Mick Hall writing in Organized Rage believes that:
One doesn't have to be paranoid to recognise media attacks on Corbyn and his supporters have been orchestrated.
"He’s not the first person in the bubble to discover that the fact that Corbyn is ‘decent’ and ‘listens’ doesn’t mean he’s just a vessel waiting to be filled by those who insist they know better."
One doesn't have to be paranoid to recognise many of the media attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have been orchestrated. First we had a flood of media articles claiming Jeremy is a very nice man but not up to the job of LP leader, let alone Prime Minister. These were followed as if on cue by a mass exodus from his shadow cabinet.
When Jeremy stood firm refusing to betray party members who had given him their mandate in a democratic leadership election, it began to get murky. A rash of articles appeared across the mainstream media which accused Coryn's supporters of acts of violence. Angela Eagle we were told had suffered death threats and had a brick thrown through her constituency office window which terrorised those working within it.
As if by magic this was followed by a host of other accusations of acts of violence by Corbyn supporters culminating in a letter signed by 45 LP disgruntled female parliamentarian who claimed Corbyn must do more to stop 'disgusting abuse from his supporters.' Never Mind he had already issued a statement asking all party members and his supporters to behave in a civilized way. When questioned about the letter a spokesman for Mr Corbyn said:
When Jeremy stood firm refusing to betray party members who had given him their mandate in a democratic leadership election, it began to get murky. A rash of articles appeared across the mainstream media which accused Coryn's supporters of acts of violence. Angela Eagle we were told had suffered death threats and had a brick thrown through her constituency office window which terrorised those working within it.
As if by magic this was followed by a host of other accusations of acts of violence by Corbyn supporters culminating in a letter signed by 45 LP disgruntled female parliamentarian who claimed Corbyn must do more to stop 'disgusting abuse from his supporters.' Never Mind he had already issued a statement asking all party members and his supporters to behave in a civilized way. When questioned about the letter a spokesman for Mr Corbyn said:
"No demonstrations outside MPs' offices or surgeries will be tolerated, nor will abuse of any kind. Anyone with evidence of abuse or threats should inform both the police and Jeremy, and he will personally ensure that it is properly investigated by the party."
He couldn't have been clearer, yet not one of the women who signed the letter sent Jeremy a list of actual incidents where they or colleagues had been threatened or abused by Corbyn's supporters.
What is going on here, why were the press issuing these statements almost in tandem? Wikileaks issued an interesting catch of emails from the US Democratic Party National Committee which show far from being neutral in the presidential primaries it was covertly actively working behind the scenes for Hillary Clinton. One of the emails it sent to US media outlets claimed Bernie Sanders supporters were responsible for acts of violence. This email provoked a host of articles in the US mainstream media about just that. What they all lacked was clear evidence to substantiate the claim.
We know from the past what Neoliberal politicos do in the US is often taken up by their supporters within the UK. Blair's WMD nonsense is just one example.
So far this week and it is only Tuesday we have seen three articles appear, one by economist David Blanchflower, another by tax expert Richard Murphy and the last by Owen Jones. All three seemed sympathetic to Corbyn's policies when he was first elected, yet less than a year down the road, they highlight with remarkable similarity Jeremy's alleged shortcomings.
They have every right to do this but one cannot help wonder why now?
In a reply to Owen Jones, which could be aimed at all three, Kate Buffery writes:
What is going on here, why were the press issuing these statements almost in tandem? Wikileaks issued an interesting catch of emails from the US Democratic Party National Committee which show far from being neutral in the presidential primaries it was covertly actively working behind the scenes for Hillary Clinton. One of the emails it sent to US media outlets claimed Bernie Sanders supporters were responsible for acts of violence. This email provoked a host of articles in the US mainstream media about just that. What they all lacked was clear evidence to substantiate the claim.
We know from the past what Neoliberal politicos do in the US is often taken up by their supporters within the UK. Blair's WMD nonsense is just one example.
So far this week and it is only Tuesday we have seen three articles appear, one by economist David Blanchflower, another by tax expert Richard Murphy and the last by Owen Jones. All three seemed sympathetic to Corbyn's policies when he was first elected, yet less than a year down the road, they highlight with remarkable similarity Jeremy's alleged shortcomings.
They have every right to do this but one cannot help wonder why now?
In a reply to Owen Jones, which could be aimed at all three, Kate Buffery writes:
Jones’ attempts to hole-poke Corbyn in a youtube interview a couple of days ago didn’t manage to make much of an impression, so he’s now pressing more questions in a blog, free from the distraction of Corbyn being able to answer them. He’s not the first person in the bubble to discover that the fact that Corbyn is ‘decent’ and ‘listens’ doesn’t mean he’s just a vessel waiting to be filled by those who insist they ‘know better.’ Jones’ blog looks too like the work of man who is sure he ‘knows better’ and feels unfairly spurned
Kate then goes to the heart of the matter:
For example the glib comparison of JC with Foot (but no mention of the ‘Falklands effect’ of course). Or his suggestion that Corbyn’s not been visible enough in speaking out about hate crimes post Brexit. (In fact when Corbyn did so, MSM reported the proven fabrication that he’d ‘lunged.’ at a female journalist.) And Jones even takes up the much used quote of the ‘Corbyn supporter’ who said ‘winning is not important’— but in true MSM style omits the caveat of the original, — ‘if we’re going to offer the same policies as the Tories.’
