This video from Britain says about itself:
21 September 2017
This video from the USA says about itself:
How Politicians and Academics Lie: Misinformation, Public Relations, and Public Opinion (2005)
Academic dishonesty or academic misconduct is any type of cheating that occurs in relation to a formal academic exercise. It can include
Plagiarism: The adoption or reproduction of original creations of another author (person, collective, organization, community or other type of author, including anonymous authors) without due acknowledgment.
Fabrication: The falsification of data, information, or citations in any formal academic exercise.
Deception: Providing false information to an instructor concerning a formal academic exercise—e.g., giving a false excuse for missing a deadline or falsely claiming to have submitted work.
Cheating: Any attempt to give or obtain assistance in a formal academic exercise (like an examination) without due acknowledgment.
Bribery: or paid services. Giving assignment answers or test answers for money.
Sabotage: Acting to prevent others from completing their work. This includes cutting pages out of library books or willfully disrupting the experiments of others.
Professorial misconduct: Professorial acts that are academically fraudulent equate to academic fraud and/or grade fraud.
Impersonation: assuming a student’s identity with intent to provide an advantage for the student.
Academic dishonesty has been documented in most every type of educational setting from elementary school to graduate school. Throughout history this type of dishonesty has been met with varying degrees of approbation. Today, those who are a part of an educated society tend to take a very negative view of academic dishonesty.
The extent to which the US government was guilty of propaganda aimed at its own people is a matter of discussion. The book Selling Intervention & War by Jon Western argued that president Bush was “selling the war” to the public.
President George W. Bush gave a talk at the Athena Performing Arts Center at Greece Athena Middle and High School Tuesday, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY. About halfway through the event Bush said, “See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
People had their initial reactions to the War on Terror, but with more biased and persuading information, Iraq as a whole has been negatively targeted. America’s goal was to remove Saddam Hussein’s power in Iraq with allegations of possible weapons of mass destruction related to Osama Bin Laden. Video and picture coverage in the news has shown shocking and disturbing images of torture and other evils being done under the Iraqi government.
By Suranjit Saha in Wales:
How do right-wing parties win elections in our capitalist democracies?
Saturday 16th September 2017
SURANJIT SAHA offers an explanation as to why so many politicians opposed to people’s own interests find themselves in the world’s top jobs
THE battle cry of “We are the 99 per cent”, highlighting the fact that the top 1 per cent of the wealthiest people in society own a disproportionate share of wealth and political influence, is now well known.
But the paradox is this: no political party anywhere can win an election on the basis of the support of just 1 per cent of population.
And yet, in almost all major democracies of the world today, the governing parties or coalitions are the parties of the right or centre-right, whose core policies are to promote the interests of the rich. How does this happen?
The 1 per cent is, of course, a notional and arbitrary slice of society. For the sake of tidiness, let us call this dynamics “the top 10 per cent versus the remaining 90 per cent.”
The top 10 per cent does need the votes of a big chunk of the other 90 per cent in order to govern.
Immediately after the end of the second world war, the Labour Party under the leadership of Clement Attlee had won the election and formed Britain’s first post-war government.
At a time when the British economy was nearly bankrupt under the pressure of fighting a destructive five-year war, the party had the courage to establish the three strong pillars of a modern welfare state: a National Health Service, a social housing programme and free access to university education to all.
It did not hide behind the standard excuse of the rich: “The economy cannot afford it.”
For such a party to begin to lose faith in its core principle of social justice was probably among the worst regressions in the political culture of the 20th century.
The long period of uninterrupted Conservative rule from 1979 to 1997 had created an atmosphere of unremitting hopelessness among the working class in Britain and it was in that atmosphere that Tony Blair came to be elected as the leader of the Labour Party in July 1994.
During his years as prime minister, he had firmly repositioned his party to the right of the political spectrum, at times further to the right than the Conservative Party.
The lasting damage to the mid and long-term political prospects of the left was done by the social engineering that he practised.
Blair drummed the message across in all his speeches that it was impossible to win an election in Britain by focusing on social justice.
He ruptured the traditional Labour politics of building a social coalition with the poorer and middle classes and replaced that with a new alliance of middle and richer classes.
This social engineering was in fact a bold gambit of beating the Conservatives at their own game by becoming more like them.
