Jeremy Corbyn

It’s a curious thing that, months after the election which saw Jeremy Corbyn become leader of the Labour Party in September 2015 with a thumping 59.5% of the first round vote, the mainstream media were still struggling to understand how it had happened. It wasn’t as if they hadn’t kept a close eye on the campaign itself: hardly a day went by without there being some intrigue about the Corbyn campaign, its personalities and its problematic relationship to the party machine. But there was a sense that it was all too fantastical, and right up until the end the media clung on to the idea that ‘normality’ would be restored and the status quo re-established. 200-1 shots don’t win Labour leadership elections, after all. Even after Corbyn’s election on September 12th, when that theory was firmly put to bed, media commentators attempted to frame it in terms of received wisdom, failing to identify what was unique about this campaign.

Jeremy Corbyn in the summer of 2015 declared that he wanted to create a “new politics” and offer authentic change to the British Labour Party post the New Labour era under Blair and Brown. In this paper I assess the political philosophy of Jeremy Corbyn against that of the anti-New Labour Blue Labour movement, which proclaims itself to be Labour’s “radical tradition”. Blue Labour like the Red Tory tradition of Philip Blond is rooted in the anti-modernist Radical Orthodoxy movement that rejects the rationalisation and disenchantment of the world and its offshoots, particularly the political philosophy of liberalism (in both its economic and social dimensions). Although there is a definite sympathy with the anti-capitalism of Corbyn with regards to the economy, there is concern that his statism is ultimately liberal. Blue Labour argues that the alleviation of society’s ills would be best served through the adoption and application of Catholic Social Thought (CST), which rejects the liberal atomistic conception of human beings abstracted from their broader communities. To change to a more “relational” conception of humanity, as Blue Labour’s advocates argue, would have the potential to create far more positive radical change for our social and economic relationships than merely depending on state intervention as the left has historically done in the pursuit of equality.

In many ways, the British General Election campaign of 2017 marked a return to ‘old politics’ with the reaffirmation of a two-party system and levels of voter turnout not seen in 25 years. The Conservative Party, as in previous elections, relied to a considerable extent on negative campaigning and pledged to implement traditional conservative policies supporting grammar schools and blood sports. Yet, the campaign also appeared to be characterised by a ‘new politics’, embodied by the style and policies of the Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn. This was a politics that largely relied on positive campaigning and mobilised grassroots activism to an extent rarely seen before, ensuring that it inspired new voters.

This article focuses on the role of the ‘new politics’ in the election campaign before moving on to discuss the future of such politics under Labour in opposition and perhaps in power. It will be asked to what extent ordinary people can help shape Labour Party policy, questioning whether Labour can manage to liberate itself from its own internal party machinery and from its traditional reliance on the State in order to move durably beyond the ‘old politics’ towards a democratised ‘new politics’.

In this bibliography I have compiled fifty essays on MuralGaga published between mid-July and mid-January. They detail my efforts of investigative journalism into the "info-wars" conducted by pro-Israel groups against the UK Labour Party immediately prior to the massacres in Gaza.

"Was the antisemitism crisis in the UK Labour Party designed as a distraction from Gaza? Very early on some complained that Jeremy Corbyn was a victim of a smear campaign, but might it be more accurate to say that UK politics witnessed a deliberate smokescreen? As controversial as this narrative is, I think that all the evidence points in that direction."

In this paper I raise the question of whether the antisemitism crisis in the UK LP was an exercise in purposely timed hysteria to distract from Gaza, and by investigating open sources draw attention to the pro-Israeli activists orchestrating the smokescreen. I identify the real reasons for Jewish concern regarding Corbyn as Israeli legitimacy and the fear of BDS, especially should violence flare up - a concern that became more acute in 2018 - and indicate the strategy implemented as a result of this challenge. I note the extreme reluctance of the media in spelling out facts of the smokescreen, and locate this reluctance within a broader unwillingness meriting truth and reconciliation.

My complaint to the Jewish Chronicle now with IPSO. It gives a simplified version of my long argument in MuralGaga, namely, that MuralGate was not a "last straw" to which exasperated Jews said "enough is enough" but a calculated plan to fabricate outrage.

