public schools

Private Eye: Despite Denials, Dawn Butler Did Conspire Against Corbyn

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 06/02/2020 - 3:16am in

This fortnight’s Private Eye for 7th – 20th February 2020 has a piece about Dawn Butler, the Shadow Equalities Minister, who is one of the candidates for the Labour Party deputy leadership. Butler has been claiming very loudly that she never took part in any coup to unseat Jeremy Corbyn, in a bid to gain support from the party’s left. Or rather, to old Labour types like myself, the real Labour centre and mainstream. However, Private Eye has contradicted this and said that it simply isn’t true. The article on page 9 runs

Labour politicians who thought they had seen it all have been left gasping in goggle-eyed astonishment at the shameless brass neck of “Red” Dawn Butler. She is prepared to say or do anything in her quest for party’s deputy leadership.

Butler has decided the route to victory lies in feeding the belief of left-wing members that Corbyn would have gotten away with it, if it weren’t for those meddling MPs. “We have some real selfish MPs,” she said as she outlined her plan colleagues’ treachery at the deputy leadership hustings at the end of January. After “Jeremy” was elected as leader, they thought it was OK to “join a coup” and deselect him. They “lost us” the 2017 election.

Butler’s own loyalty stood in stark contrast to their backstabbing. “I supported Jeremy the first time and I supported him the second time but I was more angry the second time because it should never have happened.”

The Eye apologises for baffling readers with the arcane jargon of academia, but Butler was talking what political scientists call “total bollocks”. As a matter of record, leading the MPs who resigned from Corbyn’s shadow cabinet was the “False” Dawn herself. Her colleagues have also noted the effectiveness of Butler’s fight against what she described in the Mirror on 24 January as the “disgrace” of poverty in “one of the wealthiest countries in the world.”

She almost certainly has no intention of allowing poverty to disgrace her. The expenses scandal revealed that, even though she was a London MP and did not appear to need a publicly funded second home, she still had one house in Wembley and another in Stratford, and claimed for a jacuzzi-style bath to be fitted. “Labour must put aspiration at the heart of the class struggle,” Butler told the Mirror. This contest is revealing that nothing is closer to Butler’s heart than her aspirations for herself.

Now I assume this is all correct, but it should be noted that over the past five years or so that Corbyn has been head of the party, Private Eye has been consistently attacking him. He’s head of the Labour Party, so it’s natural that the magazine would attack him simply as a matter of course, same as it would the other political leaders. However, part of the Eye’s campaign against him was pushing the anti-Semitism smears against both himself and his supporters. The Eye was founded by former public schoolboys, and is still very much establishment. Possibly far more so now than when it started out, as it did initially support the Labour party. Or at least right up until the time the Tories fell and they entered government. The Eye showed that it feared and hated Corbyn as someone who took socialism and working class aspirations and needs seriously, as well as his internationalism and very open support for the Palestinians. This means that it will definitely have a bias against Butler, at least now that she is positioning herself as from the Party’s Left. Butler also has a point that part of the reason Corbyn never succeeded in taking Number 10 was because he was always being undermined by plotting and intrigue from the Blairite right, even if she was a part of it at the time.

I’ve posted up a piece already, split into two parts, criticising her plans for Black and Asian only shortlists and her determination to fight misogyny. Praiseworthy as these ideals are, in the current political climate there are real questions and drawbacks to both. If they aren’t carefully handled, they could increase and create new forms of racism and sexism, rather than combat them.

I therefore leave it up to the reader to decide for him- or herself whether Private Eye is right about her, and whether they are publishing this as a genuine exposure of her mendacity, duplicity and greed. Or whether they’re simply doing it because they want to discredit her as someone now claiming to represent the Labour left.

 

Cartoon: Tory Flesheaters from Eton

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 15/01/2020 - 8:52am in

Here’s another one of my cartoons satirising the Tories using the tropes of old horror films and ‘B’ movies. In this instance, it’s zombie films. The two figures in the centre and on the right are supposed to be Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg. I don’t know if Mogg went to Eton, but he’s still a public school educated toff, whose policies are still murdering the poor and so fair game. Hope you enjoy it!

 

 

Scared Johnson Now Reduced to Throwing Coarse Insults at Labour

Oo-er, Johnson must be getting scared! I have a rule of thumb that someone is winning an argument when their opponent turns to ad hominem insults or profanity. And by this standard, Johnson is losing, as today he hurled a coarse insult in Labour’s direction. Speaking at a manufacturer of electric vehicles today, our comedy prime minister was expected to make a speech referring to the ‘groundhoggery of Brexit’, the ‘horror show’ of a Corbyn government propped up by Nicola Sturgeon, and described the prospect of second referendums on Brexit and Scottish independence as ‘political onanism’. Onanism is a rather elevated term for masturbation. It comes from Onan, one of the figures in the Old Testament. ‘Groundhoggery’ simply comes from the film Groundhog Day, whose hero is condemned to relive the same day over and over until he finds some way of breaking the cycle.

