Why I am convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the 2020 election if elected

Until this morning I had bought into the concept that Jeremy Corbyn had no chance of winning a general election if elected as leader of the Labour Party. The reason I felt it was still worth supporting him is because I thought that whichever of the four won, Labour would lose. I felt that Corbyn would at least reinvigorate the party and connect it with its grass roots and help it move on from its 20th century obsession with spin and vacuosity. I can honestly see no way a party lead by Burnham or Cooper could win a general election and no way they could attract new members. Whilst I felt Liz Kendall could win a general election, there is absolutely no way the Labour party would choose her, so in effect she is a non candidate. I don't really like Kendall, she appears to have no compassion  and no empathy with her own party. I suspect that like many, if she was elected I'd grudgingly support her as "Cameron lite" is better than "Cameron Max". Whatever misgivings I had about the Blair/Brown years, there is no doubt that Britain became a far more socially progressive country. The reason I don't support Kendall is that she buys into a philosophy that ultimately failed us all miserably.

So what has convinced me that Jeremy Corbyn will win? You may find this rather odd, but my hallelujah moment came reading this mornings Sunday Times. Every page I turned, I saw yet another character assasination of Corbyn. Here's a few examples. Page 1 & 2 a story about how the Labour Party is being "Infiltrated on an industrial scale". It seems the Sunday Times objects to the fact that people who had left the Labour party due to the Blairites are rejoining in droves to support an MP they agree with. It says "there was absolutely no way that Labour officials would catch all the Green, Trotskyist and Conservative supporters who had signed up to take part in the leadership contest". It strikes me as unlikely that many Trotskyists will "rejoin to support Corbyn", certainly not enough to tip the balance. Corbyn isn't a Trotskyite and true believers would see him as beyond the pale. As for Tories signing up to cause mischief, again the numers will be miniscule. Many joke about it, but by and large Tories would begrudge the Labour party a single penny. Which brings us to Greens. Those rejoining are by and large former Labour members with principles, who see Corbyn as a chance to rebuild the party. On page 18 we have a full page Camilla Long hatchet job. Pravda would have been proud of this piece. It gives no insight into Corbyn and is full of sly innuendo, portraying anyone who sympathises with Corbyn as deluded. This Brian Eno quote, produced with no context is typical "I don't think that electability is really the most important thing". On page 23 we have a trademark Ian Dale article claiming Corbyn only even thought of standing when "Sarah in London" suggested it and yet another hatchet job, this time from Anne Applebaum, with the title "While Russia burns books, the useful idiot Corbyn swallows its lies whole". This rather odd article seems to ignore the fact that half the world wasn't born when Russia was under a notionally Marxist state. Because Corbyn has criticised western policies towards Ukraine (which have not exactly been stunningly successful) and suggested supporters may find the news coverage by Russia today interesting , he must support the burning of books, seems to be the analaysis of this Pulitzer Prize winning author. I buy papers such as The Daily Express as I like to read a wide range of views. I suppose that this makes me a pornographer, given Richard Desmonds business portfolio. It is nonsense.

As I read this nonstop barrage of complete nonsense, two things struck me. First, despite the endless words and columns, there was no attempt at all to desconstruct the views of Corbyn. There was no analysis of what he was actually saying. I sort of expect this type of nonsense in the Daily Mail, which is not really a paper to be taken seriously, but for the Sunday Times to print so many "non articles" with so little analysis was extraordinary. I've no idea how much the Times pays people to write articles, but I'd guess Pulitzer Prize winners are not the cheapest columnists.  The second thing that struck me was, given that Murdoch is a natural Tory, why so much bile would be poured on someone who, if the Times is to believed, would destroy Labours chances of winning.If Corbyn was electoral poison, surely Murdochs papers would be more than happy to see Labour elect him and destroy itself. The only logical conclusion is that Murdoch does not buy into the idea that Corbyn is electoral poison. Why else would he throw every resourse at his hands at trying to give his leadership aspirations an abortion? The only conclusion is that Murdoch rejects the notion that Corbyn is unelectable and is in a state of high panic. I suspect that Murdoch knows that one of Corbyns first targets if he is ever elected will be the likes of Murdoch.

