Friday, June 23, 2017

The centre-right faction of the Labour Party are going to run out of money


The fact that David Sainsbury was even allowed to continue as a member of the Labour Party after breaking party rules by making a huge £2 million+ donation to the Liberal Democrats was an affront to justice after tens of thousands of grassroots members were systematically purged from the party for supposed "crimes" such as admitting they'd once voted Green years before joining the labour Party, retweeting Tweets non-Labour politicians, or even being too enthusiastic about how much they like the band Foo Fighters!

The 
desperate anti-democratic effort by embedded Labour Party right-wingers to topple Jeremy Corbyn by purging as many suspected Corbyn supporters as possible failed, but somehow Sainsbury was allowed to get away with funding a rival political party.

In the wake of Labour defying the political pundit class by winning seats and eradicating the Tory majority in Westminster, David Sainsbury has announced his decision to quit injecting cash into political parties.


This decision has come as a particularly heavy blow to the Progress faction of the Labour Party, which is no surprise given how they're a top-down millionaire-backed right-wing pressure group within the Labour Party.

They have very little enthusiastic support at the grassroots level and only really exist in order to promote the lie that the only route to political power is to weakly imitate Tory policy, no matter how far off into the bonkers hard-right realm of privatisation mania and ruinous austerity dogma they wander.

Their right-wing capture of the Labour Party succeeded for a while under Tony Blair, and to be fair Blair's prescription of neoliberalism-lite was a lot less damaging than the bonkers privatisation chaos served up by John Major's dead duck government between 1992 and 1997, or the ruinous hard-right austerity dogma the Tories have been forcing on the nation since 2010. 

The big problem for the centre-right of the Labour Party is that despite a savagely biased media campaign against him, Jeremy Corbyn has demonstrated that there's very much more public appetite for a genuine democratic socialist alternative to Tory neoliberalism than for the kind of centre-right Tory-lite policies favoured by Progress.

The Guardian coverage of Sainsbury abandoning Progress is an absolute delight to read as their correspondent cries bitter tears of frustration for the demoralised centre-right Labour Party faction.

The Progress sympathisers at the Guardian even quoted the Progress director Richard Angell spouting desperate misrepresentations and outright anti-democratic contempt by claiming that there is lots of work to be done in "renewing the ideas of the centre-left" and "stopping a hard-left takeover in constituencies".

When he refers to "centre-left" he's actually talking about the pro-privatisation, pro-austerity, pro-PFI, pro-globalisation centre-right faction of the Labour Party.

And when he talks about "stopping a hard-left takeover in constituencies" he's talking about the deeply embedded right-wing of the Labour Party doing absolutely everything in their power to prevent local constituency Labour Party members choosing the election candidates that they actually want, in favour of parachuting in even more useless and unappealing centre-right Progress-approved candidates who think that the purpose of politics is to imitate, rather than to oppose the Tory party.

An awful lot of Progress types are blatant anti-democrats who regard Ed Miliband's decision to democratise the Labour Party as a terrible unforgivable mistake (rather than easily the best thing he ever did). They detest the majority of Labour Party members and the millions of people who flocked back to the Labour Party when Jeremy Corbyn presented a proper manifesto to undo some of the Tory damage, rather than weakly imitating the Tories like Labour did in 2015.

A lot of Progress people would rather that Labour existed in the political wilderness of a largely abandoned centre-right territory (the Tories have veered off to the hard-right well beyond Ukipper levels of fanaticism, the SNP occupies the centre ground, Labour under Corbyn occupy the traditional centre-left and the Lib-Dems won a pitiful 7.9% of the vote on their centre-right rabidly pro-EU platform).

I'm not a Labour Party member, but if you are a Labour Party supporter who wants to counter the toxic anti-democratic scheming of this centre-right pressure group, my advice is to join or make a donation to the centre-left group Momentum.



 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.




OR

Theresa May has stalled Brexit for an entire year, so why aren't Brexiters livid with her?


It's one full year since EU referendum day, and Theresa May has stalled Brexit so successfully that there has just been one single negotiation with the EU in the entire year!

In light of this year-long delaying game she's been playing, it's absolutely astounding that Brexit supporters aren't totally livid with her.

