Founded by the inspiration of the example of Jeremy Corbyn's lifelong pursuit of Peace & Justice for the Majority and not the Few.
We are an independent medium. Nothing on this site has been endorsed by Jeremy Corbyn.


Keeping up with news, events and actions leading to a better world for the majority ....


At the moment Jeremy Corbyn is on a roll. In the last week he has asked more relevant questions of interest to the voters and their families in this country than any opposition party. These interventions are coming up in Corbyn's Twitter feeds and the positive response to his interventions is increasing. We hope to contribute to this growth in a rational national policial opposition movement in this country inspired by Jeremy Corbyn but it is hard work keeping up wth him.

We are in a transition, see below, but want this medium to be a fair and interesting respresentation of the ramifications of the expressed vision and ideas of Jeremy Corbyn. We welcome any constructive suggestions on how to advance this mission.

The original aim of this website was to report on the Project for Peace & Justice (PPJ) but while this is progressing world events and the situation in the UK demands a political response along the lines of those proposed by Jeremy Corbyn. However, this is massive challenge while at the same time there is a very large growing movement of constituents demanding change especially on the economic policy front, income disparity and growing poverty. We will therefore be concentrating on this current challenge and we will be reducing references to the PPJ and over the next week or so and alter all content to reflect this change. We wish the PPJ every success and from time to time will post articles concerning PPJ developments.

This will in no way compete with other movements who share such a vision for change. Like others we are avoiding the formation of a political party simply because they tend to be infiltrated by individuals with their own personal agendas. Witness the plight of Labour. The objective at the moment is to grow the movement to be able to oppose the types of changes introduced by governments to stifle popular opposition and progress.

Another Tweet we will follow up: Jeremy Corbyn @jeremycorbyn

"I condemn the Russian invasion, the war against Ukraine and the illegal occupation.
Today, I asked the Foreign Secretary what role the UN can play in bringing about a process of peace to prevent any further loss of life."

  Replies and a brief in preparation - please be patient this one is a bit complicated, as you can imagine.

Because of the unbalanced coverage by the mainstream media on Jeremy Corbyn we have noticed that a rich source of excellent comments on Corbyn can be found in his supporters' comments on Twitter. Therefore as from 16th November 2022 we are initiating a reporting line covering what Corbyn is stating and we will select the best replies to report them here. We reserve the right to add our own to make this section a balanced read.

For starters here is today's Corbyn statement: Jeremy Corbyn @jeremycorbyn

" This year, bankers collected the biggest bonuses since the 2008 crash.

Rishi Sunak claims to understand people’s hardships, but his predecessor’s plan to lift the bonus cap remains in place.

1 in 3 children will go hungry this winter, but will nobody think of the bankers?"

Peter Oborne is a rarity amongst jounalists in being particluarly concerned with the matter of truth. He wrote an excellent portrayal of Boris Johnson's lying in his book, "The Assault on Truth" . In a recent article on Global Research Peter Oborne sets the record straight on Jeremy Corbyn's consistent position concerning Russian influence in UK politics. It is well worth reading. We provide the link to this important article: Russia-Ukraine War: Jeremy Corbyn Was Right All Along About Putin and His Oligarchs

Keir Starmer showed a dismissive and weak attitude towards the Stop the War Coalition and his dubious attempt to align Jeremy Corbyn and the Coalition as being anti-NATO and pro-Russian. Jeremy Corbyn has made a statement of Double Down News explaining his position. It is well worth listening to. Keir Starmer censored Labour MPs wishing to join Corbyn in the massive protest Against the War in London on Sunday, 6th March, 2022. Listening to Corbyn it is worth reflecting on the common sense and clarity of his message - this is not something that should be censored. The tendencies in the "new Labour" party under this "new leadership" is less and less tolerant of any opinions that diverge from an imposed "party line". There is a whiff of Fascism about it. The problem for Starmer is that such opinions, as expressed in this video by Jeremy Corbyn, make a lot more sense. They cast a dense shadow of doubt over those in the government and, in particular Starmer, as those who pursue the aggressive responses cowardly attempting to encourage people in the Ukraine to risk their lives while the very same politicians remains comfortably in the Westminster bubble congratulating themselves on their ridiculous posturing.

Just as Jeremy Corbyn's campaigning style captured the imagination of many in this country, making Labour, at the time, the largest European socialist party. Since he left the party leadership members have left in droves. Our wire service has noted that Corbyn's statement has been disseminated worldwide and has found a very positive response, in particular amongst the youth of Europe and the USA.

On war, why Jeremy Corbyn is right and Keir Starmer is wrong

As Keir Starmer increasingly imposes a restricted militant viewpoint on members of the Labour party reducing it to a parochial Lilliputian relevance, Jeremy Corbyn has expanded the appeal of his Peace and Justice Project through his association with the Stop the War Coalition which remains focused on the essential issue of ensuring that people have peaceful and productive lives. The fact that Jeremy Corbyn is an independent has allowed him to operate more feely on the most important issues of the day unmolested by the irrational carping and silly finger pointing by the Starmer militants.

Read more..

Transitions in thought processes

In part 3.3 of the article series on the question of whether Jeremy Corbyn should set up a politial party, the preparation of article 3.4 was stalled as a result of some very productive workshops held by the APEurope Correspondents' Pool. These involved a review of the concepts raised by Anthony Crosland and Daniel Bell in their books, "The future of socialism" and "The end of ideology", referred to in part 3.3. These both contain vital pointers to a more peaceful and just future. The question is to mobilize of resources to transition to a state of affairs where more people understand the concepts involved in practical terms, so as to bring about beneficial change. Part 3.4 is being re-edited to make these aspects more apparent.

Reference is made to these aspects in a very recent interview with the BSR editor/author Hector McNeill posted by Nevit Turk of the APEurope Correspondents' Pool in the medium Emancipation.

Should Jeremy Corbyn set up a political party?

When Jeremy Corbyn set up his PPJ many thought this would become a separate political party. However, on reflection and assessing his accomplishments in the short time he was leader of the Labour party, we see that this process was interrupted by a horrendous corruption of due processes of many types.

These were carried out by those individuals who organized the malicious campaign against Corbyn from within the party, the hideous and misleading coverage of these events by the UK media and the open role of the State of Israel in incentivising this interference in British politics were just some of the worrying issues that arose.

While all of this was in motion, the British government, justice system and police did nothing.

It has since become very evident that Corbyn's legacy represents a far more significant foundation for the future direction of this country than those who now seek power via the remaining empty shell of the Labour party. The party we all knew has gone.
Monetarism & The Real Economy released

Agence Presse Européenne Correspondents' Pool asked me to produce an updated analysis of the causes of the plight of the UK economy in the context of monetarism.

This document was accepted to make up a whole edition of the Q1-2022, British Strategic Review with the title of, Monetarism and The Real Economy.

A general update of this publication and list of contents can be found on the BSR site.

The first overview by the economist Nevit Turk can be found here on the Hambrook Publishing Co site.

You can obtain your full copy of "Monetarism & The Real Economy", using the PayPal card payment system below. The publication is delivered as an email attachment so please ensure you provide the correct email address to the PayPal system.

British Strategic Review

It has been replaced by a leader whose popularity rises only as a function of Conservaive party mistakes while the party struggles to become a Conservativelight party in an attempt to repeat the actions that Blair and Brown took to gain power in the late 1990s.

In this three part article we explore the options open to someone with the vision of Jermey Corbyn for this country, when he still faces hostile but hardly patriotic individuals and entities in the form of people who seldom appear to have the interests of the British population at heart, in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn.

Part 1      Part 2      Part 3.1      Part 3.2      Part 3.3      Part 3.4 .. in preparation

The mire of conflicts of interest and corruption swirling around our "representatives" was never the sort of deficiency that could be leveled at Jeremy Corbyn. During the past expenses scandal, Jeremy Corbyn was one of the few who was not implicated in any way. The problem is associated with the capture of party machines by financial benefactors who have a direct influence of party decisions in government and the whips ensure votes, in general, support this corrupt system. MPs respond according to the degree they wish to "progress" in a life of unacceptable compromise and frequent support of unethical decisions.

Jeremy Corbyn has always been independent and has advocated and voted in line with his stated convictions against aggression and violence. Amongst the unethical decisions taken by parliament, although never with the support of Corbyn, can be included the frequent support of parliament for military interventions which, since 1945 have been largely in the Middle East and resulting in the murder of millions of innocent men, women and children and a massive wave of refugees heading for Europe, the USA and the UK.

