Shaming Corbyn doesn’t work. Stopping funding his supporters might

Frankly, I can’t see what the fuss is here:

Jeremy Corbyn met a Communist spy during the Cold War and ‘briefed’ evil regime of clampdown by British intelligence

The papers and social media have been full of revelations these past few days about how Jeremy Corbyn was approached by Eastern Bloc spy agencies, and might well have passed on some information. Well, so what?

One of the things both Britain and the USA (and I expect plenty of other supposedly western European countries) has never acknowledged, let alone addressed, is how much of their establishment – politicians, media, academics, NGOs, and socialites – were either supportive of the Soviet Union or actively working to further its aims. It’s not that we don’t know about this. For example, The Guardian’s one-time literary editor Richard Gott was confirmed to have been working for the KGB, and he treated the whole thing as a bit of a giggle. In the eyes of the British chattering classes there is not, and never has been, any shame whatosever in supporting the USSR and other totalitarian left-wing ideologies. In fact, it’s almost a requirement for entry into large parts of academia and media.

So squealing that Corbyn was dallying with Communist spies during the Cold War is hardly a surprise. Hell, it would be more surprising if he wasn’t working for the Communists: everything else about the man suggests they’d have had his number on speed-dial. People might argue that all of this suddenly matters because he stands a good chance of becoming Prime Minister. Again, so what?

Everyone is fully aware of what Corbyn is like. True, many people wouldn’t have known him when he first took over the leadership of the Labour party, but his past was splattered right across the media during the last general election campaign. We learned he was a prominent IRA supporter, he’s embraced Hamas, Hezbollah, and other despotic anti-Jewish groups, and cosied up to just about every enemy Britain has faced since he first pulled on long trousers. The hapless Theresa May didn’t even both mounting a proper campaign, so convinced she was that Corbyn’s past and present political sympathies would consign him to a landslide defeat.

But nobody cared, and he did surprisingly well. Now if the public didn’t care that he supported Irishmen who murdered children in Warrington and elsewhere, they certainly won’t care that he did what pretty much every university lecturer up and down the country did, and would continue to do if the Soviet Union hadn’t spoiled the party and collapsed. Radical left wing politics is cool, remember?

If the Tories and anti-Corbyn lefties think they’re going to dent Corbyn’s polling numbers by squawking in outrage over his past treachery, they’re sorely mistaken. It didn’t work before, and it won’t work now. The sort of people voting for Corbyn either fully agree with his politics, or they have no idea who the IRA were or what the Cold War was. I spoke to some youngster in Paris a few months back who said she loved Corbyn. I didn’t bother asking why – his appeal to young, slightly dim, bohemian waifs with metal in their face and no job over Theresa May is obvious – but if I wanted her to vote for someone else I wouldn’t bother talking about the IRA. I might as well bring up the Biafran War as the Troubles, for all it would mean to her.

So the Tories need to take another approach, but they can’t. As I’m fond of saying in other areas of my life, if they could, they’d have done it by now, which means they can’t. Corbyn’s success is due in large part to the massive program of government-funded indoctrination which has seen pretty much every institution I can think of taken over and utterly dominated by left wingers, many of whom share Corbyn’s political opinions. Even those who don’t would rather wring their hands and squeal over Jacob Rees-Mogg’s personal views on abortion than criticise Corbyn for actively siding with murderers and terrorists. Many people running government departments, the media, and academia were vociferous in their condemnation of the Presidents Club guests slapping a waitresses’ arse, yet are now churning out excuses for Oxfam’s staff exploiting vulnerable teenagers in disaster areas. For these people, politics is the start, middle, and end of everything. Principles don’t come anywhere near it.

As I’ve argued before, none of this started with Corbyn and unlike many I believe Corbyn and Momentum is the perfectly natural evolution of the New Labour movement that Blair and Brown created. It may differ slightly in degree, but in form I don’t really see much difference. What the idiot Tories should have realised is that a central plank of New Labour’s policy was to flood the country with taxpayers’ money buying political support from millions of people in newly created and wholly unnecessary organisations, which would then infiltrate through every nook and cranny of public life until the whole society comes under the scrutiny of this new army of left wing prodnoses. And this is where we are now, with companies being hounded for advertising in the Daily Mail, perfectly reasonable people being banned from speaking at universities, and ever-greater aspects of our personal lives subject to the approval of the mob who are cheered on by privileged establishment figures.