In this, a small minority of the top elite, using its better education and other forms of accumulated social capital, successfully divides the society beneath it into a hierarchy of an infinite number of narrowly defined classes, each class disdainfully regarding the ones below it as parasites and constantly aspiring to rise to the ranks of those above it. It functions by constantly harping on the virtues of hard work as a route to upward mobility.
What the elite-controlled media does not say is that any amount of hard work will not allow ordinary people to enter the magic circle of the small coterie of the privileged, most of them educated at Eton/Harrow and Oxford/Cambridge and bound together by the strong bonds of self-interest.
The positions that these people hold in the state and corporate apparatus are not because of hard work or inherent talent, but because their families had the resources to buy them access to privileged private education and had the ability to place them into the orbit of those proverbial old boys’ clubs, which in most cases control access to these positions.
Until the end of the second world war, university education in general, and not only at Oxford and Cambridge, had of course remained an exclusive preserve of the rich and privileged, a narrow top layer of the British society.
Nobody without a university degree could reasonably aspire to secure a “salaried job” in a responsible position and nobody outside that circle could aspire to have a university degree.
It was only after the Labour government headed by Attlee opened up university education to all that a degree of social mobility came to exist in this country, opening up a small space of justice in its atrophied class structure.
In 1989 the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher started the process of rolling back the slow forward movement of social mobility which Labour had set in motion a quarter of a century earlier when it all but abolished maintenance grants.
Over the next 28 years, Britain regressed to its pre-1945 situation of an atrophied class division with regard to access to the university education.
All students other than those belonging to the top 10 per cent of the income pyramid will now leave university with a debt of around £60,000. Most will feel extremely intimidated to take on such a gamble at the threshold of their adult lives.
Limiting the access to higher education to all but the top elite is just one part of the power game. Taking recourse to various forms of dissembling and doublespeak to win votes of the common man and woman was the other necessary part.
A form of dissembling quite popular with the Conservatives is this constant refrain about how good and necessary the “wealth creators” are for the society.
By wealth creators, they mean corporate bosses, real estate developers, bankers, stockbrokers and the rich in general.
They alone are the creators of employment. Therefore, they must not be unfairly taxed, regulated or disadvantaged in any other way and left free to make money.
In any real economy, however, the creation of the final social product, or the aggregate value added, which the right calls the creation of wealth, actually happens through the joint enterprise and creativity of the bosses and the workers.
However, the rules of a capitalist economy about distributing this final product is such that the bosses receive a disproportionately larger share than the workers.
And within the group of workers in most organisations the gap between the highest and the lowest earners is huge.
It is difficult to see any valid reason why the chief executive officers of companies should need to earn, on average, 262 times more than the lowest-paid employees, as was reported in a research publication of the Equality Trust in 2011.
This has no connection with any form of rationality. What is at play here are capitalist values, which say that it is all right for some to earn multi-million-pound bonuses and for the low-paid workers doing full-time hard work to struggle to make ends meet.
It is the brutality of these kinds of values that a party of the left has to make clear to the bottom 90 per cent of the population and not pander to the limitless greed of the top 10 per cent.
Suranjit Saha retired as a senior lecturer in development studies at the University of Swansea.
This video from the USA says about itself:
New Report Finds Tony Blair Schemed With Bush To Invade Iraq
8 July 2016
An official investigation known as The Chilcot Report into how Tony Blair led Great Britain into war reveals that he and George W Bush conspired to bring their countries to a war of aggression based on faulty intelligence, lies and assumptions. Blair sent Bush a note promising loyalty.
Jimmy Dore breaks it down.
By Peter Lazenby in Britain:
Monday 11th September 2017
His comments brought a swift rebuke from Unite general secretary Len McCluskey, who said Mr Blair “misses the point” about immigrant workers, whose abuse by “greedy bosses” leads to the undercutting of wages and working conditions.
Mr McCluskey argued that only a proper regulation of the jobs market could stop the abuse when Britain leaves the European Union.
He also described Mr Blair as “yesterday’s man,” adding: “He’s as out of touch now as he was in 2004.
“He doesn’t address the idea because what Tony Blair and the New Labour government were a part of, and certainly what the Conservatives have continued, is creating this race-to-the-bottom culture within our society rather than a rate-for-the-job society.”
