It's amazing that Jeremy Corbyn is so often described as being "unelectable" and some kind of terrifyingly dangerous threat by members of the Westminster Establishment club (including many of his own MPs) and their chums in the mainstream media, while they simultaneously describe a fanatically authoritarian and brazenly incompetent woman like Theresa May as some kind of "safe pair of hands".
How on earth is a dangerously fanatical right-wing authoritarian who has harped on and on about her fantasy of scrapping our human rights and replacing them with a set of Tory allowances and churned out one incomprehensibly rubbish piece of legislation after another during her time as Home Secretary in any way a "safe pair of hands"?
How is a guy whose entire political platform is based on transferring more political power to ordinary people (instead of taking it away like Theresa May and her ilk want to) considered such a dangerous threat?
The answer is obvious.
The Westminster establishment aren't trying to define Jeremy Corbyn as a "threat" and Theresa May as a "safe pair of hands" because they care about your best interests. They don't give a shit about you. If that much isn't obvious enough by now then you're clearly the kind of person who is so gullible that they still, after six long years of it, believe in the economically incoherent "let's cut our way to growth" austerity con aren't you?
The Westminster establishment club and the mainstream media are intent on defining things in this backwards way because they're afraid of you. They're terrified that the people of the UK (who massively outnumber their tiny little establishment clique) have the huge latent power to overthrow the establishment order of things and reform the political system in a way that works better for ordinary people, and consequently less well for the likes of self-serving expenses-scamming career politicians, reckless bankers, corporate tax-dodgers, millionaire party donors and sociopathic right-wing press barons who benefit from the way things are now.
This establishment fear of the latent power of the masses has always existed. Back in 1920 the economic reformer C.H. Douglas described it when he said that "the attitude of statesmen and officials to the people in whose interests they are supposed to hold office, is one of scarcely veiled antagonism, only tempered by the fear of unpleasant consequences".
The reason the establishment order are so damned insistent that the guy who wants to give more political power to you is some kind of terrible threat, and that the appalling woman who wants to strip you of your human rights is the safe and sensible option is that, like always, they're blatantly thinking about their own interests, not yours.
Another Angry Voice is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.