The Jeremy Corbyn story that nobody wanted to publish

eddie wrote:The Jeremy Corbyn story that nobody wanted to publish


The dominant media narrative says that affluent, successful celebrities wouldn't support Corbyn - he's a loner surrounded by 'loony lefties'. So it's no wonder publications didn't want to hear

Yesterday, I wrote a blog about the Jeremy Corbyn tour – known as #JC4PM – which the media had failed to cover. I wanted people to know about the existence of the tour, but I also wanted to alert people to the fact that none of the newspapers I contacted were interested in reporting it. Journalist after journalist told me that the story was ‘not newsworthy’.

'Not newsworthy' is obviously not a scientific term. It's purely subjective. And it's also plain wrong if you consider what the #JC4PM tour is.**

**The #JC4PM tour was drawn up in the same spirit as the rallies that were organised by local activists during Jeremy Corbyn's leadership campaign. It was spontaneous. Comedians, musicians, poets and political activists were all enthusiastic about putting on big shows to show solidarity with Corbyn and to rally the troops in the same way as he had last summer. We were not asked to do this by the Labour Party - or even by Jeremy Corbyn's office. It was something we drew up together.

There is a fantastic range of talented people who will perform or speak for Jeremy, including Charlotte Church, Michael Rosen, Brian Eno, Ken Loach, Billy Bragg, Mark Steel, Jeremy Hardy, Francesca Martinez, Mark Serwotka, Shappi Khorsandi, Arthur Smith, Patrick Monahan, Janey Godley and many more. Some big names have said they are happy to perform but they are booked up for the dates we have already planned. So there are even more surprises to come.

As someone who has put on comedy night fundraisers for the Labour Party for over three years (I've raised over £100,000 in over 160 events), I can tell you that many of these names would do nothing for Labour before Jeremy Corbyn was leader. Labour developed a bad name - associated with the illegal Iraq invasion, with supporting benefit sanctions and staying too quiet on Tory austerity.

However, now more celebrities are backing Jeremy Corbyn because he represents hope: a move away from top-down politics where we are invited to debate and discuss policies that have formerly been none of our business.

So why aren't the media reporting on the #JC4PM tour? Why is it being dismissed as not newsworthy? Why aren't we being told that Jeremy Corbyn has support from across entertainment and culture and that these talented people are prepared to put their reputation on the line for the Labour Leader?

The answer to these questions seems to be that many in the media don't want to report a story about how leading musicians, poets, film-makers and comedians support Jeremy Corbyn. It wouldn't go along with their narrative and would undermine their own credibility with their readers. They want Jeremy Corbyn to look like a loner who has little support, or only the support of people that the media have already demonized – those mysterious “loony lefties” who aren’t talented and successful celebrities. Probably best to ignore it altogether.

But, when I drew attention to this on my blog, I think I still managed to make a difference.

The response has taken me by surprise. I have had 7,000 hits in under two days. And since people began discussing it, stories about the tour seem to have begun  to appear in newspapers that previously reacted with disinterest.

Many in the media may oppose Corbynomics but, in the end, they have to respond to the people’s interest.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-jeremy-corbyn-story-that-nobody-wanted-to-publish-a6848651.html

How John McDonnell proved his critics wrong - and put Labour back on track
The controversial appointment is paying dividends for Jeremy Corbyn, asserts Liam Young.

From the moment Jeremy Corbyn selected John McDonnell to be his shadow chancellor there have been many rumblings both inside and out of the Parliamentary Labour Party. The press lambasted him as even more left wing than the leader himself. Vocal members of the PLP had called on Jeremy to appoint Angela Eagle to the role so as to balance the shadow cabinet both politically and by gender. However the last week has vindicated Jeremy’s decision. McDonnell has not just outperformed expectations held over him by the naysayers, but he has also begun to establish a vision for a new British economy.

