Right-wing media outlets have long suggested that Jeremy Corbyn’s ideas appeal only to a tiny minority of hard-left fantasists. But now, after numerous successes for Corbyn, even the Telegraph has admitted that the popularity of his economic policies (or ‘Corbynomics’) is growing. And this recognition is sending the paper even further into panic mode.
From condescending dismissal to the electoral shock of 2017
When Corbyn entered the 2015 Labour Party leadership contest, critics dismissed him as a fringe figure. And when he won, they deemed it ‘common sense’ that he would lead his party to electoral oblivion. Blairite MPs then aggressively attempted to remove him, and Tony Blair himself penned an infamous column in the Guardian painting Corbyn’s supporters as deluded.
Labour’s position on nuclear weapons has hit the headlines this week, after Piers Morgan and shadow chancellor John McDonnell clashed on air. But one video from 2016 exposes the attacks from the right-wing media for the smears they are.
On 24 September, shadow chancellor John McDonnell confirmed that a Labour government would keep the UK’s nuclear arsenal. He said, however, that as prime minister Jeremy Corbyn would only use it in consultation with the cabinet, parliament, and the “wider community”.
On 25 September, US President Donald Trump gave a speech at the annual gathering of the UN General Assembly. Whereas during last year’s meeting he laid out his ‘America First’ vision, this year he decided to use his speech as an opportunity to brag about his administration’s ‘achievements’. But almost as soon as he began his boasting, his preposterous claims were met with open laughter by the audience. And Twitter has since erupted in mockery.
About 120 world leaders gathered at the UN headquarters in New York City for the event. And just two sentences into Trump’s speech, many of them started laughing at the absurdity of its content. He said:
In a Twitter video, Jeremy Corbyn has announced plans to bring water provision back into public ownership. Corbyn pledged to end private “regional monopolies” that he said “put profits before people”:
This September marks 10 years since the collapse of Lehman Brothers when the banking giant filed for bankruptcy. And with over $600bn in assets, it is still the largest bankruptcy filing in US history.
Lehman’s fall became a defining symbol of the financial crash. It’s a stark example of the financial industry’s shady dealings and the hopeless failure of governments to regulate it properly.
It was recently revealed that the US has been in contact with dissident Venezuelan military personnel about the possibility of aiding an internal coup. The revelation should come as a surprise to no one, but analyzing its broader context is illuminating. The focus on “regime change” in Venezuela, when contrasted with the treatment dealt to other countries in the region and elsewhere, opens a revealing window into the cynical motives and double standards of US foreign policy.
On 8 September, an article in the New York Times reported that Trump administration officials have held secret meetings with disaffected Venezuelan military officers. They discussed launching a US-backed coup against the beleaguered government of President Nicolás Maduro. The article revealed that a backchannel was established in the autumn of 2017 to arrange the covert meetings.
On September 5, the New York Times published an op-ed article by an anonymous member of President Donald Trump’s government. Titled “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration“, it describes how “many of the senior officials in [Trump’s] own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations”. The author states bluntly: “I would know. I am one of them”.
Erratic and amoral
They add that meetings with Trump frequently “veer off topic and off the rails” and degenerate into “repetitive rants” that result in “half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions”. In addition to expressing the frustration that his erratic and impulsive pattern of behaviour causes to those around him, the author also characterizes his boss as ‘amoral’ – lacking in any clear, defining first principles on which to ground policy. His leadership style, meanwhile, is described as “impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective”.