And he attacked Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, asserting that a Corbyn-led government would be a “serious problem” for Britain.
He said: “And the risk is actually that we have a Brexit followed by, I’m afraid, an unreconstructed leftist programme from Labour, and if you combine those two things together, in my view we will be in a very serious situation as a country.”
Mr Blair commended the way Mr Corbyn fought the general election, but added: “That doesn’t make that programme right.”
Communist Party of Britain general secretary Rob Griffiths said: “This is yet another ruse to block and reverse the democratic referendum result.
“Blair and his big-business allies refuse to recognise that for many people, leaving the EU is more an issue of national sovereignty than of immigration.”
UK: Tony Blair calls for anti-immigration policies to stop Brexit: here.
This 5 August 2015 video from Britain is called Jeremy Corbyn on Tony Blair and ‘war crimes’ – Newsnight.
By Steve Sweeney in Britain:
Tony Blair: Guilty In The Eyes Of The Public
Tuesday 1ST August 2017
Stop the War Coalition convener Lindsey German branded Mr Blair “the most protected war criminal in the world.”
However, she said: “In the court of public opinion he has long been found guilty.”
He accused Mr Blair of committing a “crime of aggression” by invading Iraq in 2003 and his lawyers asked permission from the High Court to seek judicial review to get the Supreme Court to overturn a 2006 House of Lords ruling that there is no such crime under the law of England and Wales.
Gen al-Rabbat brought the case after Westminster magistrates refused to issue summonses in November last year claiming the trio had immunity from prosecution for decisions taken while in government.
However the appeal was dismissed yesterday by the Lord Chief Justice as having “no prospect” of succeeding.
He said that the inquiry showed Saddam Hussein did not pose an urgent threat to British interests and the intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction had been presented with “unwarranted certainty.”
The QC said that as the international crime of a war of aggression had been accepted at the time of the Nuremberg trials of nazi war crimes, it was the duty of British courts to follow the example and prosecute those responsible for the Iraq war.
The Nuremberg judges had said that war “is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.
“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament general secretary Kate Hudson branded the decision “hugely disappointing” and that “justice had been left undone.”
She said: “Last year’s Chilcot report showed that Blair had no respect for Cabinet procedure, no respect for Parliament and no respect for international law.
“Iraq was devastated by the war Blair led Britain into, millions of innocent Iraqis were killed, British soldiers were killed and terrorism has spread across the Middle East.
“Chilcot revealed the evidence that must now be used to bring Blair to justice. Only when justice is served can we prevent disasters like the Iraq war from happening again.”
This video from the USA says about itself:
27 February 2017
Private prison operators are seeing green as President Trump cracks down on undocumented immigrants around the country.
By Solomon Hughes in Britain:
Lock them up and make huge profits
Friday 28th July 2017
It has been keen on Trump. One of its subsidiaries, Geo Corrections Holding Inc, gave $250,000 to the Trump Inauguration Fund. This was the huge, corporate-sponsored fund which paid for all Trump’s inauguration balls and celebrations when he became president this January.
The firm is called Geo Corrections because in the US prisons are run by the sinister-sounding Department of Corrections.
Geo Group also put money into getting Trump elected. A Geo Group firm gave $225,000 to a political action committee called Rebuilding America Now.
In the US, political action committees take big corporate donations to run political campaigns supporting candidates. Because corporate donations are channelled through these committees rather than the parties themselves, the business money behind US political campaigns is much less clear than in Britain.
Rebuild America Now is an emphatically pro-Trump campaign — its website says it was “supporting Donald Trump in the 2016 general election,” because it is “dedicated to showing Americans the truth about Hillary Clinton and her real record.” The group produced many “hard-hitting” anti-Hillary ads, ironically many of them about Clinton’s shady business backers.
Federal government contractors are banned from making election campaign contributions in the US — a good law to stop “pay for play” corruption.
An anti-corruption group, the Campaign Legal Centre, has complained about the donation but the Geo Group says it did not break any laws because it made the donation through a firm that is a “non-contracting legal entity and has no contracts with any governmental agency.”
Geo Group has huge government contracts, but it donated through a subsidiary that does not.
Geo Group is also a client of a new Washington lobbying firm, Ballard Partners, run by a key Trump supporter, Brian Ballard. When he is not representing Geo Group, Ballard helps raise money for Trump.
