How The Guardian Betrayed Corbyn and the Vestiges of British Democracy

Were The Guardian to now question the narrative it promoted about Corbyn – a narrative demolished by the leaked Labour Party report – the paper would have to admit several uncomfortable things, writes Jonathan Cook.

By Jonathan Cook

It is simply astonishing that the first attempt by The Guardian – the only major British newspaper styling itself as on the liberal-left – to properly examine the contents of a devastating internal Labour party report leaked in April is taking place nearly four months after the 860-page report first came to light.

If you are a Labour party member, The Guardian is the only “serious”, big-circulation paper claiming to represent your values and concerns.

One might therefore have assumed that anything that touches deeply on Labour party affairs – on issues of transparency and probity, on the subversion of the party’s democratic structures, on abuses or fraud by its officials – would be of endless interest to the paper. One might have assumed it would wish both to dedicate significant resources to investigating such matters for itself and to air all sides of the ensuing debate to weigh their respective merits.

That very much fits a pattern of coverage of the Corbyn years by the paper, as I have tried to document. It echoes the paper’s treatment of an earlier scandal, back in early 2017, when an undercover Al-Jazeera reporter filmed pro-Israel Labour activists working with the Israeli embassy to damage Corbyn from within. A series of shocking reports by Al-Jazeera merited minimal coverage from The Guardian at the time they were aired and then immediately sank without trace, as though they were of no relevance to later developments – most especially, of course, the claims by these same groups of a supposed “antisemitism crisis” in Labour.

Sadly, the latest reports by The Guardian on the leaked report –presented as an “exclusive” – do not fundamentally change its long-running approach.

Kicked into The Long Grass

In fact, what the paper means by an “exclusive” is that it has seen documents responding to the leaked report that were submitted by Corbyn and his team to the Forde inquiry – Labour’s official investigation into that report and the circumstances of its leaking. The deadline for submissions to Martin Forde QC arrived last week.

Setting up the Forde inquiry was the method by which Corbyn’s successor, Keir Starmer, hoped to kick the leaked report into the long grass till next year. Doubtless Starmer believes that by then the report will be stale news and that he will have had time to purge from the party, or at least intimidate into silence, the most outspoken remnants of Corbyn’s supporters.

Corbyn’s submission on the leaked report is an “exclusive” for The Guardian only because no one in the corporate media bothered till now to cover the debates raging in Labour since the leak four months ago. The arguments made by Corbyn and his supporters, so prominent on social media, have been entirely absent from the so-called “mainstream”.

When Corbyn finally got a chance to air the issues raised by the leaked report in a series of articles on the Middle East Eye website, its coverage went viral, underscoring how much interest there is in this matter among Labour members.

Nonetheless, despite desperately needing clicks and revenue in this especially difficult time for the corporate media, The Guardian is still spurning revelatory accounts of Corbyn’s time in office by his former team.

One published last week – disclosing that, after winning the leadership election, Corbyn arrived to find the leader’s offices gutted, that Labour HQ staff refused to approve the hiring of even basic staff for him, and that disinformation was constantly leaked to the media – was relegated to the OpenDemocracy website.

That Joe Ryle, a Corbyn team insider, either could not find a home for his insights in The Guardian or didn’t even try says it all – because much of the disinformation he laments being peddled to the media ended up in The Guardian, which was only too happy to amplify it as long as it was harming Corbyn.

A Political Coup

Meanwhile, everything in The Guardian’s latest “exclusive” confirms what has long been in the public realm, via the leaked report.

Through its extensive documentation of WhatsApp messages and emails, the report shows conclusively that senior Labour officials who had dominated the party machine since the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown eras – and were still loyal to the party’s centre-right incarnation as New Labour – worked at every turn to oust Corbyn from the leadership. They even tried to invent ways to bar him from standing in a rerun leadership election a year later, in 2016, after Owen Smith, the Labour right’s preferred candidate, challenged him.

Corbyn and his supporters were viewed as dangerous “Trots” – to use a derisive term that dominates those exchanges.

