Corbyn's Labour supporters can win the debate - here's how

The anti-Corbyns would do well to remember the Remainers who descend into hysterics after Brexit. Campaign lies or not, they were only ever going to entrench the Leavers more. Stomping of feet is undignified and divisive after what was a far more honest campaign.

Ok, trying to draw a line under this pointless and distracting waste of time. Labour can finally focus on the issues and make their case - here's how:

Issues

The consensus over Corbyn's speech was generally positive - even from critics. It contained the radical idea of actually investing in infrastructure, a real living wage, rent controls and ending arms sales to medieval human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia:

Many anti-Corbyns can usually be neutralised by asking 'what policy idea of his do you actually disagree with?' It is transparent how Corbyn's opponents prefer  the navel-gazing of Labour's internal soap opera fuelled by media narratives - don't get dragged in. After all even tories acknowledge these - in public at least: 

• More houses need to be built.
• The NHS should not have top-down privatisation.
• Grammar schools are a dunce's idea to improve social mobility
• Tax avoidance needs to be curbed - if you want a reduced deficit and ignore this issue you're avoiding maths. The numbers prove this would go further than looking at benefit fraud
• Austerity has failed - tories finally coming around to what credible economists have been saying repeatedly what seems like forever. Remainers should take comfort that Brexit might finally end the dumb punitive era of elite prescribed economic dogma.

Other right-wing commentators complimentary to Corbyn include

Peter Oborne:

Twitter

A lot of the ammunition used by anti-Corbyns comes from twitter. It appears they spend time waiting for anyone with a Corbyn profile ribbon to swear and they are suddenly branding all of his followers as thugs. This is the same logic as branding 1.6 Billion muslims as terrorists for the actions of a minority. This analogy extends because many terrorists are not true followers of Islam, they are using the religion as a means to an ends. The fake Momentum twitter accounts show how murky the waters of abuse are.

If we're talking about anti-semitism and prejudice it seems few of the standards that Corbyn is held to is levelled at other parties. I've written about tory government sanctioned racism - which needs to be highlighted at every turn. Furthermore a lot of the abuse judged to be Corbyn's fault has actually come from the hard right or been fabricated

Pro-austerity elitists, some who've never worried about Jewish people, are suddenly find they might be useful to push their failed agenda. Jews are calling this out

Blairites again using Jewish people as a political football to smear those who oppose Austerity like Corbyn, NO!!!!! pic.twitter.com/ef93QJfmjH

— Jewish Voice (@J_VoiceUK) June 30, 2016

these are anti-Labour activists. @jessphillips knows. she's using anti-semitism for point scoring. I'm Jewish. stop. https://t.co/HsJnQGo4GC

— Michael Segalov (@MikeSegalov) September 17, 2016

Polls

Wonder if the right are going to mention them anymore?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/new-poll-puts-labour-ahead-of-tories-for-first-time-since-jeremy-corbyn-became-leader-a6937926.html

Labour leadership election: debunking Corbyn media narratives

It seems strange that Labour are in the same position they were a year ago - with a leadership election involving Corbyn. If that's what it takes to prove he is representing those desperate for a real alternative to a broken and failed system then so be it. What the sneering media and other elites fail to comprehend is that their groupthink has made them blind to how decades of neoliberalism have marginalised millions - a clue should have been Brexit winning or UKIP coming 3rd in the popular vote in 2015. Corbyn resonates with many of these people.




Time to scrutinise the myths surrounding a social phenomenon that won't go away even if Corbyn does:

Abuse & violence is somehow his fault

A brick was thrown through the window of Angela Eagle's offices after announcing her leadership. Clearly this is a horrible thing to experience and it is right that serious concerns were raised over her safety with speculation of political motivations. Except the speculation didn't remain speculation. Soon the media was sometimes subtly, sometimes not, framing this as the thuggery of Corbyn supporters. Almost implying that he himself had sanctioned this. Even his supporters have been swept along by this.

Another important point of forensics is that this act affected the building her offices were in, not her actual offices. A stairwell was the target - hardly the heart of Eagle's operation. This video highlights this but obviously cannot say categorically that it was simply mindless vandalism just as Eagle herself cannot say it was linked to Corbyn despite her interview clearly giving that impression



Also an alleged act of intimidation would do its job wherever aimed. The issue is not how the facts are interpreted but how they are reported. Of course it is very easy to imply that this was the work of Corbyn supporters or the man himself just by simply omitting these facts or placing his name in the same headline:

Of course all abuse and violence is wrong but the media have a responsibility to differentiate the right wing abuse Labour MPs get all the time from internal incidents be it Corbyn supporters or not. Except it's clear few have any interest in this - see articles here:

• Why should we believe these claims about Corbyn supporters being “brutal” at meetings?
• Why are the Labour coup plotters fabricating evidence of abuse?

