Jeremy Corbyn to pledge that Labour will ‘take on the wealthy and powerful’

Support us and go ad-free

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will pledge that the next Labour government will “take on the wealthy and powerful” when he addresses a trade union conference.

Corbyn will promise to deliver the investment that Scotland needs and build a fairer, more equal and just society in a speech at the Unite conference in Ayr on Sunday.

He will be in Ayrshire after spending Saturday campaigning in marginal seats Motherwell and Wishaw, and Inverclyde.

Corbyn will outline Labour’s plans to invest £70bn in public services and infrastructure in Scotland, give over 700,000 workers a pay rise of thousands of pounds, including £1,200 per year to those working an average hourly wage of £9.10, and to save over half a million Scots from the “indignity, suffering and misery” of Universal Credit.

He is expected to say:

Read on...

We will deliver the investment that Scotland desperately needs to transform the economy, rebuild our communities and public services and build a fairer, more equal and just society.

We will introduce a Real Living Wage, giving three quarters of a million Scots a huge pay rise and we will scrap Universal Credit, saving over half a million Scots from the indignity, suffering and misery that the Tories have unleashed.

Real change won’t come easily – it never does. But Labour will not shy away from taking on the wealthy and the powerful vested interests holding people back. We will put wealth and power in the hands of the many.

We have a once-in-a-generation chance to rebuild and transform our country so that no-one is held back and no community is left behind.”


We know everyone is suffering under the Tories - but the Canary is a vital weapon in our fight back, and we need your support

The Canary Workers’ Co-op knows life is hard. The Tories are waging a class war against us we’re all having to fight. But like trade unions and community organising, truly independent working-class media is a vital weapon in our armoury.

The Canary doesn’t have the budget of the corporate media. In fact, our income is over 1,000 times less than the Guardian’s. What we do have is a radical agenda that disrupts power and amplifies marginalised communities. But we can only do this with our readers’ support.

So please, help us continue to spread messages of resistance and hope. Even the smallest donation would mean the world to us.

Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. If that is true, if Labour will take on the Wealthy and Powerful, isn’t it high time that they expel Blair and Blairites from the Party to prove they mean business?

      Whilst the war-criminal Tony Blair, and his supporting cronies are still in The Labour Party, Labour is as guilty of war crimes as he is, and the idea that Labour will stand up against the wealthy and powerful is derisory in this context.

      Allowing criminals like them to remain in the party, to protect them from the justice that needs to be done, speaks of crimes far worse than a small number of anti-Semites who despite being wrong, are not guilty of murder on a vast scale like Blair and his supporters are.

      Does Labour believe in justice? does Labour believe that Law should apply equally to all? Does Labour believe that if you associate with criminals, you are a criminal? If so, then Labour must expel, and where possible, expose the wrongdoings of corrupt members to the LAW, in order to enable the prosecution of the war-criminals in their Party, and to get them out of the Party so they are not guilty by association.

      If Labour cannot stand up to, and against the wealthy and powerful (corrupt) in their own party, then they will never stand up to the wealthy and powerful on the outside, and then their hypocrisy will forever be visible.

      I am not anti-Labour, in fact I am pro all parties getting rid of the morally bankrupt people within their organisations, our democracy desperately needs a good house-cleaning, and it isn’t a job for anyone else but those parties and the Law.

      As it stands, I only see Labour as being able to keep our country from sinking beneath the waves and drowning, however, all parties carry a disgusting history, and whilst the Tories and Lib Dems seem utterly devoted to the excesses of extremist capitalism, and are showing the very worst of human traits in their poor leadership, Labour is not without its problems, and it must address these issues before it can be ruled fit for purpose.

      This is the first thing Jeremy Corbyn has said that he will fail to deliver on, as long as he allows criminals like Tony Blair to remain in the party. To be clear, those corrupt and criminal elements need to be expelled AND prosecuted to the fullest extent of The Law for their crimes. Only then, can anyone give credence to Labour (indeed any party that protects criminals and criminal behaviour within its ranks needs to expel and pursue a vigorous prosecution in order to gain any credibility).

      1. If I have understood you correctly, neither you nor I are ‘natural’ electoral fodder for Labour as it once was. So long as Mr Corbyn and his key supporters are not ousted or stifled, I shall support Labour at the next general election, or if its candidate is fighting a hopeless cause I shall vote tactically to Labour’s best overall advantage.

        I embrace Labour because Mr Corbyn comes across strongly as possessing integrity, humanity, and wisdom; ‘image’ and ‘spin’ do not appear to sit happily with him.

