Yesterday night the 'Battle for Number 10' aired on Sky News and Channel 4, hosted by Fiasal Islam and Jeremy Paxman. Jeremy Paxman has a reputation for being... well, a bit of a bastard, to be quite frank. He goes down through his guests, often choosing to rant over them while brow beating them into submission. He's a challenging opponent, so how did Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May do against him and Fiasal Islam?
Despite what this mornings newspapers claim, Murdoch's puppet was predictably atrocious, crumbling despite gentler treatment, while Corbyn held up well despite Paxman interrupting the opposition leader twice as many times as he interrupted May, and insisted on shouting over his answers rather than listening to them. By contrast, the past-his-best Tory bully gave his Prime Minster ample chance to lie and waffle as she evaded his question. Paxman's clear bias was only redeemed slightly when he called May a 'Blowhard who crumbles at the first sign of gunfire'. We expect Chancellor Mayfly will be sending her fingerment to black bag him any day now.
Fiasal, on the other hand, came across as a bit of a wet lettuce. He too showed bias, questioning Corbyn's answers far more determinedly than he questioned May's patronising evasion. However, he barely seemed present and didn't make a huge impact on the debate, except to point out that real time funding to education has been cut under the Conservatives, despite May's claims of 'record levels' of school spending.
Jeremy Corbyn at the Libertines gigs, speaking to crowds cheering his name.
Fiasal and the Audience vs Jeremy Corbyn
When asked about foreign policy in the wake of terrorism, Corbyn assured viewers that we would not be softening foreign policy and that we do condemn terrorism, but that we must not leave countries ungoverned as such a vacuum allows terrorist groups to gain control. He also reiterated the importance of cutting off arms supplies and funds to I.S. as well as cutting off publicity, while also beginning a dialogue with neighbouring countries to bring about a peace process. This stance is nothing new. Corbyn seeks to properly fund our military to ensure they are correctly resourced when needed, he also intends to formulate a robust plan to deal with the aftermath any future military intervention to prevent vacuums being left in the wake of war.
As expected, the usual and over-used IRA line of questioning came up, and Corbyn was once again forced to reiterate that he met with Sinn Fein (not the IRA) in order to begin a peace process. He also pointed out that at the memorial for IRA bombers which he attended, he went to commemorate all of those who died in the troubles. He attended as a spokesman for peace, who had a great many Irish constituents, and who went to advocate the beginning of a dialogue which would see the troubles come to an end. As he recently stated on Sky News, he condemns all bombings, both loyalist and IRA. He sees the loss of life as avoidable. That doesn't mean he supports terrorism, it means he supports preventative strategies which preserve peace, freedom, and democracy. He also reminded the audience that the Good Friday Agreement is now used as a example in other peace-making processes and confirmed he voted FOR the Good Friday Agreement.
When asked about the Labour manifesto and his suitability as leader, he correctly stated that the manifesto was the product of party consensus. It is the Labour party's manifesto and he is leading as a leader should, by listening to his party rather than forcing his will upon them. He has also listened to the publics' concerns about public services, education, policing and defence and will work on investing in our public services rather than enforcing cuts which damage education and health care, and increase levels homelessness and poverty. He also reiterated that 95% of people would not face higher taxation.
One of the highlights was possibly Corbyn describing how he wants to get to know people, even those he disagrees with, and believes in using his ears more than his lips. This is the polar opposite of 'bloody difficult woman' May, who is obnoxious, patronising, confrontational, and wholly unsuitable for negotiating. Corbyn helped to negotiate peace in Northern Ireland, he has been awarded the Gandhi International Peace Award, and his manifesto is one for the party rather than himself. He is the antithesis of May in every possible positive way.
When questioned on immigration, Corbyn correctly reminded the audience that trade deals and citizen rights are the priorities of Brexit negotiation, while also correctly reminding the audience that the Conservatives have repeatedly missed there own immigration targets. He suspects that immigration will probably reduce, that it certainly shouldn't increase, but that we suffer a skills shortage in this country which means critical services rely on immigrant workers. Labour intend to introduce a long term education strategy to combat that shortfall, but in the meantime intend to prevent companies bringing in low paid migrants with the purpose of under-cutting low paid British workers which can result in the unemployment of British nationals. Mr Corbyn also indicated that previous funding, which the Tories cut, will be put back in place to help provide vital services for communities who have had an influx of migrants.