Last year I argued against Brexit not because I was against the idea in principle, but from the pragmatic perspective that signing a blank contract with the hard-right fringe of the Tory party to make Brexit up as they go along would lead to absolute chaos, which is exactly what is happening in front of our eyes.

If I had been a Brexit supporter, I'd be absolutely furious with the way Theresa May has spent the last year obfuscating and stalling in order to slow the Brexit process down as much as possible, but somehow millions of Brexit voters are so gullible that they uncritically believe the words that come out of her mouth, rather than subjecting any of her actual actions to critical scrutiny.
  • Between her undemocratic coronation as Prime Minister in July 2016 (achieved when Theresa May's supporters bullied Andrea Leadsom out of the leadership contest) and January 2017 Theresa May did nothing much apart from spout utterly meaningless platitudes like "Brexit means Brexit" (a six month delay).
  • Immediately after triggering Article 50 and setting the clock ticking on the most complex diplomatic negotiations the UK has ever faced Theresa May called her vanity election (another two month delay).
  • On the anniversary of the EU referendum Theresa May decided to throw an absolute insult of an offer to the EU on protecting citizens' rights. She basically lowered her knickers and did a great big shit on the negotiating table, and the hard-right bully boys in the UK right-wing press are going to attack the EU as evil monsters if they don't gratefully eat it up. Insulting the EU (and all of the 4 million+ UK and EU citizens who live on the other side of the proposed Brexit border) with such a lowball starting offer on citizens' rights is clearly another delaying tactic. Instead of quickly agreeing to a sensible compromise with the EU, Theresa May wants to drag out the preliminary negotiations over citizens' rights for as long as possible in order to delay the beginning of the trade talks (a grotesque use of people's lives as bargaining chips to be haggled over, and another glaringly obvious delaying tactic).
It's absolutely beyond me why so many Brexit supporters still back Theresa May and the Tories to deliver Brexit given the absolute ineptitude of the last year, and Theresa May's endless stalling, but I guess they just like the way she says "Brexit means Brexit" so very much they're willing to completely overlook all of observable reality!

It's quite something that Theresa May's endless repetition of meaningless Brexit platitudes are easily sufficient to mollify millions of pro-Leave people who should be absolutely bloody livid with her for blatantly stalling their beloved Brexit at every single turn.


 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.




OR

"Magic money trees" and the spreaders of economic illiteracy


Anyone who has ever used the term "magic money tree" in earnest has marked themselves out as a spreader of economic illiteracy. Some people are too thick to realise what they're doing, but others like Peter Oborne are definitely intelligent enough to know that talk of "magic money trees" and other economic idiot fodder is economically illiterate rubbish, but they do it anyway because deliberately spreading economic illiteracy is a way of providing cover for socially and economically ruinous Tory austerity dogma.

Keeping people stupid

There's no two ways about it. "magic money tree", "living within our means", "bankrupt Britain", "there's no money left": They're all economically illiterate platitudes designed to keep people stupid and uninformed about the way the economy actually works.

Programming people to believe in a set of simplistic and desperately misleading economic platitudes is a fantastic way of keeping the public stupefied because platitudes like "where's your magic money tree?" are so much easier to memorise and repeat than basic macroeconomics.

The deliberate proliferation of economic idiot fodder programmes intellectually lazy people into using these mindlessly rote learned phrases to defend socially and economically ruinous Tory austerity dogma, and attack sensible investment-based economic strategies.

Pompous right-wing blowhards 

We probably all know a member of the Dunning-Kruger club (a work colleague, a neighbour, an elderly male relative) who thinks that because they've rote learned a load of these trite right-wing phrases about the economy, they're somehow an economics genius who has a duty to angrily shout down anyone who tries to actually talk any economic sense.

Pompous right-wing economic blowhards with heads full of economic idiot fodder are a very serious problem, because they tend to shout down anyone who tries to talk sense and infect political and economic discussions with the stupid misleading platitudes they're mindlessly rote learned from the right-wing press. They're usually male, they're usually aggressive, and they usually react extremely badly to hearing any political or economic opinion that doesn't conform to the nonsense phrases they've mindlessly rote learned in lieu of actually trying to research and understand political and economic issues for themselves.

Deliberate economic illiteracy spreaders

The bigger problem is people who are clearly intelligent enough to understand that phrases like "magic money tree" are misleading economic idiot fodder, but who use them anyway.