The messages show these same officials did their level best to sabotage Labour’s 2017 general election campaign – an election that Corbyn was less than 3,000 votes from winning. Party officials starved marginal seats Corbyn hoped to win of money and instead focused resources on MPs hostile to Corbyn. It seems they preferred a Tory win if it gave momentum to their efforts to rid the party of Corbyn.

Or, as the submission notes: “It’s not impossible that Jeremy Corbyn might now be in his third year as a Labour prime minister were it not for the unauthorised, unilateral action taken by a handful of senior party officials.”

The exchanges in the report also show that these officials on the party’s right privately gave voice to horrifying racism towards other party members, especially black members of the party loyal to Corbyn.

And the leaked report confirms the long-running claims of Corbyn and his team that the impression of “institutional antisemitism” in Labour – a narrative promoted in the corporate media without any actual evidence beyond the anecdotal – had been stoked by the party’s rightwing, Blairite officials.

They appear to have delayed and obstructed the handling of the small number of antisemitism complaints – usually found by trawling through old social media posts – to embarrass Corbyn and make the “antisemitism crisis” narrative appear more credible.

Corbyn’s team have pointed out that these officials – whose salaries were paid by the membership, which elected Corbyn as party leader – cheated those members of their dues and their rights, as well as, of course, subverting the entire democratic process. The submission rightly asks the inquiry to consider whether the money spent by Labour officials to undermine Corbyn “constituted fraudulent activity”.

One might go even further and argue that what they did amounted to a political coup.

The Bogus ‘Whistleblower’ Narrative

Even now, as The Guardian reports on Corbyn’s submission to the Forde inquiry, it has downplayed the evidence underpinning his case, especially on the antisemitism issue – which The Guardian played such a key role in weaponising in the first place.

The paper’s latest coverage treats the Corbyn “claims” sceptically, as though the leaked report exists in a political vacuum and there are no other yardsticks by which the truth of its evidence or the plausibility of its claims can be measured.

Let’s start with one illustrative matter. The Guardian, as with the rest of the corporate media, even now avoids drawing the most obvious conclusion from the leaked report.

Racism was endemic in the language and behaviours of Labour’s senior, rightwing officials, as shown time and again in the WhatsApp messages and emails.

And yet it is these very same officials – those who oversaw the complaints procedure as well as the organisation of party headquarters – who, according to the corporate media narrative, were so troubled by one specific kind of racism, antisemitism, that they turned it into the biggest, most enduring crisis facing Corbyn during his five-year tenure as leader.

To accept the corporate media narrative on this supposed “antisemitism crisis”, we must ignore several things:

  • the lack of any statistical evidence of a specific antisemitism problem in Labour;
  • the vehement racism expressed by Labour officials, as well as their overt and abiding hostility to Corbyn;
  • moves by party officials forcing Corbyn to accept a new definition of antisemitism that shifted the focus from a hatred of Jews to criticism of Israel;
  • and the fact that the handling of antisemitism complaints dramatically improved once these rightwing officials were removed from their positions.

And yet in its latest reporting, as with its earlier coverage, The Guardian simply ignores all this confirmatory evidence.

There are several reasons for this, as I have documented before, but one very obvious one is this: The Guardian, like the rest of the British media, had worked hard to present former officials on the right of the party as brave “whistleblowers” long before they were exposed by the leaked report.

Like the BBC’s much-criticised Panorama “investigation” last year into Labour’s alleged “antisemitism crisis”, The Guardian took the claims of these former staff – of their supposed selfless sacrifice to save the party from anti-Jewish bigots – at face value.

In fact, it was likely even worse than that. The Guardian and BBC weren’t just passive, neutral recipients of the disinformation offered by these supposed “whistleblowers”. They shared the Labour right’s deep antipathy to Corbyn and everything he stood for, and as a result almost certainly served as willing, even enthusiastic channels for that disinformation.

