- Is the war of attrition against the Guardian's slanted coverage of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership beginning to payoff?
|Jeremy corbyn lays wreath at Cenotaph|
Our war of attrition against the Guardian's slanted coverage of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the LP seems to be paying off. In yesterday's edition the paper condemned General Nicholas Houghton when he entered political waters:
The rule is clear, simple and fundamental. And it’s not a rule to be messed with, either. In liberal democracies the elected civil authorities must prevail over the military forces of the state. The people with the votes give the orders to the people with the guns not the other way round. (The Guardian view on the generals and Jeremy Corbyn: if he is elected, he calls the shots.
For the General to attack the leader of the opposition politically on Armistice day was especially shocking and unworthy, for on that day political differences are traditionally put aside and people remember the members of the military who had the lives stolen in the two world wars and other military conflagrations.
Mr Corbyn was absolutely right when he reminded Houghton of his responsibility not to meddle in political affairs, as that road leads to hell. What the General's reckless and arrogant behaviour highlights is the major flaw within the British Army's recruitment policy. Its senior officers come from a far too narrow social class, with almost 50% of the recent intake of officer cadets to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst having attended public schools, while in the nation as a whole only just under 8% attend them.
This means half the army’s officer corps is drawn from less than 8 per cent of the population. Is it any wonder as far as class and gender are considered the British military are still in the dark ages when compared with the US military and many others around the world.
In the same issue unusually the paper published two letters which condemn the Guardian's coverage since Jeremy became Labour leader. I write unusually because like all publication the Guardian rarely does Mea culpa. We can but hope with the new editor they are turning a new page.
Labour ‘Moderates’ Are Merely Malcontents.
A band of malcontents in the parliamentary Labour party, notably those who refused to serve under Corbyn and who abstained on the tax-credits vote, have a hatred of Corbyn that trumps defence of some of the poorest working people, and they should be ashamed of themselves. But these “moderates” are feted and their apocalyptic electoral predictions enthusiastically aired.
The editorial goes on to tread a well-worn path: “Now that the novelty has worn off, another decent performance at prime minister’s questions – which Mr Corbyn again managed this week – cannot compete for media attention with tales of fear and loathing.”
Of course it can’t when you and the bulk of the news media are ensuring the propagation of stories in line with your own predilections.
Walsham le Willows,
2/ So Tony Blair publicly states that he would rather Labour lose an election than win under Corbyn, Frank Field advocates rightwing neoliberal MPs standing against official Labour candidates, and Simon Danczuk argues for a coup d’etat against a leader elected with a majority of 60%. But somehow the only one who’s disciplined for disloyalty is Andrew Fisher, on the basis that he once sent a tweet in odd language that may have been secret code in support of an obscure sect, who in any case can make no conceivable electoral impact (Labour suspends Corbyn adviser over tweet, 7 November).
Do these extreme rightwingers not know that their own stitch-ups are making the case for mandatory reselection irrefutable?
Dr Gavin Lewis
Published on the Letters page the Guardian 10.11.15.