While Mr Corbyn accepts the result of the referendum, he intends to preserve the rights of European citizens in Britain. He also intend to protect the working time directive, paternity rights, maternity rights, environmental agreements, and trade. Corbyn also insisted he would not attempt to threaten Europe by turning Britain into a budget tax haven.
Another highlight of the night came when a clearly well-off businessman demanded to know why Labour would increase corporate tax, abolish zero hours contracts, raise minimum wage, and charge VAT on his children's private school fees. To say the gentleman in question came across as a selfish sod would be an understatement, but Corbyn handled his questions with his usual patient diplomacy, pointing out that there is a great divide between the rich and the poor in this country and asking if the gentleman was happy with over sized classes, waiting times for health care, etc, while also pointing out that Labour's house building plans and the scrapping of university fees would benefit our children.
Additionally, rises in corporation tax would hit multinationals, not small businesses, who Labour would help by working to end the practise of larger businesses defaulting on payments. Labour's increased minimum wage would also give people more money to spend in local economy. In other words, children, small business owners, the sick, working families, students, and 95% of the population would benefit from Labour's plans which would only require the top earners to pay a little more. To emphasise this point, Corbyn's Labour do not intend to raise corporate tax back to the level of the previous labour government, but nor do they intend on following the Tory example of giving tax cuts to the rich, paid for by taking money from the poor and increasing national debt.
Corbyn was once again forced to reiterate that he wants a world without a nuclear threat. He understands that we need to defend our nation and confirmed he would write the appropriate letters of last resort to our naval commanders if the need was there but he emphasised that he would require all the information to resort to such action and he prefers dialogue over violence.
Jeremy Corbyn Q&A and Interview
Jeremy Paxman vs Jeremy Corbyn
Paxman chose the wrong line of attack from the word go, choosing to ask Corbyn if he was annoyed so many of his core beliefs didn't make it into the Labour Party manifesto. The suggestion is ridiculous as a great many of Corbyn's core socialist principles made it into the manifesto, but it is also ridiculous in the face of Corbyn's leadership style. As the man himself said, he is not a dictator and the manifesto represents the party. It contains party values, respecting democracy and the fact our government is not a one politician show. This is a stark contract to May, whose campaign has been run on the phrases 'I, I, I' and 'me, me, me'.
It showed desperation on Paxma's part to force the opposition leader to reiterate time and time again that the manifesto was a product of the Labour Party conference and not solely his decision,as is right, because he respects democracy. For Paxman to attack Corbyn's morality while Corbyn was reiterating that he respected democracy and intended to work towards a nuclear free world reveals how hopelessly under prepared the Tory-mouthpiece was. Paxman clutched at straws and missed them completely. Mr Corbyn was quite right to point out that Paxman seemed to be struggling with the idea of a democratic process creating a manifesto.
Corbyn confirmed that benefits will not be frozen, but would increase year on year, but also said the higher minimum wage will mean the amount of benefits paid to working families should decrease as all workers will earn a real, living wage.
Paxman attacked Labour's manifesto policy of providing more police officers while the Shadow Defence Secretary wanted to disarm the police. That proved to be yet another farcical line of questioning. This is Britain. Few people want to see armed police on our streets. We want more police, yes, and more resources to go into preventing crime rather than retaliating when crime is or has happened. That does not mean we want guns on our streets or an American style gun-happy force! Paxman seemed incapable of understand that distinction, which reveals more about his own immorality than any failing in Labour's manifesto. Forcing Mr Corbyn to repeat Labour's pledge to properly fund services rather than giving tax cuts to corporations is another example of how the mainstream media ignore what the opposition leader is saying in order to push their own agenda, forcing him to repeat the same explanations over and over rather than exploring further policies.
But Paxman didn't stop there, his next line of questioning was even more ludicrous.
"There is nothing in this manifesto about getting rid of the monarchy, which is another thing you believe in, isn't it?"
Corbyn, true to form, replied with laughter, good humour, and the dismissal such a question deserved, stating:
"Look, there's nothing in there because we're not going to do it."
His answer drew cheers from the crowd and further laughter when he stated that he'd had a nice chat with the queen. He went on to point out he was fighting the election for social justice, for education, for the health service, for the future of all of us. He is not distracting the electorate with unimportant headline grabbing pledges (fox hunting, anyone?).
Not happy with that answer, Paxman went on to say that Europe would see Mr Corbyn couldn't even get his own beliefs in the manifesto, ignoring the real truth that the manifesto embodies Corbyn's socialist beliefs and his respect for democracy. What Europe will see is a man who is willing to put his mouth in park and his brain in gear, to listen and devise the best plan possible. Corbyn will negotiate rather than being content to run away with no deal, which is the worst possible deal for everyone but especially for Britain.