Theresa May famously patronised a nurse by spouting economic idiot fodder about "magic money trees" at her, but she is such a directionless charlatan it is genuinely difficult to tell if she was being deliberately deceptive, or whether she is actually so economically illiterate that she doesn't even understand how piteously stupid the "magic money tree" argument actually is.
When it comes to people like Peter Oborne then there is no doubt at all. The guy is clearly intelligent enough to understand that spouting "magic money tree" isn't a counter-argument to investment economics, it's a deliberate act of debate-wrecking by the method of lobbing economically illiterate idiot fodder into the discussion.

There's something deeply worrying about politicians and journalists being thick enough to actually believe in the economic idiot fodder that is designed to delude the masses, but the ones who are smart enough to know that they're deliberately spreading economic illiteracy are very much worse.

These people know that their ruinous hard-right economic agenda is unjustifiable from a rational perspective so they know that the only way to con people into supporting it is by deliberately fostering economic illiteracy.
They believe in stupefying the public, in stupefying you, in order to provide cover for their otherwise unjustifiable hard-right economic agenda.

Austerity dogma

Economic illiteracy spreaders know that austerity has spectacularly failed to eliminate the deficit as they promised us it would, but they also know that debt-fearmongering was only ever an excuse to obscure the true agenda, which is snatching as much wealth and opportunity as possible from the majority of the population in order to give vast handouts to corporations and the mega-rich.

Austerity is, and always was, a massive con, and the only method right-wing propaganda merchants have of defending it is the deliberate spreading of economically illiterate tropes like "magic money tree".

A reverse kite mark

If you ever hear anyone earnestly use the phrase "magic money tree" (or other examples of economic idiot fodder) then you can see it as a reverse kite mark. 

Whoever uses these phrases has branded themselves as a dealer in the dark arts of economic illiteracy.

They've either mindlessly rote learned the idiot fodder platitude they just spouted which means they're gullible and unreliable, or they know perfectly well that it's idiot fodder, but they're saying it to you anyway because they're assuming you to be an idiot, which is worse than being gullible.

Whatever their motivation for spreading economic illiteracy, the conclusion is inevitable.


People who spread economic illiteracy need to be ridiculed and permanently discounted as serious economic commentators until they apologise for their role in helping to spread economic illiteracy.

Time to apologise

Although I respect Peter Oborne for his very sensible foreign policy views, I will be holding absolutely everything he says about the economy in absolute contempt until he apologises for spreading economic illiteracy by using idiot fodder terms like "magic money tree" and "living within our means".

Unless people who have been guilty of spreading economic illiteracy explicitly apologise for what they've done they should be treated as economic pariahs.

What we can do

Contact your MP: If you have an MP who spreads economic illiteracy you should contact them to ask that they stop. If you have a more sensible MP you could ask them to do more to counter the tactic of spreading economic illiteracy by calling it out for what it is. 
Contact mainstream media: Contact politics shows and individual mainstream media commentators and ask them to consider doing more to combat those who deliberately (or unwittingly) spread economic illiteracy. 
Call it out: Don't be afraid of right-wing blowhards. If you hear anyone using economically illiterate baby talk to defend Tory austerity dogma you have a responsibility to call them out. Tell them that you know that they're spreading economic illiteracy and then ask them if they're doing it because they're economically illiterate themselves, or whether they're doing it deliberately under the assumption that anyone listening to them is stupid enough to fall for their economically illiterate idiot fodder. 
Demand apologies: Here is a link to Peter Oborne's Twitter account. Why not send him a message asking him to apologise for deliberately spreading economic illiteracy?

 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.




OR

Thursday, June 22, 2017

The Daily Mail totally lost the plot over this Martin Rowson cartoon


The Daily Mail are well renowned for their bizarre front page tantrums (remember "enemies of the people" or "who will speak for Britain") but their latest bizarre editorial decrying the Guardian as the "fascist left" over the Martin Rowson Finsbury Park cartoon is absolutely ludicrous reality-denying nonsense that just shows how completely rattled the Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre must be to have allowed such ridiculous drivel to appear in his propaganda sheet.

There's so mach wrong with this humiliating toddler tantrum of an editorial it's going to have to be broken down into sections.

The Daily Mail's history of fascism

You would have thought that a publication with a shameful history of propagandising for Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany and Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists would be somewhat reticent about calling other people fascists, but no. 