Jeremy Corbyn has been a persistent advocate for peace and the peaceful resolution of issues which places him in the "wrong" camp as far as those fixated on aggression are concerned. The whole anti-semitism saga moulded by Israel, local fanatics and the third rate UK media is evidence of the irresponsible attitudes and willingness to act by political party machine activities captured by shady benefactors. Those guilty of being drawn into this shameful event keep insisting that Corbyn apologizes for stating the all of this was political. For all who have known Corbyn the accusation that he is anti-semitic, always was ridiculous. It is because of this that Corbyn could see this farce since he was not guilty of the accusations. Corbyn simply states the facts and he is right. He was almost the only person to openly steer a course based on a statement of the truth that pointed to this alarmingly dishonest and corrupt behaviour of those who sought to undermine him and remove him as leader of the Labour party. For such people the truth, based on plain facts, focuses on the corruption of such people's intent and methods and they don't like it. Truth is an affront to them. But since they are not interested in the truth but have an obvious agenda, they took Corbyn's statement of the truth to accuse him of being in denial. No, Jeremy Corbyn was not in denial, he sees things the way they are and he communicates this to the people of this country. His fanatical opponents do not wish their underhand agenda to be weakened and therefore continue to obscure the truth. They continue, largely on the basis of statements of misrepresentation conveniently amplified by the media, acting as a propaganda machine shaping the attitudes of the people of Britain. This saga, of course, involving the direct interference in British politics by an alien nation was tolerated by the government simply because of their ideological fixations rather than having any concern for constitutional principles. The government party is captured by the very same financial benefactors but there are no MPs brave enough to seek and state the truth. It is more convenient and of "party interest" to support a process of corruption of our democratic processes.

It is notable that during this dreadful scandal surrounding compromised MPs, even the media and Israel has been unable to tar Corbyn with such corrupt practice.

Jeremy Corbyn has been concerned with far more important issues of significance to the security and happiness of the people of this country. He has spent time on the world stage advocating for peace and justice. In October he addressed the World Peace Conference in Barcelona. In an outstanding speech he called attention to the 70 million refugees who are unable to return to their homes as a result of warfare. Jeremy Corbyn, in contrast to those who have followed him to amass round a compromised leader and the rest in the government ranks, represents an ideal of consistency and purpose, so much lacking in many MPs and political party apparatchiks who sustain the decadence in public standards.

29th October:

Jacobin Magazine has a good article by Daniel Finn, on the astounding treatment of Jeremy Corbyn under the "leadership" of Keir Starmer. The article is entitled, "Jeremy Corbyn’s Suspension Is a Monument to Keir Starmer’s Political Bankruptcy"". To access click on the Jacobin logo on the right.

18th October:

Jonathan Cook has produced an interesting analysis of the interference of the Israel Lobby turning from the frenzied anti-Corbyn interference in British politics to interfering in British academia. The article is entitled, "After Corbyn, Israel Lobby Turns Its Guns on UK Academia" and it can be accessed by clicking on the CounterPunch logo on the left.

22nd October:

The Belmarsh Tribunal

Jeremy Corbyn gave an important contribution to the following

12th October:

An Alternative COP26

A Climate Conference hosted by the Peace and Justice Project in Glasgow and online.

As world leaders meet for COP26, the Peace and Justice Project is working with trade unions and campaigns across Scotland, UK and across the world to host an alternative COP26. Bringing together speakers and cultural figures, we will host four days of talks, discussions and performances to ensure that the voices of workers and under-represented groups are recognised. Join the PJP group at Websters Theatre in Glasgow. Read below about the evening events throughout the week and look out for the daytime sessions to be announced soon. To obtain tickets click here.

8th November, Websters

The Climate Justice Cabaret - An evening of music, comedy and spoken word in support of climate justice. At the heart of Glasgow’s COP26 conference as the world’s leaders meet, this event offers a unique chance to enjoy some top-class entertainment from artists demanding a liveable planet.

9th November, Southside Community Centre, Edinburgh - Jeremy Corbyn chats to Susan Morrison about climate justice, COP26, the urgent need for action, public ownership of energy and transport, the Peace and Justice Project and how he has adjusted after his time as Labour leader.

10th November, Websters

Towards Net Zero - How do we respond to the climate crisis? What urgent action do we need to take? How do we ensure workers and trade unions are at the heart of the campaign for climate justice? Join our panel including Sarah Woolley (BFAWU), Mick Lynch (RMT) Roz Foyer (STUC), Mick Wheelan (ASLEF) and Jeremy Corbyn.

11th November, Websters

Jeremy Corbyn chats to Graham Spiers about climate justice, COP26, the urgent need for action, public ownership of energy and transport, the Peace and Justice Project and how he has adjusted after his time as Labour leader.

1st October:

An update on the Project for Peace & Justice activities

Jeremy Corbyn provides a short video update on his activities and those of the PPJ.

Click on Jeremy's image to access the video.

Why not join the PPJ?

This advertisement was authorized by the Board and Regents of APEurope Group.
The APEurope Group has no connection with the PPJ but consider this initiative
to be worthy of support and dissemination.

The PPJ News Clubs

APEurope Group provides the web resources for over ten independent media. Most members of the APEurope Correspondent's Pool, believe that the Jeremy Corbyn's PJP establishment of News Clubs is a vitally important grassroots initiative which could help launch a revolution in the levels of awareness of the British constituents concerning the issues of importance to their lives. Such an initiative can help dilute the control of the "news" from the influence of the mainstream corporate media who are intent on manipulating content.

The campaign for the next election has started

The attempt to resuscitate the image of the brand New Labour has been initiated by Keir Starmer's attempts to "clean up the image" of Labour by unceremoniously throwing out life-long members. Many of these have contributed much to the Labour party. This process has been accompanied by the applause of some but in particular by those who contributed to the fabrications that led to the downfall of Jeremy Corbyn in an even more disgraceful and dishonest fashion. This brutal embarrassing image of Neobs pursuing power at any cost exposes the visceral motivations of such people. The Corbynesque slogan of, "For the many not the few", had gained enormous traction throughout the country while many failed to realize that the conditions giving rise to this support were the result of the introduction by Gordon Brown of quantitative easing which has since exacerbated the plight of the many. It is notable that the Conservatives, rather than winding down this economically and socially destructive New Labour "temporary solution", supercharged it because they realized that it benefited their benefactors more than the majority of wage-earners.

As if in co-ordination with the objectives of the usual suspects who are manipulating Keir Starmer's awkward proxy efforts, the BBC just happens to be launching a new series: "Blair & Brown: The New Labour Revolution". Given the actual events at the time, the title alone is, in itself, a completely misleading propaganda. New Labour, it must be registered, had accepted the orientation of the very same destructive monetarist policies as the Conservatives. This is why many did not fully understand the fuller significance of Thatcher's embrace of Tony Blair, as her success; there never was a "New Labour Revolution".

The Thatcher regime had inherited the "new monetarism" from the decision by Denis Healey as Labour Chancellor, in 1975, to apply what the economist Nicholas Kaldor had referred to as "the new monetarism". In 1970 Kaldor explained why this theory was flawed but Healey, from what can be gathered, simply did not understand the issue but was convinced purely on the basis of the assertions emanating from Chicago under Milton Friedman. Healey was out of his depth; he had graduated in classics (Greats) at Oxford. This is somewhat odd in the context of the fact that Healey and Friedman were similar in having the same dismissive attitudes of intellectual bruisers when cornered by interviewers. It would appear that Friedman was more full of it that Healey. The paradox is that Kaldor, who withdrew his advisory position to the Labour government in 1976 because of Healey's antics, was a person capable of very clear explanations and his criticism of monetarism has never been disproven. Indeed, more recent analysis by the Real Incomes school, reviewing the data generated by the disastrous outcomes of quantitative easing, have confirmed Kaldor to have been correct.

Thatcher is often blamed for the monetarist approach but in reality, as stated, it was launched under Labour. These facts, of course are never referred to in the current image-building process by Labour.

Conclusion: no amount of replaying the past hopes and aspirations of "New Labour" can airbrush out the fact that by sustaining monetarism as their central macroeconomic policy, New Labour contributed, along with the collaboration of the Conservatives, to the hollowing out our economy and to deliver the disparities and difficulties we now face. These conditions tipped desperate voters to support BREXIT while in reality neither party possesses solutions to the Red Wall areas or any other and will not as long as both cling onto monetarism.

It would seem Keir Starmer and the people advising or instructing him wish to attempt to dupe the UK electorate yet again?

Just before Blairism entered into the annals of our legacy of terrible mishaps, it should be remembered that Labour dropped Clause 4 on the basis of Blair asking unions, "Do you want ten more years under Thatcher?" Today the choice before the British electorate is "Do you want ten more years under monetarism?". Notice, no mention is made of the Labour or Conservative leaders, they are not relevant to this question. The main problem is monetarism and the fact that the Bank of England was made independent by New Labour. So this policy cannot be changed through the current constitutional procedures. Neither Labour or Conservatives wish to change the current setup since they they both simply want to grab power. We have seen the consequences of this over the last 45 years of power-sharing leading to the UK's economic decadence based on a system "For the few, not the many".