In June Ballard was involved in a party at the Trump International Hotel in New York that raised $10 million for Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign — yes, they are already planning it.
Geo Group’s friendship with Trump is not surprising. The US has had a private prison industry for years, but it was under pressure.
In her presidential campaign Clinton made promises to “end the privatisation of prisons.”
A statement on her website read: “Hillary believes we should move away from contracting out this core responsibility of the federal government to private corporations, and from creating private industry incentives that may contribute — or have the appearance of contributing — to over-incarceration.”
Clinton was responding to pressure from Black Lives Matter activists, who saw black US citizens were sent too often to prison for too long. They argued this was because of racism, but also because private prison firms used their profits to lobby for ever more harsh laws to help fill their jails and generate their profits.
Clinton was also responding to some hard-hitting investigative reporting, notably a series by Shane Bauer which uncovered grim private prisons by working undercover in the jails for US left-wing investigative magazine Mother Jones. Incidentally, this is another illustration of how social change requires mass movements and left-wing publications.
Even before the election, Barack Obama’s deputy attorney general announced the government planned on “reducing — and ultimately ending — our use of privately operated prisons” because studies found the jails were more expensive and worse than public ones.
Trump’s election reverses all that. Private prisons won’t be phased out. And Trump’s anti-immigrant policies mean more immigration detention centres, also run by the private prison firms, will be built.
And then this April, Trump’s government awarded its first contract for a new immigration detention centre. Geo Group got the $110m, 10-year deal to run the 1,000-bed lock-up, outside of Houston, Texas. Trump wants the Immigration and Customs Enforcement force (commonly referred to as Ice in the US) to round up “illegal aliens” and put them in Geo Group’s detention centre.
To get an idea of how rotten the US private prisons business is, look to Texas where Geo Group is backing Republican politicians in a new law that will allow it to lock up children.
At the moment some Geo Group centres don’t have a licence to look after kids, so any children of immigrants locked up in its detention centres with their parents have to move to children’s homes within 20 days — even though, as Newsweek has reported, parents have reported sexual abuse of their children and other problems at these jails.
It’s a rotten story of profiting from prisons and lobbying. But Geo Group also has a place in Britain. It runs the Dungavel immigration detention centre in Scotland. The company also ran Doncaster prison until 2005, when its partner, Serco, bought it out.
Geo Group also runs the vans which take prisoners to court and between prisons for most of England and Wales in a joint venture with Amey. GeoAmey’s website claims that its 400-strong fleet of secure vans shifts 10,500 prisoners around each week.
The US private prison firm is friends with Trump. But its big expansion into British private prisons happened thanks to Blair.
His government awarded the firm many contracts, taking prison privatisation way beyond the small Tory programme. Back then, Geo Group were called Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, and its history was even more alarming than just being friends with Trump.
Named after their founder, former FBI agent George Wackenhut, the firm had private lists of 2.4 million “subversives” bought from far-right organisations — Wackenhut charged companies to use these lists of “communists” and “radicals” as blacklists for potential employees. Wackenhut agents were also involved in spying on US politicians and whistle-blowers trying to expose pollution.
With nostalgia for Blair still circulating, his embrace of private prisons is one more example of how Blair was keen on the worst policies of the US Republican right — the Iraq war, academy schools (a George Bush policy under the US name “charter schools”), private prisons — all Blairite policies borrowed from the Republican right.
BLACKLISTERS Carillion were blamed yesterday for the “squalid” state of a north London jail where prisoners are being subjected to “overcrowded” and “inhumane” conditions. Inspectors singled out the outsourced provider, responsible for maintenance at HMP Pentonville, for failing to ensure basic decency at the Victorian prison, where they found broken toilets and leaking sewage: here.
Donald Trump Endorses Police Brutality In Speech To Cops. The president said law enforcement officers shouldn’t protect suspects’ heads when putting them into police cars: here.
This video from Britain says about itself:
6 July 2016
By Steve Sweeney in Britain:
Blair branded a liar
Friday 7th July 2017
After eight years Chilcot finally says Blair wasn’t ‘straight with the nation’
Though carefully worded, Mr Chilcot’s admission appears to tacity accept the charge leveled by the Stop the War Coalition (StWC) and others that Mr Blair launched the bloody invasion on false pretences.