They have no sense of shame at the extreme-right leanings of their publication, and assume their audience to be so staggeringly ill-informed that they won't spot the irony of a propaganda rag that has championed Nazism, fascism and other extreme-right ideologies for the best part of a Century accusing others of being divisive fascists.

The unspeakable woman

It's only a few weeks since the unspeakable woman published a Tweet calling for a "final solution" to the Muslim problem


She was sacked by LBC for her deliberate use of Nazi language that could obviously be interpreted as a call for a modern day Holocaust against Muslims, but somehow the Daily Mail decided to keep her as a columnist.

Any publication that considers it appropriate for their columnists to provoke anti-Muslim hatred by using Nazi Holocaust rhetoric against them is really skating on thin ice when they try to accuse others of having "fascist" tendencies.

The big lie


Amazingly a propaganda rag with a history of promoting fascism accusing others of having "fascist" tendencies isn't even the most ridiculous thing about this deranged Daily Mail editorial. 


The most ludicrous thing of all is the part where they openly lie that The Daily Mail newspaper and the Mail Online website are totally separate entities, even though everyone knows they share almost identical content, written by the same staff, and are operated by the same publisher Associated Newspapers. 

You can see that they are sister companies just by looking at the Associated Newspapers accounts.

Why lie?

The fact that the Daily Mail newspaper has resorted to concocting the most transparent of lies in order to distance themselves from the unspeakable woman is an absolutely clear demonstration that they know perfectly well that they're guilty of radicalising people with their extreme-right propaganda, because why else would they invent such a silly lie to cover their complicity if they didn't feel they had something to hide?

People with nothing to be ashamed of generally don't make up obvious lies in order to shield themselves from criticism.


Unintentional satire

"Fake news" blares Daily Mail headline for an article in which they blatantly lie to their own readers that the Daily Mail and Mail Online are totally separate entities!

You couldn't get a better example of unintentional satire than an article entitled "fake news" that blatantly and brazenly lies to the reader.


The disgusting track record

The absurd effort to create a fictional firewall between the Daily Mail and the Mail Online is a clear indicator of guilt, but even if this lie were true and the Daily Mail had nothing to do with Mail Online content, there's still absolutely mountains of evidence that the Daily Mail spreads hateful divisive extreme-right propaganda on the front page of their newspaper.



Just look at the absolute state of this and wonder how on earth the editor who published all of this divisive (and often downright misleading) anti-immigrant rhetoric on their front page could have the brass neck to complain that there isn't "a shred of evidence" that the Daily Mail fan the flames of Islamophobia and racism, let alone accuse anyone else of being "purveyors of hate".

Offensive cartoons




One of the most incredible things about this Daily Mail tantrum over the Martin Rowson cartoon in the Guardian is that the Daily Mail have a track record of printing absolutely outrageous cartoons that ape Nazi cartoons of the 1930s by depicting refugees as rats.


Imagine the sickening hypocrisy of an editor who sees fit to publish Nazi-style cartoons aimed at dehumanising refugees who then has a massive tantrum over a cartoon that highlights this kind of extreme-right Daily Mail fanaticism as a potential causal factor in the extreme-right terror attack in Finsbury Park.


The Guardian letter

Aside from spewing outrage at the Martin Rowson cartoon, the Daily Mail editorial also lambastes Owen Jones for calling the Daily Mail an open sewer and quotes from a letter from a Guardian reader that claims that "if any actual person stood in the street shouting the sort of bile this paper produces daily, they could be prosecuted for hate speech".

The funny thing is that they're so delusional that they actually think the majority of the population would disagree with the characterisation of the Daily Mail as the sewer press, or with the idea that ordinary people publicly inciting hatred in the way the Daily Mail do would likely be arrested.

How out of touch with reality must they be to actually publish such stingingly accurate criticism of the Daily Mail in their own newspaper?

  Austerity denialism

The Daily Mail editorial tries to claim that the only reason they continually whip up hatred against immigrants is that they want to "relieve pressure of numbers on school places, hospital beds, wages, housing, transport and infrastructure".

All but the most numbskulled amongst us know that the biggest pressure on all of these things isn't immigration, but actually Tory austerity dogma.

In seven years of Tory rule the Tories have shut down dozens of A&E departments, walk in centres and maternity wards, gutted social care, slashed mental health spending, and reduced the number of NHS beds by at least 12,000.

