Left wing policies - right wing politics?

This evening I came home to see that Abby Tomlinson - the teenage founder of the #milifandom movement on Twitter, had written an article for The Guardian, explaining why she was backing Andy Burnham in the Labour leadership election. As a creator of a movement that gained momentum in a way no-one saw coming, grabbed many headlines and succeeded where many Labour spin doctors had failed, she has every right to have a voice in this election.

For myself, as someone who has voted Labour before, but is quite happy to float between the various left and liberal parties, I found reading Abby's arguments very interesting. She'd actually bothered to attend hustings, read up on policies and had gone out of her way to meet all of the four candidates. She was in a pretty strong position to argue her case. Sadly though, you wouldn't have thought that from the string of nasty comments that ensued. Some claiming that she had no right to a platform to air her views, others were spewing abuse simply because they disagreed with her choice of candidate, and the word 'naive' was thrown around a lot.

If this is what happens when a young person engages in politics, it's no wonder so many of them stay away. If Labour can get all those young people who wouldn't normally vote behind them, it'd be a huge boost, keep treating your future electorate like some (I hasten to add, not all), have treated Abby, and the party is in trouble. On a wider scale, if people could welcome and encourage young people's contribution to politics, they might actually develop a voice loud enough to change things. Anyone who can create a movement that so wonderfully throws the narrative of our media off course, is someone who should be nurtured and supported. A defence against relentless, baseless attacks from the right wing press surely is striking gold for any party?

So here I am. Wading into the Labour leadership debate. Many politicians wonder why so many people don't engage with politics, especially at a time where we have an increasingly right wing, austerity-happy party making cruel decisions that are so directly and clearly tearing apart people's lives. This leadership campaign is in mortal danger of being a prime example of why so many people are turning their back on politics regardless. Labour are supposed to be the alternative, but instead we have infighting, personal attacks and even threatened coups to bring down a democratically elected leader. Of course policies and people are important, but they are getting drowned out by certain voices in this leadership election. Nastiness is not going to help displace this government. You don't just win elections in the few months of campaigning beforehand. People are looking at the party right now. How many people like what they're seeing?

There are two stand out expressions, about two particular candidates that have been brandished about as if they were vote wining swords during this debate. They are:

• Unelectable (Corbyn). It's a bizarre choice of word for someone who has been elected to represent his constituency seven times, over a period of more than thirty years. What people actually mean when they use this term is 'very left wing' and 'doesn't come across like a politician'. Take a look at what happened in Scotland. Have a little glance through the history books at various party leader's attempts to look human, and, oh yeah - less like a politician. This man has confounded almost everyone with how much support he's garnered thus far. Instead of throwing around words that are going to come back to haunt you (seriously - calling someone in your own party unelectable has got to set some sort of alarm system off - the bells, the anti-theft system and the fire alarm for good measure), why not have a little look at what it is about him that inspires people?

• Tory-Lite (Kendall). Stray too far to the left, and you're unelectable, too far to the centre ground and you're a Tory. Can you really blame someone who has just seen her party defeated in the face of an unexpected Conservative majority for starting to examine why people voted that way ? Her message is all about being able to get back into power so that the party can start to implement policies for the good of the country. I happen to disagree that this is the way to do it, but she is forcing the party to examine why they lost against such an unpopular government, and as much as she wouldn't be my choice for leader, she's the needed, if somewhat uncomfortable voice in the debate. 

We cannot let the negative, baseless, and nasty terminology of the right, control left wing politics. The Conservatives and their media barons will always be there, playing their scare tactics and lies, and sometimes, sadly, they work. However, this is no excuse to constantly sink to their level. The Labour party need to offer something different. Something better. Not just in their policies, not just in the personalities, but in their politics and their behaviour.

Yes, there is justified anger at what is being done in government right now, the people doing it, and even those who are seen as failing to oppose it. Yes, ideas will clash. People will argue passionately. This is what democracy supposed to be. People who care deeply about the world around them, pitching their vision of how to improve it, and then letting the people decide. But that is no licence for the candidates or their supporters (as it largely has been) to turn on each other, to behave in (excuse the turn of phrase) - a 'Tory-Lite' manner and start slandering other people.

Come on Labour. I know deep down you're better than this. I know deep down the majority of your MPs, members and supporters want to see a fairer society for all, but until you start displaying fairness, reason and compassion amongst your own ranks, that vision is fading.

Who are you calling a hypocrite?

...oh - the man who is very likely to be Labour's next leader. Figures.

It looks like the Sun has managed to outdo its already outrageous swathes of hypocrisy by having the nerve to print a story accusing someone else of hypocrisy. I'm really quite surprised the earth hasn't fried under the hypocrisy enthralled gasses spilling out from that big toxic ball (when used in its correct form - screwed up and thrown into a bin) of lies that we call 'The Sun'.

Under the headline 'Sunburnt' (that's the best they could do apparently), read the words:

'Is two faced Burnham the most hypocritical politician in Britan?'

