Britain must reject Corbyn's poison
Mr Corbyn's statement launching his new party criticised 'the great dividers', and proclaimed that his 'movement is made up of people of all faiths and none'. That he made these comments without any apparent sense of English irony speaks to his lack of self-awareness; few in Westminster have done more to spread division.
Mr Corbyn's supporters may claim that Nigel Farage's Reform is stoking division by drawing attention to the failure of the British state to guard its borders. This is nonsense. Concerns about immigration are shared by many millions, and Mr Farage has been clear in disavowing Tommy Robinson and his ilk.
Under Mr Corbyn's leadership the Labour Party was investigated for anti-Semitism by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. He is a man who once referred to members of Hamas and Hezbollah as his 'friends', although he subsequently attempted to backtrack. He was arrested outside the Old Bailey in 1986 after joining a protest to 'show solidarity' with terrorists including the Brighton bomber.
The most divisive contests and disgraceful scenes of the last election did not take place where Reform candidates were jousting with the Conservatives, but in the fights between pro-Gaza candidates and their Labour opponents. Mr Corbyn's obsessive attacks on Israel, including his backing for a complete arms embargo promises to further inflame this issue.
As with the rapid rise of Mr Farage's Reform to now lead in the polls, Mr Corbyn's support speaks to a broader failure of Britain's established parties, and the ossification of our politics.
While it is understandable, however, that many voters are frustrated with the visible decay of the British state, Mr Corbyn's toxic brand of Left-wing politics would only deepen the crisis we face. Confronted with a mountainous debt burden and an out-of-control welfare system, Mr Corbyn's answer is to further tax 'the very richest', and nationalise energy, water, rail and mail.
It is an agenda which would put the final nail in Britain's coffin, and smother all hope of recovery for decades to come, repeating the very worst economic policy errors of the 20th century in some of the least favourable circumstances imaginable.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on talking in class: the writers speaking up for oracy education are right
Two years ago, Sir Keir Starmer enthused about teaching speaking skills. So schools campaigners were understandably dismayed when oracy – otherwise known as speaking and listening – did not appear in the interim report of the curriculum review for England headed by Prof Becky Francis. Peter Hyman, the former New Labour adviser who became a headteacher, has been a key figure behind the revival, over the past decade, of an idea developed in the 1960s. Steps to embed the importance of verbal communication in education have already been taken, with more than 1,000 schools working with the charity Voice 21, and a parallel project in Scotland. The hope expressed by children's authors and others last week is that its absence from the draft report was an oversight which will soon be rectified. The task before Prof Francis's commission is a daunting one, with reformers of all kinds looking to it for solutions. An evidence call attracted 7,000 responses, with the future of special educational needs provision, and a wish to reduce exams, among key issues raised. But it should be clear to the panel, and to ministers, that oral learning also matters. One reason is the rising number of children arriving in primary school with speech and language skills below the expected level. While some pupils catch up later, others need specialist help. Communication difficulties are one reason for the increase in the number of education, health and care plans (EHCPs), which set out what such support entails. The reasons for such complex changes are not yet fully understood, although the pandemic has had an impact. The challenge of artificial intelligence, in relation to university studies as well as schools, is another factor behind a renewed emphasis on talking. Given the easy availability of technological tools to aid writing, it is arguably more important than ever that people are equipped to share ideas and knowledge through speech as well. In many European countries oral examinations are far more common, in schools as well as universities, whereas in the UK 'vivas' are mostly reserved for postgraduate studies. In foreign language learning, the importance of speaking is taken for granted. But while oracy already features in the maths and science curriculum, as well as in English, it is often marginalised. The tricky task of reformers is to alter teaching practice so that more weight is placed on verbal communication, without making this yet another assessment hurdle to be cleared. For its champions, the core of oracy education is the ability to make connections. They want young people to be able to express themselves, and point out that this is a vital life skill – for example, in job interviews and the kinds of public‑facing work that seem least likely to be taken over by machines – for which school should prepare them. Big gaps in confidence about public speaking have long been recognised among the most glaring social inequalities. This doesn't mean that everyone should aspire to be a debating champion. Different accents, personalities and ways of relating should be valued, not ironed out. But if our schools are to keep pace with our frenetically changing world, it is surely right that they should maximise the facility for language, which is part of what makes us human.