It's not even worth going into Paxman's next line of questioning regarding the Falklands. Those who oppose Corbyn struggle to argue against his current policies and the Labour Party manifesto, and so they use conflicts which took place before many of the electorate where born or old enough to vote in an attempt to undermine his character. They do it with IRA claims, and Paxman did it with the Falklands. Such tactics only prove that the Conservatives have nothing on Corbyn.
When Paxman questioned the opposition leader on Bin Laden and Hamas, he implied Mr Corbyn supports such people and organisations, but this is simply not true. What Corbyn supports is democracy and due process where criminals are put on trial for their crimes. He also supports dialogue with the goal of beginning a peace process. He aspires to make the world better, and does so through listening and talking, even to those he disagrees with, without supporting their cause or their behaviour.
Now, onto Mrs May...
Captain SKA - Liar Liar. This has reached number 2 in the charts but radio stations are refusing to play it.
Faisal and the Audience vs Theresa May
May started as she meant to go on, patronisingly telling the audience what their own jobs were and what they should already be aware of, even when the audience were correctly disputing the affects of the Prime Minister's policy claims. She failed to answer the question on policing, waffling on what she was 'currently' doing in the wake of the Manchester bombing and in response to cyber crime (such as the NHS ransom ware attack?) rather than admitting police and armed police numbers have fallen under the Conservative government. She insisted that her approach focused protecting police ability, not police numbers, while completely ignoring that being understaffed decreases the ability to effectively carry out responsibilities.
When asked about dementia tax, May again confirmed that only £100,000 of equity would be protected, that's less than half the average house price. She also refused to state what the cap on care charges would be and insisted the government would consult. However, we have to respect that in other consultation processes and when warned of risks by informed parties the Conservative government have regularly chosen to ignore advice rather than heed it.
The Conservatives have also privatised elements of the NHS, selling it to companies which they or their families have interests in, as well as voting against policies which protect living standards (which could reduce the profits they receive as landlords). The Tory ethos is to make money from the less fortunate. To vote them into power on a blank cheque notion gives them free reign to set the cap at whatever they like. They might still choose to take everything a person has worked for, except for that initially protected £100,000. They haven't changed anything about that policy. They haven't made it fairer. Also, if they can set the cap for care costs, what happens in the cases of those who have no homes? Does the NHS/Government have to cover the same extortionate costs? Do taxpayers have to pay care companies owned by Tory millionaires?
May was quite right to point out that Scotland has a devolved government and are they are within their rights to have different policies on fuel allowance to here in England. However, that was where truth failed her. Many pensioners die every year due of hypothermia, to take away winter fuel allowance from any seems likely to increase such horrific figures. Also, means testing is an expensive process. It requires admin and staff, and so to say it would save money that could go into health and social care shows
Fiasal finally showed some spunk when May was asked about school funding. When May claimed to be putting record levels of funding into schools, he reminded her that in real terms, funding is decreasing. When May promoted the idea of giving children the best possible start in life, I had to wonder how she intends to do that by taking away infants' dinners and creating a secondary school class system which allows the upper classes classes to excel and the poorer classes to suffer. May even had the gall to say that no one could predict real time education spending (refusing to dismiss further cuts) and followed that by saying Labour's figures don't add up. She then looked surprised when the audience laughed at her in the wake of her entirely uncosted manifesto. One member of the audience correctly said 'you've clearly failed'.
When confronted with the £350 million Brexit lie, May evaded the question on why the Conservative Party had misled the voting public. Instead she made claims regarding what we need to focus on now, rather than on the fraudulent claims of the past. As with the electoral fraud scandal, the message from the Conservatives is clear; lie, act illegally, as long as you can get away with it, do it, and don't worry about morality or ethics.
May insists that the government are increasing funding to the NHS while neglecting to admit that in real terms, NHS staff are suffering pay cuts, hospitals are closing, and A&E departments are collapsing under the strain. She also failed to mention that in privatising parts of the NHS, the Conservatives are allowing private companies to increase charges which the government have to pay while lowering standards. This means that the NHS costs more for less, and less money, not more, goes to the front line. Tory investors are too busy lining their pockets to care.
The midwife questioning May was spot on when she said she sees hospitals closing and services failing, and when May defended her
To the gentleman who was caught on camera saying "Bollocks. That's bollocks" to Mrs May's claims, I salute you. You spoke for the nation with those three words. May's NHS promise are, indeed, complete bollocks.