So how could Corbyn possibly win? What a ridiculous idea is that? If you consider the maths, maybe not. The Conservatives are embarking on a vicious program of austerity. I can't really see this enhancing their popularity. They won in2015 by cannabilising the votes of their Lib Dem partners. Many of these voters are already bitterly regretting putting the Tories in. I doubt there are many more Lib Dems to "turn" and many are considering "turning back". I've heard many people saying that it is only now we see how important the Lin Dems were. The economy is doing OK at the moment. This is not the product of this Tory administration, but of the Coalition. It will take at least a couple of years for us to know if a Tory only regime can improve the economy, but I doubt that the British Economy can sustain current growth rates for the next five years. Whatever happens, no commentators think interest rates will be anything other than higher in 2020, which will hit household budgets.

The Tories were elected by 24% of the electorate. It is unlikely that 24% of the electorate will do better under the Tories. Many of Corbyns policies will appeal to the 76% of the electorate who didn't vote Tory. Some such as abolition of tuition fees will appeal to the 24% who did, especally Lib Dem switchers. I doubt even too many Tories would cry if the railways were renationalised. As someone who uses the railways every day, it is clear that the franchising system doesn't work. In effect it is a scam that takes taxpayers money and lines the pockets of foreign investors. Whilst the hard right believe nationalisation to be a rude word, anyone who has had to endure years of sub standard travel services will take a different view. There has been so little discussion of left politics since Blair took over. Whilst the Tories hark back to the days of Michael Foot, for a couple of generations of voters this is ancient history. Things have changed. Corbyn isn't talking the language of Foot. How could he? When Foot was Labour Leader, railways were nationalised, students got grants. Corbyn has a whole swathe of ideas that appeal to many people not only on the left, but in the Centre. During the Blair years, the left displayed a remarkable amount of restraint and loyalty to the party. If the right of Labour show the same discipline and work with Corbyn, it is more than possible that a popular and populist platform could be developed. I suspect that decent NHS services, Student Grants, Rail nationalisation, a tax system designed to help the many, not the few and laws to protect working people from the worst ravages of rampant capitalism will not prove quite as unpopular as the Murdoch Press would have you believe.

Until this morning, I'd thought that such talk was wishful thinking, but I read the articles several times and it is clear to me that the rich and powerful such as Murdoch are rattled and resorting to everr more desperate tactics to try and scare the living daylights out of people who are tempted by the Corbyn camp.  When I read the articles it actually had the reverse effect on me. The Britsh dislike dishnoesty and I am sure that they see right through the dodgy spin of Murdoch and his army of highly paid Pulitzer prize winning mercenaries. In fact if by chance we see a Corbyn lead administration in 2020, I think the likes of Murdoch will be one of the reasons. For decades the attack dog tactics of the Murdoch Press have destroyed leader after leader for the Labour party. One may conclude that because its always worked, it always will. Sadly for the likes of Murdoch, things have moved on. In the electronic age, Twitter, Blogger and Facebook mean that there are many other sources of information and the likes of The Sun and The Times can get called out in away that the likes of Michael Foot could never have dreamed of. The trouble for Murdoch is that he's largely preaching to the converted. Papers such as the Times and The Sun have shed readers and influence massively in recent years. It is not inconceivable that one or both may not even exist in 2020. At best The Times is likely to be the equivalent of the Saga house magazine, read by wealthy pensioners mainy reading it to plan autmn holidays in Tuscany and investments of their pension pots. As for The Sun, in 2010 it had over 3 million readers, now it has under two million. If it has more than a million in 2020, that will be a minor miracle. It's decline is accelerating, shedding over 200,000 readers between 2013 and 2014. Whilst Kinnock and Foot knew that they would face a slow assasination from these papers, a Corbyn leadership would face a different beast. Not only that, but social media is built for campaigners such as Corbyn, who can rely on people using Fazcebook and Twitter to feed campaigns and bolster support. Whilst Foot and Kinnock had no mass media to make their case, Corbyn knows that if he gets it right, his message will go viral on the net. This costs nothing and is far more effective than dodgy articles by paid hacks. Whilst we don't trust the Murdoch press, we all trust our friends and family and when they share info with us, we read it.

