Labour "ruling elite" "worried sick" about Jeremy Corbyn says Len McCluskey

[claig]

"Unite's Len McCluskey said "an enormous surge" of people wanted to take part after Mr Corbyn was confirmed as running "because people are inspired".

Mr McCluskey accused the "ruling elite" of "trying to rubbish" Mr Corbyn.
...
He said that those who thought Mr Corbyn was "marginalised" should "watch this space".

"I know the people who will be uncomfortable, despite the fact that they are saying the opposite - and that's the ruling elite," he said.

"They try and rubbish it, they try to turn it into a joke, but secretly they will be worried sick that ordinary people are suddenly given something to inspire them and something to link onto," Mr McCluskey said."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33504201

Good luck Jeremy Corbyn. Real democracy that ruins the plans of Labour's "ruling elite".

Because they thought he was the best of a bad bunch, better than the pointless pontificating posturing pretentious politically correct Labour politicians.

And you don't think Corbyn is politically correct?

UKIP got 4 million votes, I think Labour only got 8 million. UKIP is a newcomer, branded "fruitcakes" by every PPE, progressive and politician in the land. Give it time and UKIP will win more seats. It is only our unrepresntative electoral voting system that has denied 4 million people adequate representation.

So politically correct discredited Labour got twice as many votes as UKIP at their high water mark - with visibility on TV, adverts, huge vested interest support, a newspaper with 1 million readership cheerleading them and they still can't win more than one seat? I agree with you that we have an unrepresentative voting system - however that democracy that you love so much rejected an alternative. An alternative I campaigned for, I might add. You apparently do no campaigning for your political beliefs other than putting people off on mumsnet.

No, not all of them. Some of them think like you, but my guess is that the majority of them think like me and that I am nore in touch than Burnham, Blair and the rest of them. No I have never canvassed - too boring, have better things to do with my time than work for a parachuted in Oxbridge graduate who will do what the whips say if they get in.

I think if you canvassed you'd quickly realise most people are far more sensible than that and are concerned about their health, their jobs, their wages and the physical environment they live in - green spaces, litter etc. Those are the things I hear mentioned so those are things I think we should concentrate on.

Not to all our ills, he can't make us win Eurovision, but he will give it his best shot, that's for sure. Farage speaks common sense that is why people vote for him, and in a time of recession and high unemployment, allowing the potential arrival of millions of EU citizens to work here will harm the job prospects of the unemployed.

Yes exactly - you've come round to see that Farage's stance on immigration was they key factor in his success, rather than his image.

I beg your very pardon, I never contradict myself unless I explicitly wish to confound a progressive and a moderniser. Farage's policies are common sense so by definition they are anti-establishment and pro the people. That's not contradiction, that's common sense

I don't think his policies are that common sense. I.e. grammar schools, inheritance tax, stance on the NHS etc.

Because the powers that be wanted to take the country to war and Blair went to war and the press repaid him by boosting him up and making Hague seem like an idiot etc. Hs first election, in his "Bambi" stage, was a landslide because Tories like me voted for change because we couldn't take any more Tory sleaze after 18 years of the PPEs.

So on the one hand, the public you like so much can see right through spin. On the other hand they're all morons who were tricked by the press. Which is it? Maybe people are more intelligent than you give them credit for and liked Blair's policies.

I thought I had made that obvious. I am a student of the Daily Mail. If you really want to help Labour, then study and learn from the Daily Mail, don't waste your time with Toynbee because she doesn't influence the masses.

You're a student of the Daily Mail but you don't think people are concerned about immigration, house prices & bin collections, but do care a lot about f**in wind turbines. OK.

'And you don't think Corbyn is politically correct?'

Of course he is politically correct but I think the public will not care about that aspect because he will solve problems that concern them more.

'So politically correct discredited Labour got twice as many votes'

Yes because they are Establishment

'So on the one hand, the public you like so much can see right through spin. On the other hand they're all morons who were tricked by the press. Which is it?'

The public can't stop the elite (unless they vote for Farage). 2 million people marched against the war and Blair and his band of modernisers ignored them.

'You're a student of the Daily Mail but you don't think people are concerned about immigration, house prices & bin collections, but do care a lot about f**in wind turbines. OK.'

I am at postgraduate level on the Daily Mail, and they are interested in those things (I didn't read your initial comment correctly, I thought you were doing the usual Blairite dismissal of the Mail and I jumped in to defend the people's paper without a snorkel and without reading your comment), but they are also concerned about the Ministry of Silly Walks spin about wind turbines because they don't want to be governed by idiots which is why they turned to Farage in their droves.

Of course he is politically correct but I think the public will not care about that aspect because he will solve problems that concern them more.

But Cameron won on a platform practically diametrically opposed to Corbyn's stated policy aims, so I'm not seeing how he will these extra people over.

It thought political correctness tainted politicians so much so that all their ideas are discredited? Isn't that your thing?

Yes because they are Establishment

I thought the people hated the establishment, that's why they were all going to vote UKIP...until they didn't.

The public can't stop the elite (unless they vote for Farage). 2 million people marched against the war and Blair and his band of modernisers ignored them.

2 million people marched against the war but the majority of people backed the war at the time in opinion polls. It was a giant mistake - but just because people march doesn't mean an entire country was united against it (they weren't).

I am at postgraduate level on the Daily Mail, and they are interested in those things (I didn't read your initial comment correctly, I thought you were doing the usual Blairite dismissal of the Mail and I jumped in to defend the people's paper without a snorkel and without reading your comment), but they are also concerned about the Ministry of Silly Walks spin about wind turbines because they don't want to be governed by idiots which is why they turned to Farage in their droves.

