Why I Am Voting For Jeremy Corbyn

by Ahmed Sule, CFA

suleaos@gmail.com
 Why I Am Voting For Jeremy Corbyn

by Ahmed Sule, CFA

A couple of days ago, I overheard some colleagues discussing Jeremy Corbyn and joking
about the policies he laid out in the Labour Manifesto for the forthcoming British Elections.
When I interrupted the conversation and told them that I would be voting for him, they stared
at me in horror. They genuinely believed that Corbyn is the most dangerous man in Britain.
Why do some people consider him dangerous? Is Corbyn a threat to the British established
order? Why is the British media so hostile to him? Why am I voting for Corbyn? I will address
these questions in the next couple of pages.

In the aftermath of Labour Party's defeat in the 2015 General Election, the party sought a new
leader and contrary to expectation and despite opposition from many Labour MPs, Jeremy
Corbyn emerged victorious in the primaries. Since his triumph, he has dealt with mass
resignations from his shadow cabinet, a vote of no confidence and a leadership challenge
within his party. Labour heavyweights like Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Sadiq Khan have
taken turns to question his leadership.

Corbyn isn't your conventional politician. In comparison to the well-booted, suited and
educated politicians at Westminster, he is a radical who has emerged from the backbench to
the front bench of British politics. Contrary to many frontline politicians who take a top-down
approach to politics, Corbyn is a strong believer in the bottom-up approach which views
things from the perspective of those at the bottom rung of the British society. Britain is a
class-based society made up principally of the so-called upper class, the so-called middle
class and the so-called working class. The middle class, many of who are one or two pay
cheques away from poverty sometimes delude themselves into believing that they have more
in common with the upper class than their working class brethren's, hence they often serve as
courtiers for the elites in the class struggle. With Corbyn now in charge of the Labour Party,
he is challenging Britain's class structure and this is giving many people sleepless nights.

What makes Corbyn dangerous to the established order is the fear that he could become a
"messiah" for the poor. This fear is nothing new. Back in the 1960s when Black Nationalism
was on the rise, the FBI through its counterintelligence program sought to prevent the rise of
a "Black messiah" who could unify and electrify the Black Nationalist movement. This
programme led to the assassination of a number of black leaders. Unlike the FBI, which used
physical assassination to achieve its aim, the British establishment uses character
assassination to eliminate the emergence of a "Proletariat messiah" who they fear could unify
and electrify the masses.

When Theresa May announced her plan for an early general election, the demonisation of
Corbyn shifted to a higher gear. Words like unelectable and incompetent were used to
describe him. After the Labour Party released its manifesto, some commentators described it
as the longest suicide note in British election history. Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary
called him a "mutton-headed old mugwump." Despite the negativity, Corbyn and his team see
the election as an opportunity to get his message to the public having been hindered earlier
by a non-cooperative press.

Corbyn faces a lot of criticisms many of which are flawed. He is often accused of being a
communist. This claim is made because Corbyn represents the interest of the marginalised.
On the day of the publication of the Labour Manifesto, the Sun Newspaper captioned its front-
page headline, "The Red Planet" and featured an image of Corbyn and Shadow Chancellor
McDonnell, while the Evening Standard used the headline, "Comrade Corbyn Flies the Red
Flag." The attempt to label him a communist is nothing more than 21st century McCarthyism
to scare voters.

Another major criticism levelled against Corbyn is that he isn't trustworthy. His critics argue he
can't be trusted with the economy, Brexit, North Korea and the NHS. Some suggest his beard
makes him untrustworthy. When the Labour Manifesto was announced, some commentators
noted that though the contents made sense, Corbyn could not be trusted to implement the
reforms.