The I’s Nigel Morris, in his article on the planned speech, ‘PM: I’ll pour cold water on Labhour’s Brexit ‘onanism’, said that Johnson would ‘risk accusations of resorting to crude insults’. Yes, he has. Mike put up a piece about it this morning, titled ‘Boris’ obscene insult with cement the nation’s opinion of him’.  Michael Rosen, the Children’s Poet Laureate, tweeted

Dear Dominic
Are you absolutely sure that I should drop one of these obscure obscenity bombs every few days?
Horatio pro fellatio
Boris

And the Independent commented that this wasn’t the first time Johnson had resorted to off-colour language in public. He described money spent on child abuse inquiries as ‘spaffed up the wall’, gay men as ‘tank-top wearing bum-boys’ and referred to the President of Turkey in a limerick with a word rhyming with ‘Ankara’. How statesmanlike! And I have to say, I find his smear of gay men rather bizarre. They’ve got a reputation for being rather well-turned out, otherwise we wouldn’t have the show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, in which two gay men advise a straight bloke on how to dress better. And from what I remember, the tanktop was never an exclusively gay fashion. It appeared in the ’70s, and all kinds of men and boys wore it without any thought that it had anything to do with homosexuality. I had one. Lenny Henry had a joke about how he had one, and wondered why he couldn’t pick up women at the disco when wearing it. And it’s a bit rich for Johnson, who was educated at Eton, to make sneering remarks about homosexuals with the reputation public schools have for homosexuality.

Johnson was also expected to say that while Britain was admired and respected around the world, foreign countries would be baffled by our failure to get Brexit done. Mike concludes his piece by stating that

the leaders of those other countries that have caused Mr Johnson such concern will be even more “baffled” if he wins an election with language like this.

Boris Johnson’s obscene insult will merely cement the nation’s opinion – of him

Quite. Johnson is increasingly showing himself to be an incompetent buffoon, who can only stave off attacks on his government and conduct in office through coarse insult. And it belies the confidence the Tory press claim they have in a Conservative election victory. Today’s Times had its leading headline on the front page proclaiming that the Tories were 14 points in the lead over Labour. But yesterday’s I reported that there was confusion among politicians over the whether polls could be trusted.

Johnson’s little bit of crudity suggests he and his chief advisor, Dominic Cummins, don’t.

To paraphrase the old movie poster for the David Cronenberg remake of The Fly, they’r afraid. They’re very afraid.

Make them so and vote them out on December 12.

Lobster Reviews Boris Johnson’s Biography of Churchill

There have been a couple of deeply critical reviews of books by leading Tories. Last fortnight Private Eye reviewed and dissected David Cameron’s self-serving tome. In it, Cameron tries persuading the rest of his that his time at No. 10 resulted in us all being more prosperous, with a strong economy and political stability. The satirical magazine trashed this nonsense by showing instead that Cameron comprehensively wrecked Britain by calling the referendum on EU membership.  And last week Lobster added to its number for Winter 2019 a review by John Newsinger of Boris Johnson’s 2014 biography of Churchill.

Newsinger is the professor emeritus of history at one of the universities in Bath. As such, he knows what he’s talking about – and makes it very clear that BoJob, on the other hand, doesn’t. It’s a comprehensive demolition of both Johnson’s book and the aspirations behind it. Newsinger argues that Johnson’s reason for writing this unnecessary piece – there are hundred of others published every year – is not to prevent Churchill from being forgotten, as he claims, but to try to burnish his own reputation through identification with Churchill. And it’s here that Newsinger is also brilliantly critical. He makes it very clear that Churchill was far from the greatest of the great men, who make history, as Johnson seems to believe. He was a deeply flawed man, who enjoyed war for the opportunities it gave him and members of his class for greatness, while viewing those lower down the social scale as mere cannon fodder. The review begins

When this book was first published back in 2014 it did not seem to be worth the trouble reviewing. It was a truly appalling volume that no one except the right-wing press could possibly take seriously; and they only praised it to advance the career of its author. As a supposed biographical study of Winston Churchill it was altogether worthless, even worse than Johnson’s earlier ‘histories’ of the Roman Empire and London and they were pretty dire. And dire books are obviously a reflection of their author. Johnson is a serial liar and casual racist, a homophobe, a sexist and a xenophobe. He is akin to a cross
between Benny Hill and Benito Mussolini: completely without principles, wholly
irresponsible and unfit for any public office. However, as we know, the incredible has happened and a desperate Conservative Party has actually installed him as Prime Minister! Thus, the book is now worth some critical attention – not for anything it has to say about Churchill but, as I have already indicated, for what it tells us about the author.