Asked whether Mr Blair had been truthful to him and the public, Mr Chilcot responded: “Can I slightly reword that to say I think any prime minister taking a country into war has got to be straight with the nation and carry it, so far as possible, with him or her.
“I don’t believe that was the case in the Iraq instance.”
A district judge ruled against a private case being brought against Mr Blair last November, claiming he had immunity from prosecution.
But the Royal Courts of Justice is now hearing a case seeking to overturn that decision, which is being brought by former Iraqi army chief of staff Gen Abdul-Wahid Shannan ar-Ribat, who is now living in exile. If successful it could see Mr Blair tried for war crimes.
The Chilcot Inquiry took an agonising seven years before it was published amid accusations that it would be an Establishment whitewash.
It found that the executed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein posed “no imminent threat” at the time of the invasion and said the case for the war was based on “flawed intelligence”.
Yet this information, lifted from the so-called “dodgy dossier” designed to “sex-up” the case for war, was in direct conflict with UN weapons inspectors who said there was no evidence of WMDs in Iraq.
Despite this, MPs voted in favour of going to war without a United Nations security council resolution, a move which many have said made the invasion of Iraq illegal.
“We have got to think very carefully as a country what has happened since the Iraq war and the consequences that flowed from what I believe was a catastrophically wrong decision in 2003,” he added.
StWC national convener Lindsey German told the Star: “Why has it taken eight years for Chilcot to let us know this? And why is Blair still allowed to walk free when this is such common knowledge?
“A million have died in Iraq. When are all these people going to get justice?”
This video from the USA says about itself:
6 July 2016
While Iraq is marking a third day of mourning, a long-awaited British inquiry into the Iraq War has just been released. The Chilcot report is 2.6 million words long—about three times the length of the Bible. Using excerpts from private correspondence between former Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush, the report details how Blair pushed Britain into the war despite a lack of concrete intelligence.
For example, eight months before the invasion, Blair wrote to Bush: “I will be with you, whatever.” Then, in June 2003, less than three months after the invasion began, Blair privately wrote to Bush that the task in Iraq is “absolutely awesome and I’m not at all sure we’re geared for it.” Blair added, “And if it falls apart, everything falls apart in the region.” For more, we speak with British-Pakistani writer, commentator and author Tariq Ali.
By Robert Stevens in Britain:
As Labour rises in UK polls, Blairite breakaway party plans gather pace
29 May 2017
The Blairites have openly outlined their agenda through a series of deliberate leaks to the Telegraph, [Rupert Murdoch‘s] Times and Daily Mail—longstanding Conservative-supporting newspapers. Corbyn’s office dismissed the plans as “silly” stories from “Tory papers,” but this week the Blairites continued airing their intentions via the pages of the Observer, the Sunday edition of the anti-Corbyn and staunchly Blairite Guardian.
Amid poll results showing Labour under Jeremy Corbyn cutting the Conservative (Tory) lead to just 5 percent, from a high of 20, the Observer ran comments from Jonathan Powell, described as Blair’s “most trusted adviser.” The Blairites are committed to opposing the Tories’ plans for a hard Brexit that would result in the British bourgeoisie losing access to the European Union’s Single Market. The Observer reported that Powell “said that there was no pro-European party capable of commanding significant support and that ‘a different party’ could fill the vacuum if Labour opted not to do so.”
Powell declared, “We will wait to see what happens in the election, but… there is a yawning chasm in the middle of politics at the moment that is not represented and the [Liberal Democrats] are incapable of filling that space. At some stage, someone is going to fill it. Whether it is the Labour party after the election or a different party, who knows?”
Just hours after Corbyn launched Labour’s manifesto, veteran Blairite MP Frank Field became the first to call openly for a split. Speaking to the Conservative-supporting Sun, owned by Rupert Murdoch, Field said if Corbyn refused to go in the aftermath of a Tory win, the right wing had to break away and form a caucus in parliament, possibly as “People’s Labour.”
Such a plan could only be enacted “if we get a majority of like-minded Labour MPs back in parliament.” It would require access to taxpayer funded “Short money,” which opposition parties require to function in parliament. To receive the money, a party must have at least two MPs or one MP and more than 150,000 votes. Labour, with 232 elected at the 2015 general election, receives at least £6.2 million a year through 2020.