Keir Starmer's, leadership selection proposal

It is odd that Keir Starmer thinks that restricting the role of members in the election of a party leader will make the party more electable; it would seem the reverse is probably true. Indeed it will end up causing a further decline in membership.

While conditions get worse for the working poor in this country they cannot be blamed for wondering why this party is so concerned about the status of its MPs in this process rather than on evaluating policies to help the working poor. Surely this is far more important?

Keir Starmer's, "The Road Ahead"

Our sister journal,, has an incisive leader concerning Keir Starmer's recent essay entitled, "The Road Ahead".

With permission of we reproduce this below and add some detail missing from the piece.

"Keir Starmer's essay is a surprisingly easy read for such a long document. It's overall vision is essentially identical to the 1997 promises that brought in the Blair government. Today, the economic circumstances are substantially worse. In spite of expressed concern for the NHS, the Blair government's financing decisions caused many NHS units to come close to bankruptcy and some failed. The reason was that government's acceptance of the financialization ideology. To be more convincing, "The Road Ahead" should contain a more honest statement of why the working class in Britain is in such a state. This is the Bank of England's (BoE) disastrous policy of quantitative easing (QE) launched by Gordon Brown to become the foundation of the Conservative's austerity drive. Labour doesn't dare remind us that it was Brown who also made the BoE independent, beyond public control and oversight. Starmer tip toes around this gigantic elephant but covers himself through a token quote from Mark Carney, the ex-BoE governor, to appease the Carbon trading contingent in the City.

John McDonnell, under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, had the sense investigate why economic policies were so damaging and he coordinated a productive re-evaluation to define better alternative policies. Starmer ignored them. There being no rational options for the majority of wage-earners, interest is growing in wider majority participation in policy proposals and decisions via the promise of "politics without parties".

According to the APEurope Correspondent's Pool, who are involved in the British Strategic Review (BSR), some more detail on this issue is contained therein. What we have gathered is that the slide of the British Government into monetarism did not start with Thatcher but rather with Labour Chancellor Denis Healey. This is why Nicholas Kaldor withdrew his support and advice from that government after many years in that role. With the permission of the BSR editor we reproduce a section from the draft,

Nicholas Kaldor
"Although the introduction of monetarism as a mainstream macroeconomic paradigm is associated with the government of Margaret Thatcher, Nicholas Kaldor had withdrawn his advisory support from the previous Labour government in 1976 because of what he considered to be a swing towards the adoption of monetarism under the Chancellorship of Denis Healey in the Wilson government.

Healey had not pursued an industrialization policy along the lines of a logical model set out in Kaldor’s inaugural lecture as professor of economics at Cambridge University in 1966. Kaldor explained in this lecture as well as in several of his research papers that he considered intensification of industrialization vital to the continued growth of the United Kingdom economy. His emphasis was on the UK retaining strong industrial sector because of the logic of technological innovation driving expansion and real growth. He became strongly opposed to the Thatcher government’s monetarist policies, predicting correctly, the destruction of UK industry and manufacturing. Kaldor maintained a focus on the real economy while academia and governments drifted into a range of policies where the real economy, or at least the areas offering most promise for growth, were sidelined by an enthusiastic participation in and promotion of globalization and offshore investment. This, as Kaldor warned, led to a rise in offshore production and rise in unemployment in onshore industrial zones. As a development economist, Kaldor’s constant focus was on the real economy and this fact is reflected in the title of his biography, written by Marjorie Shepherd Turner, as, "Nicholas Kaldor and the Real World"."

Like the cynical lack of choice between political parties in the USA, both of which have adopted financialization and a strong emphasis on a destructive monetarism, so Labour and the Conservatives have both adopted monetarism and financialization as the foundation of their macroeconomic policies.

This is why the Blair regime essentially made no difference to the erosion in real incomes of the working class and the Conservative party, rather than opposing Labour's "temporary" solution of quantitative easing to aid recovery from the financial crisis in 2008, prolonged its operation because it helped them impose austerity while enriching their benefactors and party coffers. It is self-evident, that until Labour or any other political party opposes the current monetarism, they will not represent a true alternative so it is not worth voting for them. This is why, as mentions, there is increasing interest, on the part of increasing numbers of constituents, in the "politics without parties" movement. The two party system has driven the United Kingdom along a decadent economic cascade of falling real wages for close to 50 years and this needs to stop. The binary election option leads us on to imagine there are real differences while all the time they have created a serious economic and social rift within society in a form of binary fission. Their motivation, as they constantly remind us, is to gain power and yet they squander any power they gain at the expense of the majority of the electorate.

The tragedy of this self-imposed prejudice is the failure of the two main political parties to represent the majority and create the very conditions that were explained to be caused by our membership of the European Union. This misrepresentation resulted in the shaping of the BREXIT myth and led to many desperate former Labour voters, hoping for better economic circumstances, switching to UKIP and the Conservatives; they still wait in vain. But Europe was not the cause of our economic malaise. This dishonest trick succeeded in "winning" the election for the Conservatives. However, it is evident that in reality neither Labour nor the Conservatives have any clue on how to level up the economy, build back "better" or do anything to stop the incessant growth in income disparity in this country. The current policies, monetary theory and the constant mantra that, "There is no alternative" no longer have any credibility with the electorate since they have first hand living experience of a continual decline into economic decadence.

"Politics without parties" could not be worse than what we have endured up until now; it is worth serious consideration. Both Labour and Conservative parties reacted negatively to the comprehensive and balanced proposals for electoral reform contained in the 2006 Power Commission Report, ably coordinated by Helena Kennedy and which was based on the party system. Neither party wishes to broaden their base or share power for fear of upsetting their benefactors. Neither party has any interest in electoral reform which would benefit the electorate. It is self-evident that this duo will fight to avoid our system transitioning to "politics without parties" in their attempt to continue to dominate UK politics. But this continuation of the status quo is one which will continue to increase the prejudice suffered by the majority of the constituents of this country even further.

Kaldor's predictions made 55 years ago can be read as real world outcomes in Jon Cruddas' book, The Dignity of Labour, published this year.

13th September:

The Diggers Festival

Jeremy Corbyn received as normal an enthusiastic reception on his visit to the Diggers Festival in Wigan.

The festival celebrates the life and ideas of Wigan-born Gerrard Winstanley and the 17th Century Diggers’ (True Leveller) Movement, which campaigned for the right to farm on common land and promoted ideas for the creation of small, egalitarian rural communities.

Jeremy Corbyn emphasized in his address the importance of community campaigning stating,

"Political change comes about from what we do in our own communities."

Days before, in Liverpool, Jeremy addressed a gathering protesting against the Arms Fair to be held at the city's Arena & Convention Centre in October, stating,

"Security isn't the ability to kill others – it's to be able to eat, have clothes and deal with the environmental disaster we face.".

Many attendees at each gathering confirmed their admiration for Corbyn's friendly campaigning style and for what he says in straightforward plain English. The cohesion amongst the increasing numbers of attendees at gatherings where Jeremy Corbyn speaks is notable. We understand that there is a steady growth in the numbers becoming involved in Corbyn's Peace & Justice Project campaigns organised at local levels. Because of the distribution throughout the country it is difficult to estimate numbers but this is becoming a significant movement. There appears to be a definite preference for this type of relevant initiative since people are involved and enthusiastic and this is better that waiting for those in the Westminster bubble to initiate anything at all that is remotely relevant to local communities.

The government response to the risk of a mass movement

The 2016 General Election demonstrated what an effective campaigner Jeremy Corbyn was not only in attracting a massive number of young people to the Labour party but also raising Labour's results well beyond most people's dreams. A sustained media campaign supporting the frenzied and exaggerated media campaign and 5th columnist actions within the Labour party supporting the Israeli government's worldwide attack on Jeremy Corbyn. This was coordinated by the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy (MSAPD) under Minister Gilad Erdan. He announced the campaign against Corbyn openly in a press conference organized with Netanyahu both of the Likud party. Erdan has since been replaced by Minister Michael Biton of the Blue and White party.

The MSAPD invested in a major effort to undermine Jeremy Corbyn's status within Labour and UK politics. They concentrated on anti-Semitic smears against Jeremy Corbyn in particular. This tactic was based on demonisation based in misrepresentations. Rather than expose the proxies coordinating this campaign within the UK, most media amplified the smears through headlines assisting this alien nation in its process of demonisation and election interference. The government, rather than investigating this overt interference in British elections and democracy simply went along with it and occasionally Conservative politicians would repeat misleading tropes openly, against Corbyn, in parliament.