It is interesting to see new Labour figures desperately looking at means to "fix" the Corbyn problem, I suspect that all of the denouncements of entryists is counter productive. If Labour start banning ex members who got disilliusioned and joined the Greens, they are doomed. Green members are hard working activists and generally honest and principled. If Labour are saying they don't want them, what exactly are they saying. If all Labour want to be is a metropoitan elite who believe in nothing, they will be permanently unelectable. There will be plenty of water under the bridge between now and the 2020 election. The Tories have tied a huge albatross around their neck by announcing Cameron will go. This Parliament will be dominated first by the EU referendum and then by the Tory leadership contest. I suspect that Cameron will have to go in 2018 to allow a new Leader a period to make his name. This puts another variable into the mix. Osborne is the front runner, but just suppose he does a Gordon Brown when stepping up to the top table. When Brown took over, he was viewed as a heavyweight and an awesome presence. Within six months, it was clear that he was a liability. Just suppose that Osborne is another great chancellor who can't step up, then it is possible that Corbyn will prove to be the man in the right place in the right time. As Napoleon once said "Give me a lucky general any day".

Leave Prince Harry alone

I'm not a monarchist or a royalist. If I had my way, her majesty would be pensioned off to enjoy a well deserved retirement and we'd have an elected head of state with a role rather like the Irish President. As it happens, I think the Queen has done a good job and I fully accept that unless she actually wanted to retire, my suggestion would not be popular nationally. Having said that, I cannot possibly agree that a hereditary head of state is anything other than an anachronism in the year 2012. If there is to be a debate, the time for it will be when there is a vacancy for the job. I would like to see, at the very minimum, a referendum on Prince Charles taking over.

Many people say the monarchy are good for tourism. Sadly there are many things which are good for tourism, which would be better off not existing. There are tourist trips to the Battlefields of the Somme and many even far more grisely sites. Would anyone claim the first and second world war were good things because they created lots of tourist sites? Of course her majesty isn't a disaster in the way that the First and second world wars were. Only a fool would claim that. But it is crystal clear to anyone who studied history that the same cannot be said for her predecessors. If we look at the religious repression launched by monarchs such as Henry VIII, we can see the dangers of picking a leader by genetic lottery. Ultimately we've been lucky with Liz. Would we be so lucky again?

This brings us to what will happen when her Maj finally leaves the throne. Given her mum's gene's this could well be in 20 or even 30 years, given that she's shown no desire to retire. The next in line is Prince Charles. he is likely to be an old man by the time he steps forward. Then? Well at the moment it is Prince William in the hotseat. I am sure that Princess Kate is doing her best to provide a heir as we speak. But should something happen to Wills (which I hope to God it doesn't), then we could have King Harry.

What sort of King would King Henry IX be? Well if the current press coverage in the Sun is correct, like his namesake King Henry VIII, he has a bit of an eye for the ladies. What else do we know about him? Well he seems to have done a good job in his military career. He's certainly not shirked out of being in harms way. He seems like a jovial sort who generally brings mirth and merriment along with him (rather worryingly young Henry VIII had a similar public persona). He looks like he may actually be reasonably down to earth for a man raised with his background.

Which brings us to the current set of pictures in The Sun. I'm sure most of us have watched films about high jinx in Las Vegas. Those of us who enjoyed the film "The Hangover" are familiar with the plot. You go to Las Vegas, you get sloshed, you meet some pretty girls (who may or may not have the highest ethical standards) and all hell breaks loose. So what is the problem? Harry is a single man. Whatever happened, there was clearly no coercion and it seems like everyone had a marvellous time. Good for them all. Do I give a FF. Nope.

Last night before I went to bed we had  the sight of the slapped arse faced editor of The Sun, claiming that they had published pictures of Harry in the buff to defend free speech and out of public interest. This is complete and utter hogwash. They published them for one reason. To flog loads of papers. I hope it backfires spectacularly. I hope that The Sun looses all of it's readership. I don't want to see the Crown Jewels over my bowl of porridge. If they really want to stand up for press freedom, then publish the truth about their own practices in the phone hacking scandal. Who wants to see the pictures? I doubt anyone does and if they do, it is only for the yuck factor. If you go into any newsagent, you will see a whole stack of magazines on the top shelf full of naked women. How many do you see with naked men in? I don't think I've ever spoken to a women who would bother to look at pictures of naked blokes sitting on haystacks, given the choice between that and something a bit more interesting. That is not to say they don't enjoy erotic stimulation, they just don't get it in that way. Of course there is also they gay porn market. My gay friends take a different view to looking at the male form, but their tastes are, shall we say, a little bit more "active" in the porn photo shot market.

