The propaganda campaign against Corbyn

The propaganda campaign against Corbyn

Ever since Corbyn became party leader the New Labour faction who still make up the majority of MPs (but not party members any more) have spent more time joining with the Conservative party and right wing elements of the media to try to undermine Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader than they have criticising the tories.

Corbyn and Scotland

The story that Labour lost the 2016 Scottish parliament elections due to Corbyn is pretty far fetched, given that Labour had already lost Scottish parliament elections when Blair and Brown were leaders – and had lost all but one of its MPs in Scotland in the May 2015 General Election, months before Corbyn was elected leader.

Labour didn’t win seats back in Scotland under Corbyn, but the fact that New Labour MPs retained so much influence and could move against Corbyn at any time will have made it hard for Labour to get back trust with Scottish voters. As did Kezia Dugdale MSP remaining Scottish Labour leader, as she is well known to be on the New Labour wing of the party.

Corbyn and the EU referendum

The pretext the New Labour MPs have used is that Corbyn failed to get a Remain vote in the EU referendum. It’s true that 37% of people who voted Labour in 2015 voted Leave. But 37% of SNP voters did too. So did 30% of Lib Dem voters, the Lib Dems being most pro-EU party in the UK. Yet no one is calling for Nicola Sturgeon or Tim Farron to resign (1).

The “disaster” of Britain leaving the EU is also being hyped up a lot. The likeliest outcome is that the EU will negotiate a deal with the UK similar to the ones Norway and Switzerland have – free trade in return for two-way Freedom of Movement of people and annual financial contributions to the EU budget.

There might yet even be a second referendum on whether to accept the final deal negotiated for the UK outside the EU, or remaining after all.

The EU is hardly the model of international brotherhood, solidarity and equality it is made out to be either, or it would not still be imposing levels of crippling austerity on Greece that make Conservative austerity in the UK look mild by comparison (and the tory austerity is bad enough). (And I say that as a Remain voter) (2).

It’s unlikely that any Labour leader could have avoided many Labour voters voting Leave.

Tom Mauchline, who heckled Corbyn over the referendum, is an employee of Portland Communications, a public relations firm established by former Blair adviser Tim Allan and employing Alastair Campbell (3) – (6). (credit to The Canary)

The allegations of Anti-semitism

The attacks on Corbyn for having referred to “our friends in Hamas” are pretty hypocritical coming from New Labour and Conservative MPs who have actually provided arms to dictatorships like the Saudis and Egyptian military

Corbyn was attempting to encourage peace negotiations between Israel and the entire elected Palestinian government – which includes Hamas.

Efraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad, is among  Israelis who have said Israel should accept Hama’s offer of talks. Is he meant to be an anti-semite too? (7)

The “anti-semitic slur” supposedly made by a party member to Jewish MP Ruth Smeeth at a Corbyn press conference does not seem to exist when you watch a video of the incident on The Independent newspaper’s website. (8)

Labour member Marc Wadsworth can be heard saying “I saw that the Telegraph handed a copy of a press release to Ruth Smeeth MP so you can see who is working hand in hand. If you look around this room, how many African Caribbean and Asian people are there? We need to get our house in order.” (credit to Craig Murray here)

Ruth Smeeth and some of the media spun this into a “traditional anti-semitic slur” of “Jewish media conspiracy” though her being Jewish had not been mentioned at all.

It also turns out that Ruth Smeeth is a former employee of BICOM – a pro-Israeli government lobby group. (9).

So it seems very likely she will be hostile to Corbyn, who is a well-known critic of some of the actions of the Israeli government.

The majority of the criticism of Corbyn and his allies equates any criticism of any of the actions of the Israeli government to anti-semitism or hatred of all Jews.

That is as ridiculous as claiming that any criticism of the Iraq war makes you “anti-British” or “anti-American”.