Nothing is being ruled out by the Blairites, including taking Corbyn to court to seize control of millions of pounds in assets and being declared the official opposition. They calculate such moves could be supported by up to 172 MPs—if they retain their seats—who opposed Corbyn in a vote of no confidence after last year’s Brexit referendum.
This plan had already been formulated by the Blairites in the Telegraph, with a report that 100 prospective Labour MPs were considering resigning the Labour whip and become independents after the general election.
Commenting in the May 21 Sunday Telegraph in a piece headlined “After defeat, Labour must split or die,” Simon Heffer wrote, “The uprising may not happen the weekend after the election, but… the breakaway will come, and it will be far more seismic than the formation of the [right-wing] SDP [Social Democratic Party] in 1981.”
Blair, the architect of Britain’s illegal invasion of Iraq, is widely hated and forced to plot behind the scenes. The Blairites have concluded that he and his immediate circle are too toxic to openly front a new formation, with Heffer stating that, “Many names are [instead being] floated—Yvette Cooper, Chuka Umunna, Clive Lewis, Dan Jarvis or even Sir Keir Starmer.”
In their efforts to ensure the Labour Party remains pro-war and pro-austerity, the Telegraph et al. are resorting to naked propaganda. Last week the Telegraph published a survey claiming that a quarter of Labour voters supported a split from Labour if it did not win the election. However, faced with the loaded question of whether “Labour should formally split and a group should breakaway and form a new party if it does not win power at this election,” three quarters of voters were still opposed.
To facilitate their plans, a merger with the pro-EU Liberal Democrats—who are committed to a second referendum but who have just nine MPs in parliament—is being mooted. Earlier this month, the Times cited a “Blairite” who revealed, “One of [former Liberal Democrats leader Nick] Clegg’s mates said: ‘You moderates in the Labour Party, if you wanted to just take us over you could just join, it would be yours.’” Clegg is known to be meeting regularly with Blair.
The Sunday Times, earlier this month, reported, “Allies of [current Liberal Democrat leader] Tim Farron have indicated that he might be persuaded to rename the party.” It revealed that some Labour MPs and Tory pro-Europeans met last year, “in which a party called the Democrats was discussed, a title that has previously been advanced by Lord Ashdown, the former Lib Dem leader.”
The Blairites, with the war criminal himself estimated to be worth £80 to £100 million, have lined up a number of multi-millionaire backers.
Details of the fundraising have been revealed in the Times and Daily Mail. Yesterday’s Mail on Sunday reported that Blair and Lord Levy—Labour’s main fundraiser in Blair’s period in office—are working closely together. Between 1994, when Blair became Labour leader and 2007, when he stepped down as Prime Minister, Levy raised more than £100 million for Labour.
Dr. Assem Allam, a British-based Egyptian businessman worth £250 million, previously donated £720,000 to Labour. The Mail reported that he met Blair and Levy on April 23 and “offered to fund moderate Labour MPs who want to leave Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour and set up a new ‘centrist’ party.” According to the newspaper, Allam pledged to give Blair several million pounds at the meeting. However, with initial election polls showing a large Tory lead, he reportedly changed his mind.
The Times said property developer Sir David Garrard, who has given Labour £1.6 million, would “willingly support” a new party “if a majority of centrist Labour MPs broke away to join it.”
Another multi-millionaire ready to move is Peter Coates—the owner of Premier League football team Stoke City FC. Coates has donated £200,000 to Labour, with the Times stating “he was ‘interested’ in the idea of a new party.”
The Blairites’ plans were summed up by a “source who used to work for Blair,” who told the Sunday Times two weeks ago that the result of the election would be central to the plotters next move. The source said, “[S]ome people have already come to the conclusion that it [the Corbyn wing’s control over the party] can’t [be reversed] and therefore something else will have to be born.”
The open plotting of the Blairites is a devastating rebuttal of Corbyn’s central claim that Labour can be refashioned as a vehicle through which to end austerity and curb the danger of war. The very forces which he has refused to move against, in the name of maintaining party unity, are intent on preventing him from ever forming a government—and are still pursuing this goal without a finger being raised against them.
The author also recommends:
Blairites declare UK Labour party unelectable
[20 April 2017]
As Tories slip in the polls, British media goes on the offensive against Corbyn: here.