Letters on Blairite scaremongering

According to the likes of Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair, the Labour party apparently, must not have a leader who approves of re-nationalising railways and the greedy energy companies (You Corbynites out there should be careful what you wish for,13/08/15). The new leader, presumably, must ignore the fact that, as was recently reported, the taxpayer subsidises private business to the tune of £93bn a year in "corporate welfare", and that the CEOs of FTSE100 companies have an annual payment approximately 150 times the average paid to their employees. Presumably, private landlords should continue to be allowed to charge exorbitant rents, whilst social housing is gradually phased out. Government can, not only continue with its policy of privatisation, it can get away with selling at knock-down prices to City investors, as with Royal Mail and RBS, costing the taxpayer billions, whilst austerity, with £12bn of welfare cuts, has to be imposed to save the country money! 

  Whilst Campbell rightly says that one of the reasons for the 2015 defeat was the failure "to rebut the idea that Labour caused the financial crash", he neglects to blame all those around Miliband giving their "expert" advice, perhaps because many of them were Blairites. Corbyn`s "silly positions" and "bizarre alliances" are criticised, with Campbell seemingly blind to the toxic effects of his and Blair`s roles in the invasion of Iraq.

     Blairites are keen to exaggerate the idea that if Corbyn gets elected, because he is apparently "hard left", he will support industrial action, and call for ministerial resignations. But aren`t they exactly what the the leader of the opposition should do, and something that exploited public sector workers like nurses and teachers would really appreciate? Did Tristram Hunt`s crossing of a picket-line of university workers requesting a living wage line endear him to Labour voters, or illustrate the little difference there is between Labour and Tory politicians?

 Scaremongering Blairites like Campbell fail to understand that there is a greater chance of "chaos being unleashed" in the Labour party if one of the centrist candidates wins, because their main idea is to tinker, alleviating slightly the effects of Tory austerity, when the country is crying out for a transformation of our grossly unfair society. If, as Campbell suggests, there is a "gulf between members in the country and the PLP", it behoves the MPs to adapt their policies accordingly.

 

So Tony Blair wrote his piece only for "longstanding" members of the Labour party, and "those who have joined without an agenda" (Even if you hate me, please don`t take Labour over the cliff,13/08/15). How patronising can he get? He can only mean traditional Labour voters, who want to vote for a new leader but, in his mind, have no real political opinions, and are simply waiting for advice from the likes of him, Alastair Campbell and Alan Johnson (Victory for Corbyn could kill Labour, warns Campbell, 11/08/15)? Blair and his acolytes simply cannot accept that it is because the party has moved to the right (not sufficiently "pro-business", not "aspirational") that voters are demanding change, and supporting the only candidate offering a real alternative to New Labour.

According to the Blairite agenda, the Labour party must not have a leader who approves of re-nationalising railways and the greedy energy companies The new leader, presumably, must ignore the fact that, as the Guardian recently reported, the taxpayer subsidises private business to the tune of £93bn a year in "corporate welfare", and that the CEOs of FTSE100 companies have an annual payment approximately 150 times the average paid to their employees. Presumably, private landlords should continue to be allowed to charge exorbitant rents, whilst social housing is gradually phased out. The Tory government can, not only continue with its policy of privatisation, but can get away with selling at knock-down prices to City investors, as with Royal Mail and RBS, costing the taxpayer billions, whilst austerity, with £12bn of welfare cuts, has to be imposed to save the country money! 

  Campbell even suggested that if Corbyn gets elected, he will be so "hard left" he will "back strikes" and call for "ministerial resignations"! But isn`t the latter exactly what the leader of the opposition should do, and the former something that exploited public sector workers like nurses and teachers would really appreciate? Did Tristram Hunt`s crossing of a picket-line of university workers requesting a living wage line endear him to Labour voters, or illustrate the little difference there is between Labour and Tory politicians?

 The scaremongering Blair and Campbell fail to understand that the Labour party is far more likely to face "a car crash" if one of the centrist candidates wins, because their main idea is to tinker when the country is crying out for a transformation of our grossly unfair society. Blairites don`t even realise that their constant interfering, and condescending hectoring, make a Corbyn victory much more likely.