Jeremy Corbyn is at a crossroads. The decision he makes now will change everything.

1. In the quiz box below this article were questions about PLOs. There was no apparent link to Palestine so I consulted online sources. The only other meaning to emerge was the PLO being a procedural process for social workers; that didn’t appear to fit either.

   Someone at the Canary please note that ambiguous abbreviations, and jargon, ought be explained.

   Log in to Reply Report comment

2. James Wright has identified a choice which if wrongly made by Mr Corbyn has worrying consequences. On the face of it, each option has allure. However, that of taking a principled stand rather than compromise could be not only the proper thing to do but also, in context of political expediency, the one most likely to succeed.

   Mr Corbyn ought appreciate that his party’s recently swollen membership contains many self-directed, well educated people capable of independent thought. What once might have been the task of chivvying along a largely ovine collection of ‘traditional’, from birth and habit, Labour supporters becomes that of energising a new dynamic. Put up a monkey, as, for example, happened in Neath for many years, and more recently when Blair’s son was shoehorned into parliament, but don’t assume blind loyalty from the new intake of members.

   We are not the least interested in anachronistic Labour concerns and associated mythology e.g. Grunwick, miners’ strikes, Tolpuddle Martyrs, and projected guilt over slavery. Moreover, strident minorities angling for ever more supposed ‘rights’, e.g. present day ‘identity politics’ and nonsense over ‘gender’, leave many of us cold as they do most of the electorate upon which Labour soon shall depend.

   We, and a soon to be persuaded electorate, seek remedy for broken market-economics, undue concentration of wealth (particularly when giving rise to financial dynasties), unnecessary ‘austerity’ inflicted to sustain moribund financial institutions (especially banks), palpable arrogance among those ‘bailed out’, perceived rampant corruption in politics and beyond, and the blinkered outlook of a class of ‘career’ politicians (across the board) who seem more intent on feathering their own nests (Johnson et al) than steering the UK toward economic well being for all, this coupled with greatly enhanced opportunity for individuals to explore their potentials for giving purpose to life beyond that of subsistence (‘secular spirituality’ rather than the tacky ‘American Dream’ kind of ambition).

   Ordinary people absorbed in their daily lives of making ends meet and fed shallow expectations of ‘consumerism, have little time or inclination to grasp the ‘big picture’, historical, economic, social, and political, in which they are embedded. People can be persuaded to adopt a simple explanation for their circumstances and ‘solutions’ arising from it. That is all too easy as evident from successes by elements identifying present woes with immigration, harmless minority communities, and supposedly parasitical types living off welfare.

   Yet, Labour can identify a simple and genuine explanation for our move toward an Ayn Rand dystopia: neo-liberalism and its works. This requires explanation. It demands constant repetition, a no longer in-mode educational tool, through putting out the same message in differing words and with variation of examples. From that flows coherent explanation of the plight many find themselves in and gives support to their fears for the future.

   Ordinary people are aware of our mismanaged for-profit public infrastructure. However, those not adult at the time of Mrs Thatcher need assistance in perceiving just how far downhill the utilities have travelled.

   The NHS is another topic easy to engage the popular imagination. How many people understand the nature and destructive effects of PPFI schemes? How many are aware of the moribund, inefficient, corruption ridden, and inequitably distributed, health care system in the USA? Do they know that according to both US collected statistics and those collated by the WHO, some measures of mortality, morbidity, and quality of life, are consistent with third-world nations?

   Additionally people need reminding of the grip the rentier mentality has upon modern economies, notably the USA and UK. This is found with physical property and in so-called ‘intellectual property’. People don’t realise how much of their income, including that which is discretionary spending, feeds the sense of entitlement of various categories of rentier. Similar applies to the UK as an entity: a large chunk of GDP is channelled to overseas rentiers, this especially in context of cultural pursuits.

   Obviously there are many more examples of misery and/or injustice attributable to neo-liberalism.

   Workable solutions must include restoration of market-capitalism to pre-1980s functioning with huge amounts of wealth sequestrated by the avaricious (much stored in ‘dead’ property and fine arts) restored for funding entrepreneurial activity. Commitment to mixed economy is essential. Moreover, whilst acknowledging market-capitalism as a major driver for innovation and efficient production of goods, its limitations need spelling out and determination shown to make it the servant of society rather than, as neo-liberals would have it, the other way around.

