At The Financial Times: ‘Labour’s disastrous choice’, a comment by Political Reporter

Pay attention to this sentence as demonstrative of The Financial Times argument, if that is what this collection of low grade insults and retrograde Neo-Liberal apologetics can be called:

‘Yet the longer he stays, the more he will tarnish the Labour brand irrevocably.’

‘Brand’ is the language of the Market utterly corrupted by the public relations maven Edward Bernays, and the Political Romantics/Economists, a trio composed of von Mises, Hayek, Friedman with an assist from screen writer and scribbler Ayn Rand. In sum the Market is the final arbiter of all things! To call the Neo-Liberal vision politically, civically, ethically stunted, even the expression of a pernicious nihilism, is only a surprise to the Financial Times editors and writers, not to Labour voters.

But don’t forget if you can that what holds all of this essay together is not rational argument but screeching political hysterics in the defense of :

‘Voters put Tony Blair in power three times at the head of a modernised and centrist Labour party. ‘

Tony Blair and New Labour willfully discarded Old Labour, as a relic, in deference to the predations, but most importantly to the winning of Mrs. Thatcher. Willful forgetting of Labour’s Socialist past, and it’s arrival as ‘Centrist’ is what the FT celebrates, and then uses it as a cudgel against the apostate Mr. Corbyn. Would the exercise of historical honesty demand that the real apostate be identified as Mr. Blair and that Mr. Corbyn simply represents a Restoration?

For a first class hatchet job on Mr. Corbyn see this essay at The Economist which engages in hysterics, political metaphysics and in a fictive imaging of the dire future of Mr. Corbyn’s fall from political power: it is expressed in a breathtaking, even uncanny act of verisimilitude.

A reply to this comment posted at The Financial Times:


About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.