If the Tories were serious about defeating the left, they’d have yanked funding for this years ago. Without the benefit of billions of pounds of taxpayer-funded political campaigning, Corbyn would have got nowhere. Cameron should have pulled the plug during his first term, but he lacked the principles to do so, as well as the balls. In fact, I’d be surprised if he even knew what was going on. That he promised a bonfire of the QUANGOS, which he never delivered, suggested even Dim Dave was vaguely aware of how his party was being undermined at every level of society, but I expect he was more worried people might say nasty things about him. Theresa May, far from showing any signs of wanting to cut funding to these organisations which despise her, seems delighted they exist believing they’ll help her install the nanny-state she so dearly craves.

The truth is, the Conservatives don’t want to face the disruption such an up-ending of state funding will cause; I expect they’ll even reinstate Oxfam’s taxpayer lifeline once the elites have all agreed on a suitable narrative. Not until the general public get fed up with this state-sponsored corruption of the political process will anyone do anything about it, and we’re a long, long way from that point. Until then, we’d better get used to Corbyn & Co. being around for a while.

Share

15 thoughts on “Shaming Corbyn doesn’t work. Stopping funding his supporters might

  1. It may be true that many people don’t care about Corbyn’s past, but the facts need to be revealed regardless. Can’t just leave them hidden. We need to shine a light whenever we can into all these activities. One day it will prove to be of value. Even now all these revelations may help. Not everyone is happy to laugh off a politican being an enemy agent.

    I don’t see the Tories doing much of the revealing, though. It’s the press and private people doing most of it. The Tories, especially May, are too scared to say boo to a goose half the time.

    As for Cameron, he never had much interest in the Conservative Party. It was a convenient vehicle for him and his personal ambition to be PM. Nor did he have much interest in traditional Conservative values. He made no secret of the fact that he was New Labour as much as Conservative. So I think he did know what was going on, he just wasn’t prepared to take a stand and risk his position. And I expect he wasn’t all that bothered about it.

  2. It may be true that many people don’t care about Corbyn’s past, but the facts need to be revealed regardless. Can’t just leave them hidden. We need to shine a light whenever we can into all these activities. One day it will prove to be of value. Even now all these revelations may help.

    Reveal his past, fine. Make it a centrepiece of the campaign against him? It’ll fail, as it’s already proved.

  3. The Conservatives fail because they are nearly all pro-government.

    I got involved in a local party and the Hayek/Friedman types were rare. And they don’t seem that bothered about starting a revolution. I had arguments about libraries (I think they’re mostly a waste of money at this point, what with the price of books and kindles), but no-one even wanted to explore the idea.

    And the path and narrative they’re pursuing is destructive, because the people who love stupid big government are the people who are never going to vote Conservative. Labour will always promise more. And not only that, but every job you create in public sector, every student you fund on a stupid course, is someone who is in the public sector mindset – raise more taxes to spend more money. Once you get people into the private sector, their thought processes change. They now see their money being spent on things. Some they agree with (fixing the street lamps, roads) but a lot of which looks like their money being burnt.

    And the reason they’re really failing is that they are not in touch with the people in the middle, like Thatcher was. Not the rich, not poor, not the solid capitalists or the union convener, but the people who are emerging from youth into maturity. It’s not that people care or not about Corbyn’s links to historic politics or anti-semitism. It’s that people prioritise things like having a good job and owning a house. Thatcher and her crew understood these people very well. Taxes were cut, they got richer.Blair also understood them from a different perspective – he promised to improve the sort of public services they care about – schools for their children, reducing crime. When was the last time you heard one of May’s crew talking any language that the aspirational working/lower-middle class care about? When did they last argue for capitalism? I mean, there’s basically Mogg, and that’s it.

    The lesson in this is from Trump. He banned Muslims. Massive outrage from Hilary supporters. So, didn’t give a toss.

  4. >Make it a centrepiece of the campaign against him? It’ll fail, as it’s already proved.

    I don’t think they really did make it a centrepiece of their campaign. I agree that it would fail if it was the centrepiece of the next election, though. But it needs to be in their somewhere.

    How scary is it that the UK may elect a man it knows to be an enemy agent, who everyone knows hasn’t changed his spots?

    >It’s not that people care or not about Corbyn’s links to historic politics or anti-semitism. It’s that people prioritise things like having a good job and owning a house.

    True. Although it’s also because a lot of people are mostly okay with the IRA, the USSR, Hamas, etc.