Understanding the Conspiracy of MuralGate
“MuralGate” refers to the allegations of antisemitism that dogged Labour and especially Jeremy Corbyn when it was revealed in March that he seemed to approve of an antisemitic mural in 2012. Early on it was countered that this fabrication of outrage was a conspiracy (rather than a “Last Straw” to which exasperated Jews said “enough is enough”). This new analysis substantially vindicates the conspiracy theory.
1. By closely examining the number of “comments” on the screenshots of the incriminating images taken from the Facebook page I show that the shots were taken in 2012 – though only published for the first time in 2015, and that the 2018 image used was a composite.
2. By closely examining the tweets of the person concerned who re-released the data, and who accidentally published himself playing guitar at his wedding to @absoluteradio, I identify @CQuilty52 (his name, address, alter-egos, and so on).
3. By collecting and sequencing @CQuilty52’s relations with: (a) other antisemitism activists (and Douglas K Murray), (b) significant journalists (Nick Cohen, Isabel Hardman, Dan Hodges, Melanie Philips, and Guido Fawkes), (c) the Jewish establishment (BDBJs and JLC), (d) politicians especially Luciana Berger, I provide an account of @CQuilty52’s role in what was a carefully planned plot.
4. I show that @CQuilty52 is a “friend” of David Baddiel and David Schneider and look at their role in this story.
5. I provide highly probable reasons for thinking that @CQuilty52 was behind Guido Fawkes’ revelations regarding Naz Shah (2016), the coordination of the two inquiries into social media, the pressurising of the Jewish establishment, and liaison with politicians in the plot.
6. By examining at deliberate silences and feigned ignorance, I construct an argument that shows how an artificial calm was created before an artificial storm, one which implicates Luciana Berger, Sajid Javid and others (in setting up the antisemitism debate in April) but which was probably planned in February.
7. I decisively undermine the “authorised version,” the myth of the last straw, for example, by showing how the “enough is enough” narrative was already being constructed two weeks before enough officially became enough.
8. I probe the relations between others such as Alex Rubner and Victoria Freeman, Sarah (daughter of Baroness) Deech and others who appear in this story giving reasons why one but not the others was involved.
9. I give a brief but telling analysis of the comparable figure, Shai Masot, whose tweets show a similar concern to undermine critics of Israel by infiltrating UK politics.
10. On the balance of probabilities I argue that such also were the motives of the plotters.
The essay has six parts. In the first I examine the visual images that permit me to “carbon date” the time of capture. In the second I identify the alter egos of the chief protagonist and give an ideal type for his role (“The Production Manager”). In the third I look at the strategy and tactics of the Production Manager including the feigned ignorance of Corbyn’s comment and, as well, I undermine the opposing narrative. This permits a fourth part in which I present an informed sequence of events. The fifth and concluding part considers motive. Part six is an appendix taking the form of a time line which, with some repetition, assembles key events (with endnotes now as opposed to footnotes).

In the wake of US debt crisis a wave of protest swept through the advanced Capitalist countries and around the world bringing down governments in Tunisia, Egypt and challenging neoliberal centrist parties throughout the developed world. This ‘newest’ wave of social protests is distinct in its predominantly young social base, its leaderless organization structure and its media savvy tactics. Guided by the highly anti-capitalistic narrative these protests have developed, leading scholars in the field of social movements have begun to re-analyse the impact of economic and cultural structures and the role of class on the development of this newest wave of social movements. The present analysis builds on this research trend first theoretically by adding the insights of Marxist scholars on the nature of capitalism and the specifics of both normative, cultural and structural sources of grief and frames of action within neoliberal labour relations to an analysis of relationally based class location. The analysis focuses on the changing base for social movements within the west. Identifying a particular ‘latent’ class of young educated precariat the analysis uses models developed within the social movement literature to conduct an historical analysis to reveal the transformational process of class formation within these movements as they react to changing political and cultural events. This study then traces the development of this class consciousness through to the later more active forms of class consciousness seen in the Sanders and Corbyn campaigns. Rather than fading from view, this class-in-the-making is seen to evolve a more focused political consciousness during this period. Finally, a comparative analysis in done looking at the movement and party-politics of this precariat class in the wake of the crises brought on by the election of Donald Trump and the EU referendum.

Consortium News, Volume 25, Number 344–Wednesday, December 11, 2019

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/12/11/us-uk-military-intelligence-apparatus-deploy-media-smears-against-corbyn/

In the lead-up to Britain’s historic election on Wednesday, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been hit with evidence-free Russiagate-style allegations, Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal report.
The popular socialist leader of Britain’s Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, could be on the verge of becoming prime minister of the United Kingdom. And the mere possibility is terrifying British intelligence services and the U.S. government.
Since Corbyn was elected to the head of the Labour Party in 2015, in a landslide victory after running on a staunch leftist and anti-war platform, the corporate media has waged a relentless campaign to demonize and delegitimize him.