Haha thanks for that claig. Again you're claiming people flocked to Farage because of his image, not his policies. But I disagree, Farage's policies on immigration and the EU are manna from heaven for the DM's readers, that's why they perceive him to be "common sense" and intelligent, because he says what they want to hear.

'so I'm not seeing how he will these extra people over.'

You're not seeing it because you are aBlairite and ar ot of touch with labour party membes, UKIP voters and Tory members. You're in touch with the Establishment and that is about it. Corbyn will return power to working people, resinstate union rights, solve the housing problem and renationalise many of our industries and services. The whole country wants that apart from Blair and the Establishment.

'I thought political correctness tainted politicians so much so that all their ideas are discredited? Isn't that your thing?'

My thing is UKIP and yes the whole metropolitan elite is already discredited in most people's eyes apart from the Blairites and the Establishment. But we have to be realistic and there are issues that are more important than political correctness. The people can put up with some Ministry of Silly Walks, one or two wind turbines provided they are not too big and are taking the piss and some political correctness as long as more immportant issues are solved.

'I thought the people hated the establishment, that's why they were all going to vote UKIP...until they didn't.'

Not all of them. labour voters trusted the Establishment, they thought the Oxbridge team would help them but they lost and now Labour have come to their senses. the oxbridge team are on the backfoot, unions are back and are calling Blairism "a virus" and Labour members are rebelling and realising they have been done up like a kipper by servants of the Establishment. They have joined the UKIP millions in realising they were conned. Soon they will rebel against the "rooftop wind turbines" too. Everybody in teh country is rooting for Corbyn except the Blairites and the elite.

'but the majority of people backed the war at the time in opinion polls'

I don't trust those polls, the Establishment probably had a word with some of the people conducting them.

'but just because people march doesn't mean an entire country was united against it (they weren't).'

The marches in England were some of the biggest if not the biggest against the war in the whole of Europe. When that many people turn out to march, you can bet your Blairite boots that there are millions more behind them supporting their views who did not turn out to march. Of course Blair and the band ignored them, what do you expect?

You are right Farage is "manna from heaven", on that point we can agree.

'Is Corbyn now unstoppable? Two more unions back leftwinger to be leader as the 'antidote' to the Blairite 'virus' in Labour

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3180043/Is-Corbyn-unstoppable-Two-unions-leftwinger-leader-antidote-Blairite-poison-Labour.html

This is brilliant, this is amazing, a 100-1 outsider tronucing the golden kids of New Labour, trouncing the Blairites, the swearites and the stalactites. This is historic, bigger than Farage and UKIP. This is the people rising and throwing off their chains, ignoring the siren voices of the servants of the system urging them to "modernise or die, to fall for the elite's austerity lie. This is the writing on the wall that everything is about to change, that the con game of the elites is over, that their servants have been unmasked and that the people want change.

It would be churlish not to support what is happening, it would be against the people not to applaud at the Labour members who have finally woken up and seen the light and who are determined to kick the spinners out and do what the entire country thinks is right.

Raise your glass to Corbyn in every pub in the land, Blairism has come to nothing, like dust in the desert sand.

The last gasp of the elites, the last throw of the dice of the Blairites, the last attempt to stop the people. If it happens, Labour will be finished forever, cast into oblivion by the arrogance and contempt of the elites

'Labour leader: Corbyn win 'could spark David Miliband return'

Former Foreign Secretary could take Westminster seat, ready to step in and replace Corbyn, Blairites suggest'

www.theweek.co.uk/labour-leader/62858/labour-leader-corbyn-win-could-spark-david-miliband-return

Jeremy Corbyn is the most popular candidate for Labour leader among local constituency groups, according to the latest party nomination figures.

He is backed by 152 constituency parties, with Andy Burnham in second place with 111, then Yvette Cooper with 106 and Liz Kendall with 18.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33745731

golly gee what will happen next!!

You can fool some people sometimes
But you can't fool all the people all the time
So now we see the light
We gonna stand up for our right

You're not seeing it because you are aBlairite and ar ot of touch with labour party membes, UKIP voters and Tory members. You're in touch with the Establishment and that is about it. Corbyn will return power to working people, resinstate union rights, solve the housing problem and renationalise many of our industries and services. The whole country wants that apart from Blair and the Establishment.

Claig, you loved Maggie Thatcher who decimated union rights. Liz Kendall has repeatedly stood up for Union rights, as well as every other candidate. If you think immigration is to blame for the housing crisis (as Farage does), why do you think Corbyn will fix it? And the whole country clearly doesn't want that as rather than voting for the Greens/Ukip, they voted for the Conservatives last election.

My thing is UKIP and yes the whole metropolitan elite is already discredited in most people's eyes apart from the Blairites and the Establishment. But we have to be realistic and there are issues that are more important than political correctness. The people can put up with some Ministry of Silly Walks, one or two wind turbines provided they are not too big and are taking the piss and some political correctness as long as more immportant issues are solved.

So because you like Corbyn he doesn't get the metropolitan elite flannel.

Not all of them. labour voters trusted the Establishment, they thought the Oxbridge team would help them but they lost and now Labour have come to their senses. the oxbridge team are on the backfoot, unions are back and are calling Blairism "a virus" and Labour members are rebelling and realising they have been done up like a kipper by servants of the Establishment. They have joined the UKIP millions in realising they were conned. Soon they will rebel against the "rooftop wind turbines" too. Everybody in teh country is rooting for Corbyn except the Blairites and the elite.