In spite of the fact the Israeli campaign succeeded in convincing enough gullible people, requests for information on the funding by the Israeli government of various groups involved remain unanswered.

The Conservative party's concern to keep policy control in the hands of a small faction of benefactors caused them to become concerned at the demonstrated ability of Corbyn to essentially organize a very large mass movement of voters as well as attracting many to register to vote and most of whom joined the Labour party. If Corbyn sought to organize a mass movement outside the Labour party as an independent, he is one of the few people who is likely to succeed in doing so. This of course would cause the elimination of Labour from the political landscape. The government would prefer a useless Labour party to a Corbynista mass movement. We should add that Jeremy Corbyn has not expressed any intention of trying to do this but the government are wary of the possibility. As a result, the government has arranged various legislative documents to counter the sort of campaigning and organization that could give rise to a mass movement across the constituency of the United Kingdom. These devices are distributed through different Bills in order to hide their link ups and true intent.

Last July the government voted to pass the Policing Bill, they introduced the Elections Bill and the Home Secretary’s Nationality & Borders Bill was published too.

The Elections Bill contains some details of concern including clauses that criminalise things which are fundamental to free and fair elections in the UK. It reduces the role of the Electoral Commission and hands unprecedented powers around elections to ministers. As a result of the shock outcome of Jeremy Corbyn's effective campaigning resulting in an unprecedented election result in 2016, the Bill allows ministers to change the definition of "campaigning" knowing that there are elections somewhere in the UK every year, so as to curtail "campaigning" 365 days before any election. This bill facilitates political donations from tax exiles increasing the scope for illicit money and vested interests to influence party agendas. The Bill imposes limits on groups, unions, charities and even individuals doing anything considered to be "intended to achieve a common purpose". This phrase is open to interpretation and could effectively exclude charities and voluntary groups from the electoral process and make it impossible for political parties with broad bases of support to organize effectively. This could result in the act of booking a meeting room being designated a criminal offense; a significant impediment to opposition so vital to democracy. These measures will undermine the prospect of a progressive alliance at the next election to make all votes count and help sidestep the first-past-the-post system and destroy cynical tactical voting.

This shabby attempt to crush popular representative participatory democracy and transparent public choice is exactly the sort of behaviour that could see the Conservative party lose the next election.

Why we need to keep fighting to build on Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 manifesto policies - Dr. Phil Bevin

I trusted Keir Starmer – until I saw how he handled Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension - Len McCluskey

07 September:

The impacts of inflation resulting from Conservative policies

Since the Thatcher 1981 Budget, so-called, a stream of governments of various shades including the Blair-Brown show, the Coalition and a run of Conservative governments succeeded in pouring so much money in the economy that the productive sector could not absorb these volumes. Productive sectors have what is known as an absorptive capacity of optimal investment levels for growth. Because of the excessive money supply funds flowed largely into assets and overseas investment.

The excessive money supply cause massive inflation in land and real estate prices, in some commodities and as a result of share-buy backs. This jamboree intensified since 2008 with quantitative easing (QE) which also destroyed income from savings. As a result it was easier for banks and those with connections to invest in "assets" and make a handsome profit than in risking investment in the productive economy. The productive economy was therefore increasingly starved of investment leading to productivity declines and falling real wages. Against this ongoing trend the prices and rents for housing, industrial units, office space and retail units rose with the policy-induced inflation leading to rises in productive unit costs and as a result cost-push inflation. As a result an increasing proportion of the electorate has been unable to purchase a house because of falling real wages and rising house prices and rents to levels beyond the capabilities of disposable incomes. An additional detail is that developers using cheap money from friendly banks simply purchased land to create speculative land banks rather than use the land for building houses. On the other hand the cheap money was also used by property speculators who purchased more expensive properties for rental and speculative profits resulting in developer/builder producing many houses well beyond the reach of the ability of UK constituents to pay. Thus the deepening housing crisis.

Under Housing, in Corbyn's 2019 Labour Manifesto, it is stated that,

"Everyone has the right to a decent, secure home. In 1945, Labour promised to "proceed with a housing programme with the maximum practical speed until every family in this island has a good standard of accommodation".

In 2019, we renew that pledge. But too many people are being denied their right to a good home by our housing system that treats homes as financial assets rather than places to live."

Referring to the Grenfell disaster, the Manifesto pledges a £1billion Fire Safety Fund to fit sprinklers and other essential fire safety measures to all high rise council and housing association tower blocks and to enforce the replacement of the defective cladding through mandatory building standards. Most buildings in this state now four years since that fire remain without replacement, a legacy of Conservative government inaction.

The document points out that 900,000 fewer young people owned homes under the Conservatives and increasing numbers lived in the street.

Unlike a trail of actions under Conservative administrations of selling off public land to friendly investors the Manifesto proposed the formation of a English Sovereign Land Trust to purchase land more cheaply for low-cost housing. The Manifesto also proposed a way to reduce the practice of land banking by developers by introducing a "use it or lose it" taxation scheme to require that planning permissions end up with plans being carried out as opposed to using planning permission to support sitting on the land and benefiting from land price speculation exercised by developers driven by the increasing financialization under Conservative monetary policies.

The Manifesto says a lot more on the housing front but at least, unlike the Conservatives, Labour under Jeremy Corbyn, had plans to cut through and reverse the marginalization of an increasing proportion of the young people in this country brought about by inappropriate Conservative government policies which continue to this day. In the meantime, the Conservative government has done absolutely nothing in practical terms to address this Conservative policy-induced crisis.

A notable point is that the 2017 Labour Manifesto, also under Corbyn's leadership, covered the same topics as the 2019 Manifesto which reflects the fact that in the intervening period the Conservative government had done nothing to remedy the issues raised in 2017.

The rag trade continues is ranting misinforming its readership

The Daily Mail, a sort of ranting rag, is attempting to divert attention from the mess created by poor government policies by stating this mess is a blueprint of Corbyn policies.

But all can see that the mess is a direct the result of Conservative irrational ideological, as opposed to rational economic, policies stretching back to the Thatcher regime's ill-advised economy-busting decisions.

For example, in today's online edition we read the Daily Mail's interpretation of the direction of current Conservative economic policies, as an attempt to divert attention from the horrific mess created by the government. The article concerned attempts to apply ludicrous displacement tactics by blaming Jeremy Corbyn for establishing the blueprint guiding the current Conservative decisions. This is, of course, completely absurd, because there is no such blueprint. But then this level of irrationality is typical of those who have no interest in linking what they assert to any known facts. A sort of liberal interpretation of "a free press".

The article referred to contains the following choice content describing Conservative policy,

Astronomical tax rises; the state interfering in all aspects of our lives; a sprawling and inefficient National Health Service that sucks up billions and billions more each year; and a desire to damage the British economy to achieve net zero before comparable western democracies. If we wanted that sort of hellscape, we would have voted for bloody Jeremy Corbyn"

Well, Rishi Sunak has already announced that there will be large tax rises as a direct result of Conservative government quantitative easing and Covid-19 outlays.

The National Health Service, having been run down intentionally by the Conservatives for many years, as a damaging and cynical tactic to frustrate the population to create a motivation as a basis to justify privatization. The electorate have now realised this. They have also realised that in spite of this imposed damage, the NHS was able to roll out the vaccination programme effectively saving the government's face while also saving billions in potentially lost incomes and people. This government's gratitude, "on behalf of the nation" was to offer a 1% pay rise.

Net-zero is indeed a misguided concept of Conservative government policy which threatens to undermine COP26. This is because Net-Zero is only a buzzword and it will not reduce global warming. What is needed is a net-negative state for many years beyond the point of net-zero to stop and then reverse global warming.

Oh, and what else?

Oh yes, this Conservative hellscape could have been reduced, but hardly avoided, given the mess the Conservatives have made of the economy, if Corbyn had won the 2019 election. However, rags like the Daily Mail helped contribute to the hysteria and circulation of fake news and personal attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and Labour policies to prevent this from happening. The country is paying a heavy price.

As mentioned in yesterday's leader we will spell out the Corbyn economic policies designed to get rid of the injustices and poverty generated by Conservative financialization.

The question does arise, however, why has the Daily Mail returned to the attack on Jeremy Corbyn. This seems to reflect the fact that most people are realizing Jeremy Corbyn does represent a positive and more rational aspect of British culture, values and common sense. This makes those with no interest in the people of this country or peaceful co-existence and fair treatment, nervous since they do not have the courage to confront what is needed to set the country on a more productive course that improves the wellbeing of the many and not just the few.

On second thoughts, maybe the fact that Jeremy Corbyn is a leading advocate for a more independent media in the United Kingdom (see,"Jeremy Corbyn's presentation to the Media Democracy Festival-2021'") is the real reason the Mail has it in for him. Their readership fell by almost 50% between 2010 and 2019, according to the Audit Bureau of Ciculation, and by 19% between 2018 and 2020 and, predictably, it continues to fall (see page 4 in, Who owns the UK media? ). One does wonder, therefore, if these people have ever considered creating decent informative content that is less overtly biased and therefore, perhaps more constructive and interesting and worth reading? You never know, this could reverse their fortunes.