The Guardian hardly bothers to conceal where its sympathies lie. It continues to laud Blair from beyond the political grave and, while Corbyn was leader, gave him slots in its pages to regularly lambast Corbyn and scaremonger about Labour’s “takeover” by the supposedly “extreme” and “hard” left. The paper did so despite the fact that Blair had grown ever more discredited as evidence amassed that his actions in invading Iraq in 2003 were crimes against humanity.

Were The Guardian to now question the narrative it promoted about Corbyn – a narrative demolished by the leaked report – the paper would have to admit several uncomfortable things:

  • that for years it was either gulled by, or cooperated with, the Blairites’ campaign of disinformation;
  • that it took no serious steps to investigate the Labour right’s claims or to find out for itself what was really going on in Labour HQ;
  • that it avoided cultivating a relationship with Corbyn’s team while he was in office that would have helped it to ascertain more effectively what was happening inside the party;
  • or that, if it did cultivate such a relationship (and, after all, Seumas Milne took up his post as Corbyn’s chief adviser immediately after leaving The Guardian), it consistently and intentionally excluded the Corbyn team’s account of events in its reporting.

To now question the narrative it invested so much energy in crafting would risk Guardian readers drawing the most plausible conclusion for their paper’s consistent reporting failures: that The Guardian was profoundly opposed to Corbyn becoming prime minister and allowed itself, along with the rest of the corporate media, to be used as channel for the Labour right’s disinformation.

Stabbed in the Back

None of that has changed in the latest coverage of Corbyn’s submission to Forde concerning the leaked report.

The Guardian could not realistically ignore that submission by the party’s former leader and his team. But the paper could – and does – strip out the context on which the submission was based so as not to undermine or discredit its previous reporting against Corbyn.

Its main article on the Corbyn team’s submission becomes a claim and counter-claim story, with an emphasis on an unnamed former official arguing that criticism of him and other former staff at Labour HQ is nothing more than a “mythical ‘stab in the back’ conspiracy theory”.

The problem is that there are acres of evidence in the leaked report that these officials did stab Corbyn and his team in the back – and, helpfully for the rest of us, recorded some of their subversive, anti-democratic activities in private internal correspondence between themselves. Anyone examining those message chains would find it hard not to conclude that these officials were actively plotting against Corbyn.

To discredit the Corbyn team’s submission, the Labour right would need to show that these messages were invented. They don’t try to do that because those messages are very obviously only too real.

Instead they have tried two different, inconsistent strategies. First, they have argued that their messages were presented in a way that was misleading or misrepresented what they said. This claim does not hold water, given that the leaked report includes very lengthy, back-and-forth exchanges between senior staff. The context of those exchanges is included – context the officials themselves provided in their messages to each other.

Second, the self-styled “whistleblowers” now claim that publication of their messages – documenting efforts to undermine Corbyn – violates their right to privacy and breaches data protection laws. They can apparently see no public interest in publishing information that exposes their attempts to subvert the party’s internal democratic processes.

It seems that these “whistleblowers” are more committed to data concealment than exposure –despite the title they have bestowed on themselves. This is a strange breed of whistleblower indeed, one that seeks to prevent transparency and accountability.

In a telling move, despite claiming that their messages have been misrepresented, these former officials want the Forde inquiry to be shut down rather than given the chance to investigate their claims and, assuming they are right, exonerate them.

Further, they are trying to intimidate the party into abandoning the investigation by threatening to bankrupt it through legal actions for breaching their privacy. The last thing they appear to want is openness and a proper accounting of the Corbyn era.

Shrugging its Shoulders

In its latest reporting, The Guardian frames the leaked report as “clearly intended to present a pro-Corbyn narrative for posterity” – as though the antisemitism narrative The Guardian and the rest of the corporate media spent nearly five years crafting and promoting  was not clearly intended to do the precise opposite: to present an anti-Corbyn narrative for posterity.

Peter Walker, the paper’s political correspondent, describes the messages of former, rightwing Labour officials as “straying” into “apparent” racism and misogyny, as though the relentless efforts revealed in these exchanges to damage and undermine prominent black MPs like Diane Abbott are open to a different interpretation.