No doubt some anti-semites use the cover of anti-Zionism or opposition to Israeli policies, but these are a small minority even on the left of the Labour party, most of who, like Corbyn, believe that Israel has a right to exist, but should allow Palestine to exist alongside it.

Death Threats and “mob rule”

The police are absolutely right to treat allegations of death threats and threats of rape by Corbyn supporters against some Labour MPs seriously in case they are real (10).

But given all of the above there has to be a bit of doubt in anyone’s mind about whether they are.

If they are there is no way that Corbyn or MPs close to him have approved or encouraged it.

It also turns out that one of the people posing with an elderly man wearing an “Eradicate the Blairite vermin” t-shirt is Anna Phillips, an employee of the Blairite campaign group Progress – and the other is another public relations media strategist (credit to Craig Murray again). Did they provide the t-shirt too?

 

(1) = Lord Ashcroft polls 24 Jun 2016, ‘How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday… and why’, http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

(2) = Salon 29 Apr 2016 ‘“Ponzi austerity” scheme imposed by E.U. and U.S. bleeds Greece dry on behalf of banks, says ex-finance minister’, http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/ponzi_austerity_scheme_imposed_by_e_u_and_u_s_bleeds_greece_dry_on_behalf_of_banks_says_ex_finance_minister/

(3) = BBC News 25 Jun 2016 ‘EU referendum: 'It's your fault, Jeremy' - Corbyn heckled’,  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36629976

(4) = https://uk.linkedin.com/in/thomas-mauchline-84538644

(5) = http://www.portland-communications.com/people/tim-allan/

(6) = http://www.portland-communications.com/people/alastair-campbell/

(7) = www.independent.co.uk 10 Jun 2015 ‘It's time for Israel to talk to Hamas, says former Mossad head’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/its-time-for-israel-to-talk-to-hamas-says-former-mossad-head-10311651.html

(8) = www.independent.co.uk 30 Jun 2016 ‘Labour activist who berated MP Ruth Smeeth says he did not know she was Jewish and denies Momentum links’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-activist-who-berated-mp-ruth-smeeth-says-he-did-not-know-she-was-jewish-and-denies-momentum-a7111366.html (see video on the page)

(9) = BICOM 11^th May 2015 ‘BICOM Analysis: UK General Election – Implications for Israel’, http://www.bicom.org.uk/analysis/25415/ ( scroll down to bolded sub-heading ‘What can we expect from the new House of Commons?’ – 2^nd paragraph under it, final sentence ‘Incoming Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent North Ruth Smeeth is a former BICOM staffer.’)

(10) = www.telegraph.co.uk 29 Jun 2016 ‘Revealed: Labour MPs go to police over death threats after refusal to back Jeremy Corbyn’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/revealed-labour-mps-go-to-police-over-death-threats-after-refusa/

Texas study actually shows fracking industry does contaminate water - and Institute which conducted it is funded by fracking company

Much of the media are reporting that a new study has supposedly shown that there is no evidence of fracking contaminating water. If you read the full study it says ‘no direct evidence’ (implying there is indirect evidence) and is also playing with words by pretending that drilling the well for fracking, lining it and transporting chemicals used in fracking above ground are not fracking – as they are separate stages of the process. This is like arguing that the BP / Halliburton DeepWater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico was nothing to do with the oil drilling industry because it was the result of the casing of the well being done imperfectly. It’s just playing with words. The reality is the fracking industry does contaminate water (and also air through flaring).

You can even find out half of this from the press release from the University, never mind the original study (1).

On top of that the people quoting this study are ignoring the fact that it was done by the Energy Institute of the University of Texas, which is funded by ConocoPhillips with at least $1.5million, ConocoPhillips being an oil and gas company currently facing law suits relating to it's fracking activities. That’s only the money we know about, because many American universities are refusing to say whether particular studies were funded by private companies or not, let alone which companies or by how much (2) – (3).