06 September:

Corbyn's team had solutions

The current impasse in terms of a strategies to resuscitate the economy and paying for social care shows a government wedded to outdated zero-sum ideologies of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

We have asked the Agence Presse Européenne Correspondent's Pool Economics Section to look at the Corbyn Manifestos for 2017 and 2019 to review the economic proposals to weigh up how Labour, under Corbyn, would have handled this sort of impasse.

A considerable amount of dedicated work carried out by teams coordinated by John McDonnell came up with many seemingly valid proposals and it is time this was recognized in a period when the government has lost direction and the current Labour leadership, very foolishly, has absorbed the cancel culture ideology of intolerance which invariably results in increasing isolation and ignorance. There seem to be active attempts to bury this dedicated work.

All signs are that Labour, under Starmer, is being increasingly led astray by Neob advisers who entertain a fantasy of returning to the Blair years which helped magnify the debts of the NHS and took the nation to a disastrous unjustified war which the nation could ill afford in terms of wasted funds and lives of innocent families and British service personnel.

It is self-evident that Jeremy Corbyn would have never taken such drastic and irresponsible decisions.

The main problem is that we understand that the principal Neob adviser adheres to the same economic principles as the current Conservative government. We can all see where that has landed us.

05 September:

Why the hostility to Corbyn has "evaporated"

Keir Starmer appears to be very confused, he has claimed that people are once again are open to voting Labour with the "hostility" that existed towards the party under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership having gone. What Starmer does not appear to understand, is that the hostility to Corbyn has died out because increasing numbers of people have realized that Jeremy Corbyn was of enormous value to the Labour movement but was dealt a very unfair deal by the media and some fanatics accusing him of being antisemitic.

While any hostility to Corbyn has dissipated in the light of truth, the hostility to Labour is in reality increasing leading to members leaving the party in droves.

Corbyn, does not appear to have lost out as a result of having the Whip withdrawn since he continues to do outstanding work, not attacking or insulting anyone, being engaged in very important issues and promoting what this country needs in the form of peace and justice. The Afghani fiasco was something Corbyn foresaw many years ago, as in the case of Iraq, and the series of misadventures by UK governments in Libya, Syria and Yemen which created the asylum crisis now facing this country as a direct result of the country's willing participation in devastating and unnecessary violent wars based on dodgy intelligence and dossiers. The trail of death and destruction of millions of families of innocents as well as unnecessary deaths of British service people remains a dreadful legacy created by those who do not err on the side of peaceful resolutions to crises. This is why Corbyn always took the initiative to talk to the "enemy" to seek ways towards peaceful resolutions. Of course the British media and some Conservative MPs used these brave actions to accuse Corbyn of being associated with terrorists.

Corbyn's life long concern with the plight of the people of Palestine under an increasing Apartheid regime in Israel is in marked contrast to current members of the current Labour party openly supporting this regime and showing no concern with the inherent incoherence of these views with former Labour party values. It was Corbyn's steadfast stand against such evident injustice that annoyed Benjamin Netanyahu, a leading promoter of illegal settlements, who initiated an international campaign specifically targeting Jeremy Corbyn. Unashamedly, this was picked up and levered by the British media, motivating unseemly unjustified comments by Conservative ministers and MPs, and taken advantage of by assorted individuals and Neobs within Labour to slow up investigations on antisemitism cases to muddy Labour's image "under Corbyn" and to build up unfounded accusations against their elected party leader. This grotesque unseemly coordinated action peaked with an "investigation" by the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) which chose to ignore key data and to smear the Labour party and Jeremy Corbyn in a situation where the data shows that Labour, under Corbyn, had a far lower antisemitic incidence than exists within the general population of the United Kingdom. Why didn't the EHRC direct its attention to this simple fact.

Corbyn, rightly stated, in response to the EHRC Report, that the incidence of antisemitism within the Labour party had been exaggerated for political reasons. Certainly the efforts of the Israeli government were ignored by the EHRC report when they should have been taken into account to acknowledge the political dimension of the interests of the state involved in organizing a worldwide campaign attacking Corbyn and this corrupting British politics and the Labour party in particular; but Corbyn's human rights clearly did not count. The excuse of course, as in the case of any "investigation", was that the terms of reference of the investigation did not include such matters. Of course it is always interesting to ask who drafted the terms of reference and why the "possible" impact of Israel's worldwide campaign against Jeremy Corbyn was never referred to or analyzed given that the Israeli government announced this campaign openly in a press briefing long before the EHRC became "involved" or any "terms of reference" had been drafted.

Keir Starmer, admitted that it would be "foolhardy" to assume former Labour supporters were ready to "switch their vote back" after the party's historic defeat in 2019; this could not be more true since increasing numbers are abandoning Labour for other pastures.

04 September:

Where are the "new found freedoms" arising from BREXIT?"

In economic terms, the term freedom has a basic significance. In an economic and constitutional sense the degree to which we benefit from freedom is depends upon centralized "policies" supporting a concept of freedom. Thus, the public good of legislation that applies to all to guarantee an individual's ability to pursue their own objectives without constraint. At the same time it is also there to ensure that constituents do not pursue their objectives at the expense of other constituents. If we consider legal frameworks to be policy based, since they are normally supported by regulations consisting of sanctions and enforcement, it is plain that this is another example where "centralized policy" is beneficial. Because of the existence of the legal framework, anyone prejudiced by the behaviour of another can seek redress via the indicated regulatory authority that oversees sectors. So depending upon the level of awareness of individuals with respect to expectations of behaviour under the law, as well as the provisions that permit individuals to react. However, if the very legislature that enacts laws and regulations "defending freedom" is also carrying our policies that, in themselves, are the source of negative externalities that have differential impacts on the ability with which constituents can pursue their objectives, then this is an abuse of constitution. What is worse is that because this is imposed by government there are less obvious means for gaining redress other than voting the government out. But when the main opposition follows the same economic logic upon which to base policies, the situation becomes a significant constitutional issue.

Today, very much made apparent by financialization policies of the "hardright", such as monetarism and then the ramping up of extremes under quantitative easing (QE), we have seen a small minority who operate in asset markets and overseas investment benefiting directly from these policies while the majority become increasingly marginalized.

As Friedrich Hayek observed,

"...policies which are now followed everywhere, which hand out the privilege of security now to this group and now to that, are ... rapidly creating conditions in which the striving for security tends to become stronger than the love of freedom."

This government following the Prime Minister's oft-referred admiration for the role of greed as an effective motivation for economic activities and the party's desire to keep their benefactors on side, have yet to demonstrate that the new found freedoms arising from BREXIT are anything other than more of the same levels of marginalization of the majority. This same Prime Minister oversaw the banishing of most of the more rational "one nation Conservative" MPs who justifiably opposed his headlong leap of faith into BREXITLAND. As a result this government is populated by a rump of ideologues who are seriously out of touch with the scale of the realities the country faces. All imagining that the free market has something to do with freedom and new "opportunities" for a "global Britain".

The current very obvious treading of water by the government, with no defined policies or strategies, is because their ideology does not cater for the majority but rather caters for a select minority or faction. Their mindset is completely out of tune with the conditions of the present, created in good part by their own policies of the past and present.

Jeremy Corbyn's "For the many and not the few" remains the baseline objective requirement for the needed approach to economic policy design for this country.

Corbynism acknowledged to have been on the right side of history

Corbynism highlighted the problems of the EU model and, now that we are out, Jeremy Corbyn and not the Brexiteers and Conservatives has been proven right.

Matthew Parris has written an interesting article in The Times newspaper, entitled, "Brexit Britain has taken a sharp turn to the left" with a subheading, "The Corbynite dream of a big state and worker power is coming true while the right's global Britain has stalled".

Parris states that he is offering no comment on whether the changes he refers to are for the better or worse, his intent is to point out the irony of what is happening.

A basic issue is that with no more free flow of labour from the EU the UK is running into shortages of labour in a range activities and the depressive effect of EU labour on wages has been removed and this is strengthening the unions. Parris considers Corbyn to be a crypto-Brexiteer but he points out that this position comes straight from the textbook of the "socialist hardliners" stretching back to Michael Foot, Peter Shore, Tony Benn to Corbyn. After all, Foot had proposed legislation to withdraw from the then Common Market. The Common Market was considered by them to be a capitalist club fixated on competition and preventing governments from aiding industry.