So really, the majority of voters backed the establishment parties. And Corbyn is polling badly outside the Labour membership & in the seats we need to win in.

I don't trust those polls, the Establishment probably had a word with some of the people conducting them.

I know, you only believe things that agree with you.

The marches in England were some of the biggest if not the biggest against the war in the whole of Europe. When that many people turn out to march, you can bet your Blairite boots that there are millions more behind them supporting their views who did not turn out to march. Of course Blair and the band ignored them, what do you expect?

60 million people in a country with 2 million marching proves nothing - except that the war was divisive. And a mistake. But supported at the time - even if it very quickly went south.

"Claig, you loved Maggie Thatcher who decimated union rights."

Absolutely because at the time that was what was needed, the union barons had got too powerful and had overplayed their hand. But there was a programme on Heath (whom I don't like) the other day on BBC Parliament and of course it had Thatcher in it, and nearly every Conservative man and woman MP and candidate interviewed preferred Heath to Thatcher and thought Thatcher was the wrong choice. Watching that programme, I realised what it was about Thatcher that won her elections. Thatcher was our first politician who was for the "middle class", on our side, with our values, with our aspirations and our work ethic and our wish for a meritocratic society that would offer us prosperity and social mobility. We had never had that before - there was Labour for the miners and the working class and the Tory grandees for the upper class. Thatcher was a revolutionary, a shopkeeper's daughter who stood shoulder to shoulder with us, the middle class.

'Liz Kendall has repeatedly stood up for Union rights, as well as every other candidate.'

Then why have the unions abandoned them and backed Corbyn in great number? Don't you understand that the unions and Labour Party members are belatedly seeing what UKIP voters in the People's Army saw so long before, that no one trusts a word the Oxbridge teams say because they work for the Establishment and not the people?

'If you think immigration is to blame for the housing crisis (as Farage does), why do you think Corbyn will fix it?'

I don't think immigration is to blame for the housing crisis, i think it is lack of housebuilding that is the problem and I think that a real socialist will fix the problem by investing in housebuilding instead of quantitative easing for bankers.

'And the whole country clearly doesn't want that as rather than voting for the Greens/Ukip, they voted for the Conservatives last election.'

The Greens don't stand a chance, but UKIP does, however Rome was not built in one day, the PPEs will not be swept away in just one day. But the rise of the Greens and UKIP and Farage and now Corbyn are all signs that the people are restless, that they have had enough and that change is not far off any longer.

'So because you like Corbyn he doesn't get the metropolitan elite flannel.'

No, Corbyn isn't metropolitan elite because all of the metropolitan elite and media are aginst him - every PPE, every fat cat bigwig on a taxpayer salary of more than £100,000, every Labour charidee appointee in receipt of taxpayer grants, Blair, his acolytes, Polly Toynbee etc etc. The only ones who are with Corbyn are the people and the unions. That is why Corbyn is not metropolitan elite. Corbyn is politically correct, unlike Farage, and therefore Corbyn shares some of the elite's political correctness, but he is not metropolitan elite because they are panicking at the prospect of a Corbyn leadership because they know that will mean that their entire game is up.

'So really, the majority of voters backed the establishment parties. And Corbyn is polling badly outside the Labour membership & in the seats we need to win in.'

The majority always back the establishment because change is slow to come, Rome was not built in one day, it will take more than one day to sweep the PPEs away. It is the farsighted, the perceptive, the switched on (i.e. UKIP voters and above all Farage) who are first to read the tea leaves and realise what has gone wrong and how things are going to change.

'I know, you only believe things that agree with you.'

No, unlike you I don't believe the polls, I don't believe yougov, I don't believe what people say to you on the doorstep to be polite to a bright-eyed progressive working for Blairites - when they shut the door on you, that is when they say what they really think. I know that there is a hidden sign of what they really think and that is evidenced by the rise of the Greens, Farage and Corbyn. The polls are behind the people, we are way in front, just like we were when we voted for Thatcher and nearly every Tory MP and bigwig preferred Heath.

'60 million people in a country with 2 million marching proves nothing'

You sound like Blair, were you on the payroll? Where did you get your PPE?

Alyosha,

First on the war, the marches show that the war was not wanted by an awful lot of people - perhaps a majority at the time. The number of people that can vote is closer to 30 million than 60 million and 2 million on a march is big statement. To commit troops to war is about the most important decision that a PM can make. Blair went to war on a false premise, British lives have been lost as a consequence and it was a massive, massive mistake. It has tainted his legacy and it was all so unnecessary. In addition, he has helped to create ICIS by removing a stable (if unsavoury) regime in the region. Labour should accept and apologise for this mistake.

Secondly, in general, Corbyn represents something different (like UKIP). The other candidates look like identikit careerist politicians and do not and will not connect with the 75% who are not interested in politics. Corbyn is an authentic man of principle - a rare thing in today's political world. Good luck to him. As a voter, I would love to have a real choice to make - the wishy washy, mealy mouthed Blairites do not give me a choice. If Burnham, Cooper or the other one wins, all you are choosing is who you would like to manage the economy. Labour will never win on that score after the Brown years. At least with Corbyn there will be a choice to make and I suggest that the millions of unrepresented voters who were once Labours core constituency (i.e. the white working class) might just start to vote Labour again - instead of UKIP.

When the leadership race started, Corbyn was a joke candidate, Oxbridge teams rolled on the floor laughing, Corbyn had odds of 100-1.

There is no more laughter in elite clubs and dining establishments (where taxpayer money flows freely). The pollsters got it wrong, they don't understand the people. They all laughed at Farage and then they laughed at Corbyn, but now it is the people's turn to laugh at them.