According to Walker, the report’s evidence of election-scuppering in 2017 is “circumstantial” and “there is seemingly no proof of active obstruction”. Even assuming that were true, such a deficiency could easily be remedied had The Guardian, with all its staff and resources, made even the most cursory effort to investigate the leaked report’s claims since April – or in the years before, when the Corbyn team were trying to counter the disinformation spread by the Labour right.

The Guardian largely shrugs its shoulders, repeatedly insinuating that all this constitutes little more than Labour playground bickering. Starmer is presented as school principal – the one responsible adult in the party – who, we are told, is “no stranger to managing Labour factions”.

The Guardian ignores the enormous stakes in play both for Labour members who expected to be able to shape the party’s future using its supposedly democratic processes and for the very functioning of British democracy itself. Because if the leaked report is right, the British political system looks deeply rigged: there to ensure that only the establishment-loving right and centre-right ever get to hold power.

The Guardian’s approach suggests that the paper has abdicated all responsibility for either doing real journalism on its Westminster doorstep or for acting as a watchdog on the British political system.

The Guardian‘s Ideological Soul

Typifying the hypocrisy of The Guardian and its continuing efforts to present itself a hapless bystander rather than active participant in efforts to disrupt the Labour party’s internal democratic processes and sabotage the 2017 and 2019 elections is its lead columnist Jonathan Freedland.

Outside of The Guardian’s editorials, Freedland’s columns represent the closest we have to a window on the ideological soul of the paper. He is a barometer of the political mood there.

Freedland was among the loudest and most hostile opponents of Corbyn throughout his time as leader. Freedland was also one of the chief purveyors and justifiers of the fabled antisemitism narrative against Corbyn.

He, and the rightwing Jewish Chronicle he also writes for, gave these claims an official Jewish seal of approval. They trumpeted the narrow, self-serving perspective of Jewish organisations like the Board of Deputies, whose leaders are nowadays closely allied with the Conservative party.

They amplified the bogus claims of the Jewish Labour Movement, a tiny, pro-Israel organisation inside Labour that was exposed – though The Guardian, of course, never mentions it – as effectively an entryist group, and one working closely with the Israeli embassy, in that detailed undercover investigation filmed by Al-Jazeera.

Freedland and the Chronicle endlessly derided Jewish groups that supported Corbyn, such as Jewish Voice for Labour, Just Jews and Jewdas, with antisemitic insinuations that they were the “wrong kind of Jews”. Freedland argued that strenuous criticism of Israel was antisemitic by definition because Israel lay at the heart of any proper Jew’s identity.

It did not therefore matter whether critics could show that Israel was constitutionally racist – a state similar to apartheid South Africa – as many scholars have done. Freedland argued that Jews and Israel were all but indistinguishable, and to call Israel racist was to malign Jews who identified with it. (Apparently unaware of the Pandora’s box such a conflation opened up, he rightly – if inconsistently – claimed that it was antisemitic for anyone to make the same argument in reverse: blaming Jews for Israel’s actions.)

Freedland pushed hard for Labour to be forced to adopt that new, troubling definition of antisemitism, produced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, that shifted the focus away from hatred of Jews to criticism of Israel. Under this new definition, claims that Israel was “a racist endeavour” – a view shared by some prominent Israeli scholars – was treated as definitive proof of antisemitism.

One-Party Politics

If anyone gave the weaponisation of antisemitism against Corbyn an air of bipartisan respectability it was Freedland and his newspaper, The Guardian. They made sure Corbyn was hounded by the antisemitism claims while he was Labour leader, overshadowing everything else he did. That confected narrative neutralised his lifelong activism as an anti-racist, it polluted his claims to be a principled politician fighting for the underdog.

Freedland and The Guardian not only helped to breathe life into the antisemitism allegations but they made them sound credible to large sections of the Labour membership too.