Corbin couldn't convince Labour supporters to vote Remain and didn't try hard enough

He is unelectable

Under Corbyn's leadership in the recent 2016 elections, Labour performed better than expected and bettered the tories who are apparently a united family of competence despite Brexit splits, a disastrous economy, election fraud and a new Prime Minster who failed as home secretary

Corbyn supporters are all metropolitan liberal elites

Last time I checked voters in Northern seats could hardly be considered as part of this group.
In the picture above you can see Labour holding councils in Bradford, Bolton, Barnsley, Blackburn even Birmingham is hardly elite country. Furthermore working class constituencies are nominating Corbyn for leader.

Facts on bombing Syria: David Cameron is now a threat to our national security

So you've decided to bomb Syria

The UK has aimed its sights at what 'intelligence' says is ISIS / Daesh HQ in Raqqa, a Syrian town of 150k. This is despite every Paris attacker being an EU national based in France/Belgium - and not immigrants as many media outlets propagated. This raises the first suspicions that the decision is poll boosting economic imperialism rather than any long-term strategy for peace. Even David Cameron's tories admit these airstrikes will not defeat ISIS, especially as they are decentralised global entity using social media to interact and organise.

ISIS/Daesh need to be wiped-out but instead of empty war grandstanding for  furthering western interests, the solution should target the economic roots. A multilateral approach should stop their oil being exported through Turkey. This gets sold to the usual array of mercenaries and opportunists as well those resisting the cult who have no choice. All this enabled by the money transfer system of global finance which has only been addressed recently. Follow the money. These internal financial and external smuggling networks maintain the ISIS infrastructure. It is rarely understood that the proposed caliphate has fostered welfare and school systems, this doesn't happen without the involvement of western finance. So ISIS spawned from the Iraq blundering of neo-cons, is now exploited by their neo-liberal accomplices.

Selling arms to unstable regions or regions that trade arms to them is all part of the short-term profit making for the complicit west. Cash from chaos. Meanwhile Labour's Jeremy Corbyn highlighted these issues and how they could be alternatives in the fight.

What are the UK providing?

Since French and US allies have been bombing Syria precipitating the Paris attacks, not much is being offered. The UK is already bombing ISIS in Iraq but with permission. Of course we can't get it from Syrian despot Assad, who met the Queen once - see below.

A meagre force of 10-14 Tornado jets equipped with Brimstone missiles. Again war hawks confess there will still be civilian casualties with this latest technology because nothing that powerful can be 100% accurate 100% of the time - also if intelligence is flawed (hello WMDs) the missile is irrelevant. And Raqqa is densely populated and doesn't contain 150k of mostly innocents Syrians. There will be horrific collateral damage just as there has been with 28 Mosul school children killed and the Afghan Doctors Without Borders hospital deaths

What is the effect of civilian casualties?

General stoking up of the false clash of civilsations narrative between the imperialist  west and fascist pretend-muslims with their Wahhabi brainwashed followers. Ideology is how militarism is sold on both sides. The Nazis used the Reich propaganda of the master race. We let Saudis spread extremism because they have oil and it makes powerful western lobbyists money in the military-industrial complex.

Potential allies on the ground?

Obviously we can't bomb democracy into people so we need to influence those on the ground.
This chart is complicated enough to digest let alone work with in the chaos of war.
And factor in that they are unlikely to be "moderates" or sympathetic of the west.

Is there an exit plan?

Errr see above?

The complexities are obvious to anyone enquiring mind but government warmongers and their media enablers deceive for their usual purposes. Here is an example. 

David Cameron and the Queen are now a threat to our national security.


Despite the propaganda BBC Newsnight ran a debate broadcasting free un-spun opinions from both sides and several walks of life concluding in undecideds choosing not to bomb. Some polls back this up.

Does anyone without a vested interest in bombing for peace believe this will make the world a safer place?

Please support the JSFU Facebook Page hereand friend here

Corbyn won by a landslide. The propaganda intensifies

It's been a summer of the refugee crisis and Labour leadership saga but it's now that time of year when shirking careerist elitist MPs are declared fit to work and will emerge from their expenses paid houses to swamp parliament.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2015/09/mp-expense-overclaims/

Last week Tory-run BBC news had Daily Politics back on air with the usual cast of establishment careerists (mostly men) like Andrew 'plebgate' Mitchell and Tristram Hunt who was parachuted into a safe Labour seat because he was on the telly. Having put up the pretence of showing heart over the refugee crisis the war-machine quickly moved to make the case for more self-serving western imperialism. This was the trend of the week seen in The S*n and PMQs both used as platforms to push for a war. Would any of the establishment volunteer themselves of their loved ones to go fight? And who would really benefit from war? Perhaps this massive arms fair in London might hold some clues.

