Prophets and Loss

Most people that know me, know that I'm interested in politics, but, by my own admission, I'm no expert and I'm often shown things that I was ignorant of or that flies in the face of my beliefs. Recently I've been accused of being a 'blind Corbyn supporter' because I refuse to see the damage he's doing to the Labour Party - internally. But like many other slightly disgruntled people, I look at the man I see and not the Machiavellian machinations that are obviously going on with or without his blessing and then I'm mocked for either being too naive or too altruistic or deluded because I refuse to see the wider picture. I do see the wider picture and what I see has been commented on in these pages many times - career politicians putting their own interests ahead of the people and therefore not acting in my best interests, despite representing the party I've supported all of my life.

Like right wing leaning people, I tend to stick with my 'tribe' and therefore spend a lot of time preaching to the converted and have probably been labelled a 'loony leftie' by many of my more moderate friends and relatives, who sometimes view my politics as 'harmful' and 'non-negotiable', but I hope they will at least recognise my commitment to my beliefs. However, in this very narcissistic world we live in now, I can't help but want to get a big massive trumpet out and start blowing it loudly from the hills.

Talking to an equally 'radical' friend the other night, I made the rather modest (highly unusual for me) statement that I must be some kind of prophet. After the hilarity of the statement dissipated, I quantified my statement: Since I resurrected this blog last year, I've focused a lot on the Brexit issue and the turmoil in British politics. I've made lots of forecasts, based on my feelings rather than the biased press and media, and an incredibly huge amount of them have come true. With hindsight, some of the observations I made seem more lucid and realistic now than they possibly did when I was sounding like a conspiracy theorist on steroids and many of the things I said weren't echoed in the press - ever; many of the questions I asked ended up being asked when it was too late and while I have no doubt many other bloggers sensed the real feeling around the country, I didn't see the politicians, the media and all of their assorted bandwagons have the same kind of handle on the 'mood' as I did from dog walks, work and general conversations with people.

How can someone so politically naive, with no formal qualifications in the subject, and an interest generated more through suspicion than through faith in politicians have got it right so many times and yet people who get paid loads of money failed to see, or more importantly, listen to the people outside of their front doors? Is his more evidence of a media agenda or are these people simply not as astute, as expert, as we like to believe?

Politicians really need to have a good hard look, not just at themselves but at the 60-odd million people living here (there's that famous altruism shining through). If nothing else people have made it clear that they no longer trust politicians of any kind - the left despise the right and vice versa and there hasn't really ever been a middle ground, despite whatever heights the Libdems reached, all that was was the first signs of a disgruntled nations starting to grow tired of the same old same old.

Look at Farage. Honestly, I'm not as obsessed with the man in real life, but in political terms I consider him to have had more impact on a nation than very few politicians in the last 50 years, possibly Thatcher being the exception. The incredible thing about him is his ability to turn repeated failures into some kind of perverse victory (all aided and abetted by our hard right media); like some kind of carcinogenic Eddie the Eagle his resilience is a thing to behold; Oswald Moseley probably would have seen him as a future PM. Yet there is no arguing with how he has single-handedly turned UKIP into the third largest party in the country (by vote share).

The real shame of UKIP is they have inadvertently tapped into the general malaise of the average working man, something one of the other parties should have done - knowingly. Historically this is probably totally inaccurate, but UKIP appeared to be a semi-respectable face of British Nationalism when it started; almost like they realised there was a hot bed of xenophobes and casual racists out there all ignorant enough to want to blame anything foreign for their ills and woes. The problem is, that party is a disorganised shambles, even compared to the Labour Party, if they had a collective brain they could be very dangerous.

In 2001, a good friend of mine said to me in a pub in Nottingham, "Do you know what we should do? We should join the Conservative Party." I stared at him in utter disbelief. "No, wait, hear me out. They are such a disorganised rabble at the moment that anyone with a half decent idea can walk into that party and change it. Until they get proper people running it again they'll never get elected." Obviously we never joined and even if we had, I'm sure there was someone somewhere in CCO planning a future that didn't involve two 'socialist' men just about to turn 40; but the point is UKIP by and large seems like a party with no real reason to exist, except maybe to steal votes from the disgruntled, diluting voter share even more and giving the Tories an easier path to complete dominance. What better way to win an election than by duping former die-hard Labour voters to vote for a party that politically is further to the right than the party they claim to despise. Oh the irony. The point is with proper 21st century politicians running it, UKIP could be a serious threat. We should be thankful for small mercies.

I've often heard the phrase 'the government is out of touch with its people' and, to be honest, I've often felt that was a throwaway comment; I've never felt governments have ever really been in touch with the people. However, for the first time in my 50-odd years, I believe that statement is more pertinent now than ever before, except it isn't the government who is out of touch, it's the entire political machine. Do you know why Jeremy Corbyn is probably perceived as more of a threat to the status quo than him just being a mad Trot? Because he did something last year that has stopped happening with our politicians - he went out and talked to people. I remember general elections when I was growing up and right up until about 2007 with politicians doing what we want them to, engaging with the voters, on doorsteps, at rallies, on market squares, with soapbox in hand; listening to the people and trying to reflect that in their politics. But something happened and media took over and more and more people grew to dislike politicians and it was no longer safe for many politicians to walk the streets of their constituencies; the more Westminster lost touch with the real people, the more real people grew to hate them.

The death of Jo Cox was systematic of what has happened and how people are no longer connected to their representatives, even the ones like Cox who was more engaging than others. Obviously this incident isn't going to have the MPs flooding onto the streets to gauge opinion and engage with their voters and Cox's death might also have signalled the death of any true links MPs will have to local non-political communities. There is now no way people aren't going to view them all as aloof, privileged and not reflecting what they'd like to believe.

Former Labour MP for Northampton South and now Green councillor for the County Council, Tony Clarke, won his seat in 1997, despite traditionally it always being a Tory seat, because he got out and knocked on doors, talked to people, won over their trust, even if they weren't Labour voters and he was regarded as the left of a then newly-modernised and centre New Labour. Yet, he used the swell of opinion mixed with actual hard work to win his seat and then just about retain it later. That doesn't happen any more or if it does prospective MPs and incumbents tend to pick and choose the areas they canvas - therefore are probably preaching to the converted and those who will probably vote anyhow.

The sad thing is that my forecasts weren't intended to be scaremongering, they were intended to highlight what might or would probably happen, from my perspective, and almost as if I scripted it personally, everything from Cameron to Johnson to Eagle's resignations to the economic instability has come true; even my reluctance to believe that Leave would probably win in the two weeks leading up to the vote...

So what does the self-proclaimed new guru of political forecasting believe will happen now? Well, returning to my radical friend and our sage-like weekly conversations about the state of the nation; he believes Theresa May should call a general election in November, because if Labour is in civil war and looking totally unelectable, then she'd be stupid not to. My response to that is 'too risky'. The media might be telling us one thing, and for sure Labour is valiantly trying to destroy itself, but I think there's a definite feeling within the Tory party that people don't want more politics thrust upon them and now we've had one monumental protest vote - with repercussions for decades likely - in this decade of crazy shit happening, the last thing is for a cocky Tory party to go back to the country and end up being in a coalition again. Or worse still, a turn out of less than 40% would not make any mandate legitimate in the majority's eyes. Tories want a few years of crisis managing the economy and trying to be as anodyne as possible to the masses.

