Because I forgot to take a hay fever tablet on Sunday I woke at two in the morning with a blocked nose and was coughing and spluttering. I knew I'd need a cup of tea before getting back to sleep. Whilst I was drinking it I watched the video of Jeremy Corbyn's speech in Sunday night that I linked to here. I was impressed.
When I woke on Monday morning I decided that the time had come to acknowledge that Jeremy Corbyn has been a vastly better Labour leader than I ever expected and that an apology was owing. So I bashed one out, and within minutes it had been published.
Somewhat to my surprise it was read over 40,000 times yesterday. With the other blogs that were posted and the usual run of traffic the result was the busiest ever day in this blog's history. There were 56,000 reads on this blog yesterday. My apology even got reported in the Independent.
I could not help but ask why. I am a little surprised (to say the least) that my apology might matter that much. So I have concluded that what got attention was the fact that I simply said I had got something wrong in a world where Elton John has the last word on that subject.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
saw your name on the letter with people like Stephen Keen and Ha-Joon Chang, saying we need change.
Is the Times going to carry it or the Mail report it?
If not, why not? At times I think we live in a one party state.
Did not get round to commenting on your original apology, I think it was honourable and welcome, thank you.
Realistically I think it was the only major thing I disagree with you on, perhaps with the exception to the progressive alliance but I am not against that just more cautious.
I think it was not just the fact that you had disagreements and criticism of Jeremy but the vociferousness of them that struck me.
In my mind he was always going to struggle initially because it was like an ordinary classroom teacher (my profession) suddenly being made headteacher. He needed those around him to circle the wagons but instead they sharpened their knives at him.
Of course if we had PR then there would be no need for a progressive electoral alliance and I hope that if we get a Labour govt they will consider PR
without PR the Tories can win with 35% ish and make the rules which suit them–photo ID for elections, re-draw the constituency boundaries, change registration rules.
With PR they will never get another majority.
If you Google “Brighton Labour Party”, the first hit that comes up is an Ad placed by the Conservative Party, “THE NINE THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT JEREMY CORBYN “. By my calculation, three of the “facts” are more or less true, one is half true, and five are completely false. I thought that Trump was an outlier, but sadly, he is the new norm. Richard’s honesty renders him totally unsuitable for politics. We want politicians we can disbelieve.
I suspect my honesty does make me quite unsuited to frontline politics
And tell me, does the advert ANYWHERE say – as EVERY PAPER and POSTER election communication must – “Published by (name of Election Agent) “on behalf of (name of Election Candidate or Party) (contact address for Agent/Party”
If not, two things follow: the first is that it does not conform with the stipulations of electoral law, as contained in eg The Representation of the
People Act, 1983. And the second is that it falls entirely outside not only the legal rules, but also the regulatory effect of electoral law, in that it is impossible to say to whose election expenses account it should be charged, but also in what sims it should be charged.
In other words, this is the Tory 2015 Election expenses not only repeated, but writ large. I believe it would be equitable to assess the likely cost of these underhand methods, and charge the Tory Party that cost multiplied by 10 for their dishonesty and unfairness.
Excellent point
Andrew, you have the language to make the complaint
Copy in Michael Crick…..
I forgot. I believe that if you click the link, it costs the Conservative party £2. If there were 10 million clicks before Thursday, it would make a significant hole in Conservative Party finances
I clicked – several times – hoping to ratchet up the bill
Crikey Richard, you’ve really struck a chord with that ‘Sorry-blog’ -not sure how you are keeping up with the still expanding number of posts -you’ve tuned into something collective there!
I am completely amazed
John Prescott admitting he got it wrong about Corbyn:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-2017-jeremy-corbyn-attracts-bigger-crowds-labour-party-1997-john-prescott-tony-blair-a7775316.html
Thank you Richard for apologising about Jeremy Corbyn. Coupled with the Guardian’s editorial support for Labour it could indicate a change is imminent. I really hope so because I have waited 30 years for this manifesto from Labour.
Fingers crossed
I think what I minded most was your rather harsh crticism of Corbyn/McDonnell for not trying to challenge the fraudulent “household budget” economic paradigm. This is so entrenched throughout the whole media and society in general that to challenge it from an “outsider” position was just never feasible. I don’t believe I’m a stupid person but, ever since I’ve been reading your blog – probably about three years now – I’ve been trying (through reading, videos, anything I could find) to get a really good grip on your, for me, quite new idea about money and how it works. While I’ve got the main thrust of the argument, there are still bits round the edges that I don’t know enough to find an answer to. People who do live and breathe it just can’t seem to understand how really difficult it is for beginners. I think McDonnell got as near to it as he dared when he tried to separate out borrowing for capital spending from day-to-day spending paid for by taxation. I know that’s not how it works butit’s a bit of a shift in the right direction and much more staight-forward for the general public to understand.
People do trust you, Richard, so I can quite see how so many have appreciated that change of position. And it’s cheered me up too.
I think my criticism when I made it was justified
Jeremy has done well
I said so
But they have to keep going now
And so too does the rest of Labour
Credit to you Richard. Along with quite a few of my friends, Ive seen Corbyn mature and develop during the campaign into a credible and humane individual, in complete contrast to May. His past will always haunt him and be exploited by the media, but then Tory politicians have cupboards packed with skeletons that ought ought to be exposed. Also his team still lacks strength but the same can be said of the Tories
We can be sure that Corbyn will be around for a while yet, which cannot be said of May, though her alternatives are probably even worse.
PS Im in deepest Estonia which is a reminder of the massive role the EU has played in transforming ex-Soviet states into modern successful societies. Something those on the far left and right both sadly ignore, both seeing it through somewhat narrow ideological lenses
Robin, so this depiction of Estonia is distortion/:-
‘What is the reality of Estonia’s economic model? One, it has US GINI coefficient levels. If you like massive inequality, then you found the right place with Estonia and the Baltics generally. Secondly, they have effervescing unemployment and social pathologies only somewhat mitigated by Estonian labor (and business) exiting to and from the neighboring labor and business markets of Finland.
Indeed, the so-called Estonian “success” has delivered purchasing power rates only a third below Greece’s, even though Estonia sits next to, and is really integrated into, one of the world’s richest purchasing power countries. Linguistically, Estonian and Finnish are mutually understandable. This make for easy penetration of each other’s business and labor markets. Data released by Statistics Estonia on 2009 reveal huge poverty for a European Union country. About 16 per cent of the Estonian population or about 211,000 people lived in relative poverty in 2009. The situation has not got any better in the two subsequent years — and the austerity measures are not likely to make things better. About the only thing good that can be said, is that Estonia’s model has worked better than Latvia, where their austerity and flat taxes have produced an exit of Biblical proportions that threatens to destroy that country.
See: http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/24/destroying-estonia/
That article is six years old though but a recent (2016) Headline form The Baltic Times stated:
Inequality in Estonia now the most prevalent in Europe (See: http://www.baltictimes.com/ossinovski__inequality_in_estonia_now_the_most_prevalent_in_europe/)
Austerity in Latvia seems to have produced worse results such as mass emigration.
All propaganda?
We were talking to a young Slovenian woman serving us in a Dorset restaurant. She had been here for 6 months – her sister lived here. She didn’t think she’d stay (nothing to do with Brexit), but she said that the EU and the Euro had been a disaster for Slovenia.