Since 2010 the Tory government have deliberately repressed the wages of millions of workers ensuring the most severe decline in the value of UK workers' wages since records began. Other countries with much higher levels of immigration, but less austerity madness, have seen the value of their workers' wages rise.

Between 2010 and 2017 the Tory government oversaw the lowest levels of house building since the early 1920s. The fact that the allowed the biggest influx of migrants in UK history at the same time obviously didn't help the situation, but the catastrophic housing policy failures of the Tory party are far more to blame for housing shortages than immigration.

Again, the main cause of problems with British transport and infrastructure are not caused by immigration but by Tory ideological extremism. The rail and bus networks are disgracefully over-priced shambles because of botched Tory privatisation scams, and since 2010 the Tories have been trashing the future economic potential of the UK and ensuring we get left behind in the global economic race by deliberately under-investing in infrastructure spending.

If the Daily Mail gave the slightest bit of genuine concern over any of these issues, then they wouldn't be blaming these issues exclusively on immigrants, they'd be supporting the Labour Party manifesto that proposes to take serious action to actually address these problems (as well as introducing a migrant impact fund to improve services and infrastructure in areas that have had high levels of immigration).


But no, the Daily Mail are nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Tory party that has caused all of this damage with their privatisation mania and their socially and economically ruinous fixation with hard-right austerity dogma.

The reason the Daily Mail continually blame immigrants for all of these problems is that it deflects the blame away from their beloved Tories.

Victim complexing

The extreme-right are increasingly reliant on the tactic of inflating people's senses of self-pity so that they end up walking around with victim complexes the size of hot air balloons.

This bizarre Daily Mail editorial tries to make out that it's not the people killed or injured in any of the four terrorist outrages over the last three months who are victims, but actually the poor maligned readers of the Daily Mail for the way the nasty lefties accuse them of reading a divisive extreme-right hate comic.

The Daily Mail have worked tirelessly to create massive victim complexes in their readers, and this attempt to portray Daily Mail readers as the poor delicate victims of society is their attempted payoff.

Forget the victims of terrorism; forget the victims of Tory austerity dogma; forget the disabled people who have been systematically abused in disability denial factories; forget the UK workforce who have seen their wages eroded away worse than any developed nation apart from crisis-stricken Greece; forget the 400,000+ extra kids growing up in poverty since 2010; forget all the people who have had their local services shut down; forget the millions stuck in ever-growing NHS queues; forget the victims of Grenfell tower; forget the victims of the post-Brexit spike in violent hate crime ...

Forget them all - because the true victims are the poor maligned Daily Mail readers who must be so terribly upset that other people would dare to suggest that they might possibly
be horrible people because they choose to read such an undeniably horrible newspaper.

Conclusion

I've been very critical of the Guardian in recent years over their lazy recycling of pro-austerity dogma and their relentless editorial attacks on progressive politics, but their cartoonists (especially Martin Rowson and Steve Bell) have continued to do fantastic work. 

So in conclusion I think we should all say a big thank you and congratulations to the cartoonist Martin Rowson for triggering the Daily Mail into publishing such a blatantly unhinged diatribe.



 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.




OR

Theresa May has finally admitted that she was talking Orwellian nonsense during the election campaign


After trying to sell the country the absurd Orwellian narrative that the nation is wonderfully united, Theresa May has finally been forced to admit that we're actually more divided than ever.

To go from talking about unity and how the country is "coming together" in April to admitting that "our country is divided: red versus blue; young versus old; leave versus remain" in June is quite some turnaround, but despite identifying three of the significant divisions she tried to deny during the election campaign, she missed the biggest division of all, the division between the mega-rich and the rest of us.

Red vs Blue

Theresa May is right that the country is divided between Tory and Labour support. Labour's 40% share of the vote would have been enough to finish with a parliamentary majority in any election since 1979, but they came second to the Tories 42% vote share (obviously also enough to win a significant majority in any other election).

When it comes to support for hard-right austerity dogma and investment-based economics the divide is even more stark, with 14.5 million people backing hard-right austerity parties (Tories, UKIP, DUP) and 14.5 million backing  pro-investment parties (Labour, SNP, Green, Plaid Cymru).