On Thursday of last week, I was convinced that the Labour Party coup was going to blow itself out and some kind of uneasy truce will have been found that could have at least taken the party forward, but sadly events escalated again and the civil war is actually getting uglier and unbelievably harmful to democracy in this country. I said in another blog that this is no longer a battle to oust Corbyn but a movement to shut down his wing of the party. The PLP want the left eradicated from the party completely, and not because they've read the mood of the public and seen the future, but because they've seen the future and their careers are at stake.

So technically speaking, May doesn't need to call an election because, at the moment, the Tories have no effective opposition; their majority might as well be 100.

As a Corbyn supporter, how do I feel about what has been happening? This was a question I was asked just the other day and my answer was tempered by my current bemusement with life in general. This is how I see it; a year ago, feeling wounded by a really disappointing election campaign with a leader less electable than Neil Kinnock and left wondering just what the Labour had to do to make itself more popular than a government that was very unpopular, but still won? Despite my interest in politics, I didn't know Jeremy Corbyn from a hole in the ground and like many people indoctrinated by the media, I thought he was the sacrificial left-wing lamb to show some range of democracy in a relatively anodyne leadership contest. Then, like many others, I started to see this groundswell of support for a reasonable man, unruffled by the hyperbole of 21st century politics, talking sense in a crazy political world. The opposition towards him started before he even won and I forecast the tensions ahead of him, without realising just how low it could sink.

I cannot deny Corbyn represents a wing of the Labour Party that the establishment dislikes and is prone to being labelled extremists and like the far right, the extreme left attracts its own kind of loonies. I saw Corbyn's win as a genuine protest by the voters who care about Labour, for it to return to its grass roots and that has constantly been ignored by the majority of the MPs who cannot accept Corbyn's victory and therefore are not going to listen to the people they supposedly represent.

Whatever accusations are made at Momentum or at Labour, then as many accusations have to be levelled at the rest of the PLP for their own Machiavellian schemes, acted out in their own interests and with scant disregard to the enormous amounts of people who have started to follow Corbyn's beliefs.

Honestly? I think what he's doing will ultimately be destructive, but unfortunately if he acquiesces or is forced out of the party by High Courts and breaches of democracy then the party will also destroy itself, because whoever replaces Corbyn will be seen to have won it in a bloody coup, in an undemocratic fashion that will alienate a large percentage of their core vote. Lose/Lose.

If I was Corbyn faced with hostility from all sides, I would do one of two things. I'd either come out fighting - properly. And I'd start with the press; I wouldn't pander to their whims and when I'm asked pointless personality or personal questions, I would simply turn it round and ask them why they're asking unimportant questions when they should be focusing on all the things that the public should be made aware of. Since he's shown no inclination to be anything but frosty, then the other option would be to sit down with Tom Watson and try to work out a logical successor, who can in some way continue to move Labour back towards its roots as a socialist party rather than a pink Tory party, while offering proper opposition and continuing to attract the people that Jeremy has so far recruited into the fold. Because Owen Smith isn't that man; he's a faceless bureaucrat with a questionable history who to anyone with half a brain sees a token candidate put up to do as much damage as possible.

What I'd like to see is for the 150 plus MPs who are so disillusioned with Corbyn to decide to break away - which is what they want to do but with the Labour name as their own - and form another political party; force 150+ by-elections and see how well they all do. It may well force the UK into looking at socialist coalitions as the way forward to defeat the Tories, or it might simply spell out to these 150+ MPs just how out of touch with their voters they really are. Perhaps this is what is needed; to make the comfortable 'elite' MPs realise that we put them there and therefore they should be representing us and not their own self-interests. The problem with this is MPs are insecure creatures at the best of times; they'd rather try an undemocratic route than an honest plebiscite. Destroy and rebuild from within, because the public has a short memory. Unfortunately betrayal tends to root itself deep.

The Astounding Truth About Jeremy Corbyn and the 37 Naked Contortionist Porn Stars

"The English follow the principle that when one lies, it should be a big lie, and one should stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Joseph Goebbels.

There is a large part of society that really dislikes people quoting Nazis. However, this is one quote - the correct one - that extreme nasty bastard Joseph Goebbels said that should you remove his name and replace it with...

"The English follow the principle that when one lies, it should be a big lie, and one should stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Donald Trump/Tusk/Duck

... could easily be believed (especially about Donald Tusk and his observation of the Out campaign).

Just because someone is seen as a thoroughly despicable human being doesn't mean they can't be accurate in an observation. The last x number of years have been built on a large number of lies and exaggerations of the truth and depending on what newspaper you read, or TV news station you watch, some lies are more important than others. Tony Blair probably lied about the circumstances that led to the Iraq war and his ongoing vilification has been expected and generally welcomed. The Coalition government essentially blaming a portion of the population draining £2billion from the budget were responsible for the country's ills and not the tax avoiding corporations not paying in excess of £40billion in legitimate taxes - the comparisons were never addressed in the mainstream media - was a lie. Recently we've had £350million promised to the NHS as the pinnacle of the Leave campaign's reason for leaving the EU and did you notice how quickly that was dropped? Or how many of our 'impartial' media outlets made an issue out of it? Lies.

The simple truth is we're being lied to by the sources we depend on for fair and even coverage. Take the BBC, always accused of being left wing biased by the right wing, yet the corporation currently produces some of the most anodyne 'current affairs' content in its history and has a news department that is awash with Conservative editors, who have recently admitted - and ignored by the mainstream press - that it might have possibly maybe shown some anti-Corbyn bias in its coverage. Or as an independent blogger worked out: Labour in-fighting is covered on a ratio of 4:1 against Conservative in-fighting; Leadership contests - until the announcement of Theresa May, Labour's coverage was 2:1. More strikingly is that media coverage of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown was extensively on them with less than 20% of media coverage on the 'in-turmoil' Tories or their various leaders. Once the coalition came in focus on Ed Milliband - the opposition leader - rose to almost 50%. His pales into insignificance at the almost persistent hounding of Jeremy Corbyn.

In the last twelve months there has been a record number of newspaper retractions of things they, wrongly, said about the Labour leader. There has been an almost constant trivialisation of the man, while simultaneously building him up as both dangerous and unelectable. In a sensible society, one should wonder why the media are so desperate to continue warning us about the dangers of a man with policies that would have had 1960s Tory MPs nodding in agreement (with the exception of the Trident bit, naturally)? If the man is so dangerous, how come he's not being, you know, dangerous? Preventing 25 Tory bills in 12 months, 11 of which have been banished from the statute books is actually a better record than any opposition leader in 50 years in such a short space of time. I actually couldn't find any examples of anything the Tories prevented during the Blair/Brown era. Obviously information like this is not important to the general public; they're more interested in the size of Jeremy's marrow or that he was sitting in a park playing Pokemon Go (when, in reality, the desperate Daily Mail reporter handed Jezza the game and asked him to comment on its current trendiness).

Plus it's really easy to make click bait headlines against him. Corbyn attacks Eagle with knife is better than Corbyn grows prize marrow.

There are a number of reports floating around at the moment that shows enormous amounts of evidence to back up the media bias against Corbyn: this is one example - http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/media-depictions-of-corbyn-are-an-affront-to-democracy/ and even some of the broadsheets have briefly mentioned this, but none have supported it, condemned it or criticised any of their competition about it. Even The Guardian, for some inexplicable reason now, still the preferred choice of the intellectual Labour voter, has pretty much nailed its allegiance to a lost cause - neoliberalism or Blairism.