The CAA attack on the BBC re the "blatant" antisemitism of Jeremy Corbyn The topic of Corbyn's "antisemitism" has recently been raised again after it was reported that Rachel Burden on BB5Live insisted that there was no evidence that there was no evidence that Jeremy Corbyn was antisemitic.

Jonathan Cook, The Plot to Keep Jeremy Corbyn Out of Power

published in: Counterpunch, July 5, 2019

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/05/the-plot-to-keep-jeremy-corbyn-out-of-power/

In the latest of the interminable media “furores” about Jeremy Corbyn’s supposed unfitness to lead Britain’s Labour party – let alone become prime minister – it is easy to forget where we were shortly before he won the support of an overwhelming majority of Labour members to head the party.

This file is essentially the same as my long essay MuralGaga renamed “MuralGate and Gaza.” It seems from the searches I have performed that MuralGaga has been deprioritised by Academia’s search engines so that it actually appears lower in searches than many other essays of mine on the same topic – despite the fact that with over 3,000 views MuralGaga is by far my most “popular” essay. I suspect that the pro-Israel activists have been complaining about my essay, something that Academia have not denied. I should point out that in this essay I was too Quilty-centric. Now I tend to think of Ben as more of a messenger boy. My later thought puts more emphasis on those behind the Twitter handle @GnasherJew.

Taking Donald Trump's and Jeremy Corbyn's use of Twitter as paradigmatic case studies, this article demonstrates that the charismatic leader features as a distinct mode of the performativity of populism. Particularly, the leader is performed as a persona, such as Trump's 'defiant' and Corbyn's 'ordinary' persona, which authentically embodies the mission to save the people from their own enemies, in this case, the mission of national palingenesis (#MAGA and #DrainTheSwamp) and moral vindication (#ForTheMany), respectively. Central to charismatic performances is an affective dynamic which both renders the claim to authenticity convincing and allow for 'the people' to be enacted as a concrete political subject. It does so, however, not in an ahistorical and presupposition-less manner, as some post-ideological approaches to performativity imply, but through discursively patterned emotions with profound ideological ramifications. Therefore, populism is better understood as a performative ideology which deserves our close analytical attention if we are to understand its progressive-democratic or reactionary-undemocratic potential.

The JLM Dossier 1. This is a response to the JLM dossier alleging antisemitism in Corbyn's LP that can be found here: 2. I have addressed many of these issues and placed around 60 essays on my Academia page. The first 50 are presented in a bibliographical note that can be found here and the remainder can be found here. I also have a 47 page criticism of Panorama's Is labour Antisemitic? that can be found here. Perhaps I can indicate that I have also attempted a concise summary statement here. Let me add that while all my work is free Academia collects contact details. This may be avoided by going to the annexed website, scrolling down, and then downloading here. 3. By way of orientation let me say that I am a committed Catholic, deeply sympathetic to Pope Francis, no member of any political party, and moved to become involved as a result of the mass murders in Gaza. The Pope called for the defence of the defenceless in the Holy Land on Easter Day 2018. Everything I have written must be seen through that lens. Thus, although this will appear as a defence of Corbyn (a charge I take to be no insult) the main reason I write is because I have discovered that what I call "grass roots Zionist hawks" (think: @GnasherJew) have been involved in a campaign of both smear and smokescreen. Here is my abstract to the above mentioned summary statement: MuralGate as Distraction from Gaza: Smear and Smokescreen Abstract. I raise the question of whether the antisemitism crisis in the UK LP was an exercise in purposely timed hysteria to distract from Gaza, and by investigating open sources draw attention to the pro-Israeli activists orchestrating the smokescreen. I identify the real reasons for Jewish concern regarding Corbyn as Israeli legitimacy and the fear of BDS, especially should violence flare up-a concern that became more acute in 2018-and indicate the strategy implemented in response to this challenge. I note the extreme reluctance of the media in spelling out facts of the smokescreen, and locate this reluctance within a broader unwillingness meriting truth and reconciliation. 4. Perhaps it is not amiss to state that I had never previously been engaged in Israel/Palestine issues before this. However, after I found that no one would respond to my long essay (MuralGaga) I went on Twitter, and as a matter of fact was libelled in a grievous manner by Gnasher. It was claimed that I had sent death threats to Jews. I have not. I have always conducted myself politely on social media and in other correspondence. 5. As indicated, the standard response to my work is to ignore it. Thus, I have written to many commentators on this issue including the JLM. I point out, of course, that no one has offered a refutation of this analysis that I believe can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. 6. I would certainly contest the claims of the JLM that would imply that antisemitism is rife. As the JLM surely know, the JVL have a very different analysis of which I have some familiarity and I would certainly endorse their opinion. I am, however, working quite independently. It is in the process of working things out for myself that I have come to appreciate that JVL understand what is going on. 7. I would take issue with the repeated claims that your research points to institutional antisemitism. On the contrary, my research points to a doubt. I add that if JLM are unwilling to challenge my work then my evidence should be accepted. In a word, the JLM have unjustly defamed those involved. The case is not proven. 8. In general, it is to be understood that my claims will only be advanced when I believe that I have substantiated them in the body of work I have referenced. I will be writing quickly and in a perfunctory manner. Of course I am happy to help any inquirers needing clarification.

