The definition of a broken society is when a government cozies up to a Solafist state like Saudi Arabia and at the same time smears the one person prepared to make a stand.
THIS is the only reason why they can't have Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. It's the same reason that's been behind our Foreign Policy for 40 years... say it with me folks, it's the M.O.N.E.Y. It's always ever been about the money.
And for anybody who is currently protesting Corbyn's proposed nationalisation of the railways or the power corporations, ask yourselves if you protested the nationalisation of the Banks debt in 09. They privatised the profits and nationalised the debt, and the very fact that this is never pointed out in in our beloved "free press", should tell you all you need to know about where our media's loyalties lie.
By now we've all seen or at least heard about the utopian manifesto that Jeremy Corbyn has penned for us, a manifesto that will drastically improve the lives of millions of people up and down the country and a manifesto that has gone down like a glass of cold sick with the UK media.
It would not be considered hyperbolic to say that the corporate media are reeling by it's contents and it's patently clear they see Corbyn as a real challenge to the status-quo that has cemented their position amongst the elites of society. Their choice now is either to continue with their primary objective of defeating the interests of the working class, or do they tread uncharted territory and do that, Y'know objective reporting thing, what's it called?... journalism.
When it first leaked the Daily Telegraph smugly posted an image of Corbyn that had been photo-shopped to resemble some cold-war propaganda memorabilia. BBC News, Sky News and others in the print media dutifully followed suit, revealing their pro-establishment bias in the process. For example Sky news referred to the leak as 'embarrassing', Interestingly there was no ridiculous 'was it Russia' speculation that accompanied their narrative and fleeting coverage of the Podesta WikiLeaks and Hillary Clintons thrashing by the most beatable candidate in history, there was no comparison offered between Labour's impending policies to that of the Tories, who's only know policy so far which is the ever popular fox hunting revival, they didn't even go to twitter reactions (and they ALWAYS go to twitter reactions) of course we all know the reason they didn't cut to the tweetalator was because they didn't want to show how overwhelmingly popular the reaction has been.
THIS ^^^^ right here is the reason more and more people are getting their news online btw.
Yet, despite the media's obvious bias towards their donor and owner classes, (and I don't necessarily blame them for this, as long as they declare it... which they never do) there's still a percentage of working people who are hesitant to embrace J-Corbz (sorry/not sorry) manifesto and use right-wing media talking points such as "sure, free education sounds great but how are they going to pay for that" as their primary point of resistance.
I have NEVER heard ANY news outlet ask "how are we going to pay for the £billions in tax cuts for millionaires, or how can we afford to bail out the banks, how can we afford all these unsanctioned interventions that we obediently follow America into, or how can we afford to be the 7th highest defence spending nation on the planet, how we can afford to give billions in corporate subsidies? yes as soon as anybody on the left suggests investment in the people... "how you gonna pay for it?"
So the question I ask myself, is why in the heck would anybody in the bottom 95% tacitly defend those in the top 5% (who take the most public money in welfare, who receive the highest salaries and pay the least amount of tax), by punching down on those with even less wealth and less power than them? What would lead a person to defend the very system that oppresses them?
The most obvious answer is that it's the longest standing right-wing false narrative that's been doing the rounds since Kinnock. It's been drummed into people that we can't afford to risk educating everybody, or risk giving everybody the same opportunities as those at the top of society. Know your role and wait for crumbs... fuck that!
Even F%£@&$G Tony Blair recognised that the jig was up and that the halcyon days of personality politics which had served him well and masked his true colours was coming to an end as he moonwalked out the door of No 10, and for a brief moment in time the term "personality politics" was seen as a 4 letter word, as if to identify a snobby political shallow thinker, somebody who focused less on foreign policy and more on the optics of a candidate eating a sandwich.
I could understand it coming from the Tories who'd smear anybody with even a whiff of wealth distribution or anti-war on their manifesto. They dust off 'old trusty' "Will they be able to make the difficult decisions?" a coded term for 'are they poised (like we are) to invade poor (but oily) countries at the behest of America?
I've noticed a baffling trend where the influential, Neo-Liberal, Twitter elites have jumped on the mainstream media (MSM) band-wagon and resurrected this Tory stalwart to target and undermine Corbyn. From day one he's been pilloried for such things as not wearing a tie (he's petulant) or not singing the national anthem (he's clearly anti-British). Some bubble-dwelling Labour party members bought into this constant criticism and called a vote of no confidence and forced another party leadership challenge, which. Corbyn. won. again.
I suppose my question is this, what or who is ever going to be good enough? Blair replaced Labour with New Labour, Milliband took New Labour, stripped it of corruption leaving us with an altogether Truer New Labour. Now under Corbyn the term 'Old Labour' is used to describe his brand politics. Of course the tag 'Old Labour' is designed to conjure feelings of 'been there, done that, next' the MSM could have just as easily called it "Real Labour" (a getting back to representing the working class people of the country aka the majority of Britain)
But they wont.
This is how the Neo-Lib establishment justifies and maintains the status-quo.
On reflection, the answer to my question is really quite simple, the establishment is holding out until the time is right for a Blair reboot, a new and improved Blair 2.0, somebody who'll look like he's off the cover of GQ magazine and be able to belt out the national anthem adlibbing with Michael Jackson-esque runs then say all the right progressive words that'll be a wet-dream to any media mogul, most important of all however, he'll be able to talk in dog-whistles so all those with a public and a private face, can get on-board and save them both.
Tories' twin attack on Corbyn: Cabinet members to target his weak stance on the economy and defence
Taken from the Daily Mail Online *spits* roughly translated, "The Tories are Bricking it"
NO BOMBS FOR OUR ARMY.
Merely means Jeremy Corbyn is making a strong, popular anti-war case for global de-escalation, to say nothing for the latest £167bn price tag for renewing Trident. We all know that 'PEACE' is bad news if you're the CEO of a defence contractor, and of course when we say defence, we're really taking about offense. Interesting little side note here: Britain has more arms manufacturers than Russia and China. In fact of all the countries around the world, only Turkey and America beat us.
"a new Tory analysis of Labour’s previous tax and spending pledges which suggest Mr Corbyn would be unable to fund his plans without imposing swingeing taxes equal to £1,500 per taxpayer."
ONE BIG BOMBSHELL FOR YOUR FAMILY.
I do believe the Tories are attempting to plant the seed that you and I are going to be "better off" if we vote for perpetual war! I'm pretty sure that was the rejected first draft from 'Inception'.
Here's the scoop folks, The 'establishment' The government, the arms industry, banks, the media (SKY) etc. Want to maintain the status quo, and why wouldn't they, they love the status quo, they've all done extremely well under the current system. But they look around and see the rise of anti-establishment movements, whether it's Bernie Sanders on the left, Trump on the right. Brexit, The French election... I could go on. They see all this and they know it's only a matter of time before the curtain is drawn back to expose the FACT that they're not acting in the interests of the many. Jeremy Corbyn to them represents the re-distribution of wealth from them to you. If there is a tax bill to pay, they'll be the ones paying it and they. simply. can't. have. that.
So they'll continue to smear Corbyn in the vein belief that it'll be enough to instil just enough fear and doubt to swing the result their way, but like with the Clinton campaign, the Tories will offer little policy in return other than "we're not him" and just like the American election, it wont be enough to prevent the inevitable.
They see the rising wave of populism on the horizon, and have no idea how to stop it.