Replying to Owen Jones

Owen Jones has blogged at https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/questions-all-jeremy-corbyn-supporters-need-to-answer-b3e82ace7ed3#.bydsyel8q  He is not happy with the leadership by Jeremy Corbyn of the Labour Party and has decided to "Go Public"  in this blog. I am using the medium of my blog to reply.

I find this all incredibly sad. Owen Jones knows Jeremy Corbyn very well and I first met Owen when they were both working on the John McDonnell for leader campaign the first time around. I had wondered why he had been so silent whilst all this furore has been building. When Jeremy said after his election to leadership of the Labour Party he wanted to give a new, kinder form of politics [http://www.managers.org.uk/insights/news/2015/october/whats-new-about-jeremy-corbyns-leadership-style] Owen should have expected how it would be and not have been surprised/disappointed with the new leadership style.

Some of Owen's specific 'allegations' against Jeremy I find surprising: eg " he infamously failed to sing the national anthem at a Battle of Britain event" . I can imagine the media uproar if Jeremy had been pictured singing away lustily the word's of what I call The Queen's Song as it doesn't glorify us as a nation which a National Anthem sure should [just think of those memorable words "Thy choicest gifts in store/On her be pleased to pour"] Personally I never sing the National Anthem but  quietly stand by whilst others do. Not a problem. But when Jeremy does the same thing as leader of the party - well we all know the result. Should he have been a hypocrite and sang along? I think not, others must decide for themselves.

I still want Jeremy as our leader. Maybe a bit of "tweaking" in leadership methods could help - but don't those who are to be "led" also need a bit of tweaking and should agree to be led? In retrospect some may think maybe John McDonnell would have made a better leader in terms of "media presentation". He is another Labour politician whom I admire immenseley. But do we want to choose our leader in terms of who will appeal most to the media? Both John and Jeremy are tremendously sincere and I do not think an honest politician would or should compromise his/her stated beliefs just to get a good media screen shot for  a day. And do you not all remember what the media did to Neil Kinnock - there was a concentrated campaign to  'talk him down' - and he was successfully demonised by the media. Michael Foot is remembered for his "donkey jacket" which was not in fact a donkey jacket but an expensive Burberry type wool coat. But of course if the fourth estate says it, it must be true ......

I have been bewildered when listening to some media reports of Jeremy's "performance" at specific PMQs which the media have rated as " a disaster". Somehow this has borne no relation to the same PMQ to which I have just listened. But the general public hear the media reports and not the real thing and think that Jeremy is a disaster because that is what they are told. Victory to the Fourth Estate yet again.

Please don't let the "victors" in all this be [1] those who declared before Jeremy was elected that they would refuse to serve in the Shadow Cabinet under him and [2] the - mostly Murdoch - media who want to decide who should not only lead the country but also every political party.

This debate will carry on, in the media and up and down the country until the leadership vote is declared.  Feel free to disagree. I do love a good debate! I also love democracy and as always will serve under which ever leader gets the majority vote. It is a pity other Party members do not feel the same way.

Please think again Owen. I know how much you care about the  Party but think about some of us out here in the sticks struggling to make our feelings felt and heard. We are bewildered by those who don't seem to want to listen.

Worth reading: By Paul Mason    https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/labour-the-way-ahead-78d49d513a9f#.xvggg5z2o

Who now is the benefit scrounger? Running backwards to the 19th Century

Many times I have said how much I love the internet and how often it alerts me to a piece of commentary I may have otherwise missed. This morning, whilst catching up with various cousins: wishing one a happy 18th birthday; four of us having an inappropriate giggle over a silly news item; finding out how a dear friend in the US is faring healthwise; smiling at the latest cute picture of Second Youngest Granddaughter - I was alerted by a facebook 'political friend' to a piece in yesterday's Guardian by Suzanne Moore.

Lots has been written about Monday evening's Channel 5 programme 'The Big Benefit's Row'. With a title like that it really was not worth watching, but in the true 'Triumph of Hope Over Experience' spirit and because some good people were on it I thought I would give it a whirl. I didn't take into account that because it also boasted some people who I dislike, the whole thing could turn into a shambles ......

So, in my opinion, the show consisted of people like Ken Livingstone, Jack Monroe, Annabelle Giles, 'White Dee', Owen Jones putting [or rather attempting to put across] reasoned arguments for, statistics about and true case studies of those receiving welfare benefits Edwina Currie and Katie Hopkins hurled abuse and shouted down everyone with whom they disagreed. Yes those two woman really were that bad.

Audience members were not exempt from the opprobrium of the two women. One woman in the audience said she was out every day looking for a job, Currie shouted back at her 'Try harder'.  Panel member Rachel Johnson [editor of 'The Lady' and sister of Boris] put her arm round Jack Monroe and tried to defend her from the worst attacks of Currie and Hopkins. In my last blog I mentioned how benefits campaigner and disabled rights activist Sue Marsh was asked to come on the show and then sidelined and forgotten about. You can read her account here.