The rightwing media presented the Corbyn project as a traitorous, hard-left move, in cahoots with Putin’s Russia, to undermine Britain. Meanwhile, Freedland and The Guardian destroyed Corbyn from his liberal-left flank by portraying him and his supporters as a mob of leftwing Nazis-in-waiting.

Corbynism, in Freedland’s telling, became a “sect”, a cult of dangerous leftists divorced from political realities. And then, with astonishing chutzpah, Freedland blamed Corbyn’s failure at the ballot box – a failure Freedland and The Guardian had helped to engineer – as a betrayal of the poor and the vulnerable.

Remember, Corbyn lost by less than 3,000 votes in a handful of Labour marginals in 2017. Despite all this, Freedland and The Guardian now pretend that they played no role in destroying Corbyn, they behave as if their hands are clean.

But Freedland’s actions, like those of his newspaper, had one inevitable outcome. They ushered in the only alternative to Corbyn: a government of the hard right led by Boris Johnson.

Freedland’s choice to assist Johnson by undermining Corbyn – and, worse, to do so on the basis of a disinformation campaign – makes him culpable, as it does The Guardian, in everything that flowed from his decision. But Freedland, like The Guardian, still pontificates on the horrors of the Johnson government, as if they share no blame for helping Johnson win power.

In his latest column, Freedland writes: “The guiding principle [of the Johnson government] seems to be brazen cronyism, coupled with the arrogance of those who believe they are untouchable and that rules are for little people.”

Why should the Tories under Johnson be so “arrogant”, so sure they are “untouchable”, that “rules are for little people”, and that there is no political price to be paid for “cronyism”?

Might it not have much to do with seeing Freedland and The Guardian assist so willingly in the corporate media’s efforts to destroy the only political alternative to “rule by the rich” Toryism? Might the Johnson government have grown more confident knowing that the ostensibly liberal-left media were just as determined as the rightwing media to undermine the only politician on offer who stood for precisely the opposite political values they did?

Might it not reflect an understanding by Johnson and his chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, that Freedland and The Guardian have played a hugely significant part in ensuring that Britain effectively has a one-party state – and that when it returns to being a formal two-party state, as it seems to be doing once again now that Starmer is running the Labour party, both those parties will offer the same establishment-worshipping agenda, even if in two mildly different flavours?

The Guardian, like the rest of the corporate media, has derided and vilified as “populism” the emergence of any real political alternative.

The leaked report offered a brief peek behind the curtain at how politics in Britain – and elsewhere – really works. It showed that, during Corbyn’s time as leader, the political battle lines became intensely real. They were no longer the charade of a phony fight between left and right, between Labour and Conservative.

Instead, the battle shifted to where it mattered, to where it might finally make change possible: for control of the Labour party so that it might really represent the poor and vulnerable against rule by the rich. Labour became the battleground, and The Guardian made all too clear where its true loyalties lie.

Jonathan Cook is a freelance journalist based in Nazareth. Support his work via his blog.

This article is from his blog Jonathan You can donate to him here.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

Please Contribute to Consortium
News on its 25th Anniversary 

Donate securely with PayPal here

Or securely by credit card or check by clicking the red button:

20 comments for “How The Guardian Betrayed Corbyn and the Vestiges of British Democracy

  1. Donald Duck
    August 13, 2020 at 04:52

    What has been happening in the Labour Party is basically the same as has been happening in all left-of-centre parties world-wide: in ideological terms at least, they have been swept away by the rampaging neo-liberal globalist forces and have trimmed their sails to the globalist agenda. The roll -call has included the SPD (Germany) the PS (France) Pasok/Syriza (Greece) the ex-communist party of Italy, PSOE (Spain) not forgetting the Democratic Party in the US. This historical betrayal has given the militant right a chance to attack the very real sell-out of the centre-left parties and publications which includes the Guardian, New York Times, Economist, and Washington Post.