Despite Labour continuing to win council by-elections and now mobilising a greater number of young voters, the knives are out again and sharper, because of the Labour Party's desire to self-destruct for the sake of some career politicians. 

This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a fact - the country is pretty much run by a small bunch of people from all across the political spectrum who do everything in their own interests first; it has been seen with the expenses scandal, it has been hinted at with the simmering but never likely to amount to anything election budgeting 'scandal' and the continued onslaught by the none-left wing members of the Parliamentary Labour Party to do anything they can to prevent someone who isn't them and doesn't share their ideology from disrupting their comfortable status quo. The press hasn't really focused any of its attention on Owen Smith or Angela Eagle because there's a Corbyn to be scalped and the fact the old bird is still around makes that scalp really valuable.

I'd like to throw in a theory; it's tenuous I warn you...

UKip are reported as being the biggest threat to luring older Labour voters away (this could be down to the media's knowledge that old Labour voters would never vote Tory, but might be duped into voting Tory under a different name), yet in the majority of those council by-elections I like to bang on about over 90% saw a substantial drop in UKip support (incidentally as the primary goal of UKip has been achieved, how come the mainstream press aren't questioning their continued existence?). It is possible that Corbyn is having a similar effect, but on a different demographic, which Nigel Farage had when his purple fascists suddenly became players on the political landscape (through vote share rather than any seats in Westminster; and remember, their only MP is Douglas Carswell, a former centre-right Tory MP with some hard-right ideas). Some people out there suspect Corbyn isn't the Antichrist and won't eat your children regardless of what Rupert, Paul, Rebekka and co want you to believe.

I've maintained for years that Farage's appeal to your average, largely ignorant, over 50 has been down to his stirring up of jingoistic attitudes and laying the blame at the feet of all the people not responsible for all the ills he peddled. 21st Century fascism encouraged by an inordinate amount of screen time given to, I presume, his general entertainment value. It's like putting subliminal messages into Teletubbies cartoons, programming your children to axe murder you when the signal is given. All he did was peddle lies, deceit and worst of all echoed the urban myths and legends floating around canteens and factories all over the country; it has to be true even if many never saw any evidence of it. Corbyn appears to be galvanising people who still have a social conscience in a similar way.

Once the media started its halfhearted attacks on Farage it increased his support - the little guy who stands up for us workers is being attacked by those lying scumbag newspapers; what are they scared of? Oddly enough the same people will perpetuate myths such as Corbyn not singing the National Anthem or bowing low enough at the Epitaph because they read it in the Sun or the Mail (or those lying scumbag papers, when it suits them)... 

I know people who buy it all; believe that Corbyn is not the right man for a variety of reasons all culminating in, 'and he's simply unelectable' using a term that the media coined, so however much people protest their opinion of the man is their own and hasn't been tainted by outside influences, why aren't you looking at his record, why are you looking at his tie?

Anyhow, Paul Dacre at the Mail will continue to sanction some of the vilest and despicable lies imaginable and somehow remain above the law or criticism. The far right supporting Daily Mail isn't going to be criticised by Tories for blurring the boundaries of impartiality by printing spurious bullshit and if someone from the left attempts to criticise them or take them to task they just lash out again because they know they have no leash. Look at the vicious attacks on the Millibands' dead father and yet Cameron's father was involved in all kinds of tax dodges and the same newspaper called for the dead man's memory to be left unsullied and people believe and support them despite blatant double standards and promoting elitism.

Remember the Sun in 1992? "It was the Sun what won it" or some similarly grammatically appalling headline and I think most people over the age of 40 believe that newspapers can win elections for people; the Sun claimed it won it for Blair, which newspaper historians might interpret as 'Murdoch says this guy will bend over more for me than the last guy'. The Sun didn't win it for Cameron in 2010, but they tend not to mention that. 

More and more people no longer listen to the radio how they once did. TV is changing all the time and our new and innovative ways of viewing are being adopted by more people. Newspapers are dying out among younger audiences, who get their news from different sources. My generation is probably the last one to depend on a lot of 20th century staples and yet we're slowly adapting; but in 20 years many of us will be very old or dead and the people who will become us will have a completely different approach to everything and hopefully that will mean changes in the way we do politics and engage with common people. 

I think this is what Jeremy Corbyn's team has been trying to do. For every person saying, he's unapproachable, he's not statesmanlike, he's out of touch; he doesn't engage with the press enough, there are more people praising his constituency work; his campaigning, his charity work, his support and how, unlike so many other politicians, he's approachable if your intentions are earnest. He gets out and meets people, talks to them and does it the old fashioned way, while simultaneously getting his army of younger political activists to target the places that most people over 50 only hear about from kids or on TV. Young people writing messages about politics aimed at young people doesn't sound so crazy when you say it out loud.

Corbyn and his team are well aware that he is never going to court support from the majority of papers, but Momentum are looking ahead at how things will be fought in the future, while Corbyn remains this quiet, largely unruffled figure refusing to play the games or pander to the media. The biggest problem for Corbyn with right wing leaning news reporting is that if there is a slow news day they aren't averse to manufacturing a story that is negative rather than run a story that is positive. The press would rather you know that someone, somewhere, might be Muslim who is linked to a crime and supports Corbyn than report on how the negative and devastating cuts have decimated deprived areas even more.

If Corbyn's brand of politics is going to remain in charge they need to get a bit slicker in the PR department and they need to try and get a lot of their MPs deselected and new faces to replace them before the next election; so these candidates can win these seats. He also needs to adopt some populist language - or constructive lies - to appease those who think he's soft on areas they want strength. Cameron came across like a sexually aroused horse sporting an enormous erection when he lied to the nation he'd get immigration down; it hurt him that he didn't - but probably nowhere near as much as Jeremy Corbyn's failed radish crop will spell the next downfall of the freakish warmongering vegetarian peacenik (™ The Daily Mail). It's nice to think we have a politician whose principles embrace honesty, but we've got used to being lied to. We don't believe the lies, but we want to and that keeps us going until the next lie comes along.

The Eagle Has Landed Awkwardly

Just for a few minutes, those of you convinced by the media onslaught that Jeremy Corbyn is totally unelectable put those thoughts to one side. Imagine he is just the leader of the opposition and not some kind of whatever he is this week Antichrist-warmongering-vegetarian-lunatic. In fact, try to picture a leader who has the overwhelming support of the party members and in the eyes of a raft of people he is the best thing to happen to Labour since Nye Bevan. Can you do that? Suspend belief for a few minutes and imagine a democratically elected leader who so far has a reasonable track record of getting the Tories to U-Turn and has stimulated interest in politics both from the disaffected and the young. Can you do that?

Good.

Now, I want you to picture Angela Eagle. She is not a Blairite, but she voted for the Iraq war; she also voted on a number of things both positive and negative. In many ways her politics represent a more Corbyn-leaning; she is more left wing than many of the people who dislike Corbyn and that must be the reason she has been asked to sacrifice her political career in what is likely to be a futile, misguided and ultimately hugely damaging defeat for the entire Labour Party. It is clear that the Parliamentary Labour Party has decided that they can live with up to another 9 years in opposition if they can get rid of Corbyn regardless of the damage it does, today.

This is no longer about right and wrong; this is about Establishment Labour attempting to break its own rules to get rid of someone they don't like and now that every fair means has failed, they're starting on the foul ones. With the knowledge that the media will lap up this disintegration and the affect it will have on the voters will be, in the short term, horrendous. There are probably 'New' Labour gurus planning the clean-up and bounce back already, safe in the knowledge that a centre-left leader will get the majority of the press off their backs and allow them to get their message Pink Tory message to the masses. They are also probably convinced that while 500,000 party members might be on the verge of revolution, the party will survive once these fanatics have been driven away and Labour will thrive by attracting more disgruntled Tories, fed up with Austerity Version C.