Churchill’s reputation for heroic leadership during the War is the product of very careful state propaganda comparable to Stalin’s. He had nothing in common with ordinary people. He didn’t meet them and only once used public transport. As for Churchill’s concern for ordinary people, Johnson believes he found it in the great warleader’s concern for his nanny. Newsinger bitingly observes that only a public schoolboy could think that concern for their nanny equals concern for ordinary people.

Newsinger is also suitably derisive about Johnson’s claim that Churchill resonated with the British public for four reasons. These are 1) our national sense of humour, 2) our massive capacity for booze, 3) our suspicion of people who are unusually thin, and 4) our view of Britain as the homeland of eccentrics. Newsinger comments

Really! It is difficult to know what to make of this moronic garbage. The whole discussion is positively embarrassing. One is shocked that the author of this nonsense is a Member of Parliament, let alone the Prime Minister, and can only hope that the book never falls into the hands of someone studying for their History GCSE.

As for Churchill not being a warmonger, Newsinger acknowledges that Churchill fought bravely in the campaign against the Mahdi in the Sudan, and in the Anglo-South African War. The battle of Omdurman was more of a massacre than a battle. British casualties number only 48, while 16,000 Sudanese were killed, many of them when they were trying to surrender or lying wounded. Newsinger does, however, credit Churchill with opposing the shooting and bayoneting of the wounded. As for Churchill not being a warmonger, Newsinger writes

Quite how he squares this with his account of how Churchill ‘loved’ – yes, loved – war is
difficult to see. On one occasion, Churchill actually told Margot Asquith that war was ‘delicious’ – and this was during the horror that was the First World War. He was ‘excited by war’ and ‘without war he knew there could be no glory – no real chance to emulate Napoleon, Nelson or his ancestor Marlborough’. ‘War sent the adrenalin spurting from his glands’. (pp. 168-169) But while he ‘loved’ war, he did not support wars of aggression. Once again, this is so much nonsense. In 1914 Britain was a satisfied Empire intent on holding on to what it had already conquered but, as soon as the war began, the country’s war aims encompassed the dividing up of enemy colonies with its allies. As Johnson himself admits, the British Empire was in control of 9 per cent more of the world after the War than it had been before. This was not just by chance. This was what the war was really all about, what millions had died for – that and the glorification of men like Churchill.

Johnson admires Churchill’s support for all the reforms brought in while he was a liberal under Asquith, reforms Newsinger notes were opposed by the Tories at the time. He also tries to give Churchill credit for the achievements of Attlee’s government, though objects to the pension age having been lowered from 70 to 65. He states that the government will have to correct this, which, as Newsinger also notes, will leave millions with no pension entitlement.

Johnson also tries to equate Churchill’s own views and policies towards India with that of himself and his relations with the EU. He claims that Churchill largely ignored India, and was chiefly concerned with positioning himself as the successor to Stanley Baldwin. But this ignores the fact that Churchill was determined to maintain the British position in India. He also doesn’t mention the Bengal Famine, which killed three million Indians, which Churchill caused. He does mention it in his previous book on The Spirit of London, which Newsinger also criticises in the review. Johnson gives it two, very critical comments in that book. However, Johnson isn’t alone in ignoring the Famine. And he doesn’t include it because it would cast doubt on his view of Churchill as the great man, and the British Empire as a benevolent institution towards the indigenous peoples.

Newsinger particularly attacks one chapter in Johnson’s book about the great man’s errors and mistakes. These are given ratings for the Churchill Factor and the Fiasco Factor. Newsinger calls it the most stupid part of the book. Gallipolli, which resulted in 55,000 British and imperial troops dead and 123,000 wounded. Johnson gives this debacle a rating of 10 in each category. Newsinger writes

what that actually means is anyone’s guess. While Johnson is attempting to be witty, what he actually displays is an astonishing degree of callous disregard for the immense suffering and enormous loss of life that the battle cost. In many ways, this sums up his own particular version of the Great Man view of History.

He also comments that when Johnson describes how Churchill was regarded with distaste and suspicion by the Conservatives in 1940 as an outsider and ‘rotter’, he’s talking about himself. The difference, however, is that by that time Churchill had considerable experience in government. The promiscuous Johnson also seems somewhat concerned about Churchill’s sexual appetite, or lack of it. He finds this remarkable in a man with such otherwise titanic appetites. As Newsinger says, this tells us nothing about Churchill but much about Johnson. And he concludes

One thing that we can be certain of is that, whatever one thinks of Churchill, there is no way he would ever have let someone like Boris Johnson anywhere near the levers of power.

This is an article that deserves to be read because it lays bare how Johnson regards himself and Churchill, and exposes some of the myths about Churchill that we’re still taught through the mass media. If you want to read it, it’s at

https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster78/lob78-churchill-factor.pdf