    What happened at the Guardian was the unseemly metamorphosis from centre-left to Blairite right. Going back to earlier days the Manchester Guardian as it then was, steered an honest social-democratic course under the leadership of C.P.Scott famous for his catchphrase, ‘The Facts are Sacred’. Scott and the Guardian resolutely opposed the British war against the Dutch settlers (Boers) in South Africa (1899-1902). For his pains his home was physically attacked by jingoistic mobs and required police protection and the property of the Manchester Guardian was also attacked.

    The rot in the current Guardian began with the conversion to a straightforward busines publication which happened earlier in this century when the Scott Trust LTD along with the Guardian Media Group became registered as a commercial company by decamping to the Cayman Islands British Overseas Territory for tax reasons – i.e. tax avoidance.

    As for the whole ‘anti-semitic’ brouhaha this was engineered from both internal and external sources. It should be understood that anyone who is anyone in the Parliamentary Labour Party is a member of the ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ the same is true of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. So we have here a situation where an ostensibly sovereign state has been penetrated by another sovereign state.

    This seems outrageous, but such is the influence of extra-national bodies in British politics.

  2. Arlene hickory
    August 12, 2020 at 17:12

    Very useful commentary

  3. rosemerry
    August 12, 2020 at 15:39

    I am surprised to find that in recent years anyone can still consider the Guardian (perhaps The Sycophant would be a better term) to be at all progressive or leftist. As I am a longtime subscriber and reader of the Guardian in past decades, I have found it sadly lacking in at least the last ten years. David Leigh and Luke Harding are the worst offenders in my opinion-to treat Julian Assange so disgracefully with a mean-spirited “biography” sold by the newspaper, after all the use and benefits it had gained from Wikileaks revelations showed the pattern. The whole of 2018 was full of grossly fantasised tall tales about the terrible Russkies poisoning the Skripals with novichok, with Luke Harding leading the charge at the same time he also wrote a book for the US audience about Russiagate, full of the same sort of “facts”. To continue with such “journalists” shows the desires of the owners, I assume, and the sad story of Jeremy Corbyn is just as expected from the one-time progressive paper.

  4. Susan
    August 12, 2020 at 15:36

    Corbyn was betrayed – Bernie is a sellout…

    August 12, 2020 at 12:50

    Actually, the Guardian betrayed nothing.

    The paper has been an unprincipled and soulless publication for years.

    It wears a paper-thin covering of social concerns over the nakedness of its total worship and advocacy for American imperial concerns.

  6. LowellHighlander
    August 12, 2020 at 12:19

    And this scenario, so well explained by Mr. Cook – thank you much – seems right in line with the actions taken by the Democratic National Committee in 2016 and 2020 to sink Bernie Sanders’ campaigns. The one big difference I see, though, is that newspapers are far more influential on the island of Britain than in America. Nevertheless, the effect was the same: to keep a left-wing populist out of power.

  7. August 12, 2020 at 12:02

    Excellent article. How ironic that it appears on an American website! And the parallels with the destruction of the Sanders campaign are all too clear.

  8. Aaron
    August 12, 2020 at 11:34

    Yeah, Britain parallels the U.S. in all of these ways. Zionist media pretending to be progressive, but secretly supporting far-right causes on the big issues – financial markets, income inequality, and military entanglements in the Middle East for all interests of Israel. It’s very much like the Biden-Kamala Harris ticket. Convincing the public that they are liberal by talking about abortion, gays, black lives matter, gun restrictions, etc. But when it comes to the important issues for the average Joe, they are – Pro Wall Street, pro – military spending at the expense of everything else that matters, pro-Israel, and willing the throw college students under the bus with no affordability whatsoever for higher education, and the biggest of all – AGAINST Medicare for All!! – such saintly, compassionate heroes!!. Basically to the right of a Richard Nixon, that’s what passes for a “left” politician these days. That immoral disasters like Blair and Bush can be revered as good guys now, is a vulgar, Orwellian, clever Zionist spin on reality.

  9. August 12, 2020 at 08:06

    I gave up on the Guardian years ago when another US website: Veterans Today exposed that paper and the White Helmets complicity with fake chemical attacks in Syria – and their endless pandering to the perfect state in the Middle East’s perfect inhabitants which the evil Corbyn was going to do all sorts of things no body else ever had.