Is it really an accident that both Blanchflower and Murphy spin a similar tale? Like Jones they both question Corbyn's ‘media strategy’ and like the MSM, they undermine the importance of social media.
Thankfully Kate is having done of it:
It's [social media] influence in building Labour support is clear, and it’s recognised as having won Obama his victory. By contrast he concentrates on the importance of MSM and seems keen to blame Corbyn for the problems he’s having — which is odd as the real problems: the bias, prejudice, partiality, collusion, hostility etc. were experienced in parallel by Sanders in the US. I’ve not heard anyone blaming Bernie’s media strategy. When dealing with a hostile press ‘strategising’ may limit the damage but won’t solve the problem. But Jones is nonetheless determined that we do all see Corbyn’s efforts as the problem.
In her last two paragraphs Kate is absolutely scathing, understandably so:
But strategizing for Corbyn’s victory, is something that Owen Jones prescribes for Corbyn and ordinary supporters but not for himself. So, constraints and restraints on Corbyn — but Jones must be able to write what he likes when he likes. He raises various other questions in his blog. They can all be answered in equivalent terms and with equivalent irritation at Jones’ assumption that they cover issues which members and the Labour leadership haven’t thought about. We are aware that this isn’t a dress rehearsal. Hence the commitment. Owen Jones may not be ... From outside the bubble a huge number of Labour members, have judged Corbyn to be the best possible option to guard and promote the democratic socialist agenda. If you truly believe in democracy and in socialism Owen Jones, ask not what Corbyn or Corbyn supporters should be doing for you — but what you should be doing for this movement. Whilst you are using media pressure in the hope of changing the mindset of an elected leader so that it more nearly reflects your own, you become a dead weight in Corbyn’s leadership campaign despite positioning yourself above it.*
 |
| Owen Jones meeting in Liverpool, thanks to AB for tip. |
Corbyn Refusing To Betray Party Members
Mick Hall writing in Organized Rage believes that:
One doesn't have to be paranoid to recognise media attacks on Corbyn and his supporters have been orchestrated.
"He’s not the first person in the bubble to discover that the fact that Corbyn is ‘decent’ and ‘listens’ doesn’t mean he’s just a vessel waiting to be filled by those who insist they know better."
One doesn't have to be paranoid to recognise many of the media attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have been orchestrated. First we had a flood of media articles claiming Jeremy is a very nice man but not up to the job of LP leader, let alone Prime Minister. These were followed as if on cue by a mass exodus from his shadow cabinet.
When Jeremy stood firm refusing to betray party members who had given him their mandate in a democratic leadership election, it began to get murky. A rash of articles appeared across the mainstream media which accused Coryn's supporters of acts of violence. Angela Eagle we were told had suffered death threats and had a brick thrown through her constituency office window which terrorised those working within it.
As if by magic this was followed by a host of other accusations of acts of violence by Corbyn supporters culminating in a letter signed by 45 LP disgruntled female parliamentarian who claimed Corbyn must do more to stop 'disgusting abuse from his supporters.' Never Mind he had already issued a statement asking all party members and his supporters to behave in a civilized way. When questioned about the letter a spokesman for Mr Corbyn said:
When Jeremy stood firm refusing to betray party members who had given him their mandate in a democratic leadership election, it began to get murky. A rash of articles appeared across the mainstream media which accused Coryn's supporters of acts of violence. Angela Eagle we were told had suffered death threats and had a brick thrown through her constituency office window which terrorised those working within it.
As if by magic this was followed by a host of other accusations of acts of violence by Corbyn supporters culminating in a letter signed by 45 LP disgruntled female parliamentarian who claimed Corbyn must do more to stop 'disgusting abuse from his supporters.' Never Mind he had already issued a statement asking all party members and his supporters to behave in a civilized way. When questioned about the letter a spokesman for Mr Corbyn said:
"No demonstrations outside MPs' offices or surgeries will be tolerated, nor will abuse of any kind. Anyone with evidence of abuse or threats should inform both the police and Jeremy, and he will personally ensure that it is properly investigated by the party."
He couldn't have been clearer, yet not one of the women who signed the letter sent Jeremy a list of actual incidents where they or colleagues had been threatened or abused by Corbyn's supporters.