Young vs Old


 There has been a massive change in British politics. Ever since universal suffrage the best predictor of voting intention was always social class, with the Tories generally favoured by the wealthier classes, and the Labour Party generally favoured by the working poor.

The Scottish independence vote in 2014, the Brexit vote in 2016 and Theresa May's vanity election have revealed a massive change, with age now becoming a much stronger indicator of voting intention than social class.

If it was up to the working age population of Scotland to decide their future then the result would have been too close to call, but pensioners swung the vote in favour of the union by voting 73% - 27% for continued Scottish subservience to Westminster (the way the newspapers told them to vote).

In 2016 the roles were reversed with the young voting to retain the benefits of EU membership and the older generations voting to sign a blank contract with the hard-right of the Tory party to make Brexit up as they go along (the way the newspapers told them to vote).

In 2017 the under-45s voted heavily in favour of investment economics, repatriation of public services and a cooperative approach to the Brexit negotiations, while the older generations voted heavily in favour of more austerity dogma, more privatisation of public services, and Theresa May's belligerent and antagonistic approach to the Brexit negotiations (the way the newspapers told them to vote).

The country has never been more divided between the rich and the poor, but the situation as exists now is clearly a demographic timebomb for the regressive right as ever more young people will join the electoral register, and ever more elderly people will fall off it as they die (the Tory grandee Michael Heseltine reckons the Tories will lose 2% of their voters per year in this way).

Leave vs Remain

The country is still split down the middle on whether they think Brexit is a good idea, but one thing we are pretty strongly united on is recognition that a "no deal" Tory strop away from the negotiating table would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom.

The economic damage from a chaotic flounce out of Europe would be bigger than the consequences of the 2007-08 financial sector insolvency crisis (that we still haven't recovered from), and what's more, it would trigger economic fallout on the global scale, for which Britain and the British people would be held directly responsible for allowing it to happen.

Characterising the Brexit debate as a binary Leave vs Remain debate is a very poor oversimplification in a situation which is much better seen as a choice between a catastrophic nuclear Brexit, and any other option (hard Brexit, soft Brexit, Swiss style Brexit, no Brexit ...).

Mega-rich vs the rest of us

The biggest divide in British society is the division between the vast majority of ordinary people and the mega-rich class who completely bankroll the Tory party.

Since the financial crisis UK workers have suffered the longest sustained decline in the value of our wages since records began, 400,000+ more kids are growing up in poverty, local services have been slashed to the bone, in-work benefits and social welfare for disabled people have been cut time and time again ...

Meanwhile the Tories have lavished one handout after another on corporations and the mega-rich, meaning that while the rest of us have carried the burden of Tory austerity dogma, the mega-rich elitists have more than doubled their wealth.

Labour's transformative manifesto was aimed at reducing this widening division between the mega-rich and the rest of us, and Theresa May's manifesto of misery was aimed at snatching even more wealth and opportunity from the majority of us in order to lavish even more handouts on corporations and the super rich.

It's obvious why Theresa May decided to avoid mentioning the division between the mega-rich and the rest of us. She knows as well as anyone who has been paying the remotest bit of attention that the Tory party have spent the last seven years widening that division by transferring as much wealth as possible from the majority of us to the tiny mega-rich minority.

Theresa May doesn't want us thinking about this particular division, because if we do, we'd obviously want to sling the Tory party out of power for what they've done, and make sure they never come back again.

 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.




OR


Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Right-wing smear merchants are attacking Jeremy Corbyn for Theresa May's blunder


A number of right-wing websites and commentators have exploded in displays of synthetic outrage that Jeremy Corbyn didn't bow to the Queen during the opening of parliament.

Parliamentary protocol is that the speaker and Black Rod bow to the Queen on behalf of the whole house, meaning that the party leaders do not have to bow.


As you can see from the video below Theresa May is the one who got parliamentary protocol all wrong by bowing when she wasn't supposed to, but right-wing blowhards like the Guido Fawkes blog are now using her ignorant protocol blunder to whip up a massive storm of indignant right-wing faux outrage against Jeremy Corbyn!
The sad thing is that there are loads of totally gullible people out there who will believe that Corbyn was disrespecting the Queen by following parliamentary protocol, and that Theresa May is brilliant for the way she ignorantly snubbed parliamentary tradition.