This run of form began on 18 January with the announcement of ‘the new economics tour’. The first talk took place last week alongside Mariana Mazzucato who is a member of McDonnell’s economic advisory board, also made up of heavyweight economists Thomas Piketty and Joseph Stiglitz. Not only did the announcement ensure some good news for Labour’s economic credibility by showing the party backed by respected economists, but it also showed some real direction. McDonnell’s speech at the Co-Operative conference confirmed this sense of direction. In proposing a ‘right to own’ the Shadow Chancellor, all too aware of Labour’s previous failure to form a coherent economic vision, began to stress core components of his new economic approach.

However it is McDonnell’s handling of the on-going Google tax fiasco that has proven his competence for the position not just of shadow Chancellor, but Chancellor of the Exchequer. A the weekend McDonnell published his tax return as he had promised and asked Osborne to do the same. I think it is rather unlikely that the millionaire Tory chancellor will agree to the request, but this only helps strengthen McDonnell’s point that the Tories are detached from the economic reality that the average taxpayer is faced with. Something that also supported this was the widely shared clip of George Osborne giving advice on how to avoid Taxes live on the Daily Politics on 15 May 2003. Dubbing him the ‘Banker’s Chancellor’ McDonnell has capitalised on the Chancellor’s disappearance in recent days.

On the same day that the Tory bedroom tax was deemed illegal by court judges, the Tories were forced to defend their links with the Google deal. It was later revealed that ministers had been briefing European MEPs to vote so as to protect Google’s tax status in Bermuda. McDonnell put it best when he argued that the Tory mask ‘has finally slipped’. On one hand the Prime Minister was telling the British people that he wished to clamp down on tax avoidance, but on the other he was asking his MEPs to oppose plans that would have seen that happen.

The polls seem to show the British public backing the shadow chancellor on his stance. If Labour is ever to regain trust on the economy then this is exactly what it must do; align itself with public concern about tax evasion and avoidance. McDonnell was right to relate this to the personal. As many people rushed to have their tax returns completed, Google was resting assured of a greatly reduced rate and a government that was going to do nothing about it. McDonnell stated that George Osborne had spent the last week in hiding. The shadow chancellor has been doing the opposite. He has been out in the open, making the argument for a new economy that works in the interest of all. As Osborne hides, his image as the banker’s chancellor is only further entrenched. In his absence, John McDonnell is primed to emerge as the people’s chancellor, on the side of all hard-working individuals fighting for a level playing field on tax.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/02/how-john-mcdonnell-proved-his-critics-wrong-and-put-labour-back-track

nicko wrote:Don't they both support the IRA?

Stormee wrote:Leftiz are more of a DANGER to this country than rightiz, they are the ENEMY WITHIN.
Why do they not wholeheartedly support this island as rightiz do?
ANSWER - low intelligence, are benefit scroungerz themselves and I reckon most leftiz on forumz are trolls.

Raggamuffin wrote:Stormee, Veya says that if you had been Irish you would have joined the IRA. What do you reckon to that?

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Stormee, Veya says that if you had been Irish you would have joined the IRA. What do you reckon to that?

You think ifhe had been Irish he would have fought for the British?  

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


You think ifhe had been Irish he would have fought for the British?  

Do you equate the IRA with simply being Irish Sassy?

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Do you equate the IRA with simply being Irish Sassy?

The IRA want Ireland to be Irish and were prepared to fight for it.  Funnily enough, Stormee wants England to be English.  Fancy that lol

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Do you equate the IRA with simply being Irish Sassy?

The IRA want Ireland to be Irish and were prepared to fight for it.  Funnily enough, Stormee wants England to be English.  Fancy that lol

Raggamuffin wrote:Stormee, Veya says that if you had been Irish you would have joined the IRA. What do you reckon to that?

Stormee wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Stormee, Veya says that if you had been Irish you would have joined the IRA. What do you reckon to that?

If I had been Irish and lived there I would have been patriotic for sure.

Incidentally I have always got on with Paddiz and have an affection for Ireland.

I gotta be careful on this one Miss Ragga without revealing my past.

I met IRA people and they were fervently committed, not just bomb chuckuz, family people like us who loved their families they had strong beliefs as most of us do.