Although Parris refers to this logic as being "hardline socialist" it made a lot of sense. After all Nicholas Kaldor, who could hardly be classified as "hardleft", argued convincingly for an expansionary industrial policy just as Thatcher had decided to do the reverse. Kaldor resigned from advising Labour when Denis Healey embraced monetarism.
Tales from the occult...
Kaldor was one of the first economists to introduce the role of technology in macroeconomic models to demonstrated the contribution of industrial productivity to economic growth. Kaldor also explained that economies do not exist in a state of natural equilibrium. This went against the fragile logic of monetary theory and the monetarist clique headed by Milton Friedman.

What Parris did not mention was the fact that the 1981 Thatcher government budget, referred to by it supporters as a policy with the contradictory title of "Expansionary Fiscal Contraction", saw the intensification of financialization and the collapse of the balance of payments as a result of deficits in competitive manufacturing output. This "hardright" approach marginalized industrial and manufacturing zones in the UK and poured money into asset markets and offshore investments while productive investment onshore in Britain declined and with this so did productivity and real wages. The EU followed the same line and, although Brexiteers preferred to blame Europe for the poor economic conditions, it is very evident that this slide in economic performance was a direct result of this country not listening to Nicholas Kaldor's advice which he articulated in 1966 in his inaugural speech as Professsor of Economics at Cambridge University. Kaldor invested a lot of time and effort in opposing Thatcher's monetarism however she set a die to be followed by Blair and Brown administrations followed the very same path as did the following coalition and Conservative governments. As a result, the state of the economy continued to decline marked by falling investment, asset bubbles benefiting a tiny minority, falling productivity and real wages for the majority. This was capped by quantitative easing (QE) following the financial crisis in 2008 as a temporary measure an which, like forever wars is now in its 13th disastrous year of "hardright" lack of concern with the majority. Covid-19 served to reveal to the British public the true state of the economy and their own wellbeing. Most people did not have savings to last a few days without support. The "hardleft" logic of the prejudice imposed by this macroeconomic management is why this "democracy" is unable to serve the majority; economic policies favour a few who happen to be Conservative benefactors. This is why Jeremy Corbyn's "For the many and not for the few" remains a potent reminder that his approach needs to become an underlying guiding principle for the governance of this country.

03 September:

Neobs could end up shadow banning Starmer

Although, no doubt the intention of the Neobs, who have produced "Fit for the future", is to raise the "Image" of the Labour Party à la Blair. It should be remembered that the "Blair moment" of getting rid of Clause IV and Brown's take-over of Shadow Chancellorship cutting back on apparent budgets to please the City, was all for the glory of Blair. However, this "Fit for the future" proposal of bringing in heavyweights to represent the party at the public interface is not for the glory of Starmer. The practical effect will be to introduce a Starmer shadow ban (light) by crowding out his space. It would appear to be very apparent that the Neobs, in spite of their "sincere and soothing" words to seduce Starmer into compliance, consider him to not really be up to the job.

The likely outcome is yet an additional splintering of the Labou Party as is sheds membership at an increasing rate.

02 September:

Neobs want to take Labour back to the murky past

The Apeurope Correspondent's Pool (ACP) has come back to us having looked at the "Fit for the future" document by Labour in Communications. They are of the opinion that in terms of communications advice, by some neo-Blairites (Neobs), is a standard document covering the current notions of communications techniques and technologies. They point out that the main problem facing Labour is the same problem facing the Conservatives in not possessing alternative economic policies. Paraphrasing, "Starting local for the long term and allowing the free market to function" make no sense without a macroeconomic approach to provide sustained support for a competitive market. The multi-tranched quantitative easing, now having lasted over 12 years has undermined the productive economy starting with Denis Healey's switch to monetarism, called out by Nicholas Kaldor. Thatcher never understood the point nor did Blair or Brown and the following coalition and Conservative leaders have simply followed this disastrous trend, recounted in some detail by Jon Cruddas' "The Dignity of Labour"

Reflecting on the evidence presented at the Lords Economic Affairs Committee on the subject of quantitative easing (QE) there is little room for any confidence that the main decision makers know what to do to release the economy from a Ponzi scheme of cheap money followed by cheap money. One economist stated QE was a policy with no theory (very much the balance of opinion of the ACP economy team), others applied some ill-defined theory to make predictions as to its impact and the Bank of England was stated to be still studying the effects of QE. This is an unacceptable state of affairs and an admission that governments have been running a grotesque socio-economic experiment with the constituency of the United Kingdom and which just happens to have favoured a tiny faction who happen to provide funds to the Conservative party. We see a legacy of poor policy making that proclaims support for a free and competitive market while proactively destroying national manufacturing and generating major income disparities. QE is destroying the productive economy resulting in a collapse in real wages and consumption directed to items imported from China. This is a strategic insanity.

Most of the authors of "Fit for the future" are young and some schooled in PPP, a highly theoretical image of economics, with little insight into economic development and the role of manufacturing technology in sustaining real incomes and managing requirements to adjust to changing climate and such challenges as the current pandemic.

Neo-Blairites (Neobs), true to their form, will never dare venture into the field of alternative economic policies for fear of upsetting the City and invite a hostile media that is more interested in their bottom line than the future generations of this country. The Conservatives, captured by the beneficiaries of QE  and other past monetary policies, will also not budge; they can't. It is evident that the role of parties is damned to be of little relevance to the country's needs because they are controlled by tiny factions. It is time, perhaps, to tell everyone that the party is over and for the country to embrace popular mass movements which are more representative of the majority.

Just to allay the paranoid fears of those who consider the masses to be "despicable" and largely "spongers" to boot, we do not here refer to pitch forks and rampant chaos but, rather, to pubic choice conducted within the framework of a constitutional economics that protects the freedoms of all. Political parties cannot deliver this because, as observed, they are controlled by unrepresentative tiny factions. With memberships hardly scraping up just 1.25% of the electorate, these tiny private organizations simply do not have the intellectual critical mass to even imagine that they know what the majority want; but be assured this is closely linked to a better functioning economy run on different lines to the present prejudicial system.

Other points of view on this topic:

With so much economic policy-induced damage, "communications" will only be effective if it is about a credible alternative economic policy

Since Keir Starmer took over the Labour leadership over 100,000 members have left the party and finances have become an issue after Jeremy Corbyn was able to build up a bumber bank balance. We understand the fall in membership is continuing as Starmer attempts to narrow the vision of the party by continuing to eject people from the party and narrowing the church into a weird neo-Blarite (Neob> )concoction.

Recently a group who call themselves Labour in Communications who appear to be a small faction of members (about 0.3% of its rapidly dwindling membership), have published a report entitled, "Fit for the future" - "A plan to communicate a confident, ambitious and compassionate Labour Party". This, for those unaware of this, is a very similar "identity political agenda" which was all about "communication", but with absolutely no coherent substance, was elaborated by Neil Kinnock and the New Marxists back in the 1980s. There was no coherent substance because it was based on a dogwhistle political agenda designed to achieve a state of once-in-power, always-in-power agenda. However, Kinnock was unable to deliver because he turned out to be unelectable. However, Blair made use of this same approach to rebrand this as "Blairism". The failure of Blairism, ignoring, for the moment, his lying and incompetence in misleading the country to embark on the Iraqi and Afghani murderous fiascoes, was its lack of an alternative economic approach to wholesale financialization which further sunk public services into debt following the Thatcher regime's onslaught. Labour did not have an alternative economic policy. John McDonnell under Corbyn's leadership had the common sense to work on this issue and he came up with credible proposals. Unfortunately, "Fit for the future" appears to be a retread of this identity approach while being light on how and what policy areas are of particular significance in the period 2021-2023 and beyond.

In terms of image-building the advice is simple messages, a pledge card like the 1997 5-points of promises and a policial advisory cabinet containing such people as Mark Drakeford, Andy Burnham, Sadiq Khan, Tracy Brabin and Steve Rotheram to influence the party’s national strategy and decision-making. This is a dotty proposal. It is as if these people don't have full time jobs. This is certainly not a way to build up Starmer's image and already diminshed effectiveness as a leader but rather one to cast him increasingly into a shadow ready for the eventual neo-Blairite takeover, with a leader who has "charisma" and who is a good liar and able to brush aside criticism for not delivering on promises.

We have asked the ACP members working on the current BSR to review this report in more detail and provide us with a synopsis and their opinion on this report.

Jeremy Corbyn refers to the intent of the Conservative government to place Paul Dacre at the head of OFCOM. This is the second attempt by the government since this was a step too far far for the last selection committee. But the government wants to try again but is having difficulty in finding interviewers since the waft of irregulatiy is beginning to mar the proceedings. Given Dacre's track record in attacking the opposition, OFCOM could hardly be considered to be independent under his helsmanship.