Nobody should be too bothered about Theresa May ignoring parliamentary protocol, after all the whole Queen's speech thing is a ridiculous and anachronistic farce which should have no place in any modern democracy. But we should all take note of the right-wing blogs and news outlets who turned Theresa May's blunder into a reason to launch attacks on Jeremy Corbyn for supposedly lacking patriotism.

People who are willing to completely distort reality in order to score cheap political points exist in the absolute sewer of journalistic standards.

If you see any website or newspaper sharing these "Corbyn didn't bow" attacks, you'll have all the evidence you'll even need that those organisations are representatives of the right-wing sewer press, and should never be taken as reliable news sources.


This "Corbyn didn't bow" attack line can be seen as a kind of kite mark of the right-wing sewer press, marking them out as the kind of news organisations that should never be considered reliable sources under any circumstance.


 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.




OR

Theresa May's first Queen's speech was a total shambles


Theresa May's first, and almost certainly last, Queen's speech was every bit the shambles you would expect from a directionless charlatan with no ideology other than a self-serving desperation to cling onto power at any cost.


The May-DUP deal

Theresa May delayed the Queen's speech in order to buy herself time to make a deal with the DUP. The Tories then failed to agree a deal with their right-wing ideological blood brothers, and then the speech went ahead without the deal in place.

I'm not going to walk you down the garden path to conclusions about Theresa May's competence and deal-making abilities. Just think about it for yourself.

Even if this May-DUP deal does go ahead before the Queen's speech is voted on, it will clearly be a demonstration that Theresa May is willing to sling literally anything on her bonfire of vanity, even peace in Northern Ireland.


Ripping up their own manifesto


One of the most extraordinary aspects of Theresa May's vanity election was the way she wilted under public pressure and began ripping pages out of her own manifesto before the polls had even opened.

She backpedalled furiously on her depraved proposal to impose a 100% stealth inheritance tax for people who get frail in their old age and need social care, and the pledge to provide infant school children breakfast at 6.8p per day was also bunged into the shredder too.


The Queen's speech revealed that both of these Tory policies have gone, as have many others from their manifesto of misery including their plans to scrap the pensioners' triple lock and to means test winter fuel payments, their plot to bring back fox hunting, and their scheme to bring back educational apartheid based on exam results at the age of 11.

Other things that were dropped were promises of 10,000 more mental health nurses (impossible after Theresa May's scrapping of NHS bursaries drove 10,000 trainee nurses out of the profession in a single year), the plan to nick Ed Miliband's energy price cap idea, and the plan to scrap the independent Serious Fraud Office in order to give the Tory government control over financial corruption cases.

Making it up as they go along


The way the British political system usually works is that the parties present their proposed legislative agendas in their manifestos, the people vote, and then the party with the most seats outlines their legislative agenda in the Queen's speech.


By ditching so many policies from their manifesto for their pared-back Queen's speech, the Tories are signalling their intent to just make it all up as they go along for as long as they can cling onto power.

What is the point of parties bothering to write manifestos at all if they just sling them in the bin after they get elected and then do whatever the hell they want to?


Any MP who votes in favour of Theresa May's Queen's speech will be demonstrating their intent to allow Theresa May and the Tories to simply make things up as they go along.

The Brexit U-turn

Theresa May has been warned in no uncertain terms by dozens of her Europhile Tory backbenchers that an economically ruinous "no deal" Brexit strop is now out of the question

As a result of this internal Tory rebellion the Queen's speech makes absolutely no mention whatever of her diplomatically inept "no deal is better than a bad deal" threat to explode an economic bomb over Britain and the EU if she doesn't get her own way, and all we get instead is a platitude about making a success of Brexit.

Theresa May is now dancing to the tune of her backbenchers, but the Tory party is brutally divided between hard Brexit fanatics like Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Gove and John Redwood, and the Europhile MPs.

If Theresa May manages to get her Queen's speech through then it's going to be fascinating to see the absurd political contortions she is going to have to do in order to satisfy both of these ideologically incompatible factions, both of which will have the power to bring her weak and unstable government to its knees at pretty much any point.


Any MP who votes in favour of Theresa May's Queen's speech will be demonstrating their intent to foist an incredibly weak, unstable and ideologically divided government on the UK.