Even leaving aside the bias and conflict of interest in the study due to it's funding by a company involved in fracking (which means it has no credibility anyway), if you actually read the whole study, it's full findings are very different to the carefully misleading wording used in claiming that there's "no evidence that fracking contaminates water"

Time magazine reports that the study found that "Instead, researchers concluded that the problems associated with fracking tend to be due to mistakes made in other parts of the drilling process, like casing failures that allow drilling fluids and gas to escape from a well, poor cement jobs and spills on the surface. “These problems are not unique to hydraulic fracturing,” Charles Groat, an Energy Institute associate director and the lead author of the study, said in a statement." (4) So in other words fracking does cause these problems – but so does drilling for oil on land (something everyone knows already, so redundant).

It found that fracking does contaminate water in practice, because mistakes are made and short-cuts taken, leading to breaches in the casing during fracking and spilling of fracking chemicals above ground just as with drilling for oil, except that fracking pollutes ground water on land and so our drinking water.

Additionally the study admits that methane and various toxic materials present in the earth before fracturing begins may be released into wells and ground water due to fracturing, contaminating it - which shows how dishonest the summary claiming 'no evidence of contamination due to fracking' is.

See page 19 of the original study on this, which says "It appears that many of the water quality changes observed in water wells in a similar time frame as shale gas operations may be due to mobilization of constituents that were already present in the wells by energy (vibrations and pressure pulses) put into the ground during drilling and other operations rather than by hydraulic fracturing fluids or leakage from the well casing. As the vibrations and pressure changes disturb the wells, accumulated particles of iron and manganese oxides, as well as other materials on the casing wall and well bottom, may become agitated into suspension causing changes in color (red, orange or gold), increasing turbidity, and release of odors." (5)

Also note the ‘may’ – not very definite language.

So saying fracking doesn't cause it is misleading if the drilling to prepare for fracking the transportation of chemicals for fracking and the lining of the drilled wells does.

When this study and other proponents of fracking claim that water or air contamination is “not caused by fracking” it’s like claiming that the BP / Halliburton DeepWater Horizon oil spill was not due to drilling for oil because it was due to faulty capping of the well with concrete – it’s playing with words. In fact the fracking industry’s activities do cause water and air pollution just as oil drilling does cause oil spills and water and air pollution. The difference with fracking is that it's on land where spills can pollute water supplies and gas from flaring is likely to have dispersed less than gas flared on oil rigs by the time it reaches land, meaning it will affect more people breathing it in.

(1) = Energy Institute of the University of Texas press release 23 Mar 2012 'Study Shows No Evidence of Groundwater Contamination from Hydraulic Fracturing', http://energy.utexas.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=154:study-shows-no-evidence-of-groundwater-contamination-from-hydraulic-fracturing&catid=34:press-releases&Itemid=54

(2) = University of Texas ‘ConocoPhillips Gives $1.5 Million to Fund Cutting-Edge Energy Research’, http://giving.utexas.edu/2010/11/01/conocophillips-energy-research/

(3) = BreakingLawSuitNews.com 23 Jan 2012 ‘Lawsuit Filed Against ConocoPhillips for Alleged Fracking-Related Water Contamination’ http://breakinglawsuitnews.com/lawsuit-filed-against-conocophillips-for-alleged-fracking-related-water-contamination/

(4) = Time 17 Feb 2012 ‘Shale Gas: It’s Not the Fracking That Might Be the Problem. It’s Everything Else’, http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/02/17/shale-gas-its-not-the-fracking-that-might-be-the-problem-its-everything-else/#ixzz1pKQpiwwM

(5) = Groat, Charles G. & Grimshaw, Thomas W. ( 2012) ‘Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development’,  Energy Institute of the University of Texas, February 2012, http://www.velaw.com/UploadedFiles/VEsite/Resources/ei_shale_gas_reg_summary1202[1].pdf (seems to download ok after a couple of refreshes on Internet Explorer, but won’t download on Firefox)