Absolutely because at the time that was what was needed, the union barons had got too powerful and had overplayed their hand. But there was a programme on Heath (whom I don't like) the other day on BBC Parliament and of course it had Thatcher in it, and nearly every Conservative man and woman MP and candidate interviewed preferred Heath to Thatcher and thought Thatcher was the wrong choice. Watching that programme, I realised what it was about Thatcher that won her elections. Thatcher was our first politician who was for the "middle class", on our side, with our values, with our aspirations and our work ethic and our wish for a meritocratic society that would offer us prosperity and social mobility. We had never had that before - there was Labour for the miners and the working class and the Tory grandees for the upper class. Thatcher was a revolutionary, a shopkeeper's daughter who stood shoulder to shoulder with us, the middle class.

So you fell for her image, is that what you're saying? What is the appropriate amount of power for Unions to have - do you have an idea? Thatcher left this country more unequal and less meritocratic than ever, a country where who you are rather than what you've done propels you to the top.

Then why have the unions abandoned them and backed Corbyn in great number? Don't you understand that the unions and Labour Party members are belatedly seeing what UKIP voters in the People's Army saw so long before, that no one trusts a word the Oxbridge teams say because they work for the Establishment and not the people?

Because Corbyn has policies on renationalisation that they like. If Corbyn wins, the consequent poll drops for Labour will probably nudge the Unions into realising that perhaps their gamble has backfired - let's hope he doesn't win and we get a Labour government in 2020 that will protect the few remaining powers Unions have.

I don't think immigration is to blame for the housing crisis, i think it is lack of housebuilding that is the problem and I think that a real socialist will fix the problem by investing in housebuilding instead of quantitative easing for bankers.

The real problem is that the houses need to be where people want them, i.e. in London. Of course before BoJo was elected, Ken Livingstone demanded 50% affordable or 30% social let in all new builds. I actually think it's the rise of mortgage finance which has propelled this country into a situation where young people can no longer afford to buy...in the South east, at least. That and buy-to-let - and of course, right to buy. The brainchild of your one true love, Maggie T.

The Greens don't stand a chance, but UKIP does, however Rome was not built in one day, the PPEs will not be swept away in just one day. But the rise of the Greens and UKIP and Farage and now Corbyn are all signs that the people are restless, that they have had enough and that change is not far off any longer.

Corbyn is polling badly outside the Labour party, the Tories are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of him being elected. And again - why is it that you think UKIP will bring about heaven on earth - a party devoted to making the rich richer and the poor poorer, even more so than the current Tory party!

No, Corbyn isn't metropolitan elite because all of the metropolitan elite and media are aginst him - every PPE, every fat cat bigwig on a taxpayer salary of more than £100,000, every Labour charidee appointee in receipt of taxpayer grants, Blair, his acolytes, Polly Toynbee etc etc. The only ones who are with Corbyn are the people and the unions. That is why Corbyn is not metropolitan elite. Corbyn is politically correct, unlike Farage, and therefore Corbyn shares some of the elite's political correctness, but he is not metropolitan elite because they are panicking at the prospect of a Corbyn leadership because they know that will mean that their entire game is up.

Why do you hate charities so much? I think you'll find the Tory media is cock a hoop at the thought of a Corbyn win. The Labour party is concerned because we know - from the lessons of Michael Foot - that sadly the public do not want and do not like pure left wing socialist policies. More's the pity. A Corbyn leadership means 1983 levels of support.

No, unlike you I don't believe the polls, I don't believe yougov, I don't believe what people say to you on the doorstep to be polite to a bright-eyed progressive working for Blairites - when they shut the door on you, that is when they say what they really think. I know that there is a hidden sign of what they really think and that is evidenced by the rise of the Greens, Farage and Corbyn. The polls are behind the people, we are way in front, just like we were when we voted for Thatcher and nearly every Tory MP and bigwig preferred Heath.

Really? Because I actually got it wrong, a majority of people did oppose the Iraq War www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/287/Iraq-The-Last-PreWar-Polls.aspx - my memory was faulty. Do you now believe Ipsos was lying and actually people wanted to go to war?

You sound like Blair, were you on the payroll? Where did you get your PPE?

You're right that I shouldn't have dismissed 2 million people marching as nothing, as I was wrong. But I really dislike your anti-intellectual posturing, which wound me up.

'So you fell for her image, is that what you're saying?'

No, she was on our side, on the side of the middle class.

'Because Corbyn has policies on renationalisation that they like.'

Corbyn will also reverse the anti trade union policies that Blair and his band of po-faced progressives did nothing to reverse over 13 years' misrule.

'The real problem is that the houses need to be where people want them, i.e. in London'

That is a Blairite argument. People want houses everywhere - in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle too and the prices are too high for young people everywhere and a national house building programme will bring down prices everywhere and improve people's lives everywhere.

'Corbyn is polling badly outside the Labour party, the Tories are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of him being elected.'

That is because most ordinary voters have never even heard of Corbyn when asked on Channel 4 News. But when they find out how he will help them, then he will poll a lot higher than the Blairite Oxbridge team of Establishment servants.

'And again - why is it that you think UKIP will bring about heaven on earth'

Because UKIP are the People's Army, the rebellion of the people against the out of touch elites - UKIP are of the people, for the people, by the people.

'Why do you hate charities so much?'