   Finally, it is imperative for the ‘New Labour’ experiment roundly to be condemned. Among many other things its foreign policy was subordinated to neo-liberal interests; hence Blair’s war crimes.

   Log in to Reply Report comment

3. A thoughtful and well written contribution from Smythe-Mogg the bulk of which I can not find anything that does not seem reasonable . I agree entirely that the Labour Party should offer explanation, education and focus with regards to the harm done by the Thatcher programme of privatisation, deregulation and transfer of public assets into private hands. It is true, after all, that many people were either very young or unborn at the beginning of the process that tore down the mixed economy post war consensus and embedded the presently dominant neoliberal one within our economic and political culture.

   I feel that it is of equal importance to expose to the light of day the political reality of the so called New Labour revolution when Blair became leader. Tony Blair was elected leader at the end of a lengthy process; begun under Kinnock, during the progression of which many long serving party members had been expelled for alleged “militant” roots / intentions. Party members and the wider public through the auspices of the media were offered a consistent narrative at the centre of which was the claim that the far left was engaged in a project intended to infiltrate and ultimately take over the party. Whilst it is more than likely that there were indeed some on the left who had loyalties outside of the broad church of the party, it was also an unreported and mostly ignored truth that the threat of “entryism” was probably greater from the liberal right.

   We should remember that beneath and behind the slogans and banner of modernisation proudly displayed by the cabal of influence behind Tony Blair and his immediate associates lay other less known and more insidious influences; such as the so called “Successor Generation” (a very secretive and well funded offshoot of the Bilderberg group nb). Blair and several of his associates were allegedly members of this (see “The New Rulers of the World” – John Pilger) The purpose, according to research by John Pilger and published within the above title was to “attain positions of influence” throughout politics and industry within the World in order to assure the continued dominance of market economics and the economic status quo.

   We have been elected as “New Labour” and will Govern as New Labour stated Tony Blair on the steps of Downing Street. Under his direction, the political heart and purpose of the Labour Party was torn out and remodelled in the image of the neoliberal consensus brought by Thatcherism. Indeed, it is a sad fact that it was New Labour that introduced conditionality to the welfare system; which has led to the hostile environment of sanctions and mass penury of the modern DWP. It was under New Labour that PFI really took off, saddling many public institutions with crippling debt whilst transferring million££ of public assets into private hands. It was New Labour that first opened up in house NHS services to “any qualified provider”.

   The New Labour project was an extension of neoliberalism and their remain many supporters of it within the PLP.

   Log in to Reply Report comment

4. Addendum to the above – the final line should read “The New Labour project was an extension of neoliberalism and there remains many supporters of it within the PLP.”

   (Serves me right for typing without sufficient light).

   Log in to Reply Report comment

5. Got it, and agree regards campaigning on a pro reconstruct UK basis but what about the EU and our membership there? Surly defusing the brexit bomb must be a top priority. Has Corbyn finally come down on the pro EU side of the fence?

   If, as you write, only 8% of labour supporters list brexit as their top concern, then the excuse by Labour that they fear losing support by unequivocally supporting remain is no longer valid.

   Where does Len McCluskey and other union leaders fit into this ‘ignore brexit and rebuilt UK etc. ‘ direction and how much influence do they continue to have regards Labour policies and action?

   Norman Finkelstein has (finally) exposed the A/S attack on Corbyn and Labour for what it is, although the Israeli involvement has long been in the public domain and largely ignored. (https://www.redressonline.com/2017/01/watch-israels-penetration-of-the-uks-political-system-exposed/). Why does Chris Williamson still attract so much negative attention?

   All these issues regarding privatisation and bleeding the public purse are true and ongoing. But how can we exit the EU and lose the strength of association with them and still defeat the billionaires planning to take ownership of the UK?

   Whatever problems exist within the EU and its ‘free enterprise is good’ philosophy they do provide some stability and wealth for the member states. As contributing members we could make positive changes, something that would never ever happen in association with Trump and the US.

   (who is Smythe-Mogg, by the way?)

   (I post the following with most of my comments, excuse the repetition.)

   Withdraw A50, the quickest and least expensive way out of this mess we are in. How can conditions that exist in the UK right now be preferable to resuming our seat at the top table as a respected and honourable member of the world’s largest trade group? Don’t forget, we would not forfeit our right to decide to leave at a later date. When we have a plan and are better prepared, but not now.

   Log in to Reply Report comment

Please read our comment moderation policy here.