MuralGaga refers to the essay I published on my academic page “Chris S Friel” at Academia.edu and tweeted @ChrisFriel7 from July 2018. GagaPhooey refers to the reception of MuralGaga. The overt reception may be considered prior to publication and after, both positive and negative. However, the CSV data file for the visits to the academic site permits an analysis of the covert reaction, one that can shine a light on the overt reaction, one that can tell us “what’s going on.”

The British referendum of 23 June 2016 and subsequent withdrawal from the European Union is often regarded as heralding a new democratic era for Britain as she is freed from the shackles of undemocratic EU institutions. After briefly analysing the validity of claims regarding the existence of a ‘democratic deficit’ in the EU, this paper examines whether national and popular sovereignty are likely to be reaffirmed by the experience of the referendum and its aftermath. It argues that, on the contrary, national sovereignty risks being further undermined as the UK, under the current conservative government, assumes a hyperglobalist position which prioritises free trade over other democratic freedoms. It also suggests that the referendum did little to revive popular sovereignty. Although the ‘Leave’ vote will be respected, the referendum debate itself was nothing more than a simulacrum of democracy. Far from solving the democratic deficit, the problem has only been exacerbated at a national level following the ‘Remain’ votes in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the final analysis, this ‘democratic moment’, at least under a conservative government, was entirely illusory.

The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt is in three parts, Antisemitism, Imperialism, and Totalitarianism, and naturally enough she has carefully read the 1905 work of JA Hobson, Imperialism: A Study. Arendt also cites from "Capitalism and Imperialism in South Africa," Contemporary Review, 1900. While not insensitive to the antisemitic elements in her sources (obviously), Arendt nevertheless praises Hobson's work. This fact bears elaboration given that on 30 April 2019 Daniel Finkelstein attacked Jeremy Corbyn for praising Hobson in a 2011 forward to Imperialism. Finkelstein refers to the book as "deeply antisemitic." As Twitter can verify, that revelation then became a matter of some controversy, with those keen to attack the Labour Leader accentuating the alleged antisemitism in Hobson. The tweets of Oliver Kamm are a case in point. With this in mind I shall briefly marshal some texts on Hobson in Arendt.

An alternative economy is being built that goes beyond globalisation and neoliberalism. It draws on but breaks with previous paradigms and is complex, detailed and practical. It is based in pluralities, governmental and civil society, political and economic, and in its regenerative capacities can appeal across the political spectrum. It is being discussed and implemented by local governments, think tanks, academics, and national political parties. This article asks whether something localised and beyond global capital can avoid parochialism, inequality and the negative effects of competition, stretch to representing the interests of the public as a whole and work at national level. Can its embeddedness across institutions and plural actors protect it from reversal or does its shift to community power and interests and away from neoliberalism mean global capital will undermine it? The paper discusses what the new democratic economy is and how it can be implemented and maintained in the face of opposition.