And of course someone had to mention during the programme how that dreaded and now demonised group - PENSIONERS - are taking the biggest chunk out of the welfare budget. How DARE they! Most of them having worked for forty plus years, paid tax and national insurance [okay some received Family Allowance. Big deal. Seven shillings and sixpence a week [thirty seven and a half pence] for the SECOND child was my stipend in 1975. And then - oh my - we were granted it for the first child also around 1978. I holidayed in Florida on that. NOT.

It was truly an awful programme. But it seems people are still talking about it [so am I, here!] and when I went out with a large group of friends the evening after the programme it seemed as if the discussion naturally turned to the programme. We all went to uni together back when rocks were soft and now we seem to represent all shades of political opinion and life experience, all of us aged around the 60 age mark, some of us now drawing our state pension. One of our number, who has suffered some truly calamitous life events and after her employer was forced, due to the recession, some years ago to close down his business can only find a job with one of the biggest employers in her village. She 'admitted' that - as she is only paid the minimum wage for her 40 hour week - she needs benefits to top up her wage. In fact most of the employees in her factory have this top up. But her employer is a respected local employer with all the trappings of a wealthy man? Sound familiar to students of the 19th? Who now is the benefit scrounger? The employees or the employer?

I could also talk about my niece who has been for so many job interviews, told on one occasion she must attend wearing a 'business suit' and yet when she arrived was told the person she was to see was 'out for the day'. No-one repaid her travelling expenses or for the suit she had bought [the job centre hadn't sanctioned it. The call for the interview had only been made the night before so presumably the interviewer had had a better offer between making the call and my niece arriving, despite having demanded the correct wearing apparel]; I could talk about the young man I was trying to help find a job for weeks by letting him use my lap top to search the job centre web site. Lots of jobs, pages and pages from one of the pizza delivery shops: zero hours contracts and must provide own car. However tips could be kept; I could talk about the cousin who was struck off DLA by ATOS despite a letter from her consultant and walking with two sticks, and how she had tried for two years to get smaller social housing from her council as she could not afford the heating bills only to be told there was nothing smaller in the area but as soon as the 'bedroom tax' came into force she was fined for having a spare bedroom; I could talk about the single mother who forced to move because of the 'bedroom tax' applied for a bus pass for her son to get to school only to be told he was not eligible as she had 'chosen' to move.

I could talk about all these immoral acts - but what would be the point when those like Edwina Currie, Katie Hopkins and members of this uncaring coalition government would not listen, care or shout me down?



The picture above is from January 2013, I could not access a more upto date one. Below are the figures for 2011/2012, which will obviously have changed thanks to ATOS and the 'bedroom tax'.

Power in the Union

Owen Jones has written a very uncomfortable blog in The New Statesman : Ed Balls' surrender is a political disaster. Uncomfortable for lots of reasons and for lots of people. Uncomfortable for its truthful content and uncomfortable to those who have caused him to find it necessary to write it. Please read it.

I cannot write anything like as well as Owen does. I remember him from the days when he was a political aide to the wonderful John McDonnell MP and it has been great to see Owen's journalism and writing becoming more and more successful. So whilst I have been still trying to work out how to put into words my feelings about Ed Balls comments last week, Owen has got there ahead of me and in a far better way. But enough of all this grovelling praise, and now for the reply I posted to his blog:

As an LRC member, a Unite member and a 40 year plus Labour party member what can I add Owen, except that I am also struggling to know what to say to those rubbing their hands with glee at what Balls said last week. Usually I can ‘PollyAnna’ most things and have managed to stay in the party all these years by thinking that there are some good people left who will fight their corner with me. Now it is getting harder to remain in the party. My constituency and local Labour party is full of good friends who I have known for many years and mostly feel like me, I would feel awful to leave them behind if I left. My parents and grandparents fought many elections, marched on many rallies and demos under Labour banners and saw the lot of the working man and woman improve in their lifetime. Their children and grandchildren received the university education of which they could only dream. Medical care at the point of need became a reality and not just an aspiration. I could say much more.However I have always said that the Unions have had the interests of the working class [and increasingly the non-working class due to the terrible unemployment figures - which in real terms are far higher than the published statistics] more in their sights than any political party. The unions after all ‘set up’ the Labour Party through the original Labour Representation Committee all those years ago. Trade Union power has been eroded by successive governments since the 1960s – perhaps this is where we should concentrate our efforts and give all our support – and hope.

And here's what the General Secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, had to say about Ed Balls comments in the Guardian this morning: Ed Miliband's leadership is threatened by this Blairite policy coup By embracing cuts, Ed Balls and Ed Miliband have left all those who stand against them disenfranchised






Photograph taken from http://owenjones.org/about/