I don't hate real charities, but what I am against is Labour luvvies and the failed out of touch political class being paid huge salaries and expenses in charidee roles and supporting charidees such as wind turbine ones, or ones that hand money in paper envelopes to children dropped off in cars who turn up once a week for handouts, with our public taxpayer money without asking us if we agree with their expenses. Even the Bilderberg Group has a charity. I supported George Osborne in his attempt to reign in some of the phoney charidees that luvvies staff and that get taxpayer handouts, but the luvvies won, they beat Osborne and he had to drop it. But the luvvies won't beat Farage, he will save the public's money.

"Whether the delegates reach out to the press and public remains to be seen. Don't forget, they've got their hands full carrying out the good works of Bilderberg. The conference is, after all, run as a charity.

If you've been wondering who picks up the tab for this gigantic conference and security operation, the answer arrived last week, on a pdf file sent round by Anonymous. It showed that the Bilderberg conference is paid for, in the UK, by an officially registered charity: the Bilderberg Association (charity number 272706).

According to its Charity Commission accounts, the association meets the "considerable costs" of the conference when it is held in the UK, which include hospitality costs and the travel costs of some delegates. Presumably the charity is also covering the massive G4S security contract. Fortunately, the charity receives regular five-figure sums from two kindly supporters of its benevolent aims: Goldman Sachs and BP. The most recent documentary proof of this is from 2008 (pdf), since when the charity has omitted its donors' names (pdf) from its accounts.

The charity's goal is "public education". And how does it go about educating the public? "

www.businessinsider.com/who-pays-for-the-bilderberg-meeting-2013-6?IR=T

'The Labour party is concerned because we know - from the lessons of Michael Foot - that sadly the public do not want and do not like pure left wing socialist policies. '

No, as Ken Livingstone said on Russia Today, under Blair, candidates for MP were screened and left wingers were ruled out and Blairite type clones were selected. The clones who serve the elites are worried because the elite has been on to them and told them to act as gatekeepers and stop the people. They know that Corbyn will spell the end of their careers and the end of their taxpayer funded gravy train. They know they will have to update their CVs and knock on the doors of charidees where their mates will welcome them in with open arms and taxpayer money. Michael Foot was the wrong man at the wrong time, he was up against the champion of the middle class, Thatcher. But Corbyn is the right man at the right time, he is up against modernisers and as we have seen with Blairism, modernism is a hollow shell.

'But I really dislike your anti-intellectual posturing, which wound me up.'

There is no posturing and I am not anti intellectual. I have a library full of intellectual books myself. But what I am against is luvvies who posture that they are for the people and who pocket lobbyist cash, curry favour by spending taxpayer cash on Clinton charidees or other charidees where their mates are employed, and who line their pockets with expenses out of taxpayer cash.

'Charities accused of giving millions to left-wing campaigns as watchdog refuses to name causes under investigation
Study examines activities of 25 charities that receive funding from taxpayer
Includes those which aren't 'priorities for electorate and often unpopular’

Campaigns range from curbs on tobacco and alcohol and climate change'

Warning that the practice undermines the democratic process, the IEA report calls on ministers to introduce strict curbs.

The report’s author, Christopher Snowden, said: ‘Using taxpayers’ money to fund special interest groups is both immoral and an inefficient use of public money.

'By crowding out privately-funded voluntary organisations, this taxpayer-funded bloc of charities, quangos and non-government organisations subverts the democratic process.

‘It is vital that measures are introduced to prevent state-funded political activism and make taxpayers aware of how their money is being spent. Charities and NGOs that are dependent on government funding are not independent of government.’

...

The charities involved run political campaigns ranging from curbs on tobacco and alcohol to support for tackling climate change and opposition to welfare reforms.

For example, the National Children's Bureau, which campaigns for minimum alcohol pricing, votes at 16 and a ban on smacking, receives half of its £9million budget from public funds

...

The study warns that charities and quangos remain dominated by left-wingers. It highlights research showing that, of those appointees prepared to express a preference, 77 per cent declared support for Labour.

In a separate report the Charity Commission is condemned as ‘not fit for purpose’ by a parliamentary committee.

The names of 13 charities placed under statutory investigation by the watchdog have not been made public, meaning donors cannot know if their money is being properly spent.

In a devastating assessment MPs warn that the ‘feeble’ charities watchdog has failed to deal with clear-cut cases of abuse of charity regulations.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2551967/Charities-use-millions-public-money-left-wing-campaigns-Report-calls-ministers-introduce-curbs-finding-cash-funding-unpopular-causes.html

In a time of austerity when people are losing their homes and businesses and are struggling to make ends meet, the luvvies are using our taxpayer money for their own political purposes and to fund themselves and provide themselves employment in the "third sector" rather than in industry where they are unemployable.

Osborne tried to stop it, but the luvvies coordinated and beat him. They won't beat Farage They won't beat the People's Army.

No, she was on our side, on the side of the middle class.

Really? Inequality increased hugely under Thatcher. The rich got a lot richer, and everyone else suffered. Social mobility declined. Thatcher pulled up the drawbridge after she got into the castle.

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4637

Corbyn will also reverse the anti trade union policies that Blair and his band of po-faced progressives did nothing to reverse over 13 years' misrule.

Right claig, what powers should Trade Unions have? Where did Thatcher go to far? Because all I can see is a demented desire for balance, for one side to ruin things and the other to clean it up, ad nauseum.

That is a Blairite argument. People want houses everywhere - in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle too and the prices are too high for young people everywhere and a national house building programme will bring down prices everywhere and improve people's lives everywhere.

Why is it a Blairite argument to point out that the housing crisis is particularly acute in London, and that the most housing pressure is in London & the SE?

That is because most ordinary voters have never even heard of Corbyn when asked on Channel 4 News. But when they find out how he will help them, then he will poll a lot higher than the Blairite Oxbridge team of Establishment servants.