Honestly, they could learn a thing or ten from the Tories, who have gone from meltdown to brilliantly executed unity inside five days (with little or no media hostility). They can't manage the country but they can manage themselves, which is damning with feint praise, but it's praise all the same. The only thing Labour hasn't unified this week has been everything. And surely Angela Eagle must be aware that making herself the sacrificial lamb is going to cause one of two things - a schism within the party, or a massive revolt against the party by the party! You can imagine the targeting seats by the 'redicals' to ensure a Corbyn-less party does even worse than they imagined - but, but, but... that would be destruction for the party? Yes, a bit like what the centre right of the party are doing now.

A possible schism will be caused by the threat of deselection - imagine a new leader of the opposition who gets a vote of no confidence from her own Constituency Party? It is more than a distinct possibility that 172 MPs get deselected and even my growing knowledge of politics isn't wide enough to even contemplate the constitutional nightmare that would cause. If Corbyn wins this week's leadership contest there's a good chance a lot of MPs will be looking for new jobs, very soon.

Two things are clear if Eagle and the PLP win this ridiculous 'war' - many Labour voters will turn their backs on the party if they feel their will has been undermined by just a handful of people (compared to members) and while Eagle might be more popular within the MPs in Westminster, she will have become toxic to everyone but the most devout and loyal of supporters. Secondly, to quote a friend - 'Labour is finished', but only if the PLP allows itself to play out what will be seen as a poor and grubby Machiavellian coup; because it's a damned sight harder to forgive Labour anything than it is the Tories and the conspirators will realise that their long term aim has just turned into a short term career move.

Would Eagle be a stronger more effective leader of the country if she was in charge? Well, the same applies to her as applies to Corbyn; we simply don't know. People thought Cameron was a strong, effective statesman - yes, he was indeed statesmanlike, was he strong or effective? Would a quiet man in an ill-fitting suit, bordering 70 be that worse than the suits we think of as leaders who have all but run away? This appears to be the reasoning behind why he is unelectable - he doesn't look the part. Well, Angela Merkel looks like she's halfway through makeup as a new Dr Who villain; Francoise Hollande looks like a dull tax inspector who models himself on Rafa Benitez; and even I struggle to put names to faces after that, but few of them could stand next to Obama and look impressive - and Obama's apparently not universally loved.

Now that Labour's new unknown superstar Owen Something has thrown his hat into the ring, I wouldn't be surprised to see Ange-E (as we should call her) do what is called in the trade 'A Leadsom' and retire to Wallasey to mend her napalmed bridges, leaving Mr Something's imminent defenestration a foregone conclusion in a leader vote. It begs the question of why this has been done in the first place?

How about this? The PLP isn't on a self-destruct course at all; as I said, they're prepared to wait another 9 years before they have an earnest crack at winning an election and 9 years in politics is an eternity (given the last week). The PLP either doesn't believe the interest Corbyn has generated and will stick with the unelectable tag or they realise that he is a genuine threat both to the party and their own future security and ambition. If career politicians go into politics to eventually help run a country, imagine you are Jeremy Corbyn in a Tony Blair government? What chance of you got of influencing anything? That is what faces the likes of Kendall, Cooper, Umanna and both the Hotel California Sisters if Corbyn remains. So how about destroying Corbyn's Labour Party? For at least 170 MPs Corbyn is more of a threat to them than the Tories; but as the core of the parliamentary party they represent 'true Labour' - they can rise phoenix-like from the ashes of defeat and stand triumphant against the Tories in 2025. Napalm Labour now, rake those undamaged or tarnished by Corbyn's lunacy out and set them up as the new Shadow cabinet and if necessary dispense with the unions in an attempt to become more electable in the suburbs. Job done. Sorry population, but you just get in the way of their careers.

How does Jeremy Corbyn salvage Labour from this debacle? Here's a little nugget that would never appear in the press - yes, mention the name Jeremy Corbyn amongst disaffected older, traditional Labour voters, and those who know who he is dismiss him as if he's some kind of lower-than-Osborne pond scum; yet in normally traditional Tory heartlands there has been a growth in Labour members from the under 25s. Why would the children of Tory voters in places like Oxfordshire and Surrey suddenly join Labour - post Corbyn? The common belief is that austerity has really only affected the poorest the most, but in reality austerity has a trickle up effect. Once cuts at the bottom start impacting on the next level up, this has a kind of domino effect until it actually starts affecting on those usually immune to it. The young, even the privileged young have friends, acquaintances and witness the world through different eyes than us. Kids not normally bothered by politics will start to notice changes among their peer groups and while barely one of them really care about council estate kids in Macclesfield, they care about their mates on social media, down the pub, at the club. It's a selfish-based system, but one that used to attract some of the aristocracy or wealthier classes to be philanthropists and left-wing politicians.

If Corbyn can mobilise his young team to motivate younger voters and come up with some language to appease a portion of their lost vote in heartlands, then he has one thing, one very big thing, going in his favour... The Tories.

Theresa May has a monumental task ahead of her for one very clear reason, the referendum was as much a protest vote against the Tories as it was against the EU. People are fed up and she either has to make them less fed up or the Tories could face their own watershed moment in May 2020 when a mass protest vote against their policies could leave the country bereft of a dominant party, especially if Labour can't unify. Imagine a parliament with 150 Tories, 100 UKIP, 30 Lib Dems, 60 SNP, 150 Labour and 110+ others? Rainbow coalitions might work, but the dissent from the press would weigh heavily on their shoulders, because while the press don't always represents the majority of people, they are always right.

The United Kingdom Social Democracy Alliance

Margaret Thatcher began a systematic destruction of the left wing of politics by adopting an 'art of war' strategy based on divide and conquer. She didn't do it because she feared them, she did it because she felt the country would be better off without them. The new country she was building didn't need pinko-lefties obfuscating the charge of capitalism and the free market. She viewed the left as nothing more than a tick in the fur, but one that allowed to bury itself would cause unrest, especially among those who viewed her as extreme.

The division of Labour and the forming of the SDP was the first of what would end up being more covert than overt. The rise of the Green Party, the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and independents would further erode the left's vote. The Tories saw the left as easily divisible, while always being able to keep itself together through the common bond of greed. If you have greed, you have a common ground; if you have understanding and fairness at your root, you will always have disagreements with like-minded people over the most trivial of matters. Once the right had the press on their side, it became a fait accompli.

The Labour Party of the 21st Century - current leader excepted - would have Ted Heath's government concerned about radicalism and a lack of compassion. This is how far left wing politics has changed in the UK; where a man is judged on his choices and beliefs rather than his ability to look statesman-like, in a party that has shown, quite deliberately, how little it cares for the people of this country at a time when it was needed the most.

Take Scotland as an example. The press will have you think that Labour's destruction was down to bad choices in the referendum up there, but the truth is the SNP - not historically as left wing as Labour - stole the ground, offered the Labour voters of Scotland a manifesto that seemed more 'Labour' than their party of choice and it was always going to end badly for 'Red' Scotland. Oddly enough, the same thing, in reverse, happened in England, with UKIP conning their way into Labour heartlands through tapping into base human emotions rather than common sense and because the message sent out by Labour no longer appeals to their Northern core of older voters, they have to think outside of the box. Corbyn is doing that, despite his years, while the PLP tries in vain, it seems, to try and remain stuck in an anachronistic political elite that no longer listens to it's public.