Later they had Waylon Smithers brown-noser, Toby Young smearing Labour which was mirrored on Newsnight. Just to be sure a Panorama hatchet job by 'journalist' John Ware was broadcast, in which 'experts' questioned Corbyn's electability while showing pictures of his rallies being attended by large crowds. They also smeared Corbyn's diplomacy fro including enemies, conveniently forgetting UK ties to despotic regimes around the world like wealthy Saudi Arabian fundamentalists - who by the way are not at all concerned about their fellow Muslims seeking asylum.

Talking of foreign policy, Israeli PM Netanyahu met David Cameron because presumably it's OK to call apartheid tyrants 'friends' if they are our apartheid tyrant. Israel is what S. Africa was before the 90s but with a greater death toll. This undermines so-called 'British values' our PM continually pushes and u;ltimately leaves us with no real diplomatic legitimacy in the Middle East even with moderates.

Then Corbyn won by a landslide - the largest mandate of any leader ever. After his victory he chose not to appear on Andrew Marr's BBC weekend politics show because he was fulfilling a promise to visit a mental hospital in his constituency.

The Times, as a paper full of tory elitists (If you don't want to visit the UKIP link then see image below) who trade on being progressive metropolitans went into full demonisation mode.

That's it for me. I'll see if the Labour party's still there in the morning. Maybe they'll abolish pubs or something. It's been a pleasure.

— Philip Collins (@PCollinsTimes) September 13, 2015

@PCollinsTimes I know, I get that feeling with 'journalism' in The Times too http://t.co/fdvoGvWKnv #JezWeDid

— JeSuisFedUp (@JeSuisFedUp) September 14, 2015

There were accusations from the usual voices who never before cared for women's representation or having quotas that his cabinet was sexist, even though there were more female members than the tories have, in fact more than ever. Sky news wannabe journalist Dermot Murnaghan even pontificated about whether Corbyn's casual dress sense could get him elected.

If you want to know what a proper mainstream media journalist looks like then watch this. It created the usual social media outcry, a measure of how low our standards and expectations have fallen.

Please support the JSFU Facebook Page here and friend here

How the media are smearing Jeremy Corbyn: A leadership campaign is not meltdown.

McCarthyism is alive and well in 21st century UK.

The mainstream media after smearing Nicola Sturgeon before the election and getting embarrassingly exposed after the source of the leak was revealed,  has now set it sights on Jeremy Corbyn.


HSBC propaganda leaflet, The Telegraph were chief perpetrators against Sturgeon. Now they actively encourage readers to vote for him under the pretence that his leadership will keep their beloved Conservatives in power. Or is this just a stunt to undermine him because he's a real alternative? Can he win an election? - who knows? Many thought the tories would be in permanent wilderness post-Blair. Remember baseball hat Hague and IDS's Quiet Man speech I don't recall the media being as aggressive.

A regular tactic is to ramp up the rhetoric on Labour with words like 'panic', 'existential crisis' and asking if the party will split, branding things 'dull' one minute then 'chaos' the next. Even supposedly 'left-wing' BBC is complicit - a cherished national institution but also a profit-driven global multinational. Media enterprises always sell business narratives because profit trumps public interest.

Unfortunately, the more the media scare-monger about alleged Labour disarray, the more likely swing voters will turn towards the tories or 'safe' Blairites, who then pander to the owners. Even the left-leaning New Statesman have run with this populist trend.

Ultimately it's no real surprise that Labour are having a heave-ho, they just lost an election they expected to get something from. It's easy to forget that despite attacks on Miliband and the SNP takeover, Labour increased their vote share - nearly double the tories percentage.

Those on the right of Labour are increasingly coming across as out-of-touch, something Miliband kept accusing the tories of. Most of their MPs abstained on tory cuts to tax credits for 3+ children families. This bill effectively dictates the size of a affected working families, the strivers this government pretends to reward. The media frame this as Labour in-fighting, instead of supporting those sticking up for the children who will be plunged into poverty as a result.

click for 38 degrees petition

So Osborne cynically plays political games with people's lives while trying to re-brand his party as pro-working people. And the Labour right allow him his win. This was a bill that could have been successfully opposed if Labour's 184 spineless MPs had grown one.

Then Blair emerged and, probably to the relief of the average citizen of the Middle East, dropped bombs on Corbyn's bid and his party. An interfering war-monger who commands huge fees to speak at world hunger events. I guess he's making the most of Chilcot report delays

To me the whole political debate since the 2008 financial crisis comes down to this:

a) Who caused the global banking meltdown?
b) Who should be protected from its consequences?
c) Who should be made accountable?

These are rhetorical questions for informed followers of news/politics with basic moral reasoning but please read/comment away if you want to discuss. Keep it constructive and witty please.

Finally, if you wonder why I am so bothered about the media, it is because key swing voters are still influenced by it, as I argue here.

Please support the JSFU Facebook Page here and friend here