What, like Farage polls higher than the "Blairite Oxbridge team of Establishment servants"? I mean, I know you want that to happen, but there's a difference between your desires and reality...

Because UKIP are the People's Army, the rebellion of the people against the out of touch elites - UKIP are of the people, for the people, by the people.

Apparently the people want rich people to hand on their unearnt wealth untaxed to their children, reduce benefits to just 2 children per family, have a lower benefits cap and stop housebuilding on the Greenbelt (a sample of Ukip's policies)...but they also want Corbyn, who would do quite literally THE EXACT OPPOSITE ?!

I don't hate real charities, but what I am against is Labour luvvies and the failed out of touch political class being paid huge salaries and expenses in charidee roles and supporting charidees such as wind turbine ones, or ones that hand money in paper envelopes to children dropped off in cars who turn up once a week for handouts, with our public taxpayer money without asking us if we agree with their expenses. Even the Bilderberg Group has a charity. I supported George Osborne in his attempt to reign in some of the phoney charidees that luvvies staff and that get taxpayer handouts, but the luvvies won, they beat Osborne and he had to drop it. But the luvvies won't beat Farage, he will save the public's money.

So apart from the Kid's Company, which is definitely badly managed, how do you determine which charities are "real" or not?

"Whether the delegates reach out to the press and public remains to be seen. Don't forget, they've got their hands full carrying out the good works of Bilderberg. The conference is, after all, run as a charity.

If you've been wondering who picks up the tab for this gigantic conference and security operation, the answer arrived last week, on a pdf file sent round by Anonymous. It showed that the Bilderberg conference is paid for, in the UK, by an officially registered charity: the Bilderberg Association (charity number 272706).

According to its Charity Commission accounts, the association meets the "considerable costs" of the conference when it is held in the UK, which include hospitality costs and the travel costs of some delegates. Presumably the charity is also covering the massive G4S security contract. Fortunately, the charity receives regular five-figure sums from two kindly supporters of its benevolent aims: Goldman Sachs and BP. The most recent documentary proof of this is from 2008 (pdf), since when the charity has omitted its donors' names (pdf) from its accounts.

The charity's goal is "public education". And how does it go about educating the public? "

www.businessinsider.com/who-pays-for-the-bilderberg-meeting-2013-6?IR=T

No, as Ken Livingstone said on Russia Today, under Blair, candidates for MP were screened and left wingers were ruled out and Blairite type clones were selected. The clones who serve the elites are worried because the elite has been on to them and told them to act as gatekeepers and stop the people. They know that Corbyn will spell the end of their careers and the end of their taxpayer funded gravy train. They know they will have to update their CVs and knock on the doors of charidees where their mates will welcome them in with open arms and taxpayer money. Michael Foot was the wrong man at the wrong time, he was up against the champion of the middle class, Thatcher. But Corbyn is the right man at the right time, he is up against modernisers and as we have seen with Blairism, modernism is a hollow shell.

Farage was also apparently the right man at the right time and look how well that turned out...also Farage, as we keep telling you, loves the expenses gravy train. He swans along to the EU parliament, grandstanding and hoovering up all the cash he can.

There is no posturing and I am not anti intellectual. I have a library full of intellectual books myself. But what I am against is luvvies who posture that they are for the people and who pocket lobbyist cash, curry favour by spending taxpayer cash on Clinton charidees or other charidees where their mates are employed, and who line their pockets with expenses out of taxpayer cash

So why aren't you against Farage, who fits that bill exactly? And why the hatred of Oxbridge & education in general?

'Social mobility 'decreased under Labour'

www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/social%2Bmobility%2Bdecreased%2Bunder%2Blabour/508577.html

Apart obviously for luvvies. Unemployable anywhere else, they got cushy jobs in quangos and charidees on high salaries and taxpayer handouts.

'Inequality increased hugely under Thatcher. '

'Social mobility improved for 20 years from 1981-2001, new figures show'

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/social-mobility-improved-20-years-2017896

'what powers should Trade Unions have?'

They need to be able to protect workers' rights and workers' pay, they need to stop the proliferation of zero hour contracts. What exact powers they need to do that, I don't know, as I am not a union bigwig, but I am sure Len McCluskey knows.

'Why is it a Blairite argument to point out that the housing crisis is particularly acute in London'

Because house prices are too high everywhere and concentrating only on London will not solve the problem elsewhere and concentraing on London is typically metropolitan elite where the luvvies (on taxpayer funded salaries, too often in charidees) concentrate on the metropolis as opposed to the rest of the country.

'What, like Farage polls higher than the "Blairite Oxbridge team of Establishment servants"?'

Rome was not buil in one day, it will take time to sweep the PPEs away. The Establishment control the media, the BBC and every organ of the press that tried their utmost to turn voters away from the People's Army. 4 million voters were not fooled, but some voters were tricked into voting for Establishment parties. But as every day passes, more and more people re realising the truth and just like Labour Party members are choosing anti-establishment candidates such as Corbyn in spite of the charm and charisma of Blair.

'Apparently the people want rich people to hand on their unearnt wealth untaxed to their children'

Absolutely. The middle class, Thatcher's constituency, want to hand over what they have earned over a lifetime of graft to their children rather than to a political class of luvvies, unemployable in every other sector apart from the "third sector", in charidees wasting their money for their own political ends and advancement.

'reduce benefits to just 2 children per family, have a lower benefits cap and stop housebuilding on the Greenbelt (a sample of Ukip's policies)...but they also want Corbyn, who would do quite literally THE EXACT OPPOSITE ?!'