Labour needs to rethink the country. It can no longer appeal to half of it, and the other half are fragmented, disenfranchised and disillusioned with politics. The Tory Party will always motivate their voters, unless they really are harmful and toxic and need a rest, so the only way for Labour to unite itself is to unite all the left wing parties in a rainbow coalition that allows for the one thing that has eluded the left for so long - the thing that keeps the Tories together, despite their deep divisions: compromise.

A Party for Britain would compromise Labour, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the left-leaning Northern Ireland SDLP, the Green Party, possibly even the Liberals and any independent, centre or left-leaning MPs. As the UK will no longer be part of the EU, they would fight for the rights of the UK and not the individual with lots of personal interest. Devolutionary deals could be cut; specific powers could be allowed, while coming together, in parliament, to work as a power to ensure fairness, tempered with business concerns and the free allowance of aspiration to dominate the market, without fear of tax penalties or desire to work elsewhere is countered. Perhaps even ministerial posts held by coalition committee, rather than a single jurisdiction? A vision for a fairer society, while not penalising those who have paid enough, but also not encouraging business to look elsewhere for bases of operation. Social democracy that has allowed some (not all by any means) of our European neighbours to look considerably more humane in their overall treatment of their citizens (indigenous or not).

The Tories and the press used the idea of a Labour/SNP coalition as being bad for Britain, but now that Britain is isolated, surely the most logical thing is for the four countries in the kingdom to unite and run Britain together. The old arguments are obsolete, especially if it was sold to the public from the off as the way forward for Britain. If they worked together to ensure socialist victories in marginal seats actually makes sense - think about it, even if you're a Tory/UKipper, A (Tory) MP is elected with a 5,000 majority, but the combined vote of the (left) other parties is 3,000 more than the elected which suggests quite emphatically that the MP doesn't represent the views of the majority of his/her constituents - the fairness of FPTP also reflects the unfairness in it. Convince the voters that a Green or LibDem vote is as good as voting for their chosen party if they live in a place where their party stands zero chance of retaining its deposit.

Or...

The left remain divided over petty differences and allow the elite to asset-strip the country, penalise the people and ignore the pleas for fairness. It has to be time for the left to burn their hair shirts and work together to stop the rise of neo-liberalism.

Conspiracy Theories

"As Naomi Klein documents in The Shock Doctrine, neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted" From a George Monbiot column in The Guardian.

Ask yourself this: when a government releases information about plans or policy changes, buried beneath some major news story dominating the headlines and reducing other news to minor status - is that any different than a conspiracy theory turned inside out?

We are currently living in an era of fear and because fear is all around is we allow things we would normally question without hesitation to ensure that fear doesn't get us, personally. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse arrived ages ago given the amount of Famine, Pestilence, War and Death (disguised as Poverty) we get subjected to on a weekly basis. Since 2001, it's like the news has to be like a Die Hard film or people will switch off. Sometimes life almost seems to be orchestrated and not by some omnipotent god, but probably some multi-billionaire with media interests and a cold dead heart.

Sometimes the world seems a little like a massive soap opera and at other times like the lunatics have been running the asylum, for a while. The concept of the 'conspiracy theory' has always been more attractive when the world is more crisis prone and, of course, in the 21st century even having a conspiracy theory is either madness or, if you have any evidence, not really a conspiracy theory at all. Some conspiracy theories are quite benign and highly plausible, others are as desperate as a 1996 post-match Kevin Keegan interview; most depend on a chain of information, a string of people and an unfathomable amount of probability that, if it's true then, someone will at some point talk. The biggest problem with a conspiracy theory is the longer it exists without a whistleblower or someone to throw something to give it credence, the more likely it's not going to have anything more than a grain of truth - if that. Wishful thinking mixed with the need for plausible (even if implausible) answers.

However, how about something that on the surface seems unlikely, doesn't have a big chain of potentially loose-lipped co-conspirators, but could ultimately reap the goal that is desired. Confused? Good.

I want you, if you can be bothered or even remember, to cast your mind back to when David Cameron was 'negotiating' the deal with the EU that he was going to use as the main reason for us staying in the EU, when he calls the much-heralded referendum. The man looked destroyed and beaten; like a leader who had lost. He hasn't looked even remotely in control of things since then and while he comes across business-as-usual in PMQs, he's uncertain and a bit dithering when confronted with unscripted questions and situations. He's also been the target of some interesting attacks, which have led to even more interesting public solidarity scenes within the Tory party which, behind closed doors, appears to be tearing itself apart.

Then look at George Osborne and how his star has descended like it was actually a housebrick. Look how he has gone from Dave's logical successor to being almost toxic. Now Theresa May is under scrutiny and even if Nick Clegg's allegations come to nothing; that's another one of Team Cameron who is seeing leadership chances dwindle.

How better to ruin the Remain vote than show those in favour of it on the ropes? But that's just a wee bit too obvious and quite see-through. It could, however, be made to look like this because there has to be a post mortem. I've said for years that Tories play the long game and in this instance maybe a strong faction within the party is playing that game, one that looks beyond the increasingly unpopular leader team?

The reason I mentioned Cameron's late night negotiations is because he went into that meeting asking for not a lot and he was given next to nothing. One of the leading nations in the EU and he couldn't change it how his party wanted it - which was essentially to opt out of anything we didn't agree 100% with - and that meant things were going to go badly wrong for him. You see (and this is the only part of this theory I'm in two minds about), I think Dave's election win was a bit unexpected for the party. I think, as did many others, it was going to be a hung parliament and they would be the party to form another coalition. It would also trigger a leadership contest and it would give the party the opportunity to either big up Boris or find go the other way and find someone less charismatic, but more pragmatic for the coalition to come. Contrary to some popular conspiracy theories, the voters occasionally surprise people. There are some who believe the Tories weren't really prepared for power in 1992, despite having been in for 13 previous years. John Major was not seen as a valiant and fearless leader and almost from the beginning of that government's reign it was plagued by scandals that Thatcher's team would have shrugged off. Parallels have been drawn.

Dave is elected and makes his own plans to go leaving his own legacy in the shape of Osborne or May, but this isn't fast enough for the party or even what it really wants. Things are not going as planned and something has to be done. Except, the only wrinkle in this is an unexpected opportunity and that is the EU referendum. The Tory Party - not necessarily all their MPs and members, but the Party is probably anti-EU. It throws up too many obstacles to prevent them from having the country they believe we should have and while many are pro-EU, the old school have a very narrow view of it, possibly skewered by a sense of empire or entitlement - we are British after all. What if the current government don't care what way you vote? Vote in and nothing changes, vote out and they benefit even more.

The Tories aren't exactly setting the world on fire with their pro-Europe campaigning. It seems to be down to MPs of other persuasions, celebrities and business to make the case. Dave is doing his bit, but he's being constantly distracted and implicated to the point where Jeremy Corbyn is more trusted on Europe and Corbyn is a bit of a sceptic. But what if Dave has no real reason to fight? What if he knew back in January that his days were numbered? The MPs can talk him up and give him public backing, but it all seems a little false when the next minute the Out campaign are criticising their own party/government because of some Euro tragedy. It all seems to be stage managed to give subtly different appearances to whoever interprets it and all slightly negative.

