As people who look at the pages of this must website must see, he is very much the moderate in comparison to the actual left . . . . in fact, he is more mainstream with todays popular opinion in the USA, as much as the UK, with his promise to open his term in power by going to the UN, apologising for the British role in the Iraq war, then asking for ideas about a good way to pull the troops out in as safe a way as possible for them, but also for the Iraqi people ( replacing unpopular UK/USA troops with joint UN/Arab league forces, perhaps, to repair damage more, but repress less) .


When, you might have thought, IF HE WAS "the unwinnably left" type he is portrayed as, the old "tory" hardball covert spin might have hoped him success . . . . the words that seem put into presenters mouths these days seem to try to pretend that the "middle english" mightnt agree with him too. . . . despite the polls showing big majorities agree with him about the dodgy scams of PFI, too, amongst numerous of his other positions, as a matter of fact.
In labour, too, recent conference decisions are often more in tune with his views - if that "democracy" means something actual to the people reporting all this.
As to the 50% of 1997s labour membership that have - for the moment - resigned - the re-energising effect that his election, then a NEW, SERIOUS, PASSIONATE LABOUR election campaign might have is also quite a " tonic for the troops" .
1997s result - but with meaning, open to voluntary coalitions with others, allowing serious progress to open democracies future again - to accept the legitimacy of critiques from @s as much as the legitimacy of input from the older traditions of stewardship that have always come from the soul of the tories too, when they werent myopic about the "rackets".
. . . . Hence the question. IF IT AINT THE TORIES playing this "opinion influencing" game over broadcast news, papers, etc - then . . . .

The new folktales about all political representation structures getting "got at" by "opinion influencers" that try to put a "vetting process" over the actual MPs, leadership, etc, to ensure "blindspots". . . . these "new folktales" say that the culprits aint political. They dont care. They dont actually THINK, much. They are criminal.
I used to dismiss these "new folktales" - but they are very hard to dismiss, after this.

. . . . back to politics, progress, etc, please - quite fast, - showing labour could exhibit a serious competence in relation to the economy was necessary, yes, but it doesnt explain all the odd distortions. . . . the fact is, Clem Atlee was seen as a little inexperienced - or some of the "mispresentations" of the time said that about him too, but to try to present somebody with the background that Mcdonnel has as inexperienced is plain odd. Deputy leader of the G.L.C, then the "treasury" for London, international real work, then co-ordinating dozens of commitees . . . . look at the record. But all you hear about in the news is "NUM, TUC", etc.

PS - MY FAVOURITE NLP bit of smear-spin - of the sort that is supposed to get to your "subconscious", as deconstructed by "stage magic"shows on TV recently, was the - of course, accidental "wordbreak" in the FT yesterday . In the word "communication", guess where they broke the word. Accidental or not, that is typical - if clunky. Look at the page layouts, the priorities of news items, etc, etc, as much as the words.

Remember, this is about democracy.
Yes, other worlds are possible.
But this world could get very, very "dystopic" much, much faster.
GOOD TO PAUSE FOR THOUGHT, then - breathe in -

. . . . much done, much to do, as somebody whose also had a bit of bad press said recently. . . .


(see also "remember each eleventh" campaign signposts re elections)