when Jeremy Corbyn eventually steps down as leader of the Opposition, members of the Labour Party are able to engage in a fair and democratic election, in which candidates who 'have enormous support among the membership can get onto the ballot paper', so that their grass roots supporters can actually vote for them. During the course of the recording, Jon Lansman, who is the present focus of the Guardian's latest attack on the Corbyn leadership, stresses throughout that the entire plan is about winning votes on crucial motions to ensure that the rank and file of ordinary Party members have their views properly represented. Hardly a plot or an 'Entryist' Coup by any reasonable standard one would have thought. But then again, we are dealing with the Guardian here, where things do not always appear to be as they seem.

The fact that Jon Lansman has been given no opportunity whatsoever to explain himself in this matter is deeply worrying, when one considers that the person who has been given an open platform to attack him is a proven associate of Max Mosley: from whom he has received a very large sum in personal donations. This last point is particularly relevant when one considers that, as I pointed out in a previous post, Max Mosley was a key player in the Bernie Ecclestone Affair. The first major scandal to taint the Blair Administration. More worrying still is the additional fact that Max Mosley is the son of the Wartime British Union of Fascists leader Sir Oswald Mosley. He is also on record as having had extensive political involvements with his Father's little known Post-War Party, the Union Movement or 'UM', which sought a Post War unification of Europe which its critics on the Left believe would have been modelled along lines similarly envisaged by Hitler's Nazis.

And, as if that wasn't enough, the previous evening Nick Cohen had penned an absolutely vitriolic piece, which appeared on the Guardian's website just after Midnight on Sunday morning under the heading 'Don’t tell me you weren’t warned about Corbyn', in which he actually resorted to the use of the 'F' word. In view of the number of comments that are regularly deleted from the discussion threads on the Guardian website for alleged breach of the paper's 'community standards', I for one am completely astounded that this piece wasn't more thoroughly sub-edited before it went to press. The piece, which its author inferred was an attempt to address supporters of Jeremy Corbyn directly, was more the sort of attempted smear that one would expect to find in the pages of Breitbart, where right wing commentators find common ground with supporters of Radical Zionism, than on the website of a paper that was, until comparatively recently, a beacon of journalistic integrity.

Interestingly enough, this is not the first time that the mainstream media have accused Momentum and its supporters of being involved in conspiracies. Perhaps the best example of the kind of smears that have been generated around what is, to all intents and purposes, a grass roots movement, that has no involvements whatsoever with the mainstream media hacks who spew vitriolic attacks against Corbyn out of almost every on-line publication imaginable on a near daily basis, was the so called 'Brick Gate Affair'. An attempt to attribute an incident involving the throwing of an alleged ‘brick’ through the alleged ‘window’ of Labour MP Angela Eagle’s Wallasey constituency office to pro-Corbyn "thugs". As the exclusively on-line publication, the Canary, have since pointed out, however, 'no such damage was reported to the police'.

The source of the Canary's facts in relation to this matter appears to have been an FOI request submitted by the little known on-line blog 'Wirral In It Together', which appears to have been informed by the Information Commissioner's Office that the Police employee who logged the incident had reported to their superiors that ‘just one big window in the hallway’ had been targeted, before adding that the ‘person reporting the damage is likely to have known if any damage had been caused to the constituency office window, but no such damage was reported to the police’; according to the Canary's report. Since the FOI request was made the Canary also appears to have established a number of other key facts which appear to have been completely ignored by the mainstream media.

In addition to establishing the fact that, first and foremost, the window was not actually in her office, but a communal stairwell, the publication has also presented so far uncontested claims that the entire locality is a black spot for what the Canary has described as 'non-political vandalism'. It would also appear that just two days previous to the 'Brickgate' incident, 'Fathers 4 Justice' had occupied the roof of the building as part of one of their numerous and well documented demonstrations. The Canary have also discovered that not only had Wirral Council classed the entire locality as a “hot spot” for anti-social behaviour, but Eagle’s office building in particular appears to have been a specific focus for such low level criminal activities. Add all this to the previously established facts that the Police and the ICO had confirmed there was no concrete evidence a brick had actually broken the window in the first place, and that no one has ever been charged over the incident, it is easy to see just how far the mainstream media have been getting it wrong.


Sunday, 5 March 2017

Copeland, Corbyn and Some Real Facts that the Mainstream Media don't want you to know!

The Chattering Classes were at it again this weekend. Putting the boot in on Jeremy Corbyn. The same vitriolic personal attacks from the same caustic mainstream media publications who have been out to get him from day one. Indeed, John McDonnell hit the nail on the head when he told the Independent that the 'whole media establishment' is out to destroy Jeremy Corbyn', having previously announced, in the immediate aftermath of the Copeland byelection result, that a 'second Labour coup' had already begun.