When it comes down to it, the hypocricy of The Sun sickens me. Who has forgotten that it was the direct actions of the papparrazi which killed Harry's mother. The poor sod has already had his life hugely damaged by the tabloid press. Now they won't leave the poor sod alone. The desks at News International are doubtlessly stuffed full of young men who'd love to fly over to Las Vegas, get pissed, pull a bevvy of beautiful women and have a party in the buff. 

Why can't they just lay off him. He may not be perfect, but he deserves a bit of privacy.

"Oh dear, this wasn't supposed to happen"

At the Sun, in Guido Fawkes smokey lair, and all over the country, the Tory right are rather perplexed. Gordon Brown WON A BYELECTION. In the past, IT WAS THE SUN WOT WON IT.

Well I happen to think this is true of the Glasgow election last night. Sure, it's a Labour safe seat, but at times like these, they fall. I happen to think that Labour turned out because they felt sorry for the unfair hammering Brown took for "Lettergate". The British don't like bullies and they don't like unfairness. The byelection was a strong message to "The Sun".

I happen to think that the only thing which will save Gordon's bacon is a really nasty spiteful and negative campaign. If I was rampaging Rupert, I'd call in my editors and tell them in no uncertain terms to lay off the poison. Trouble is, I don't think Big Rupe does nice. I was talking to a pollster earlier today and they said there are two things which should make Cameron worried. Firstly he's not really managed to push his poll ratings on from last year and secondly, thanks to The Sun, people who hate Brown's guts are feeling just a tad ashamed of the horrible treatment he's had.

It is quite interesting to read some of the contorted conspiracy theories in some of the more outlandish blogs "Brown deliberately sent it to someone he knew would tell The Sun, to get us all to feel sorry for him". Sorry guys, if old Gordon was that clever he'd be 15 points ahead in the polls.

I thought Portillos comment on this week summed it up. The Sun shouldn't have taken the grief of a bereaved mother to stoke up a campaign against the Prime Minister.

What made this country great was FAIR PLAY. Anything that goes against that will instantly turn off the vast majority of normal British people. A lesson for us all - The Sun, Peter Mandelson et all

Gordon Brown and The Sun - a dyslexic viewpoint

I haven't felt too sorry for Gordon Brown over any of the problems he's had with the press.  That was until yesterday when the story broke in The Sun over his virtually illiterate letter to the mother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan. You see, I read Mr Browns reply (as best I could) and I thought - there for the grace of god go I. I've no desire to be Prime Minister, so it's one problem I'm not going to have, but as a dyslexic educated in the 60's and 70's I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of harsh criticism when you've done your best, purely for appalling spelling, awful grammar and dismal punctuation.

I was hit with a ruler on more than one occasion by teachers for "deliberately" spelling words incorrectly. I'm sure that Gordon Brown decided that a hand written letter from the Prime Minister would be far more appreciated than a stock word processed letter with his signature. I've no idea whether he's dyslexic, but his letter has a few of the hallmarks. He's clearly an intelligent man, but like me his brain clearly has a problem with names and words. It isn't helped by appalling handwriting, but I doubt a non dyslexic with his education and job would spell in that manner.