So - The Sun - let me address you directly, and let me first answer that question for you - no. That title currently lies with the more than worthy George Osbourne, who before the general election said:

 'We choose the whole nation. ... We choose responsibility ... We choose aspiration ... We choose families.' (see the whole speech here)

Before ensuring that under 25s aren't entitled to his pretend living wage (ooh - double points there for creating hypocrisy-ception), scrapping maintenance grants for poor students (aspiration is for the rich only), limiting tax credits to two children (because you're only a human being if you got there first or second...yeah, sounds like a Tory policy to me), and dumping the responsibility of paying the TV licence of the over 75s on the BBC (because then you kill two birds with one stone - keep the voting pensioners happy, continue in plan to destroy public institution that provides legitimate competition to good friend Rupert Murdoch's world domination efforts).

So now we've cleared that up, let's look a little closer at your article (you should be comfortable with this, given your willingness to get up close and personal with, and invade the privacy of anyone who wanders into your path of self righteous, self serving twaddle and has the audacity to challenge it).

So you're upset because Andy Burnham wouldn't give an interview for you to twist into some sort of campaign against him, but he didn't have any such concerns in 2010? It probably was ill-advised for him to go anywhere near you in the first place, absolutely. There probably is an element of hypocrisy there too, but do you not also think your derogatory, unnecessarily personal, inflammatory and misleading attacks on the previous Labour leader since that interview may have had something to do with the decision not to come back to you? It may even have been fear of such attacks had he not complied, that lead him to do the 2010 interview - but now it's clear you'll attack him either way, why not go for the 'screw you' option, and why not remind everyone of the despicable way you treated the Hillsborough victims along the way? Or he could be a hypocrite, like you definetly aren't.

So - the detail I promised: 

'As far as he’s concerned, if you read the Sun you just don’t matter'

Because, of course, the sole way of finding out anything about Andy Burnham is through your newspaper. The Internet, radio, television, other newspapers (yeah - you know, another point of view, you should try it some day) and hustings events are out of the question. The sole way of Sun readers finding out about a contender in a contest to lead a left wing party is through the vested interested of a right wing newspaper. Sun readers apparently have no clue that other sources of information are out there. You've set expectations of your readers a little low there haven't you? 

'He’s much more interested in winning the backing of the faithful Leftie few and seizing the Labour party crown whatever the consequences.'

Yes, well done, that idea makes perfect sense. The way he's going to win the leadership contest, is by only gaining the support of the - ahem - 'leftie few'. I quite like the term 'leftie' - it's sort of adorable, and not in a 'oh look at the cute kitten while we brainwash you with right-wing propaganda' sort of way either. Result. 

'That’s astonishing at a time when Labour so clearly needs to reinvent itself and reach out to voters who deserted them in droves at the election.'

Which was absolutely nothing to do with your scaremongering. 

'It says much that he considers addressing the electorate through a national newspaper a ‘favour’ in the first place.'

What if he wanted to address the electorate through a non-biased medium? Typical leftie, wanting a fair representation of what he actually says. It does indeed say a lot about him, that he sees politians and newspapers operating on a 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' basis, and has the restraint to only call it a 'favour'.

'Burnham shows every sign he would repeat the mistakes of hopeless predecessor Ed Miliband'
Oh, you mean the guy who's policies would actually benefit your readers, rather than the guy who's policies would benefit you? Take cover everyone, I feel another Sun induced hypocrisy heatwave coming along.


Maybe next time you chose to attack someone who stands in the way of your own interests, at least do it on the basis of a vice you're not so obviously guilty of (admittedly, you will find that very limiting), or at least avoid the subject of hypocrisy. Because a paper being hypocritical by accusing someone of hypocrisy due to its own hypocritical nature, thus becoming even more hypocritical, has made me type the word hypocrite and its various forms in so many ways the word has lost all meaning to me. Or maybe that's what you were hoping for - that you would become so hypocritical that it hides all your hypocrisy. PLEASE SOMEONE MAKE IT STOP.

A big dangerous ball of toxic, burning gas

I don't think it's any secret how passionately I feel about politics, or what my political views are, and I'm going over some well trodden ground here, but if I don't write this post I'm going to explode...

Let me tell you something about me. I don't swear. It's not something I do. I'm not attracted by the concept, I've never felt the need to. So this is a first. I'm not proud of what I'm about to type, but The Sun's latest front page has pushed me over the edge.

What a bloody joke.

So, I may have created some melodrama worthy of a tacky tabloid there, but you get the point. Seriously. We're back to the bacon sandwich? It's one of their most pathetic front pages, and for them that really is saying something.

Let me make one thing clear. They don't give a damn about this country. They don't care one bit about the state of our economy, our NHS, 'hard working families' or anything that should be on the agenda during this election. You know what is important to them? Serving their lord and master who owns News International and doesn't even live in the UK.