My old man employed quite a few labourer Paddiz and they did not go on about the IRA at work.

To be Irish and live there amongst things maybe I would have joined, who knows unless you wear the shoes?

Cannot say for definite.

sassy wrote:You do realise what he is saying there don't you Rags lol

Raggamuffin wrote:

Stormee wrote:

If I had been Irish and lived there I would have been patriotic for sure.

Incidentally I have always got on with Paddiz and have an affection for Ireland.

I gotta be careful on this one Miss Ragga without revealing my past.

I met IRA people and they were fervently committed, not just bomb chuckuz, family people like us who loved their families they had strong beliefs as most of us do.

My old man employed quite a few labourer Paddiz and they did not go on about the IRA at work.

To be Irish and live there amongst things maybe I would have joined, who knows unless you wear the shoes?

Cannot say for definite.

Being patriotic is not the same as joining a terrorist organisation and bombing civilians Stormee. Would you have done that?

RACE hate party the BNP has scored an election own goal after a front group pledged support for IRA gunman Gerry McGeough. The shock move could damage their chances in the upcoming elections as the far right party plans to stand candidates in Ulster seats for the first time

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Being patriotic is not the same as joining a terrorist organisation and bombing civilians Stormee. Would you have done that?

This might give you a clue Rags, from back in 2011:  

RACE hate party the BNP has scored an election own goal after a front group pledged support for IRA gunman Gerry McGeough. The shock move could damage their chances in the upcoming elections as the far right party plans to stand candidates in Ulster seats for the first time

And to the Irish, the IRA are freedom fighters.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


This might give you a clue Rags, from back in 2011:  




And to the Irish, the IRA are freedom fighters.

To all the Irish? To me, the IRA are murderous scum. Now, if you tell me that all Irish people are IRA supporters, would you then complain if I called all the Irish people scummy supporters of murderers and terrorists?

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Historical_Information/1916_Commemorations/



1916 Commemorations
 
The Government is committed to respecting all traditions on this island equally. It also recognises that developing a greater understanding of our shared history, in all of its diversity, is essential to developing greater understanding and building a shared future.
The State’s Programme for 2016 was launched in April 2015. Ireland 2016 is an ambitious and wide-ranging national commemorative initiative, embracing seven distinct programme strands each with an extensive programme of events: State Ceremonial, Historical Reflection, An Teanga Bheo, Youth and Imagination, Cultural Expression, Community Participation and Global and Disapora.

2016 will belong to everyone on this island and to our friends and families overseas – regardless of political or family background, or personal interpretation of our modern history.
The Government is committed to ensuring that 2016 will be a year of rich and diverse activities when the full complexity of the last 100 years on this island can be explored and celebrated.
A list of State Ceremonial events is attached. In addition to the State Ceremonial events each County has a programme of events taking place in 2016. Further details on the plans for 2016 are available from the Ireland 2016 website www.ireland.ie
- See more at: http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Historical_Information/1916_Commemorations/#sthash.VLUnLMr8.dpuf

Raggamuffin wrote:Isn't Sassy doing what she accuses others of? She's lumping together all the Irish and virtually saying they all support terrorism against the British. In that case, she can't really complain if someone does the same thing re Muslims.

Didge wrote:1916 Easter Rising was in Ireland, which is far removed from the troubles in Northern Ireland later on, but then history has never been like every subject one of her strong points and we are talking about centuries of control by the English and British.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:1916 Easter Rising was in Ireland, which is far removed from the troubles in Northern Ireland later on, but then history has never been like every subject one of her strong points and we are talking about centuries of control by the English and British.

Yes. I think one should distinguish between that era and later years.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. I think one should distinguish between that era and later years.