What others are saying or have said:

10 Reasons Why Paul Dacre is Unfit to Be the New Ofcom Chair

No 10 can’t find anyone willing to interview Paul Dacre for Ofcom job

August 2021

30 August:

Coming soon...

We are revamping this dull home page but we will also launch, not a "Frequently asked questions" but rather, "Questions needing answers" in the context of policies that benefit the majority. This should brighten things up a bit.

We will, of course, provide a logical and evidence-based reponse in plain English to each questiion posed. However, we don't make policy, so these are questions that need to be addressed to the government and opposition both of whom seem to be oblivious of what is important for this country and the electorate. "Building-back better", the new mantra, provides an opportunity to expose alternatives, the "better" bit, to a political class who still cling to their "there is no alternative" mumbo jumbo, which, it should be noted, contains no logical rationale or argument supporting this statement. However, perhaps mujmbo jumbo is a somewhat undiplomatic term and perhaps a preferable description of their stand should be gobbledygook.

The recent Labour leadership's statements of wanting to make us proud of the "Blair" accomplishments seems to be a statement of dispair or plain ignorance. It is an admission of a failure to identify alternatives to Blair's disastrous policies. One has to ask, "What sort of opposition is this? Clearly someone from that distant past has gained access to the leader's ear and therefore has been able to pass on totally misleading and therefore irrelevant advice designed to agrandize obvious failures, created by that "sofa and Cabinetless government", as accomplishments.

In this context we point to the Freshwater article by Steve Howell, concerning the outcomes of Blair's Britain; they were hardly something to be emluated,

"Blair led Britain to its worst result on inequality since 1929"

It is notable that Labour has not been recaptured by the financial industry just yet, but the confused machinations indicate a strenous effort to waddle in that direction, à la Blair and Gordon Brown. Labour suffers from having been taken over by a Blairite rump who, believe it or not, are still around as a sort of intellectual Jurassic Park. They have not adjusted to the evolving reality of the country i.e. a prejudiced majority. Their desire to swing the unions into an accommodation with the neoliberal swamp would be disastrous for a country needing to industrialise. An urgency highlighted by the abject lack of strategy of the current government.

29 August:

The APEurope Correspondent's Pool (ACP) has advised us that a new site "Beneficial Economics", concerning beneficial economic policies has been established as a result of a considerable amount of research on "what works and what doesn't work".

The ACP has alerted us to the fact that most of what the government has promoted since the 1970s, including the "Blair regime" has, fallen into the category of "does not work" in the context of the Corybynesque mantra, "..for the majority and not the few". The current and past policies have favoured the interests of a small faction who have captured the control of the Conservative party through party funding and media ownership.

However, it doesn't take a genius to realize this. Wage-earners have known this for too long but economist's insist "there is no alternative".

One of the few MPs to have called attention to this and other injustices has been Jeremy Corbyn whose leadership was a game changer for the Labour party. He faced a relentless attack by "Blairites" who purposely undermined his leadership by supporting a faction who supported the objectives of an alien state. The Conservatives contributed to this rampant misrepresentation misleading the electorate and greately assisted by the UK's less-than-independent corporate media.

Beneficial Economics will provide detailed explanations of why things go wrong in terms of economic logic and the hidden mechanisms involved. This is designed to support activists and advocacy groups to articulate irrefutable facts as well as have at hand transparent blueprints for beneficial policies to gain the popular support of the majority for changes this country needs.

We understand that Jeremy Corbyn will be addressing the Brighton festival of the The World Tranformed (TWT) which will take place on 25th 28th September, 2021. TWT is a political education project that emerged out of the movement around Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party. Their first festival took place in 2016, as an attempt to revitalise the left’s presence at the Labour Party conference, bridge the gap between the parliamentary and social movement left, and develop a space for radical, participatory and creative political education.

Since then the festival has grown to become the biggest leftwing multi-day event in the Britain, and here has emerged dozens of local Transformed groups across the country, as well as TWT launching a number of other year round educational projects from short courses to organising schools, podcasts, trainings and pedagogical research.

27 August:

APEurope Board have decided to change the direction of Corbynista to concentrate on the past and current valid efforts of Jeremy Corbyn to advance the agenda in support of the many not the few. The Labour Party appears to have lostdirection and, in particular, this central imperative. It appears to be drifting back to the doubtful agendas advocated and implemented, with disastrous consequences, by Tony Blair.

Please see the home page for a short explanation for this decision.

The Game Changer

Jeremy Corbyn's impact on a crumbling Labour Party in the 2017 election campaign was that of a complete game changer. He brought in an enthusiastic younger membership, a significant rise in individual contributions and new economic policy proposals. Under his leadership, Labour became the largest socialist party in Europe gaining international regard and recognition.

In a coverage next month we will spell out how this unravelled as a result of a ruthless coordinated campaign to unseat Jeremy from party leadership involving a rump of named Blairites, fanatics supporting a parallel campaign emanating from an alien state and a well paid corporate media ciculating gross misrepresentations of the facts.
25 August:

Freshwater has an interesting article by Steve Howell, concerning the switch in policy approach being introduced by Keir Starmer. His desire to try and make people proud of the "Blair years" is probably doomed to failure and Howell says why in this article:

"Blair led Britain to its worst result on
inequality since 1929"

15 August:

In reviewing the Lord Economic Affairs Committee Report on QE, the APE Correspondent's Pool economic unit noticed that much of the more sustantive analysis on QE errors had not been included because the lead investigators on these topics did not feature in the witness list issued in the report. Therefore the Pool has reviewed some of the better known evidence-based research. It is very evident that the Bank of England has a lot of questions to answer concerning its decisions, especially with regard to the recent acceleration in QE and their inability to provide a clear explanation of the intended purpose and impact.

03 August:

The contents index of the British Strategic Review has been updated to include a new section entitled, "The impacts of our form of economic management and on the planet and human survival".
Click on the cover image to view.

July, 2021

31th July: A very interesting set of comments are building up on an article on concerned with global carrying capacity and declining food crop yields associated with climate change. The developments there have cast doubt on the efficay of net-zero when what is required to stop temperature rises is net-negative. The article can be accessed here.

25th July: Status of British Strategic Review (BSR), ""Monetarism and the Real Economy" will be posted soon for a general description and list of contents please click on the image on the right.

The BSR was to have been released this week but the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report on Bank of England's quantitative easing raises some questions which can be addressed to advantage in the BSR. The Review is therefore being amended to take this report into account.

16th July: Status of British Strategic Review (BSR), ""Monetarism and the Real Economy". The BSR was to have been released this week but the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report on Bank of England's quantitative easing raises some questions which can be addressed to advantage in the BSR. The Review is therefore being amended to take this report into account.

APEurope Corresponsent's Pool has drawn our attention to an excellent article by Naomi Smith the CEO of Best for Britain that appeared in the Independent and recently in This article is important. It points out how recently introduced government legislation is attempting to undermine popular protests and even mass political movements by tightening the control over eligibility of candidates for election within the tight political party clique in the Westminster bubble.

We understand that the British Strategic Review edition about to be released in fact points to the importance of peaceful mass movements in reversing the increasingly tight control of political parties whose membership, in total, does not surpass 1.25% of the electorate and who serve the interests of less that 1% of the constituents who happen to have s disproportionate control over assets, media content and political party funding.

We have reposted Naomi's article here; it is well worth reading.

June 2021

Update: (28th June, 2021): APEurope Correspondent's Pool has confirmed that the contributions from our propositions work is being used in the Q3 edition of the British Strategic Review (BSR), under the subtitle, "Monetarism and the real economy". They have also confirmed that this edition has been written to encourage citizen discussion groups to help establish a general grassroots understanding of the main drawbacks of macroeconomic policies pursued by governments over the last 50 years and, in particular, quantiative easing (QE) during the last 12 years. The document is being prepared as a plain English analysis as opposed to partisan assertions and the normal monetarist gobbledygook, but remain aware that this document also exposes some Keynesian mumbo-jumbo.

This edition of the BSR is expected to be released during July, 2021.

As a result of a broader collaboration resulting from APE Correspondent's Pool encouraging SEEL to make our Proposition 1 - Economic Policy, the subject of a forthcoming British Strategic Review. This will be drafted in a didactic form to provide constituent groups with a reference source that explains how macroeconomic policies work and this will include the counter proposals to Monetarism, Keynesianism and Supply Side Economics, based on the work of the economist Nicholas Kaldor (2008-2086) and Hector McNeill who leads the Real Incomes Approach to economics.

The government does not encourage discussion on macroeconomic policy involving the constituency and therefore the objective is to foster understanding, help explain the current circumstances and for citizen groups to agree on what needs to be done to secure sustainable real growth that benefits the majority.