The Out call the In campaign 'Project Fear' when in actual reality it is 'Project Fact'. The Out campaign seem to be basing their campaign on the fact that people will still trade with us wherever we are and that they'd be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Um... France? They'll be the first in the queue to renegotiate and they'll be setting the price high or go away. Not one single Out campaigner has said categorically that prices won't rise. Ask your neighbour this - if you're £20 a week worse off for leaving the EU and there's just as many foreigners here, will voting out be worth it?

I can't reiterate this point enough (because it seems to be neglected in the coverage) - we have no guarantees whatsoever we're even going to be able to renegotiate the same terms we currently have, so to expect us to get stuff cheaper is ludicrous. Plus, consider this - we give Europe two fingers, how desperate are they going to be to deal with us at all? How confident are you that nothing will change, things will get cheaper and everyone will be happy again? Do you really believe Michael Gove when he says that £50billion of the money we won't be paying the EU will go to the NHS? Or will it go to the private companies who have taken over parts of the NHS?

The way the Tories are dividing up the country and selling off what's left; it won't matter if we're in or out for them. They will still clean up; so it could be they're doing what they hoped to do last May, but now with added incentives. That's a conspiracy theory that could have some weight.

My Instincts Are Probably Wrong, But...

I was round a friend's house last night, dropping off a data stick and enjoying a chat and a coffee - we both like to put the world to rights. Last night, I forecast that David Cameron would be gone sooner rather than later. It was a throwaway comment - more hopeful than informed - but my instincts have been pretty sharp in recent years, especially about politics and a little later, without the jest, I made the forecast again.

I said something along these lines: the general ignorance, xenophobia and cold-heartedness of middle England is sad because our society will allow exceptions which makes them seem like hypocrites but somehow that'll be okay or will be written off as 'diversity'. The establishment is moving the people to the right by feeding us a diet of fear and more people are being suckered in while offence is being tolerated more often.

It's easier now to nod in agreement when someone moans about the amount of 'migrants' or 'foreigners' coming into the country than to try and argue with them. People no longer care about facts, they just want to believe someone who agrees with them.

I reckon the country will vote us out of Europe by as much as 65% (maybe more) and within two years 'I Told You So' will be the most recognisable political phrase used by the remaining 35%. What the 'Out' brigade can't seem to get their heads around is as far as Europe will be concerned we would become Russia - big, lucrative but not part of the team.

People and governments don't seem to realise that if they did something the rest of Europe didn't like they'd get sanctions. That's trade sanctions; the prevention of certain things being imported or a ban on exports and, of course, as we've learned from Russia, sanctions are tolerated and help breed even more fanatical nationalism.

Can you imagine Theresa May getting the UK Bill of Rights passed to replace the Human Rights Act? Can you imagine the rest of the civilised world's reaction to something more akin to North Korea? Do not accuse me of being a scaremonger unless you can give me a single concrete reason to change the current rights of humans to something that suits the state more than the individual.

Pulling out of Europe would cause another Scottish referendum and this time they'd go and be queuing in Brussels asking to join before David Dimbleby's breakfast. Despite what you might think, there would be many in Northern Ireland - devout Loyalists - who would consider ceding from the UK because much of NI's trade and economic resurgence has been through its deals with Europe and not the rest of the UK. Things aren't perfect in NI, but they are brilliant compared to what they were and that isn't just down to a peace agreement, it's because NI is a good place to live - economically. Imagine the damage Europe not dealing with us so favourably would have there. And, ironically, we can complain about all those nasty migrants flooding into our country, what would we do if 2 million Loyalists had to be repatriated? I know, it's not ever likely to happen, countries simply don't move entire nations into hostile environments...

The aftermath of it would be more than a disaster for whoever the PM is because if we vote to come out I reckon Cameron will quit. He'd have to because whether he's a puppet or his own man he's not going to want to be known as the PM who oversaw the downfall of the United Kingdom (he'd rather George got that award) - I believe he understands pride. This would mean a fight between Gideon Osborne, Theresa May, Boris Johnson and A.N. Other to become PM and the simple fact that whoever claimed the prize would be accepting a decaying poison chalice would inevitably force them into a General Election and for two reasons: 1) If the establishment doesn't want us to leave Europe because of the inevitable damage it would cause and 2) to simply get a mandate to begin to run the country like a totalitarian dictatorship which oppresses the poor and disenfranchised - because they are a drain on society and people's ability to work - and gives the rest enough money to always want for more.

So, 21st Century USA is the model the Tories are aiming for and one wonders, quite simply, what Tories' problems with the poor, disenfranchised and unfortunate is? By all means target the feckless, lazy and criminal; but why think everyone is trying it on? I meet so many genuine people in need, I simply can't understand how a government can treat them so contemptuously.

Part of the problem is that our schoolchildren are taught a curriculum that doesn't reflect the needs of the 21st century child, so we are breeding an increasing number of apathetic worker drones who thrive on a diet of mindless 'entertainment' and political apathy; political activists probably convert as many people as JWs do. Therefore what is needed is something being changed in schools; perhaps making the teaching of politics compulsory, like Maths and English, because and quite simply, politics is one thing that affects everyone everyday even if they're not aware of it. Kids need to understand why we have politics rather than be made to hate it and think it's anachronistic and something old people do. But, of course, the existential problem with teaching school kids about politics is how do make it unbiased; how do you ensure your teachers are being fair and balanced and not secretly indoctrinating the youth into a future violent revolution? You can't. I'm being melodramatic, but people have opinions, even teachers, and regardless of what you might think I've never met one who hasn't expressed one in a classroom, playground or dining hall.

The solution is simple; you employ a politically diverse trio of politics teachers and you divide the students political year into three terms: Autumn/Winter: Conservatives (and all the right wing); Winter/Spring: Socialism/Labour (and all the left wing) and Summer: Liberalism and extremism (because a liberal is the best placed person to be objective about extremism).

I've wildly digressed, but there is a point hiding in there and that is with exception of a referendum, fewer people every year are voting; a large percentage of those not voting are the young and the disenfranchised - probably two groups that need a fairer society. We are relying more and more on career politicians, all playing their own mental version of Celebrity PM, while less people get involved in the ultimate decision making. What is scary is the fear being generated by the Right at the thought of a fair-minded man being in charge of the country. Have the Tories learned nothing from history? Humans don't like oppression and eventually they rise up against it. Have the Tories ever wondered why there are only ever riots when they're in power? Or the mass marches in London tend to be when a Tory government is around (or a Blair one, which is pretty much the same thing). What often happens when a society becomes a bit fairer is the majority of the people are happy; it tends to be the greedy that ruin it for everyone else.

What we need are future generations that will make the right decisions for the people not for a few and that will only happen if we teach kids how important having an understanding of politics is, but more importantly, how to look for fair and unbiased opinion and coverage, because mainstream media news is no longer unbiased and benefits from the nuances of deceit developed by the entertainment industry.

I don't know if there are any politicians in the country who believe that everything about it needs an overhaul and that we should be investing in a country to still be great in 100 years, because your grand and great grand kids will want a world for their children and not a capitalist wasteland of inequality, hate and mistrust.

It's Got to Be True, It Was in the Paper

It's far too early for a lasting shift in public opinion, but some political analysts and media specialists are likening The Sun's defamation of Jeremy Corbyn at the Cenotaph to its initial coverage of the Hillsborough disaster. The paper lied and as a result there has been a backlash. The attacks on a politician who at worst can be accused of having principles have been ratcheted up a few notches to the point where it's getting nasty.