Our Prime Minister claimed that being "a difficult bloody woman" was a positive attribute meaning she stood by what she believes, but as we all know, Theresa May only stands by what she believes for a brief second, as she walks past it in yet another u-turn. Her ability to plan for the long term stretches no further than the four days it takes her to change her mind. A walk in the country, plotting the savage demise of woodland creatures, is enough to spur May into calling an election despite her previous denials.
Theresa May seems horrifically weak and wobbly, alienated amongst the G7 and European leaders, pandering to Trump who doesn't give a damn about her or us, and with neither a spine nor the capacity to negotiate. Everyone knows she lies. Everyone knows she crumbles at the slightest pressure. To say she stands by what she believes is laughable at best, especially as, when questioned, she begins to stutter and fall over her own waffle.
Theresa May Q&A and Interview
Jeremy Paxman vs Theresa May
Paxman immediately went in gentler with May than he had with Corbyn. He allowed May to waffle rather than shouting over her, revealing his own bias. However, it didn't help May who often couldn't give a straight answer and who seemed immediately flustered by the subject of Brexit. Her best argument was that the people had voted and she had to stand by their decision, but we need to remember that Corbyn too wants to stand by democracy, only he wants to do it as a negotiator who listens. May wants to do it with the stance of a difficult and antagonistic child, one who is willing to stomp off to her bedroom with no deal at all if she gets upset.
When asked about social care, Mrs May chose to explain why a two year old proposal wasn't put forward, rather than explaining what made her policies acceptable. She once again emphasised that she won't give a figure on the dementia tax cap. Her waffle failed to impress either the mocking audience or Paxman, even though he didn't badger her the way he did Corbyn.
Paxman finally made a brutal but correct observation with regard to Mrs May's political style, making the number one highlight of the night.
"She's a blowhard who collapses at the first sign of gunfire!"
Cue round of applause. Cue Mrs May's night going from bad to dire. I'm sure people back at Conservative HQ were screaming at TV sets and banging their heads off walls. Fury showed in May's expression in a way it never did in Corbyn's, despite Paxman's bias. That comment became a signal to the audience, whose derision and mocking became increasingly frequent throughout the remainder of the interview.
Perhaps another low for May came when she stated she'd called the election to improve her mandate and prevent other parties frustrating the will of the people. Yes, that's right, she wanted to prevent elected MPs, chosen by the people to represent then, from interfering with her antagonistic approach to Brexit. While Corbyn listens and refuses to be a dictator, it is clear May wants to silence opposition and have her own way come hell or high water. The British people were divided on Brexit last June. The referendum has happened and both May and Corbyn have chosen to respect that, but such a decision does not mean all of the people support a hard Brexit or 'no deal will do' policy and so our elected officials, as we elected just two years ago, should have been allowed to represent us. We must hope that in seeking to override democracy, democracy will thwart Mrs May and allow the only party leader to fully respect democracy, equality, and peace-keeping to become our next Prime Minister.
When questioned on immigration May quoted Corbyn on the countries skills shortage. It will take time to solve that gap through education, and so migrant workers must be welcomed. It seems that when May's own policies fail and she can't come up further arguments, she resorts to reciting mindless spin or quotes Corbyn's thoughts as if they were her own, showing a deplorable lack of political integrity.
May religiously recites that no deal will be better than a bad deal, ignoring the reality that no deal is a terrible deal, as it positions us for economic crash. Her stance is antagonistic, nothing more, and antagonism will inhibit negotiation rather than encourage a better deal. Like 'strong and stable', the 'no deal' line is a poorly conceived catchphrase spouted by a woman who has few solid arguments and who has become a caricature of the weak and wobbly Britain we'll become in the absence of a deal.
As an addendum, we can see a clear contrast in core beliefs between Corbyn, who went on stage at a concert to promote social justice, sport, and music and had the crowd shouting his name, and Mrs May, who has inspired the release of song calling her a liar. Her media mates have banned the song from radio station playlists even though it's made it to number two in the chart, and I would encourage anyone to buy the tune in the hope we get it to number one. Corbyn wants to give our children the chance to play, to create, to live in a rich culture. Under May's watch and the scrutiny of her media puppet masters, censorship is already taking place.
Carmine Raven
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please keep comments polite and refrain from personal attacks. Comments encouraging hatred and intolerance will be deleted.