On those policies the public prefer Corbyn to UKIP, but UKIP will have to change and go more left wing. No voter can get everything they want, they have to compromise. If you vote Corbyn, you will have to put up with his elite style political correcteness and some misguided policies, but you will also get good policies. If you vote for the People's Army, you will get lots of common sense, but some wrong policies too. But as our new politics unfolds, the insurgents - UKIP and Corbyn - will both cut out the wrong policies and leave all of those to the Blairites and the modernisers.

'So apart from the Kid's Company, which is definitely badly managed, how do you determine which charities are "real" or not?'

This is only a general rule of thumb, but if a charidee is staffed by failed former Labour luvvies, if it is choc-full of PPEs, or is backed and praised to the rafters by them, then warning bells begin to ring about whther it is a charity or a charidee.

'So why aren't you against Farage, who fits that bill exactly? And why the hatred of Oxbridge & education in general?'

Because Farage is on the side of the people and the Oxbridge political class is on the side of the Establishment. I am not anti education or anti Oxbridge, I am anti luvvies who do not represent the people and who serve the elites.

Thatcher went to Oxford. She was not a luvvie. There is nothing wrong with Oxford.

The elite are starting to get desperate now. They have probably been on the phone to Burnham (after being on the phone to Blair and the entire Shadow Cabinet telling them all "we are not amused", "get a grip" and "for Gawd's sake, sort it") asking him to pull all the stops because the best political pundits are saying it's all gorn Pete Tong. And so today we have te headlines

"Andy Burnham deploys his parents to take on Jeremy Corbyn"
Labour leadership candidate gives interview alongside his parents, who say Jeremy Corbyn's left-wing views are damaging the party
...
In the interview, Mr Burnham's parents also admitted their surprise when their son was promoted to chief secretary to the Treasury in the Brown administration because he had struggled with simple maths at school.

Mr Burnham was nicknamed "Seven Eights" because "he couldn’t remember that seven eights are 56", Mrs Burnham disclosed.

Mr Burnham's parents also defended their son's claim to be outside the Westminster elite bubble - despite scepticism from those who point out he has spent most of his life working in politics. "

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11779934/Andy-Burnham-deploys-his-parents-to-take-on-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

Everyone denies being a member of the metropolitan elite and denies being on friendly terms with any of them, everyone denies having ever considered purchasing a rooftop wind turbine and denies any intention of ever working in a charidee. Amazing goings on in Westminster, the people have put the wind up the lot of them and the People's Army says "we told you so".

Yes - but the IFS agrees. with me that inequality increased....

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4637
www.equalitytrust.org.uk/how-has-inequality-changed

Thomas Piketty also writes about this, and points out that the high marginal tax rates that were reversed by Reagan & Thatcher led to huge rises in inequality.

As to social mobility:

cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/CP172.pdf

Inequality & unequal social mobility (difference between poor & rich kids staying on in education) rose hugely under Thatcher.

They need to be able to protect workers' rights and workers' pay, they need to stop the proliferation of zero hour contracts. What exact powers they need to do that, I don't know, as I am not a union bigwig, but I am sure Len McCluskey knows.

If you don't know, how do you know restrictions have gone too far?

Because house prices are too high everywhere and concentrating only on London will not solve the problem elsewhere and concentraing on London is typically metropolitan elite where the luvvies (on taxpayer funded salaries, too often in charidees) concentrate on the metropolis as opposed to the rest of the country.

House prices in London are out of control relative to the rest of the country. The housing shortage, especially of social rented homes, is particularly acute. London has almost all the largest rising house price boroughs in the UK, and the average house price in London is hugely higher than the rest of the country.

data.london.gov.uk/housingmarket/

This shows that house prices in London are more than twice as expensive as those in the North east. It also shows that London 1 bed lets are also twice as expensive as those in the North East.

Now, this shows me that the crisis is particularly acute in London, and that house building etc. should be concentrated in London & the SE.

Rome was not buil in one day, it will take time to sweep the PPEs away. The Establishment control the media, the BBC and every organ of the press that tried their utmost to turn voters away from the People's Army. 4 million voters were not fooled, but some voters were tricked into voting for Establishment parties. But as every day passes, more and more people re realising the truth and just like Labour Party members are choosing anti-establishment candidates such as Corbyn in spite of the charm and charisma of Blair.

What about the Daily Express - a cheerleader for Farage after donating huge sums of money for someone he (Richard Desmond) knew was going to benefit the wealthiest in society? If the BBC & the Tories were really trying to turn people away, why did they feature Farage on TV debates, in the national news? UKIP has never had and will probably never have again such favourable circumstances to spread its message.

Absolutely. The middle class, Thatcher's constituency, want to hand over what they have earned over a lifetime of graft to their children rather than to a political class of luvvies, unemployable in every other sector apart from the "third sector", in charidees wasting their money for their own political ends and advancement.

I am amazed you think that handing over £1 million untaxed makes you "middle class"! I also think you are forgetting that those who benefit the very most from inheritance tax are the very richest, the PPEs you hate so much, the ones that own £4 million houses in Islington & run multinational businesses. Those are the people Farage wants to set free from the inconvenience of taxes.

On those policies the public prefer Corbyn to UKIP, but UKIP will have to change and go more left wing. No voter can get everything they want, they have to compromise. If you vote Corbyn, you will have to put up with his elite style political correcteness and some misguided policies, but you will also get good policies. If you vote for the People's Army, you will get lots of common sense, but some wrong policies too. But as our new politics unfolds, the insurgents - UKIP and Corbyn - will both cut out the wrong policies and leave all of those to the Blairites and the modernisers.