We could be heading for a tipping point - a stage in the proceedings where it can fall one of two ways. The problem is I can't help thinking this is a carefully planned assault, one that gives Corbyn an edge for the next two or three years, but sees it wane as we approach 2020 and the Tory propaganda machine rolls into overdrive and the fear factor is increased, because the Tories probably have already realised that they won't win the next election on policies. We will see a campaign across the media that makes the 'bacon butty face' seem like a playground insult.

Or the PLP will panic, ructions will appear, splits will happen, Corbyn will be ousted and one of the 'others' will step into the breach and return the party more central, angering the CLP and members but leaving them trapped between a rock and a hard place. Can Labour really afford to allow the Tories free reign until 2025 when who knows what the world will be like and how much money there will be to rebuild crumbling Britain.

What has to happen to make all the people who don't care, or who think this government is looking after their best interests, realise that the country is a better, safer, place when the majority are happy, not just those unaffected by cut after cut, destroying the safety net we all agreed to put in place in case, heaven forbid, we need it.

Some people I know think I describe a bleak and unrealistic picture of the world they can't see from out of their windows or that I paint the Tories as borderline Nazis with an agenda that would be admirable if it was physically achievable without damaging the people who need it the most, while rewarding people who, really, honestly, don't need any more. Some people need to realise that austerity might mean not going on a third foreign holiday or buying a new BMW for the missus this year; because an extra 1p in tax you could pay, could help save your life one day by ensuring the NHS is working or you have a good chance of a job if you lose the one you're in. Or it might mean a few kids getting decent meals and maybe their parents too. It shouldn't matter if you think someone is a scumbag, they shouldn't be forced into the fringes of society if it can be avoided - that was how we got the way we are in the first place. The problem is people shouldn't pay tax, the poor should pay for everything and the rich should just preen themselves while being waited on, hand and foot.

I completely understand why the media is the way it is, their masters are genuinely scared that if nothing else Corbyn will get people interested in politics; make people consider fairness as a concept worth trying again. Do you want a world populated by mindless, opinion-less drones, working endlessly while others reap the benefits while dreaming up new ways to work you harder for less so they can have more? Because what do you think will happen to all the people in council estates, housing associations, dingy flats, who might have flat screen TVs and iphones but also have loans with Wonga and live so hand to mouth that if something goes wrong someone misses out. The people with money drove the poor to want to aspire; they made them proud and vain and willing to get in debt to have a TV that they will believe their more fortunate friends will think was achieved through hard work or necessary guile, thus moving them up their friends' respect scale. That was Thatcher's fault - check the history books if you don't believe me.

The feckless are also a bi-product of this; through years of neglect in the 80s entire generations of people lost 10 years of working and many never returned and as a result their off-spring generally felt the world was going to be as fair to them as it was to their folks and that's when some places turned into sink-hole estates in 80s and remain enclaves of the underclasses. A benefit culture has helped create these people, so something needs to be done to break the cycle, but beating the donkey often leads to disappointment or a kick in the shins.

So what benefit does a media organisation have from smear campaigns that could end up with a chunk of their subscribers being unable to continue paying them millions because they backed a government taking money away from people who could be giving it to them?

None. Unless they know something we don't. Perhaps Sky are already losing too much money to debt collectors because all those families in the country's shittiest areas can no longer afford to pay £30 to £120 a month. You can bet the Sun doesn't really make NewsCorpse any money; it's just another tool for Murdock's megalomania.

The ignorant need to realise that if they read something in a daily rag that isn't true, then that's how they should treat everything in that paper, because people being picky and choosy about what they believe was actually one of the key reasons how the Nazi party won power in Germany.

Hollow Victory?

The votes have been irrevocably cast. The losers lost more severely than anyone ever contemplated and that makes it difficult for the other losers. It was a comprehensive decision that could not be questioned legitimately, yet some are and by doing so they have made a calculated risk, which flies in the face of the members - who vote for them in general elections.

Jeremy Corbyn won; whether some people like it or not, Labour is going to be radically different for at least the next few years. The politicians - cross party - are oddly unified by their combined opposition for a man whose politics are being labelled 'left-wing' but are actually far more moderate than any true 'Trotskyite' would have hoped for. Yet, the likes of Cooper, Kendal, Ummana, Reed and Hunt have all resigned from jobs they, probably, wouldn't have kept, in what can be seen as them positioning themselves for the 'inevitable' fall and fallout and therefore not seen as part of this 'folly'. They will all feel they will have a chance of serving under the next Labour leader, or maybe even be that heir apparent, once this idiotic decision is seen for the foolhardy move it was.

The ex-ministers/shadow ministers are all young enough to spend a few years, maybe 10, in the political wilderness and will step up when needed to reposition the party closer to the Tories and in their minds become far more electable.

It's probably more mindless than electing a 66-year-old rebel as your leader. These 'well off' Labour new backbenchers are oblivious to the damage they and the Tories have done - the centre right and right wing MPs who look at balance sheets and profit margins before they look at people, circumstances and things that can never be planned or hoped for which cripple families who then need the help of a benevolent government and are discarded in the same uncaring way as we describe refugees wanting to escape a war. These 'Labour' MPs will be prepared to take a risk for their own purposes and to hell with everyone else and if you challenged them on this and they admitted it was an option, they would also say that following Corbyn would amount to the same thing and being part of his fiasco would mean there wouldn't be any sensible heads the public could identify with. It's appalling that these people are even allowed to be politicians considering the actual regard they have for the voters. The fact many think what they're doing is positive and will end up as a fait accompli are those 'others' mentioned earlier.

Corbyn won on so many fronts that the dislike of his victory has made everyone speak out against him sound like they both fear and loathe him in equal measure. Never have I seen such scaremongering tactics as employed by all parts of the media while completely ignoring the fact that he was the only candidate with ideas, the only candidate that filled hustings halls, the only candidate that didn't resort to bellow-the-belt tactics, the only candidate who appeared to have any dignity, self-conviction and belief in what he was talking about. That cannot be allowed in a world where it is important that you fear everything and know that the government - whatever colour - is there for you, sorting it out in a way that's best for the country (even if they all talk about decentralising government).

The new man will have many problems, but I believe he will rise above it and by doing so will impress people, in a similar way to how Farage rejuvenated disaffected Labour and centre ground Tories. UKIP might have only got one seat, but had the LibDems got their PR wish they would have ended up with considerably less than Nigel and his Purple helmets. People didn't vote for the UKIP candidate, they voted for Nigel. UKIP are a marginal loony party; imagine what a figurehead like Farage could do for a major party? Well, Jeremy Corbyn is as far removed from good old Nige, but in terms of their appeal to the public, they're cut from the same kind of cloth, but maybe from different ends. They talk - people listen. There are a lot more Labour people than UKIPpers; there are a lot of Liberals who will like many - not all - of this new look Labour, and there will be young, old, disaffected and disillusioned people energised by this man who doesn't talk in political double speak, but talks about things that people want their politicians talking about and, more importantly, opposing the Tories, not abstaining or voting with them on anything that isn't in the utmost public interest - and even then depending on the morality of what is being asked.