May 2021

We have added some advance pointers on Proposition 1 (Economic Policy) as we edge towards posting the whole document. posted an interesting leader concerning the treatment of Jeremy Corbyn by the media an some disfunctional individuals in the Labour party. The CybaCity leaders soon descend their home page to pass out of sight so with CybaCity's persmission we have posted this short leader on this site here.

We waited for the election to take place to see if any economic proposals of note were put forward. Unfortunately none was. Although the Labour party had promised to elaborate the proposals developed under Jeremy Corbyn which had proved to be very popular leading to some points being copied by the Conservatives, Labour made no propositions on this front while the government only made promises with no explanations as to how they are going to "Build back better". With no evidence of a track record this would seem to constitute a false promise while Labour made no promises and wonders why they did not do well. The brief we were to introduce the brief on economics under Proposition 1 during the week 10-14th May, 2021 has been delayed as a result of review feedback so we hope to post this by beginning of June, 2021.

April 2021

APEurope Pool on economics is preparing a short brief to be published during the week 26th-20th April 2021, explaining what is needed to achieve the types of societal change stated to be beneficial by such people as Jon Cruddas and others.

The Pool has concluded that Labour cannot make any difference until it offers credible alternative economic policies that abandon the current macroeconomic theory and its flawed derivatives in the form of monetarism and Keynesianism. The disastrous impact of quantiative easing calls into question the rationale of the Bank of England remaining beyond the reach of public scrutiny.

A short review of the papers already posted by the Pool make this self-evident. However, the Pool brief will outline how to change policies based on a different pragamatic economic theory. Reference is made to Jeremy Corbyn's campaign for an independent media in the United Kingdom as an important factor in helping bring about needed change.

Please note that what will be contained in this documentation has not been endorsed by Jeremy Corbyn or the Peace & Justice Project but it will be a contribution to any open discussion of solutions to the economic predicament facing the majority in the United Kingdom.

Jeremy Corbyn gave a memorable speech to thousands in Parliament Square during the Kill the Bill on the image to access the video...

March 2021

Jeremy Corbyn gave a memorable speech to the:

February 2021

We are very pleased with the first thematic briefs issued by the APEurope Pool on economics (see links below). The flow of leading edge not-seen-before content is being produced at a faster rate and delivered sooner, and of a higher quality than we expected.

In order to manage this flow of very interesting material, we will open a seperate "Propositions" section where we will review the implications of what they contain on a participatory basis - anyone can contribute - so as to agree on priorities for action, to develop propositions for change and identify the best way to advocate for bringing about the changes identified.

An emphasis will be given to the design of propositions that have wide appeal and can be implemented.

The Resources section will become the main "library" for resources.

We have launched our Resources series Economic Briefs and the first three briefs and supporting note are now available:

Economic Brief: Number:001 - Why monetarism does not work

Economic Brief: Number:002 - Why the purchasing power of wages fall

Economic Brief: Number:003 -Technology, technique & real incomes

Notes in support of the Economics Briefs series:

Number:001 - The logic of inflation

The APEurope Pool is preparing short notes to accompany the Economic Briefs in order to call attention to the main messages in each as well a pose questions that can be shared so as to provide a basis for group discussions to test the content of the briefs. These notes are to provide orientation to group discussion moderators or tutors working with students. Subsequently pod casts will also be produced.

Note: The APEurope Pool welcomes questions from groups for clarifications on the content of any brief and will provide answers to any questions sent in by email at:

Future listings will be available in the resources section.

Keeping up with PPJ news, events and actions, such as petitions....

Accoring to PPJ statements, the launch of PPJ reached at least 500,000 on social media through Sunday’s launch, with tens of thousands tuning in for at least thirty minutes and tens of thousands commenting on our channels.

January 2021

Accoring to PPJ statements, the launch of PPJ reached at least 500,000 on social media through Sunday’s launch, with tens of thousands tuning in for at least thirty minutes and tens of thousands commenting on our channels.

On the day of the launch over £30,000 was raised all from small donors giving an average of just £7 to support the growth and development of the Peace and Justice Project.

Since PPJ first announced a short while ago, there are already 36,000 supporters on PPJ mailing list and 3,000 people signed up to the PPJ campaigns.

Latest petitions

Link to the current PPJ petitions are provided below:

Petition: Protect our news media from monopoly control

Petition: Support the widest possible access and affordability of Covid-19 vaccines for the whole planet

Petition: Protect our news media from monopoly control

Not satisfied with his dominance in print and online news, Murdoch is planning to re-enter the UK television market. But unlike his last attempt to buyout Sky, this time there's no one stopping him. We need an urgent Parliamentary commission to protect our news media from oligarch and monopoly control.

A free, diverse and independent media is vital to the functioning of any democratic society. But the British media landscape is increasingly dominated by a small number of corporations and very wealthy individuals. Over half of leading daily newspapers in the UK are now controlled by two billionaires. These titles also lead the pack in both online audience share and agenda influence, including over the BBC.

In 2012, Lord Justice Leveson warned that "Not only are the press powerful lobbyists in their own interests, but they wield a powerful megaphone with considerable influence over the personal and political reputation of politicians. They are also highly skilled, at the level of some proprietors, editors and senior executives, at subtle and intuitive lobbying in the context of personal relationships and friendships".

Last year, research found that Murdoch and his senior executives continued to enjoy unrivalled access to government, meeting with senior ministers and officials over 200 times over a period of 24 months.

In 2018, the Competition and Markets Authority advised the government against allowing Murdoch to gain control over Sky News, citing threats to the public interest over media plurality. Instead, Murdoch has now invested in a new UK television news channel, allowing him to enter the UK television news market without regulatory scrutiny.

This move exposes the reality that Britain's current media ownership rules are inadequate and not fit for purpose. The previous Tory government agreed with this: endorsing a recommendation by OFCOM and a House of Lords Select Committee to carry out periodic reviews of media plurality to ensure that the UK’s news landscape is sufficiently diverse and democratic.

But nothing happened. It got kicked into the long grass and now Murdoch is planning to gain yet another foothold on the UK media, notwithstanding rampant criminality exposed in his newsrooms and the explicit hard right political leanings of most news outlets under his control.

That is why we are calling for Parliament to establish a new commission on media ownership, as it did for banking standards in 2012. Such a commission should have the powers to investigate the full spectrum of issues associated with media dominance, including both the power wielded by tech monopolies and the particular influence of Rupert Murdoch over British media and politics, and it should aim to produce a framework for regulating media ownership that is fit for the 21st century.

Today we are calling on Parliament to establish a new independent commission into broadcasting standards

Petition: Support the widest possible access and affordability of Covid-19 vaccines for the whole planet

Even as we celebrate the first shots of the COVID-19 vaccines administered in the UK, it is increasingly clear that poorer countries will have to wait years to access the treatment and protect their people. Some rich countries have acquired enough doses to vaccinate their entire populations nearly three times over, while experts suggest that nine out of ten people in poor countries will not receive a vaccine this year.

This disparity is alarming. For the majority of people in the Global South, the virus and now, it seems, the vaccine, are refracted through legacies of colonialism, public services decimated by IMF-enforced austerity programs, and supply chains embedded in a global economy that replicate imperialism. The United Nations estimates that nearly half of all jobs in Africa could be lost, while Oxfam calculates that the virus’ economic impact may push half a billion people into poverty.

This pandemic came to a world already in crisis, compounding climate catastrophe, economic sanctions and border regimes, pharmaceutical greed, and privatised health systems built to serve a tiny elite. Precarious workers and the marginalised suffered most, even as reactionary politicians around the world found new vocabulary to demonise migrants and minorities for the ills of the pandemic.

If indeed the Covid-19 vaccines are to end the pandemic, we know what needs to happen: 60% of the world must be inoculated to achieve herd immunity. Yet we continue to act as though any one country can end the crisis alone by repeatedly thwarting attempts at global solidarity, coordinated action, and ultimately, international justice.

A few weeks after the World Health Organization declared Covid-19 a global pandemic, the Costa Rican President proposed setting up a Technology Access Pool to facilitate voluntary sharing of health technology, intellectual property, and data. This was inimical to pharma companies’ bottom line and discarded with little fanfare by their ruling protectors.

A few months later, its successor, the COVAX Facility for vaccine distribution – an effort to subsidize vaccines for developing countries – seemed promising. It now contends with a shortfall of US$28 billion.

And now, close to a year in, a handful of the richest countries, including the UK, are opposing a proposal at the World Trade Organization to waive intellectual property barriers to aid a swift and just Covid-19 response. Even as the UK began to receive the first doses of the vaccine, it joined the rich bloc in voting against the proposal, dooming large swathes of the world to contend with the pandemic alone. Big pharma’s executives retained their profits.

We call on the UK government to reverse its opposition to widely available and affordable vaccines for the world’s poorer nations and to work with countries like South Africa and India through the WTO to ensure big pharma’s mega profits aren’t more important that global health.