I imagine UKIP voters prefer UKIP to Corbyn...especially on the benefit cap. Why would UKIP go more left wing when their electoral success has been based on immigration, benefits bashing and moaning about foreigners?

This is only a general rule of thumb, but if a charidee is staffed by failed former Labour luvvies, if it is choc-full of PPEs, or is backed and praised to the rafters by them, then warning bells begin to ring about whther it is a charity or a charidee.

So nothing to do with the effects a charity achieves, the people it helps, the efficiency of the money it spend...? Just your own personal prejudices at work - UKIP in action!

Because Farage is on the side of the people and the Oxbridge political class is on the side of the Establishment. I am not anti education or anti Oxbridge, I am anti luvvies who do not represent the people and who serve the elites.

Farage is an expenses hoover who tries to get as much money as humanly possible out of hardworking taxpayers. He curries favour with the rich, promising to rip up worker protections once we leave the EU, and accepting 6 figure donations from press barons. How exactly is that "representing the people". Looks like representing the elites to me!

It is getting too boring and nit-picky to counter every Blairite point you bring up. You have failed to realise the enormity of what is happening in our country, the disaffection with the political elite as started with UKIP, then the Greens and now with Corbyn. the earthquake will continue because the underlying causes have not disappeared or changed. You are of the Blairite mainstream status quo, but the change is of the people.

Here is the BBC analysing what is happening

"Is the party over for Britain's mainstream politicians?"
The demise of two-party politics
March away from the mainstream
State of the nation
A political earthquake?
The Scottish X Factor
..."

www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z2xf34j#zy3kwmn

What it comes down to is, is the game up? Are we heading for a different politics and will the people have a greater voice in what goes on or will the elite carry on with business as usual?

This article is by a progressive, Ian Birrell, who writes in the Daily Mail and in other papers, a friend of Cameron who was one of his former speech writers

'An Earthquake Called Ukip Hits Britain

The U.K.’s two-party political order is shaking, with no telling who might be in power this time next year.'

www.wsj.com/articles/ian-birrell-an-earthquake-called-ukip-hits-britain-1413502948

And now the Corbyn earthquake has hit Labour.

The next earthquake, which no one has yet mentioned, is likely to be the one that hits the Tories themselves as they have to adapt to the changes going on in the country.

What will happen next? What is the answer?
As Bob Dylan sang, "the answer is blowing in the wind turbine - a rooftop one"

A good Guardian video by the excellent left wing journalist, John Harris.

It shows the "Reluctant Leader", Corbyn, the antithesis of everything the slick spinners who serve the Establishment have told us for years. Someone real and authentic who believes in what he says.

People in the video are undecided, all looking for answers to what is wrong with the country and its political elite - some like UKIP, some like the Greens, some like Corbyn, but no one seems to like Blairism, no one believes the mainstream spinners, the thrusting, spinning, sleek and slick servants of the elites.

Now we are starting to hear the truth

"Jeremy Corbyn Could Win The Next Election, Says Tory Veteran Ken Clarke

Tory grandee Ken Clarke believes Jeremy Corbyn could win the next general election if he becomes Labour leader.

In an exclusive interview with The Huffington Post UK, the former Chancellor warned his Tory colleagues that Mr Corbyn’s branch of left-wing populism would be hard to campaign against."

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/03/jeremy-corbyn-ken-clarke-labour_n_7925964.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Now there is no more laughter among the elite, only cold sweats and biting of nails that goes beyond any chomping of nails that Labour leader Gordon Bennett carried out.

thanks for the video link Claig, but wont the elites just have him assassinated if he's such a threat to the status quo
or arrange some sort of sting where he's caught on camera during a drug crazed orgy

I don't think so, but they will try to discredit him.

Ken Livingstone was interviewed on Russia Today and the interviewer said that Tony Benn's last interview before he died was on that Russia Today show and apparently Tony Benn said on that show that he was warned in the 80s of a possible assassination if he became Labour leader. The interviewer asked Ken Livingstone about that and Ken said that he doesn't think anything like that would happen now because we are not in the midst of the Cold War. The interviewer said to Ken, what about Ukraine and Syria and Ken said they were small, not as big as the Cold War.

I think the elite would expect opposing parties to beat Corbyn in an election and would get their way that way. However, depending on what happens in Europe, in Spain, in Greece, with the Euro and with our EU Referendum, anything could happen in politics and as Ken Clarke says, Corbyn, if he follows good real socialist policies without upsetting Thatcher's middle class, could win the next election.

First everybody laughed at Corbyn, now in the Telegraph, we are reading that Corbyn should stand down and quit while he is ahead or that Liz Kendall should drop out because mone of the other three can beat Corbyn. It's all changed and I think Corbyn will win.

Russia Today showed Corbyn's rally in Camden tonight, more than 1000 in the hall and over 500 outside, cheering "Jez we can". We have seen nothing like this. The modernisers are in meltdown,, the Establishment is telling them to "get a grip" and "sort it", they are not laughing any more.

Farage had the most amazing speech of his life in Clacton, Essex but that was 900 people. Labour is still a huge force, way bigger than UKIP, and if the Labour masses start to believe in real socialism once again, the modernisers and elites will be chewing their nails until there ain't nothing left.

This is Ken Livingstone's 9 minute interview on Russia Today's Going Underground programme.

He talks about the Tony Benn thing and about attempts to discredit Corbyn, but says that with Corbyn what you see is what you get, what he says in public is exactly what he says in private so they can't get him on anything.