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump complains that 'nobody' gives US credit but US will provide 'more' food aid for starving Gaza
President Donald promised additional U.S. food aid to combat starvation in Gaza Sunday, while complaining the nation doesn't get credit and vowing to press other nations to do more. He faced repeated questions about the ominous situation there while meeting with EU Commission President Ursuala von der Leyen at his Turnberry golf course in Scotland. Trump complained about 'one-sided' trade and view-obstructing wind turbines – but also said the U.S. might do more amid reports of starvation in suffering in the war-ravaged territory amid Israel 's bombardment. 'People don't know this – and we didn't certainly get any acknowledgement or thank you, but we contributed $60 million to food and supplies and everything else,' said Trump. 'We hope the money gets there, because you know, that money gets taken. The food gets taken. We're going to do more, but we gave a lot of money.' 'Nobody acknowledged it. Nobody talks about it,' Trump complained. 'And it makes you feel a little bad when you do that. And you know, you have other countries not giving anything.' 'The US is going to do more aid for Gaza but we'd like to have other countries participate,' Trump said. 'It would be nice to have at least a thank you' – Trump said, raising a demand for appreciation that also featured in Trump's blowup with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. Trump spoke after Israel announced it would provide 10-hour 'tactical' pauses to allow food aid deliveries amid the humanitarian crisis and the breakdown in talks for a ceasefire that would free remaining hostages that Hamas took after the October 7 attack on Israel. It has made other allowances for aid since beginning its attacks following the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack inside Isreal. But the blockade and difficulty for people to move and access food and medecine has led to reports of widespread hunger. 'If we weren't there, I think people would have starved, frankly – they would have starved. And it's not like they're eating well, but a lot of that food is getting stolen by stolen by Hamas. You know, they're stealing the food. They're stealing a lot of things. You ship it in, and they steal it, then they sell it,' Trump said. He held out the prospect of more U.S. releif. In his push to have others join, Trump said, 'We're going to mention that to the European Union today. Yeah, that's an international problem. It's not a US problem. It's an international problem.' The EU announced an aid package worth €120 million for Gaza in January. British PM Keir Starmer, who meets Trump Monday, said he is working on air drops for Gaza. He is also expected to press Trump to renew ceasefire talks. Tho two sat down in a ballroom at Turnberry after the president played a round of golf with his son, Eric. It was his second day of golfing, on a trip where he is set to attend the opening of a new golf course in Aberdeenshire.
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Global moral consensus is just wishful thinking
In his opinion piece (From Gaza to Ukraine, peace always seems just out of reach – and the reason isn't only political, 20 July), Simon Tisdall says 'ending major conflicts, and easing the suffering of millions, is a moral imperative that demands a determined collective response from all concerned. That way lies peace. That way lies salvation'. If that is really the case then all hope is lost. There already is a 'determined collective response' from all concerned, which is a pledge to fight to the bitter end, whatever the cost to their victims in lives or suffering. For Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, freedom from moral constraints, incorporating manifestly immoral behaviour and open contempt for international law, is an existential necessity. To expect either of them to abandon the territorial ambitions on which they have staked their political futures lies somewhere between naivety and sheer wishful thinking. Given that, all talk of 'moral imperatives', without enforceable international law when their noble aspirations are breached, is no more than impotent bleating from the sidelines. The treaty to establish the international criminal court in 1998 failed to sign up China, India or the Gulf states. Indeed the map of those countries that have ratified the ICC looks suspiciously like the former Commonwealth, with the addition of South America. More significant are those countries who signed up to the treaty, but which have refused to ratify it, for various stated reasons, but ineluctably because their current politicians need immunity from its rulings – the former superpowers US and Russia, and Israel. None of their leaders could survive in office if they were made internationally accountable to enforceable laws with a clear moral basis. Sadly but paradoxically, the only people with the political and military clout to bring the war criminals to justice in the name of morality turn out to be the ones perpetuating the war crimes. Alex WatsonStroud, Gloucestershire Simon Tisdall rightly argues that peace remains elusive not just due to geopolitics, but a collapse in global moral consensus. Yet we must ask: has that consensus ever truly been global – or has it been curated through western lenses? Britain recently announced an inquiry into violent policing at Orgreave in 1984 and the subsequent collapsed prosecution of 95 miners, but still refuses to apologise for Jallianwala Bagh, where hundreds of unarmed Indians were massacred under imperial command in 1919. Where is the moral clarity? Tisdall speaks of the 'rules-based international order'. But when Donald Trump bombed Iranian nuclear sites – installations once fostered by Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace programme – where were the rules? Would the same be done to Pakistan or China? The west routinely turns a blind eye when its allies commit horrors. Yes, Russians ignore Ukraine. But did the UK not join the US in Iraq, a war based on phantom weapons of mass destruction? Have we ever truly atoned for the destruction of Falluja, or the millions displaced in Afghanistan? I agree that peace demands moral revitalisation. But that renewal must begin at home: in Washington, London, Paris. A world that arms first and negotiates never cannot preach morality. Diplomacy has been replaced by drone strikes, and summits by air raids. The UN has become a mute witness, bypassed by the very powers that once built it. Until we stop dividing the world into 'worthy victims' and 'collateral damage', there will be no peace. There is no lesser life. And there is no moral order unless it applies to all. Let truth precede justice. And only then will peace KalyanasundaramChennai, India Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