        I agree that ‘Blairites’ are a rottenness within Labour. They must be purged from candidacy short-lists. Mr Corbyn and close associates ought disavow themselves of ‘New Labour’ and admit thinking during the Blair/Brown era was consistent with that of Conservatives and Lib-Dems, with financial mayhem, with institutionalised greed, and with ‘austerity’ being the supposedly obvious solution to deep-seated incompetence, corruption, and avarice. Indeed, Blair and key colleagues were co-conspirators in illegal ‘regime change’ operations and undoubted war crimes. It would be nice to see them face criminal charges; historical criminality has in context of sexual misconduct been pursued, so what reason to do otherwise for war crimes? Cruelty towards, and murder of, foreign nationals in foreign places is hard to comprehend in terms of individual suffering. Not so the anguish and death of Dr Kelly and their impact upon his family. Although circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death remain unclear, no published inquest findings, there is no doubt that Blair and his co-criminals caused and exacerbated Dr Kelly’s woes; Dr Kelly was no far away abstraction: he was a civilian employee of the government.

        That said, I see little prospect of success in prosecuting Blairites for war crimes and corruption. Moreover, there are far more urgent matters for Mr Corbyn to set his mind upon: these encompassed in the task of dismantling neo-liberalism and gaining reparations from its key players.

        Additionally, in order to gain credibility Labour must ditch anachronistic concerns and not give credence to intellectually shallow preoccupations around ‘sexuality’ and so-called ‘gender’. Not to do so is to dig itself into the same pit which that passing as the ‘left’ in the USA has dug for itself. ‘Snowflakes’, ‘trigger words’ ‘safe spaces’, ‘de-platforming’, ‘me too’, youthful minor indiscretions revealed (e.g. ‘blacking up’), fixation on inventing new pronouns, and the whole rotten edifice of ‘political correctness’.

        Labour’s urgent mission is to help everyone recover from the disastrous economic experiment instituted by Mrs Thatcher. Deep-seated reforms are necessary. The starting point is recognition of the existence of ‘society’ and of interdependence thus entailed. There is a middle course to steer between neo-liberal ‘may the Devil take the hindmost’ and ‘Old Labour’ dumbing-down to the lowest common denominator.

        Specious talk about so-called ‘inequalities’ (the natural state of most measurable variables) ought be replaced by discussion of the distribution of ‘opportunity’ and how the lower end may be brought upwards thereby shifting the median upwards too. Then there are the people who can’t or won’t ‘hack it’ in context of today’s extraordinarily complicated society. Means need be found to enable them to live with dignity; their offspring are to be valued, justification being moral and/or pragmatic; the latter arises from Mendelian ‘bean bag’ genetics from which follows ‘regression toward the mean’: offspring of the dimmest on average are brighter than the average of their parents, and vice versa for children of intelligent folk. Our gene pool is a vital resource. The more varied it is (in modern PC language – the greater the diversity), the better.

        Remarks in the previous paragraph have bearing on dangerous (for humanity) assumptions in neo-liberalism. It is a doctrine leading from a stratified society (inevitable and desirable to some degree) to a two stratum society: those owning and directing everything (say 0.1%) and the rest. The owning/ruling minority, as with aristocracy of old, shall choose mates from within their stratum; the British royal family is exemplar of the consequence. The new elite gene pool shall be tiny; this despite the occasional modern equivalent of an aristocrat marrying an actress. In the long term that bodes societal collapse even though sparks of intelligence emerging among the serfs would be kept corralled or eliminated. Unless the ‘elite’ has destroyed the environment, mankind could rebuild itself. However, by destroying neo-liberalism now a ‘dark age’ can be averted.

        Immediate reform within the UK must include taxation but without annulling incentive for the genuine entrepreneur (bankers and CEO’s of listed companies generally do not fall into this category); creation and continuing existence of financial dynasties must cease. Perhaps the most important reform of long term benefit is disbanding the self-perpetuating and self-serving inner cabal of the Privy Council. Exercising ‘royal prerogatives’ the cabal controls policies most closely bound with the demands of the ‘establishment’. Top among these is foreign policy.

        A medium-term reform would be to create a written constitution and put oversight into the hands of our Supreme Court. Johnson’s recent shenanigans lend support to the idea.

        Any reform whatsoever depends upon a Corbyn-led Labour government assuming office. That won’t happen unless Labour can appeal to almost everyone not destined to be part of the 0.1%. Hence my demand for removal of ‘New Labour’ and ‘Old Labour’ impedimenta.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.