Of course.  I'm an absolute supporter of the Dublin uprising and their fight to free Ireland.  I completely understand why they wanted N.Ireland back, but profoundly disagree with their methods there, as they ended up killing their own people.  It has to be said though, that in N.Ireland the Prods killed as well, neither side had clean hands.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:


Of course.  I'm an absolute supporter of the Dublin uprising and their fight to free Ireland.  I completely understand why they wanted N.Ireland back, but profoundly disagree with their methods there, as they ended up killing their own people.  It has to be said though, that in N.Ireland the Prods killed as well, neither side had clean hands.

The IRA also ended up killing people in Britain who were nothing to do with NI. Why so many people on here, including you, seem to overlook that, or condone it, is a mystery really.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:1916 Easter Rising was in Ireland, which is far removed from the troubles in Northern Ireland later on, but then history has never been like every subject one of her strong points and we are talking about centuries of control by the English and British.

Yes. I think one should distinguish between that era and later years.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. I think one should distinguish between that era and later years.

She is trying to conflate two separate conflicts
Like I say she has never been very good with history, I would have thought that was obvious now to most.
Again she also does not respect self determination
I have always wanted that there be a united Ireland, but I respect the self determination of a people and at present the people of Northern Ireland want to remain a part of Britain. Those who do not respect that, clearly then do not respect self determination.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


She is trying to conflate two separate conflicts
Like I say she has never been very good with history, I would have thought that was obvious now to most.
Again she also does not respect self determination
I have always wanted that there be a united Ireland, but I respect the self determination of a people and at present the people of Northern Ireland want to remain a part of Britain. Those who do not respect that, clearly then do not respect self determination.

Exactly Didge. If the majority of people of NI wanted to break away from the UK, I would have no problem with that, in the same way that if the majority in Scotland had voted for independence, I would have no problem with that.

What I object to is the IRA bombing campaign in Britain, and the few people on here who do appear to support it, condone it, or excuse it. If gangs of yobs in NI on one side or the other want to arm themselves and attack each other, that's up to them, although clearly I don't approve of gang warfare.

Just out of interest, if NI did break away, would the rest of Ireland want it?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Exactly Didge. If the majority of people of NI wanted to break away from the UK, I would have no problem with that, in the same way that if the majority in Scotland had voted for independence, I would have no problem with that.

What I object to is the IRA bombing campaign in Britain, and the few people on here who do appear to support it, condone it, or excuse it. If gangs of yobs in NI on one side or the other want to arm themselves and attack each other, that's up to them, although clearly I don't approve of gang warfare.

Just out of interest, if NI did break away, would the rest of Ireland want it?

I cannot see that they would not want unification rags.
What will be the telling point or whether it will effect in the future is the decline in Protestant numbers in Northern Ireland, and whether from the same families they will still view themselves as a part of Britain. If and when people want change, I guess they will vote for it, though do not see this happening for at least a decade or more.

Also much of what sassy states is far removed from the actually history of the time, where again did it really need violence for change with the Easter rising? Could instead peaceful methods have achieved the same? i think they very much could have done so.



Ironically, though many in what is now the south wanted independence, they did not support the ways of movements such as the Fenians and the IRB. Given the population of Dublin and the surrounding area, comparatively few people took part in the rebellion. Even once it had started, few Dubliners took the opportunity to join the rebels. The evidence suggests that people were concerned about the tactics of known republicans such as Patrick Pearse and James Connolly – especially what the reaction of the British might be.




http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ireland-1845-to-1922/the-1916-easter-rising/

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I cannot see that they would not want unification rags.
What will be the telling point or whether it will effect in the future is the decline in Protestant numbers in Northern Ireland, and whether from the same families they will still view themselves as a part of Britain. If and when people want change, I guess they will vote for it, though do not see this happening for at least a decade or more.

Also much of what sassy states is far removed from the actually history of the time, where again did it really need violence for change with the Easter rising? Could instead peaceful methods have achieved the same? i think they very much could have done so.