  10. Louis Bloemen
    August 12, 2020 at 06:21

    The Guardian seems to be the only British newspaper that reported on Shai Masot. This gross influencing of British politics by another country was further ignored and did not make it in the current indignant western narative on influencing other countries politics.

  11. James Simpson
    August 12, 2020 at 05:30

    Utterly depressing and no doubt true. I voted Labour in December for the first time because of the Green party’s conservatism and its obsession with ignoring the democratic vote to leave the EU. The revelation in the leaked report that the election was, effectively, a fraud came as a shock even after I’d long realised how hostile to Jeremy Corbyn and socialism the Labour right and its Guardian mouthpiece were. Ultimately, this is merely one more piece of evidence to show that British democracy is barely even a performative sham: it’s fixed, rigged and close to pointless for anyone who doesn’t support the capitalist establishment.

    The Left must learn a lesson from this debâcle and fight to become a real force in the UK. At the moment, the Right has won almost everywhere on the planet. It worked hard since the 1970s with a clear goal and an uncompromising agenda. Over in the USA, we see Noam Chomsky advising the Left to accept the lesser-of-two-evils in Biden/Harris. Would the Right ever advise that course of action? Never. The Left must stop being timid and start being angry.

  12. T.J
    August 12, 2020 at 03:52

    The only thing better than Jonathan Cook’s writing is his clear, concise analysis and that is saying something. The sad thing is that The Guardian newspaper, the Blairites within the Labour Party along with the rest of the media, succeeded in destroying Jeremy Corbyn and thereby preventing real change taking place within British society and establishment.

  13. Zhu
    August 12, 2020 at 02:13

    I gave up on THE GUARDIAN after the Uktaune Coup, when they went all russia-hatred all the time. It happened suddenly, like flipping a switch. I wondered if the CIA didn’t control them somehow.

  14. geeyp
    August 12, 2020 at 01:25

    Extremely similar to how the media has acted towards President Trump from prior toward his inauguration all the way through to now.

  15. Roger Milbrandt
    August 12, 2020 at 00:32

    Excellent article. I read several political articles each day, favouring Consortium News, Information Clearing House and Counterpunch (though including several others.) If I found one article each day of such high quality as this by Jonathan Cook I would be a happier man and the world would be a better place.

  16. firstpersoninfinite
    August 11, 2020 at 23:52

    Blair, Clinton, Biden, Bush: what’s the difference between any of them? Warmonger’s, corporate worshippers of the free market with regulations only on oversight, of course: they own both parties in both countries. The Guardian has some fine columnists, but the crux of their online work is to validate American hegemony and British pudding. Money is now greater than reason, and the price of being bought is always the going rate.

  17. Eric
    August 11, 2020 at 22:05

    A welcome account of The Guardian’s perfidy and sanctimonious hypocrisy.

  18. Patrick
    August 11, 2020 at 21:42

    I will never forgive him for being pro brexit, decimating the party and a long list of useless ideals, except for his Palenstinian position. He lead the party to its greatest defeat, Imagine making Abbottt shadow secty – every time she opened her mouth during the election, she screwed it up. Actually, he makes Boris look like a talented saint.

  19. August 11, 2020 at 17:06

    the disgrace in destroying corbyn-ism sounds almost worse than that destroying bernie sanders -twice – in the usa, but is a product of the same company: the capitalist rulers of usrael,who, unlike those in china, are losing control and becoming more desperate and in the process creating more danger for the global and not just national communities.
    in the usa, where 180 million dogs and cats are comfortably housed while more than half a million humans are homeless and trillions are spent on the military while millions are without health care during a pandemic, the contradctions are becoming clear to more people every menacing day. hopefully the same will be the case in england and the rest of the world, and soon, very soon, global action for transformation of the political economy to put the public good before private profit will become the order of the day.

  20. Patricia Tursi
    August 11, 2020 at 15:19

    BDS is morally correct.

Comments are closed.