I never planned to write MuralGaga. At the time I didn't take too much notice of the original MuralGate story, but what ignited concern was the shootings on Good Friday, and also my anger at the Tablet editorial that I read Holy Saturday. I noticed that in his leader Brendan Walsh used language from Gaudium et Spes that I knew off by heart. Referring indirectly to the atomic bombs dropped in Japan, the Fathers of Vatican II affirm that the " vast destruction of cities and their inhabitants is a crime against God and humanity that merits unequivocal condemnation. " I found cadences of this strong language in the leader – yet as applied to solidarity with Jews in the context of a demonstration against Jeremy Corbyn! Even though I was well aware that this would have been penned on the Tuesday, I wrote an angry letter to the editor. As it happens Walsh replied, and later I discovered that he was to give the after dinner speech at a Conference on Catholic theology at Durham at which I was presenting a short paper. So, I wrote more kindly, and he reciprocated inviting me to seek him out at the conference. In the following issue (which like the previous, never mentioned the Palestinians) Dawn Foster wrote on MuralGate opening with a sentence on Luciana Berger. Again, I didn't take much notice, and had never heard of Berger – nor any other Jewish MP, though I had a vague recollection of who John Mann was (without knowing his actual name). This too raised a suspicion in me especially as Walsh mentioned sources in the Labour Party that he trusted (without revealing who they were). On Easter Sunday I was still very upset about Gaza, and for " revenge " consoled myself by reading (with the help of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary) the Prophet Amos. I was very moved by the book's pathos. And later that week I found myself writing a long letter to the Chief Rabbi about my reflections for which I received a polite reply. I've put this up on my academic site. i Still, my interest was not in MuralGate per se, though I was worried about Gaza, complaining, and then taking to another level, an angry correspondence with the BBC. I was outraged by the way that I thought that they had minimised and neutralised what I took to be the equivalent of Sunday Bloody Sunday. In doing this I was taking in much information from the internet, often not taking too much notice of my sources. Most of what I wrote in MuralGaga, then, I learned from scratch, but still had no particular interest in the scandal until April 15 th. This was when President Arkush of the Board of Deputies and Chairman Goldstein wrote in Comment is Free about how they had come to demonstrate on March 26 th. My instant reaction was to count the paragraphs (ten) and the number of those concerned with time (six). I was immediately struck by what I took to be the insincerity of the writers and their account of a " last straw. " From that time on I started thinking about MuralGate, and concern deepened when I read of the Commons debate on antisemitism. During that period I fired off many letters to the MPs in question (including my own who was refusing to reply to any correspondence). In fact, only Alex Sobel replied. His name had been in the Jewish Chronicle's article and so for that reason he was on my list. Actually, I know that he had said nothing that had upset me – very rudely, though, I told him that I thought his tweet on Gaza was as " bland as a Burt. " One thing that he said that stayed with me was to the effect that the issue of Labour antisemitism had been going on for some time. I should say that I found myself liking Sobel, and also his support for Meretz (the Israeli Labour Party had been moving to the Right when it split with Corbyn April 10 th) but I also felt he didn't want to speak out too strongly for rocking the boat. I also recall putting some thoughts together that I sent to Jonathan Freedland, eventually getting a reply that I thought insincere. He claimed to know the community well and that there was genuine anger, so that my " conspiracy theory " was just that. But he failed to discuss any points of substance – being under pressure to write a book. I also reached out to Keith Kahn Harris for advice, as I had been impressed by the way

This article traces some of the rhetoric flowing from Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party to the New Left, a political and intellectual movement in the UK which rose up to challenge the Stalinisation of socialism. These New Left lineages appear most clearly in the value denoted by both movements toward extra-parliamentary politics. Indeed, the work of the New Left intellectual Ralph Miliband considers this factor to be a criterion by which we can assess the extent to which Corbyn's party has surpassed the traditional 'Labourist' mould. By going beyond the movement's early rhetoric, I show that it hasn't. Instead, I present evidence that Corbyn's Labour is a deeply social democratic one. The article offers an explanation for this assessment based on comparison of the contexts from which both the New Left and Corbynism emerged, and outlines an analytical path for future scholarship that emphasises continuity as well as change, and wards against ideological bias.

How one island remained offshore is a quest to understand how European identity has been kept at bay to the point to which its rejection crystallised into Brexit. This thesis offers an argument to understand British Euroscepticism: the quasi-Darwinist distinction between “Britons” and “Europeans” in the collective imagination is not the natural fact it claims to be but rather the materialisation of a certain thought.

This masters' thesis has been elaborated within the framework of the MA European History programme.