The self-exiled Labour MPs have made arses of themselves by petulantly walking away from the party at a time when they could have influenced or moderated some of the more extreme ideas and recreated Labour as the socialist party that works with business, Europe and the middle class people who don't trust them simply because of their name. These MPs should be asked to either support the party or walk across the floor to another party or resign and allow a by-election. I appreciate this is what some of the Blairites probably said of Corbyn or Skinner or Benn, but the left wing of the party after the schisms of the 1980s never undermined the way the party changed - they didn't like it, but like Tories, accepted the change to stay a united front. The self-serving Tories had enough foresight to let things happen for the good or the bad of the party because unity is what holds a lot of their vote together - there are so many light blue Labour MPs you would have thought they could see this. The left wing of Labour pretty much hated Blair and co, but having a pinkish blue government was always a better idea than a dark blue one and they retreated to the grass roots of the party and did good constituency work and quietly complained from the depths, albeit not too quietly. Neither do some Tories, to the left or right of Cameron because they have unity - whatever happens.

Corbyn energised a campaign so well he won it by a mile. His words appealed not just to Labour supporters but to many others; he inspired people to rejoin the party (me and several of my friends included) and that shouldn't be ignored - however small the overall percentage of the voting population it transpires to be. He's talking in a way that has made some people both extremely happy and scared. He's talking about politics and the consequences of politics rather than talking in political speak designed to bamboozle the average Joe into not being that bothered. Jeremy Corbyn has an opportunity to make politics cool again; the Labour party have a massive opportunity to make themselves electable by being honest, straight talking and realistic and it will all be for nowt if the sore losers go against the groundswell of support for their own selfish purposes. Politics should be about the people MPs serve not about their own petty ambitions.

The Bookie Knows Best

Maybe I'm biased. Maybe I see signs that aren't there. Or maybe I, like others, see a smidgeon of panic. When the candidates for the Labour leader became public, Andy Burnham was pretty much odds on favourite and the token left wing candidate, some aging MP called Jeremy Corbyn was 100-1 and frankly, bookies probably felt they could offer 1000-1 that was the chances of the 66-year-old winning. Then he opened his mouth and a few people stopped and listened; then a few more, then a lot more and by the end of July that 100-1 had been slashed to 10-1 and now bookies weren't sure they weren't offering people the chance to skin them alive.

Then 'the establishment' got it's act together. The right wing media began its smear campaign and the Parliamentary Labour Party - very much part of 'the establishment' since Thatcher endorsed Blair - started its own campaign - part vitriol, part eating itself. By the middle of August there was a great meme floating about. It had four figures: 4 - 7 - 11 - 0 and these figures were the number of times Burnham, Cooper, Kendall and Corbyn had 'attacked' each other; except it wasn't each other, it was the number of times the three Blair/Brownite candidates had dismissed or been 'nasty' about Corbyn and the number of times Corbyn - 0 - had criticised his fellow candidates. This kind of galvanised his campaign and on August 20th, a bookmaker paid out people who had taken bets on Corbyn at 100-1. The bookies now make Corbyn 1-6 favourite with Burnham at 7-4, Cooper 20-1 and Kendall 250-1 (higher odds than Jeremy had when he came into the race with no chance). Bookies are rarely wrong.

In the Independent, columnist and left winger Mark Steel said, "The problem for Labour and Conservative leaders may be that the enthusiasm for Corbyn isn’t confined to people who consider themselves left wing. It’s a movement of those who feel the poor weren’t, if you study economics carefully, the people who caused the banking crash, so probably shouldn’t be the people asked to pay for it." This appears to be one of the simple messages that Corbyn is getting across and it is inspiring people who for so long have been force-fed the party lines of austerity and all-in-it-together (although some are in it more than others). 

Corbyn appeals to the same people who Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Nicola Sturgeon and Ken Livingstone appeal/ed to - he seems like the antithesis of current party politics and seems to actually question bad decisions with straight language rather than pussyfoot around like his Labour party has for the last six years.

It has been proven that the mess we're in was not the fault of the previous administration. This has pretty much been common knowledge for five years, but have Labour attacked the accusations directed at them? No, they talk rhetoric and have been a tepid opposition. Corbyn doesn't just question this lie perpetuated by Cameron and his cronies, he argues that it has been exacerbated by Osborne's ideology to destroy the welfare state and return Britain to a more Victorian society.

People didn't vote Labour in May because they offered nothing different - they were just a light blue alternative. The LibDems didn't need vilifying by the press because everyone who didn't vote Tory in 2010 blamed them for the coalition and everyone who voted Tory hated them because weren't Tories. What Corbyn has done is ignite debates that have been dismissed or ignored because they have never fitted in with the ideas of Thatcherite/Blairite/Neo-Liberalism and the reason these debates have happened is because people would really like talk about these things and get governments to acknowledge that people feel they need to be on the agenda.

Every time there is an article about Jeremy Corbyn there follows thousands of comments and at least a third of these comments are from people gloating that Corbyn means the Tories will hang onto power for at least another term. They sound like Labour supporters in April who figured they were a shoo-in after the mess the coalition were. No one expected the Scottish Independence Referendum to be as close as it was nor did they expect politicians to suddenly be heard by a wider audience. People suspected that the SNP might achieve a huge win in Scotland, but the extent of it? Suddenly Scotland was full of prospective MPs talking the same language and fighting for the things the people wanted. Nigel Farage's party managed 13% of the vote in May and got one seat (The Libs got 8% and 8 seats - and I'm sure the irony isn't lost on them), but Farage was head and shoulders the most popular 'politician' during the campaign. Yes, he might have lost his chance of being an MP, but 13% of the vote? These 13% weren't just racists and ignoramuses; many of them were poorly informed long-time Labour voters who thought UKIP reflected their historic memories of a Labour party designed to help people first and corporations second.

I'm not suggesting for a second that I believe Corbyn as Labour leader will be the beginning of a socialist utopia, but I do believe it will put the fight back into the opposition. I can't imagine the quietly-spoken Corbyn allowing Cameron to ham it up for the cameras. I expect to see a few uncomfortable screen grabs as Corbyn asks him questions he will struggle to paper over with accusations, blame and self-aggrandisement. Dear old hated Tony Blair says Labour cannot afford to be the party of continual-opposition again, but he seems to unable to see the fact that new governments tend to be formed from oppositions that show steel and push the incumbents on every issue not just the ones they think their voters feel strongly about.

I believe that for every person who tells you that we must continue with our current politics, whether it is right, a bit right or a bit right of centre, there are people who will tell you that we need something that looks much fairer than it currently is and something that doesn't treat the poor and disabled as a contemptible and wasted commodity. Modern Capitalism is just like Soviet Russia except here you get balloons instead of beetroot.

I also firmly believe that the press are desperate. The press is the mouthpiece of 'the establishment', the press do an unbelievable job of obfuscating everything; in the art of deflection the press has no peers. Mark Steel's Independent column is a perfect example - he's left of SWP, the Indy is now owned by a Russian Oligarch who urged readers to vote Conservative. The Internet did a great job of being the Freedom of Speech platform for those that cared until governments and corporations pwned [sic] them; now the internet is just an extension of television and pages like this are less popular than Channel 264 on Freeview - on a ratio scale. But Corbyn has people turning up to meetings like they haven't for donkeys years; he generates masses of column inches all over the place and if he can ride the final shit storm from the PLP - because we all know how desperate Blair and his 'ites' are to keep the red flag slightly pale blue - and can be as moderate as he actually is (someone said Corbyn's politics wouldn't seem out of place in Ted Heath's Tory party) then I believe he could regenerate former voters, defectors and more importantly people who feel politics does nothing for them. He might even help some of the selfish people in our 'society', the ones who really don't care as long as they're okay, to rediscover their love for their fellow humans.

Or maybe he won't win and we'll get the same old same old. That idea seems quite abhorrent now.