The Sun - and several other newspapers, some using bigger words than others, but all screaming the same lies - is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch doesn't like Ed Miliband. Do you know why? Is it his political standing? Is it because he has genuine concerns about his plans for the economy? Because he really feels on a moral level that he couldn't rest easily with Labour running the country? Of course not. He's worried about his business. 

Ed Miliband won't sit in his pocket like many before him have done. I don't know how many people remember the hacking scandal that reached a peak last year, but it basically proved something most people with half a brain cell had known for years -  what a nasty, malicious, self serving piece of work News International really is. Incidences of hacking the phones of a murdered schoolgirl, paying the police for information and harassment amounting to pretty much stalking were just a few of the issues on the table. So of course, you'd expect that the upstanding leaders of this country would rush to condemn this, to call  for something to be done. Nope. Do you know why? Because they didn't want to get on the wrong side of the scary man who can make people stop voting for them.

Thankfully someone did finally take a stand against him. Someone did brush aside concerns about an avalanche of nasty, untrue, scaremongering articles coming at them from all sides. Was is Mr Cameron, or maybe Mr Clegg? No? Oh yes, it was Mr Miliband. Ed Miliband continually refuses to sit in the pocket of Mr Murdoch, and that doesn't half piss him off. Oh, there's more. Mr Miliband has also hinted that too much of the press in this country is owned and influenced by too few people, and that there's a chance he might actually - shock horror - try and do something about it.

So there we have it. Greed and corruption. The man who has happily sat and watched his papers demonise people who have come to our country to work hard, to contribute to this society, have fought through blood, sweat and tears for that precious British passport, doesn't even want one. He's not even eligible to vote in this country, but he's trying his damn hardest to influence the outcome of our democracy to save the linings of his pockets, and it's disgusting.

On that note - I should also mention - The Evening Standard is owned by a man with nom-dom status in the UK. Their pro-tory stance suddenly elevated after Labour announced their nom-dom policy. I don't think I need to explain any more. (In fairness, the same person owns The Independent which is much more balanced, but isn't handed out for free in London tube stations - I wonder which one you'd choose to wield your influence?) Basically, the majority of our UK press sucks.

Back to The Sun - who have clearly run out of any legitimate forms of attack, because they've resorted to a year old photograph of Ed Miliband struggling with a bacon sandwich. It was a pathetic attack then, even more so now. Anyone could get caught looking vaguely unattractive whilst eating. It's not an attractive process. It says nothing about who he is and even less about his ability to run the country. In fact it says more about the bacon sandwich than it does Ed Miliband. To show just how stupid this thing really is, here are two facts about me.

• Fact one: One day I want to edit TV drama.
• Fact two: I don't look particularly attractive whilst eating spaghetti. 

The Sun's headline makes as much sense as a producer asking me to eat a bowl of spaghetti to prove I'm the right person to edit an episode of Doctor Who.

There is nothing - NOTHING on that page that stands as any sort of proof that Labour will be bad in government. Let me say it again. NOTHING. It's pathetic. It's personal. It's desperate, and it's terrible journalism.

The election is a big deal. Whoever gets into power will be in charge of our economic recovery, welfare, health service, immigration policy and so much more. It's important. On the day before polling day, one of our biggest newspapers have gone for a bacon sandwich with a scattering of SNP scaremongering (oh I should point out - The Scottish Sun are supporting a lady who English Sun calls 'The most dangerous woman in Britain'.) It's so typical of this pathetic newspaper -  to take a really complicated issue, and blitz it with a simple lie. Preferably one that stirs up deeply held emotions and fears. We've had everything from unnecessary personal attacks, to shameless scaremongering.

I think Labour is genuinely what this country needs. Turning the country round so employees can't be exploited by employers, where young people have the chance to succeed in life, rather than be forced to work for huge companies for free, where at the very least attempts are made to deal with rocketing house and rental prices in London, where we have a fighting chance of living in a just society - but if anyone has thought through all these issues and more, and is still in two minds - then vote Labour just to stick one to our overly powerful, lying and manipulative press.

I think I should address one point- I am aware that many of the articles I've linked to along the way to back myself up have been from The Guardian and The Independent. I am aware that these are left leaning papers. I should say this though - both of these papers have a much better and far less dirty track record than the majority of our national newspapers, and both have - shock horror - been known to condemn left wing parties or praise right wing ones appropriately when they've felt these things have needed to be said. Their articles can generally be backed up and their sources transparent, as well as the journalists' and editors' ability to write and publish balanced, informed articles, aimed at finding the truth as opposed to twisting it to fit a certain narrative. Neither are perfect, but both are probably the closest to trustworthy you're going to get. They're left leaning because that's where their views happen to fall, rather than this ridiculous blind allegiance so much of our press tends to follow. If you want proof, just check out the front page of The Independent's sister paper - it's a bit of a contrast from what the right-wing press are offering:

Both papers pictured in this post cost 40p. I'd say the price we pay to have The Sun in Britain is much higher. I know which paper I'll be picking up tomorrow.