I get my wife to fill in all the forms I have to send off. I always get them wrong. Is it because I'm lazy or not careful? No. It's because if your brain tells you that's how it should be, that's how it should be. Ok you say, surely Gordon Brown should have a civil servant to read it before it's sent? Well hang on, it's supposed to be a private letter of condolence. What would the Sun say if it found out that "Gordon Brown is dyslexic and needs to pay a civil servant to read all his private letters". I say shame on The Sun for using a private matter for such horrible political ends. This whole issue is about trying to belittle Gordon Brown. I'd like to see whether The Sun feels it's inappropriate to use peoples disabilities against them? If it does then it is breaking the law. Let's just have a look at a few famous people, who've made a huge difference to their country :-

Winston Churchill - Alchoholic & Manic depressive
Franklyn D. Roosevelt - Virtual cripple.
Joan of Arc - Schizophrenic

All national icons, in the eyes of many, national saviours. Lord save us from becoming a nation where only the perfect are allowed to succeed. What message does it send to all of those kids out there struggling with dyslexia - "Keep your heads down, don't be too successful, because you've got an achillies heel that your enemies can destroy you with" - before I started writing this blog, I never wrote anything (apart from song lyrics) after I left school. When the Barnet Times asked me to write I blog, I was actually rather nervous about the concept. When I found people wanted to read it I was truly amazed. What I found was that people didn't care about the appalling use of English. They liked the fact that I was saying things no one else seemed to want to say. As a result others started having their say as well. Just as they say "don't judge a book by it's cover" I'd say don't judge anything by the handwriting or the spelling. What is the person trying to say? I wish I had the elegant prose of a Wilfred Owen, the wit of William Shakespeare or the dry humour of Stephen Fry. I haven't, but people still read the blog and get what I have to say (hopefully).  That's why I just can't stand by and say nothing about the crucifixion of Gordon Brown for his letter. I hope that this clobbers the Sun and  it's circulation figures. I think that the editor should be truly ashamed. I'm not going to criticise the mother of the soldier. She clearly has been deeply scarred and holds Brown responsible. She's just hitting back in any way she can. The Sun however are exploiting this to sell newspapers and it makes me sick.

There are plenty of reasons to have a go at Gordon Brown. His inability to write a letter of condolence is not one of them.

The Sun backs Matthew Offord - Hendon's new Reggie Blair !

Exciting news from The Hendon  Conservatives website. The site has claimed that the political editor of The Sun has given his personal endorsement to The Hendon Conservative Candidate Matthew Offord. I'd love to put the nice picture of Matthew Offord and The Sun's Political Editor George Pascoe Watson on here, but unfortunately the Hendon Conservatives don't let me use their pictures. so you'll have to make do with the old Captain Useless one instead.Now clearly this political endorsement is a defining moment in Matthew Offords campaign, so I thought I'd Google "The Sun backs Matthew Offord". Erm, actually no endorsement popped up (except on the Hendon Tories website). It appears that the Sun has endorsed Matthew Offord rather like Lemmy from Motorhead once endorsed my guitar playing. I stood next to him at the bar at Dingwalls during a Vibrators gig. He's a friendly chap and we had a brief chat where I said I liked his music and I played in a band. Lemmy said "Great".

Interestingly enough, the little story on the Hendon Tories website doesn't actually have a quote from Mr Pascoe Watson. Maybe he reads this blog and he knows that Matthew Offord is the guy responsible for organising the contractors at Aerodrome Road, and so was a bit reticent. Here's how Matthew boasted about setting up the Aerodrome Road contracts on the Hendon Conservatives website, before it went Titanic. Sadly, under Matthews leadership, it all went wrong and ended up costing £11 million more than expected. Shortly before the full extent of the overrun was announced, Offord changed jobs and has gone round blaming the new guy in the job, Councillor Andrew Harper.

Another exciting story on the website is about Matthew Offords trip to Old Trafford. Now as a City fan, I find the whole concept of Old Trafford repellent enough without Matthew Offord being there. Thankfully Matthew spared us any of his pearls of wisdom about football, other than than to say that the entire voting populace of Hendon Constituency could fit in the ground. Interestingly enough, should Matthew win the Hendon seat, he'll be the first Conservative holder of this seat since 1935 when Reggie Blair was the MP. Now clearly Reggie Blair was well before my time, but I must confess that the name conjoured up an interesting image. A cross between Reggie Kray and Tony Blair. Can you imagine it "Basically, I'm a straight sort of guy, and if you say any different you'll be sleeping with the fishes"