    >I got involved in a local party and the Hayek/Friedman types were rare.

    Very rare, I have found.

  5. I was once invited to a Conservative drinks do. A local MP walked up to me:

    What’s your line?

    Chemicals.

    What would you like the government to do for you?

    Get out of the way.

    He sneered “oh, a real conservative” and stalked off.

  6. Not until the general public get fed up with this state-sponsored corruption of the political process will anyone do anything about it, and we’re a long, long way from that point.

    I’d argue we’re past that event horizon, in the sense that since it hasn’t happened by now it’s too late. Rush Limbaugh once opined that the American republic could survive Obama; what it couldn’t survive is a people that would elect him twice. Here in the province of Ontario in Canada, a Portuguese ex-pat blogger once noted that there are politicians in Portugal serving jail time on mere suspicion of doing what the current provincial government is publicly known to have done.

    The lesson in this is from Trump. He banned Muslims.

    A marvelous example of Tim’s point: Trump did not “ban Muslims”. The fact that this blatant falsehood has become the narrative even amongst people somewhat ideologically sympathetic to his agenda is an example of how thoroughly Western institutions have been suborned and how little anyone cares about this.

  7. Dearieme – I suppose if you won’t take their “help” then you won’t owe them anything, and what good are you then?

    They could still leverage your support, but they’d have to switch from bribing you to threatening you, and I imagine they wouldn’t feel comfortable doing that, even though it’s all the same in the end.

    Edit: I fear I’m not being clear.

    Scenario 1: donate to the party and we’ll put in a subsidy for your business.
    Scenario 2: donate or we’ll raise your taxes.

    Since all your competitors are donating you actually end up the same in both scenarios, the only difference is the second one might leave a bad taste in your mouth. And in the politician’s, too, since he doesn’t like to think of himself as a thug. I expect the mafia prefer to offer people bribes, too.

  8. “What the idiot Tories should have realised is that a central plank of New Labour’s policy was to flood the country with taxpayers’ money buying political support from millions of people in newly created and wholly unnecessary organisations, which would then infiltrate through every nook and cranny of public life until the whole society comes under the scrutiny of this new army of left wing prodnoses.”

    Exactly! This is carrying on with Bevan’s policy of stuffing doctors mouths with gold to create the NHS. Make people dependent on the system you create, and they will defend it forever.

  9. Pingback: Interesting Things 19/02/2018 – David Hadley

  10. Nope. Corbyn’s little East Bloc dalliance needs to be shouted from the rooftops as loudly as possible for as long as he is a public figure. It may not be an issue with his cultists, but it sure as hell needs to be an issue with everyone else.
    And someone has to make sure it stays an issue. I will certainly never let it go, fwiw.
    If you can’t draw the line at active treachery then you can’t draw it anywhere. This is not something that can be conflated with muddle-headed Cold War era naïveté, or somehow no worse than any other pastime of the hated elites.
    There is no grey area here.

  11. If you can’t draw the line at active treachery then you can’t draw it anywhere.

    I agree with your sentiment but that ship has sailed. The time for hauling out academics, establishment figures, lobbyists, and politicians and hanging them for supporting the Soviet Union was when the Cold War ended. Instead they were allowed to mourn its passing in public and continue their attempts to bring about socialist hegemony using other methods. Europe, including the UK, is awash with such people.

    As for Corbyn…well, read the post:

    We learned he was a prominent IRA supporter, he’s embraced Hamas, Hezbollah, and other despotic anti-Jewish groups, and cosied up to just about every enemy Britain has faced since he first pulled on long trousers.

    Yet he still did remarkably well in the election. I’m happy for everyone to bang on about his dalliances with Eastern Bloc spies, but it’s unlikely to do him much damage in the polls. These efforts would be better spent holding May’s feet to the fire.

  12. The time for hauling out academics, establishment figures, lobbyists, and politicians and hanging them for supporting the Soviet Union was when the Cold War ended.

    It should have been an ongoing process from 1945 onwards. That bat-eared cunt Hobsbawm and Milipede Snr would have been just two ripely deserving of the scaffold*.

    A fierce clearing out of commies from the unions, the Labour party and academia would have done the nation the world of good.

    *I don’t mean the band, although executing communists to the sound of ‘Lily the Pink’ would have a certain macabre glory.

  13. In short Tim you are advocating the Purge.–are you not?

    Advocating? I’m almost beside myself with impatience waiting for it to begin!

Comments are closed.