Is Theresa May really the more trustworthy candidate? Let's examine the facts. Since Corbyn
began his political career, he has been consistent in his convictions. Ronan Bennet in an
opinion piece published in Guardian notes that Jeremy Corbyn has been on the right side of
history for 30 years. According to him, "On ID cards, on extended detentions, on equal pay
and gender equality, on protection for workers and trade union rights, on anti-racism
initiatives, on tax avoidance by the super-rich, on the bedroom tax, on the recent welfare
reform bill, on PFI ... Corbyn called it right." With Theresa May, perception is far from reality.
When she announced her candidacy as leader of the Conservatives, she argued that she had
no intention of calling a General Election. As Prime Minister, she said on 4 September
2016, I dont think theres a need for an election. I think the next election will be in 2020." On
1 October 2016, she told the Sunday Times that an early election would cause instability. On
7 March 2017 and 30 March 2017 her spokesmen said there would be no snap election.
However, on 18 April 2017 she backtracked and called for a General Election.

Furthermore, Theresa May revels in talking about social justice. In her maiden speech as
Prime Minister, she said, "Davids (Cameron) true legacy is not about the economy, but about
social justice," this is despite the fact Cameron's regime engaged in an all-out war against the
most vulnerable segment of British society. She also said she will lead a government, "Driven,
not by the interests of the privileged few. " Theresa May appears to suffer from what Martin
Luther King once described as a High blood pressure of creeds and an anaemia of deeds."
During her short stay in power, her government has dehumanised immigrants, ill-treated the
disabled and proposed tax breaks for the wealthy. In one of the biggest U-turns in British
political history, she reversed her plan to implement a draconian dementia tax four days after
including it in her manifesto.

Some frown at Corbyn's plan to nationalise the railway and water sector. These critics choose
to ignore the failure of the private sector in running these sectors. Train delays are still a
constant feature of the privatised British railway system and despite these inefficiencies,
consumers continue to experience above inflation increases every January. Where were the
neo-liberal critics when the government nationalised Lloyds and spent hundreds of billions of
pounds to bail out the British banking system?

Corbyn's tax reforms have also come under intense scrutiny. His detractors argue that his
plan to raise corporation tax to 26%, increase taxes for those earning above 80,000 while
freezing taxes for those earning above 80,000 in addition to his proposed 5 billion financial
transaction tax is a raid on hard working people to fund the lifestyle of lazy people sitting at
home behind their closed curtains. The underlying assumption of his critics is tax increases
will drive entrepreneurs and the rich out of the country thereby stifling growth in the economy.
This trickle down economic thinking is flawed and there is enough evidence to show that tax
cuts for the rich doesnt necessarily translate to economic growth, as was the case with
President G W Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

Britain cannot continue to be held captive by a cabal that throws the baby out of the bathtub
when it doesn't have its way. Moreover, contrary to the perception that most people earn
above 80,000, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies calculation, only 2% of the
population earn above 80,000. The claim that Corbyn is encouraging laziness is also without
merit. A sizeable number of the 98% of who could benefit from Corbyns proposed tax windfall
are some of the most hardworking people in Britain who have been short changed by capped
wages, excessive rent, excessive energy cost and child care. For too long we have witnessed
the socialism of the rich and capitalism for the poor. It is time for this trend to be reversed. A
radical redistribution of wealth is essential if Britain is to move forward.

Many argue that Corbyn's policies would take Britain back to the 1970's, but they ignore
Theresa May's policies, which could take Britain backwards. Her manifesto pledge to scrap
free breakfast for children is reminiscent of Thatcher's policy of withdrawing free milk
previously offered to school children in the 70's. May's immigration reforms and rhetoric is
ushering a period not too different from the 70s when non-whites looking for accommodation
in Britain were greeted with the sign: No Niggers, No Dogs.