Lastly on our little tour of Matthew Offord's website, we hear that he's put himself at the forefront of Barnet's campaign to "beat the burglars". Is it any coincidence that there's been a spate of burglaries locally? One of them was at the house of a friend of mine, who lives 2 doors from former Mayor Maureen Braun. Let me tell you a little story about how effective our local anti burglar initiative is. When my friend's house was robbed, we did  a quick search of the fields out the back. of his house We found a B and O TV, worth over £5,000 stashed for collection later, hidded under a coat behind a tree. We also found that 16 homes backing on to the field had been robbed in a 2 week period. We reported the find to the police and suggested that they stake out the area. They responded that we should bring the TV and they'd get someone round to test it for fingerprints. It seems that it was "not practical" to stake out the area. I hope that his plan to stake out the A5 for burglars is a stunning success. From my friends experience, it is not a nice thing to happen. I'd suggest that anyone who is concerned about community safety and burglary contact Matthew. He's a very nice pleasant amenable chap. He's always pleased to talk to constituents, especially the younger members of the community. You can get in touch with any of of your Barnet Councillors through this page. Just click on their name. They are elected to help you and to make the borough a better place and they are all keen to do a good job to justify the allowances they receive.

Do you think Rupert Murdoch and the Sun have visited Barnet Recently

"The Sun" has come out in favour of the Conservative party. Let me remind you of what the Party Rupert Murdoch supports has done in Barnet, where it has power.
* Imposed a budget cut to abolish Sheltered Housing Wardens for the Borough's Elderly and Infirm
* Spent millions on consultants to write reports about reports about reports, none of which seem to lead anywhere
* Lost £27.4 million by borrowing money to invest in high interest accounts in Icelandic banks, which went bust
* Spent £15,000 on Tellies for senior Council officers
* Increased allowances for Councillors so that they now cost over £1 Million
* Overspent by £11 million on the £12 million Aerodrome Road Bridge project, leaving another huge hole in Council reserves
* Used depleted reserves to artificially keep Council Tax low, in the year before an election, despite describing the previous Lib/Lab administration as "criminally negligent" for doing the same
* Spent taxpayers money to put  video clips of people making neo-nazi statements on You Tube, proclaiming anti-semitic propaganda. (This was only removed following pressure from the Bloggers of Barnet)
* Spent Taxpayers money sending Council Leader Mike Freer and former CEO Leo Boland on jollies to America.
* Spent Taxpayers money sending Council officers on Jollies to the South of France to attend "property development conferences".
* Raised Council tax by levels many times higher than inflation
* Raised the cost of burying dead babies by many times the rate of inflation, hitting bereaved parents where it hurts at their most vulnerable time possible
* Used Taxpayers cash to launch a standards complaint against a solicitor representing the elderly and disabled of Barnet, purely for doing too good a job

What sort of people are running the Conservative Party in Barnet?

Council Leader Mike Freer - Describes his opponents as Nutters and claims they masturbate while criticising him, during a recorded interview (podcast) as Council leader

Mayor of Barnet, Brian Coleman -  The first Mayor of Barnet to be found guilty of a breach of the Standards Code whilst in office. What did he do about this to make amends? He went on a Champagne fuelled binge to celebrate

Hendon Parliamentary Candidate, Former Deputy Leader Matthew Offord. Boasted about arranging Contractors for Aerodrome Road on the Hendon Conservatives website. Those contractors were responsible for the £11 Million cost overrun. As Cabinet Member for community safety has allowed areas of the Borough to become no go zones.

Deputy Leader Lynn Hillan  - Claims that Barnet Council listens to residents. Ignored the 85% of residents who took part in the Sheltered Housing Warden consultation who said "Keep our wardens". According to Councillor Hillan "We know best"

And then there's the Tory Councillor who described the whole of the Labour group as freaks, there's the one who said "residents expect us to wipe their arses" (forgetting that many Council carers do just that for the disabled), and the one who said he didn't want to talk to elderly residents who are facing the loss of their wardens because "it was too upsetting".

I must confess I don't know any of the Tory Councillors too well. I can't tell you what they are really like, but the man they chose as Mayor, Brian Coleman said they are all completely self obsessed, whilst under oath, talking  to a standards investigator. And how does Mr Coleman view himself? I'll leave the last word to him. This is what he said about the Tories picking him as Mayor (this is bottom of page 8 in his witness statement).