Ironically, though many in what is now the south wanted independence, they did not support the ways of movements such as the Fenians and the IRB. Given the population of Dublin and the surrounding area, comparatively few people took part in the rebellion. Even once it had started, few Dubliners took the opportunity to join the rebels. The evidence suggests that people were concerned about the tactics of known republicans such as Patrick Pearse and James Connolly – especially what the reaction of the British might be.




http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ireland-1845-to-1922/the-1916-easter-rising/

Has anyone really asked the people of Ireland if they want to unite with NI though? They might not want to - they might see it as a hotspot for trouble. Even if a majority there did want to unite, the minority might start causing trouble themselves and demand to stay in the UK.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Has anyone really asked the people of Ireland if they want to unite with NI though? They might not want to - they might see it as a hotspot for trouble. Even if a majority there did want to unite, the minority might start causing trouble themselves and demand to stay in the UK.

Well it would need to be asked from both quarters, that is fair enough Rags, but myself I do not believe many would have an issue to be honest from the southern side.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well it would need to be asked from both quarters, that is fair enough Rags, but myself I do not believe many would have an issue to be honest from the southern side.

No problem. I just thought it was of interest. Those fighting for a united Ireland presumably assume that they would actually want to be united.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well it would need to be asked from both quarters, that is fair enough Rags, but myself I do not believe many would have an issue to be honest from the southern side.

No problem. I just thought it was of interest. Those fighting for a united Ireland presumably assume that they would actually want to be united.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No problem. I just thought it was of interest. Those fighting for a united Ireland presumably assume that they would actually want to be united.

Bit of a daft question really, as N.Ireland was given to the Protestants who wanted to be British, so even after half a century, they are still bound to be the largest percentage.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No problem. I just thought it was of interest. Those fighting for a united Ireland presumably assume that they would actually want to be united.

Bit of a daft question really, as N.Ireland was given to the Protestants who wanted to be British, so even after half a century, they are still bound to be the largest percentage.

The Secret IRA Meetings: IRA leak puts Major on rack: MI6 blamed for 'unauthorised' contacts - Mayhew to publish more documents

THE DISCLOSURE of secret government contacts with the IRA has plunged both the Northern Ireland peace process and the credibility of John Major's leadership into crisis.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, will face renewed demands for his resignation today when he makes a statement to the Commons on the contacts. In an attempt at damage limitation he will publish up to 12 documents exchanged between the Government and the IRA.
Ministers and whips worked overtime yesterday to head off any Tory rebellion on the issue, and last night the indications were that senior Conservative MPs were ready to support Mr Major's decision to have contact with the IRA.
But the disclosure, after repeated government denials, came as a body blow to the Prime Minister's authority. Earlier this month he told MPs the idea of talking to the terrorists 'would turn my stomach'. Unionists have called for the resignations of both Mr Major and Sir Patrick.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-secret-ira-meetings-ira-leak-puts-major-on-rack-mi6-blamed-for-unauthorised-contacts-mayhew-to-1507407.html

Thatcher gave approval to talks with IRA
Margaret Thatcher gave her personal approval to secret talks between government officials and the IRA leadership in 1990, setting in a train a dialogue which led to the Northern Ireland peace process which she now regularly denounces.


In one of her final acts before she was deposed as prime minister, Lady Thatcher allowed her Northern Ireland secretary, Peter Brooke, to talk to republicans through a secret "back channel" after MI5 advised the government that the IRA was looking at ways of ending its terrorist campaign.

The disclosure of her involvement will embarrass the former prime minister who has always insisted she never talked to terrorists. Lady Thatcher, who was nearly murdered by the IRA in the 1984 Brighton bomb attack, also gave the go-ahead to the talks in the same year that republicans murdered her friend and close colleague, Ian Gow.
John Major, who faced severe embarrassment in 1993 when his government's role in the "back channel" was revealed, gives a hint in his new autobiography of his predecessor's role when he writes that Mr Brooke opened the channel in 1990. The Guardian has learnt from officials who were at the heart of the process in the early 1990s that it was Lady Thatcher who gave the go-ahead to the talks after MI5 told the government that the IRA was open to dialogue.


"It is rather ironic that it was Thatcher who gave the go-ahead, given her ferocious language at the time," a former official said yesterday.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/oct/16/northernireland.thatcher