Attacking Internet freedom 
"A commission for countering extremism will be established to support the government in stamping out extremist ideology in all its forms, both across society and on the internet, so it is denied a safe space to spread."
Theresa May is absolutely fixated on controlling the Internet. She piggybacks this right-wing authoritarian agenda onto every single terrorist attack, even when there's no evidence whatever that the attacks could have been prevented by revoking Internet freedom.

If Theresa May had any real concerns over public safety from terrorism then she would use existing legislation to prosecute the appalling hate speech and glorification of terrorism that goes on in places like the Britain First hate group, and she certainly wouldn't have allowed known jihadists to go completely unwatched as they planed and executed their deadly terrorist attacks.

The real reason Theresa May dislikes Internet freedom is that it allows people to discuss and debate politics outside the narrow spectrum of right-wing opinion that is deemed acceptable by the mainstream media.

She knows that she lost her majority because the Internet is allowing people to break down the right-wing propaganda tropes that have dominated UK political discourse for decades, so she wants to stamp it out and return to the time when fanatical Tory hard-right economic dogma was subjected to virtually no scrutiny whatever. It's an impossible fantasy, but since when have realism and groundedness ever been factors in Theresa May's political calculations before?

Any MP who votes in favour of the Queen's speech will be demonstrating their intent to help Theresa May destroy the freedom of the Internet for her own right-wing authoritarian political purposes.

Attacking democracy
"A bill will be introduced to repeal the European Communities Act and provide certainty for individuals and businesses."
Another horrifying announcement in the Queen's speech is that the Tories are actually intent on continuing with their anti-democratic effort to completely bypass parliament and allow Tory ministers to rewrite the laws of the land as they see fit.

The anti-democratic Tory repeal bill is an absolute affront to democracy. 

Only the most hypocritical of Brexiters could possibly try to argue that Tory ministers rewriting the laws of the land without any parliamentary scrutiny whatever is a price worth paying to end the supposedly anti-democratic influence of the EU.

Either you think parliament should be sovereign, or you think that government ministers should be allowed to make up the law of the land as they go along with no parliamentary scrutiny whatever.

 You simply can't believe both unless you're 100% immune to cognitive dissonance.

Any MP who votes in favour of the Queen's speech will be demonstrating their intent to help Theresa May and the Tories destroy British democracy by rewriting the laws of the land to suit themselves with no democratic scrutiny whatever.

Britain for sale
"My government will work to attract investment in infrastructure to support economic growth"
This particular part of the Queen's speech should leap out to anyone who understands the Tory track record on investment. Since 2010 the Tories have ruthlessly and recklessly cut back on infrastructure and investment meaning that the UK is getting left further and further behind in the global economy.

The UK spends only 1.7% of GDP investing for the future when the average amongst developed nations is around 3%. This deliberate ideologically driven under-investment will have devastating consequences for our future economic prospects.

When the Tories talk about "attracting investment", they don't mean that they're going to invest in the UK economy at all, it means that they're going to go around the world begging countries like Qatar, Oman, the UAE and China into buying our public infrastructure.

In November 2016 Theresa May's government handed our publicly owned aviation fuel distribution network directly to the governments of Oman and the UAE. In March 2017 the Tories handed the Southwestern rail franchise to the government of Hong Kong, and later in March 2017 Theresa May begged and grovelled in front of the Qataris for them to buy up even more British infrastructure.

Any MP who votes in favour of the Queen's speech will be demonstrating their intent to help Theresa May and the Tories requisition even more publicly owned British infrastructure and services to distribute to foreign governments.

An authoritarian with no authority

Theresa May's vanity election has reduced her to the ridiculous position of being a savage right-wing authoritarian with no authority.

Even if the DUP decide to put their own party interests above the interests of the United Kingdom by voting through Theresa May's economically treasonous, Internet freedom-attacking, democracy-hating Queen's speech, she'll still be left in an incredibly weak position where she will have to dance to the whims of her bitterly divided Tory backbenchers to keep them in line, and every move she makes will be subject to approval by the DUP.

Any politician with any regard for the best interests of the United Kingdom would not vote in favour of Theresa May's shambolic Queen's speech, but then the Tories will always put their own party political interests above the interests of the nation as a whole, meaning it's only the DUP who have the power to prevent Theresa May from forming a government that is both full of malicious intent, but also so weak and unstable they'll be completely unable to run the country or the Brexit negotiations effectively.


 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.




OR