Tariq Ali on 'The Corbyn Factor'

This popped up on my Facebook page and I thought it was worth sharing. I hope Tariq won't mind me posting it here.

THE CORBYN FACTOR

As Stalin discovered early on in his political career the last thing he needed was inner-party democracy. It appears that the bulk of the PLP, virtually every ghastly pundit from the Tory idol, Ganesh in the FT, to Pollyfiller Toynbee in The Guardian, Murdoch's minions, all with with a sprinkling of bland Runciman sauce and even worse ingredients are horrified by this experiment in party democracy. It works so well in the US primary system and the French Socialists used it to elbow aside candidates marginally more left than Sarkozy. The operative word is marginally. So why not England. This is not so much the Mediterranean effect, but the Scottish one. England's youth are repeating the Scottish experience albeit within the framework of the LP. Would it have happened had JC not stood? Abandon the thought. The commentariat trying to boost the creepy Cooper is comical beyond belief. Blair's ghoulish appearances have been helpful.

The best thing possible if/when JC wins would be a mass desertion of Labour-Libs and Lab-Tories to their real homes. A single party that unites the Extreme Centre is in their best interests. What would speed the process is further democratisation by restoring the rights that the Blairites confiscated from CLPs. They should be allowed to choose their own candidates and not have them removed or imposed by the NEC. Once this is in place then they can elect the Shadow Cabinet or whatever. Once this is implemented the Labour-Tories will leave or split. They're unlikely to do the decent thing UKIP-style and force by-elections because they'll be scared of losing though not all will. So if they think that the programme of measures outlined by the JC Left are too ultra, why not let the electorate decide in a mini-election?

If JC loses which I hope he doesn't then the choice depends on our side. A continuing campaign on these issues is fine but does not offer a medium term solution. For who will represent these forces in parliament. JC and the dozen or so MPs who really support him? Of course but that is not enough. Try and win next time? But the Blairites and Brownites (b&b's) are bound to end the democratic experiment . I think this excellent campaign has shown the Labour Left the direction they should be taking with the unions who want a different route map. When structures are outdated new foundations have to be laid. It's a big leap forward, but has to be discussed openly.

Meanwhile, fingers crossed.

Leveson: Green Party wants conscience clause, union representation and action on concentration of press ownership

 The Green Party has welcomed many aspects of the Leveson report, while expressing disappointment that there was little in it to practically address the concentration of ownership in the press.

 Green Party leader Natalie Bennett said the call from Lord Justice Leveson for a new independent self-regulatory body, with the majority of its board comprising non-industry representatives and no serving editors, was a step forward.

 "We would welcome the creation of independent oversight with majority civil society involvement.”

"But although there is the call for independent regulation here, the mechanism suggested is indirect, clunky and open to subversion, rather than the direct creation of an independent body along the lines of Ireland's Press Council. There's also no reference to union representation, which would provide an important expert, hands-on view within the new regulatory body."

 Natalie said that although the call for the new regulator to run a whistle-blowing hotline, and for a "conscience clause" to be inserted in journalists' contracts of employment was positive, the judge had failed to recommend direct action to ensure this happened.

"The NUJ has long been calling for journalists to be protected if they refuse to act in manners they consider unethical, and it is essential for a future decent, independent press that this right is provided."

 Natalie also welcomed the judge's call for a legal duty for the freedom of the press to be enshrined in law, which is not currently the case. She said: "Whilst the Leveson inquiry has rightly focused a spotlight on inappropriate and outright illegal behaviour by the press, we must never forget that a tenacious, questioning, independent press has in the past served Britain well, from the Sunday Times thalidomide campaign, to the Guardian's exposure of Jonathan Aitkin.

"This must be preserved and protected, and Leveson has rightly made his opposition to government regulation clear right from the start."

 Natalie also welcomed the judge's recognition that the public was rightly suspicious of close relations between press and politicians when it came to lobbying about media issues.

"He was right to say that this undermines public trust and confidence, and his call for transparency in the form of registration of lobbying contacts was a good one, and potentially revolutionary, insetting a model that could be used across other industries and sectors. Registration of lobbyists is something the Green Party has long been calling for and this report provides a real opportunity to return to that broader issue."

 The Green Party's chief criticism of the report is in the area of media ownership. While the judge makes a strong statement about the importance of plurality, he fails to make a direct recommendation for action, or taken board submissions made to him about limits for media concentration.  Natalie said:

"His call for greater transparency when ministers consider whether or not to refer a media merger to the competition authorities on plurality grounds is welcome, but does not go far enough. An independent regulator or overseer should have the power to make this referral."