The Financial Times declares Jeremy Corbyn the winner. A comment by Political Observer

After the avalanche of Anti-Corbyn propaganda in the respectable bourgeois press, The Financial Times leading the highfalutin cadre, Mr. Corbyn has won. Even with the thoroughly colonized Party apparatus, by the powerful Blair clique, disqualifying 150,000 of it newest members. Not to mention the manufacture of a fake ‘Antisemitism crisis’ by among others Jonathan Freedland, at the Guardian:

Headline: Labour and the left have an antisemitism problem

Sub-headline: Under Jeremy Corbyn the party has attracted many activists with views hostile to Jews. Its leaders must see why this matters

And others at The Financial Times:

At The Financial Times Robert Shrimsley opines on April 28, 2016:

How Jeremy Corbyn turned me into a political Jew. It is simply impossible to vote for a Labour party that does not appear to like us.

A Financial Times April 28,2016 editorial states:

Jeremy Corbyn’s halfhearted shrug over anti-Semitism.The Labour leader’s failure on this issue is tarnishing his leadership.

The Financial Times editors even resurrect this February 19, 2016 essay by Simon Schama:

The left’s problem with Jews has a long and miserable history. Anti-Israel demonstrations are in danger of morphing into anti-Semitism, writes Simon Schama

This manufactured crisis simply disappeared, at least from the pages of The Financial Times. See my full comment from May 1, 2016:

The conflict between the Reformers, Corbyn and his successors, and New Labour will define the history of the Labour Party, for the foreseeable political future. And in view of the truly dismal economic present, as a product of the failed Free Market and the Crash of 2008, it will be a future fraught with perpetual conflict.

Political Observer



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.