Interestingly enough, just as the Shadow Chancellor was being quoted by the Independent as saying that mainstream media attacks on the current leadership should be attributed to 'oligarchs protecting their power base', one of the Blairites in his own party was claiming in the pages of the same newspaper that Mr. Corbyn was 'the one issue on the doorstep' at Copeland the previous week'; and that anyone who suggested otherwise was 'lying'. The Blairite in question, Ben Bradshaw, had then gone on to repeat his claim that 'the only issue was Jeremy Corbyn,' before continuing in praise of the 'incredible and very important' contributions that Tony Blair and John Major had made to the Brexit debate.

Meanwhile, on the Guardian's website, news had broken that a controversial new report had been leaked which was suggestive of the Labour Party having lost 'nearly 26,000 members since mid-2016' and that 'most of those leaving had joined the party after' the '2015 general election, with 7,000 quitting after Corbyn told MPs to back' the 'Brexit bill'. Unfortunately, due to the fact that none of those whose membership had lapsed were actually questioned by Labour, or interviewed in the Guardian, with regard to why they had left the Party, or no longer appeared on the stats, their exact reasons for leaving remain obscure. So, as John Harris quipped from another page on the same website that although 'Twitter parodies won’t worry Corbyn', '....his supporters deserting him should', the entire basis for the overall content of his column for this week was speculative to say the least.

In view of this, it should be remembered first and foremost that large numbers of people had paid good money to join the Labour Party after the 2015 General Election, on the understanding that they would be able to participate in the Labour leadership election; only to be told that this was not the case. Besides the three thousand or so members who were prevented from active participation for non compliance with the ‘aims and values’ of the Labour Party, and other related issues, some 40,000 of the 183,000 people who joined in the immediate run up to the vote appear to have been disqualified by the Party, with a further 10,000 being given a referral to the scrutiny committee. And this, according to the very same website that is now trying to insinuate that this supposed mass exodus is all down to Corbyn or Brexit. Even the Russian news service RT could only offer more speculative conjecture on the matter, cobbled together from the Twittersphere.

So what are the true facts regarding the Copeland byelection? Last week, whilst engaging in some of the debate on the Guardian discussion threads on the 'comment is free' section of the paper's website, I chanced upon some interesting observations from a gentleman named Martin Snell. Unlike most, if not all, of the media pundits who seemed to be trying to put the blame for it all on Corbyn, Mr. Snell seemed to exhibit a detailed local knowledge of geography, social demographics and politics, which had led him to draw everyone's attention to some interesting and hitherto overlooked facts that the mainstream media appeared to be completely unaware of. 'There are different kinds of opinion, informed, unbiased and their alternatives, for instance,' Mr. Snell began, without pointing the finger at anyone in particular.

'Bearing that in mind it is difficult not to wonder why the assertion that 'this constituency' has been in Labour control for over 80 years, repeated ad nauseum in the last 24 hours has gone unchallenged', he then continued, before pointing out that in fact 'this constituency' has only existed in its current state since the boundary changes of 2010, which saw the incorporation of (amongst others) the town of Keswick which, according to the latest census, has a population of over 5,000, over 80% of whom self-identify as 'Professional, Management, or Skilled Technical '.

Anyone commenting on the 'historic' nature of Labour's defeat in Copeland would do well to research the history and changing demographics of the constituency before allowing themselves the luxury of considering their opinion to be either unbiased or, for that matter, informed.

Such a person might do well to read an editorial piece penned in April 2010 (in local paper The News and Star) entitled 'Have boundary changes made Copeland a marginal seat?'

They might also do well to consider that, even before changes to both the boundaries and regional demographics, a previous incumbent, Dr Jack Cunningham, saw his own majority slashed to less than 5000 in 2001, from more than 12000 four years earlier, a majority that had remained virtually unchanged for thirty years. (A loss, incidentally, of 7000 votes, compared to the 4000 lost this time).

By 2015, Cunningham's successor, Jamie Reid, had seen that majority halved again to just over 2500.

History can be read as a series of precipitous events, or it can be viewed as the result of long-standing trajectories.

A less biased commentator than I might view Labour's defeat as a culmination, a slow-motion train crash, that began with the breaking of trust between the Blair/Brown Labour Party, and the working classes they were elected to represent.' 

These are the true facts that the mainstream media, and the Guardian and the Independent in particular, have chosen to ignore. For those who are interested as to why this should be, one of the prime movers in the campaign to unseat Jeremy Corbyn, with particular reference to the Copeland byelection, has been Tom Watson. Last week I conjectured, in a previous blog post, that Mr. Watson's universally declared financial links to Max Mosley, a key player in the Bernie Eccleston Affair that scandalized the Blair Administration during its first term of office, may have had something to do with the Deputy Leader's present stance on Mr. Corbyn.

In view of this, I would be interested to see if Ben Bradshaw would go so far as to refer to Mr, Snell as a liar. I would also be interested to know exactly who the Guardian's main sponsors presently are, and what, exactly, their openly declared political leanings are: if they have any. The answers are out there, truly out there!