What is going on here, why were the press issuing these statements almost in tandem? Wikileaks issued an interesting catch of emails from the US Democratic Party National Committee which show far from being neutral in the presidential primaries it was covertly actively working behind the scenes for Hillary Clinton. One of the emails it sent to US media outlets claimed Bernie Sanders supporters were responsible for acts of violence. This email provoked a host of articles in the US mainstream media about just that. What they all lacked was clear evidence to substantiate the claim.
We know from the past what Neoliberal politicos do in the US is often taken up by their supporters within the UK. Blair's WMD nonsense is just one example.
So far this week and it is only Tuesday we have seen three articles appear, one by economist David Blanchflower, another by tax expert Richard Murphy and the last by Owen Jones. All three seemed sympathetic to Corbyn's policies when he was first elected, yet less than a year down the road, they highlight with remarkable similarity Jeremy's alleged shortcomings.
They have every right to do this but one cannot help wonder why now?
In a reply to Owen Jones, which could be aimed at all three, Kate Buffery writes:
What is going on here, why were the press issuing these statements almost in tandem? Wikileaks issued an interesting catch of emails from the US Democratic Party National Committee which show far from being neutral in the presidential primaries it was covertly actively working behind the scenes for Hillary Clinton. One of the emails it sent to US media outlets claimed Bernie Sanders supporters were responsible for acts of violence. This email provoked a host of articles in the US mainstream media about just that. What they all lacked was clear evidence to substantiate the claim.
We know from the past what Neoliberal politicos do in the US is often taken up by their supporters within the UK. Blair's WMD nonsense is just one example.
So far this week and it is only Tuesday we have seen three articles appear, one by economist David Blanchflower, another by tax expert Richard Murphy and the last by Owen Jones. All three seemed sympathetic to Corbyn's policies when he was first elected, yet less than a year down the road, they highlight with remarkable similarity Jeremy's alleged shortcomings.
They have every right to do this but one cannot help wonder why now?
In a reply to Owen Jones, which could be aimed at all three, Kate Buffery writes:
Jones’ attempts to hole-poke Corbyn in a youtube interview a couple of days ago didn’t manage to make much of an impression, so he’s now pressing more questions in a blog, free from the distraction of Corbyn being able to answer them. He’s not the first person in the bubble to discover that the fact that Corbyn is ‘decent’ and ‘listens’ doesn’t mean he’s just a vessel waiting to be filled by those who insist they ‘know better.’ Jones’ blog looks too like the work of man who is sure he ‘knows better’ and feels unfairly spurned
Kate then goes to the heart of the matter:
For example the glib comparison of JC with Foot (but no mention of the ‘Falklands effect’ of course). Or his suggestion that Corbyn’s not been visible enough in speaking out about hate crimes post Brexit. (In fact when Corbyn did so, MSM reported the proven fabrication that he’d ‘lunged.’ at a female journalist.) And Jones even takes up the much used quote of the ‘Corbyn supporter’ who said ‘winning is not important’— but in true MSM style omits the caveat of the original, — ‘if we’re going to offer the same policies as the Tories.’
Is it really an accident that both Blanchflower and Murphy spin a similar tale? Like Jones they both question Corbyn's ‘media strategy’ and like the MSM, they undermine the importance of social media.
Thankfully Kate is having done of it:
It's [social media] influence in building Labour support is clear, and it’s recognised as having won Obama his victory. By contrast he concentrates on the importance of MSM and seems keen to blame Corbyn for the problems he’s having — which is odd as the real problems: the bias, prejudice, partiality, collusion, hostility etc. were experienced in parallel by Sanders in the US. I’ve not heard anyone blaming Bernie’s media strategy. When dealing with a hostile press ‘strategising’ may limit the damage but won’t solve the problem. But Jones is nonetheless determined that we do all see Corbyn’s efforts as the problem.
In her last two paragraphs Kate is absolutely scathing, understandably so:
But strategizing for Corbyn’s victory, is something that Owen Jones prescribes for Corbyn and ordinary supporters but not for himself. So, constraints and restraints on Corbyn — but Jones must be able to write what he likes when he likes. He raises various other questions in his blog. They can all be answered in equivalent terms and with equivalent irritation at Jones’ assumption that they cover issues which members and the Labour leadership haven’t thought about. We are aware that this isn’t a dress rehearsal. Hence the commitment. Owen Jones may not be ... From outside the bubble a huge number of Labour members, have judged Corbyn to be the best possible option to guard and promote the democratic socialist agenda. If you truly believe in democracy and in socialism Owen Jones, ask not what Corbyn or Corbyn supporters should be doing for you — but what you should be doing for this movement. Whilst you are using media pressure in the hope of changing the mindset of an elected leader so that it more nearly reflects your own, you become a dead weight in Corbyn’s leadership campaign despite positioning yourself above it.*
|
| Owen Jones meeting in Liverpool, thanks to AB for tip. |
No comments