The Labour Party is a British centre-left political party founded in 1900 by Keir Hardie, that was "…built on the back of [many] affiliated organizations: [such as] trade unions, socialist societies, trade councils, women's associations, professional groups…constituency parties and…co-operative societies." (Worley, 2009). Labour is often seen as the main antagonist to the current ruling Conservative government, which is identified as being a centre-right political party. The two parties have historically battled with each other for control over the United Kingdom's government, and this power struggle has rarely been interjected by a third party with enough influence to stand a chance against either party for leadership. The last time Labour had control over the British government was in 2010 under Gordon Brown, who replaced the previous Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair who led the government from 1997-2007. This era of Labour is widely known as "New Labour", and is seen to have presented a dramatic ideology and policy change from previous Labour governments and manifesto proposals-an era now known as "Old Labour". Since 2010, Labour has undergone further change in their party ideology and ambitions for the United Kingdom. The current Labour leader is Jeremy Corbyn, who can be described as a far-left, grassroots socialist. This essay will investigate how Labour transformed from its socialist roots, to a more centrist ideology under Tony Blair, and finally resulting in a socialist revival.

This short case study looks at a particular pro-Israeli hawk on Twitter, @GillianLazarus. Lazarus, of course, is a very human person whose twitter feed reveals a humane and intelligent personality. Nevertheless, I show how her involvement with the so-called “Gnasher Jews” leads to a polarising and monochrome mind-set, indeed, participation in a conspiracy. I identify the political philosophy behind the hawks as no less than that of Carl Schmitt, defender of Hitler’s political murders, and show how his Concept of the Political informs the meanings and values of the hawks’ way of life.

A response to the CST report published today which examines the Rothschild Conspiracy trope online. The report cites this as a common manifestation of antisemitism. I point out the connection with Jeremy Corbyn, not for any intrinsic reasons, but because it is by this trope that his enemies have attempted to smear him.

An alternative economy is being built in the UK and beyond. It comes out of radical imagination, yet is material and real and draws on but breaks with previous paradigms. It is complex, detailed and practical, based in pluralities, governmental and civil society, political and eco- nomic, and in its regenerative capacities can appeal across the political spectrum. People are talking about it and doing it, from local govern- ments, to think tanks, academics, and national political parties, moving beyond globalisation and neoliberalism. But can something localised avoid parochialism and competition, represent the interests of the public as a whole and work nationally and beyond? Will the alternative econ- omy’s embeddedness across institutions and via plural actors protect it from reversal? Can the democratic economy survive as an imagine-and- do, not just imagining, approach?

“If Labour had a better understanding of British history – and human nature”, said the daughter of a Methodist minister and former British Prime Minster, Margaret Thatcher in her address to the Conservative Women’s Conference of May 25th 1988, “they might recall the words of John Wesley who founded Methodism 250 years ago: Gain all you can, save all you can, give all you can.’  More recently, former Shadow Health Secretary, Jamie Reed MP resigned from the Labour front bench on the occasion of the election of his new leader, Jeremy Corbyn on the grounds that the Labour Party ‘owes more to Methodism than to Marxism’.  It seems that there are elements within both the Tory party and the Labour Party which want to claim an inheritance from Methodism, but have either of them fully appreciated just how radical John Wesley was? This paper takes as its outline the three headings of Wesley’s Sermon 50, on The Use of Money:  ‘Gain all you can, save all you can, give all you can’ and examines Wesley’s own interpretation and application of these principles. Finally I will close with some brief comments on the direction  ‘a Methodist economics’ might take today.

[Talk delivered at Dunedin City Library, Dunedin, NZ, on Friday, 21st July 2017]

‘Oh, Je-re-my Cor-byn!’ rang out the chants of many on the streets of London on the 1st of July at the People’s Assembly’s ‘#ToriesOut’ march. The People’s Assembly, Momentum, Radical Housing Network, the Socialist Worker’s Party, the Stop the War Coalition, the Socialist Party, and the large trade unions: PCS, RMT, CWU, Unison, Len McCluskey’s Unite the Union… all these organisations rallying round the Labour Party leader, the holy Son of Atlee, the man who would save Britain from the iron grip of Tory austerity. But beside these organisations, a distinct second current of marchers, composed of such organisations as Class War, the Focus E15 Mothers, Lesbians & Gays Support the Migrants, Architects for Social Housing, Movement For Justice, the Revolutionary Communist Group, and trade unions like the IWGB, led a different chant: Labour, Tory, same old story!