In a functioning democracy, the media plays a pivotal role in shaping political opinion, which
enables the public to make informed political decisions. The British media has abandoned this
function by turning public opinion against Corbyn through a troika of character assassination,
half-truths and outright lies. The media has become a weapon of mass distraction diverting
the public attention away from the real issues and focusing on the personalities of the two
contestants. BBC showed a video clip of Corbyn facing the wrong direction to suggest he
lacked direction. A similar strategy was used in the last general election when the media used
an image of Ed Miliband eating a burger to convince the public that he was clumsy and not fit
to lead. Malcolm X's comment made over 50 years ago is still relevant in today's Britain, "The
medias the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty
and to make the guilty innocent, and thats power. Because they control the minds of the
masses."

In another instance, Sky News produced a video comparing Jeremy Corbyn to President
Donald Trump even though he has more in common with US Senator Bernie Sanders. The
producers took extracts from Corbyn and Trump's televised speeches where both men
argued that the system is rigged against the people. While the biased media house had no
problem scavenging for similarities between Trump and Corbyn, it didnt bother to explore the
similarities between Theresa May and Donald Trump's hostile approach to immigration and
their economic policies of providing tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the poor.

If there is one journalist that epitomises the media's demonisation of Corbyn, it is Laura
Kuenssberg, the Political Editor of BBC News. Ms. Kuenssberg is a scion of the Kuenssberg
family and granddaughter of Lord Robertson a High Court judge. She is also the great niece
of Sir James Wilson Robertson, the last Governor-General of Nigeria. Her privileged
background puts her at odds with Corbyn's message. When Labour released its manifesto,
Kuenssberg plagiarised the headline "More Tax, More Spending, More Borrowing," from a
Conservative website and used it as a heading for an article on the BBC website. Kuenssberg
also misrepresented a quote from Corbyn during the News at Six and claimed that he was
opposed to the police shooting terrorists in the event of a Paris style terrorist attack in the UK.
She did this by swapping his video response to another question in another interview.

The British media is hostile to Corbyn because his reforms are in direct conflict with the
interest of the media aristocracy. The British media has become a working-class free zone
dominated by people whose reality differs from the masses it reports to. Over half of the
leading print journalists went to private schools compared to just 7% of the British public who
are privately educated, while 54% of leading print journalists attended Oxford or Cambridge.
So when Jeremy Corbyn says in his manifesto that he plans to impose a 20% tax on private
school fees to fund free meals for all primary school pupils, this makes an uncomfortable
hearing for the gentlemen and ladies on Fleet Street. Two billionaires, Rupert Murdoch and
Lord Rothermere own News Corp UK and Daily Mail Group respectively which account for
nearly 60% of national newspaper circulation. These rich owners along with their courtiers
would take any attempt to redistribute wealth from the 1% to the 99% as a personal attack
and will go the extra mile to demonise anyone they feel is a threat to their deep pockets.

So why will I be voting for Jeremy Corbyn on 8 June 2017? Having read the 123 page Labour
Manifesto and the 88 page Conservative Manifesto, it is clear that the two party leaders
present two different visions for Britain. Corbyn speaks for the voiceless and his policies will
help not only the marginalised but also the majority of the British population. For too long the
1% have gulped the meat and bread of the land leaving the bones and crumbs for the rest.
Theresa May professes to be an Anglican and often uses her Christian upbringing to score
political points. Even though Corbyn is reported to be an atheist, his actions are more in tune
with Christian principles. Corbyn is an anti-war and anti-nuclear activist while May is more
hawkish. When British MPs debated the renewal of the UK's Trident weapons system,
Theresa May said that she would be willing to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill
hundreds of thousands of people.
As a person of colour, I am in agreement with Corbyn's humane approach towards
immigration and opposed to Mays approach. Theresa May has a long history of demonising
immigrants. During her term as Home Secretary, she was instrumental to the deployment of
the so-called racist van to non-white neighbourhoods. She played an indirect role in the surge
in hate crimes against immigrants through her immigration rhetoric. She oversaw the
incarceration of immigrants in detention centres under animal-like conditions. As Prime
Minister, her government has been involved in the covert deportation of Africans and
Caribbean's in cargo planes. Her current manifesto also calls for tougher visa requirements
for students.

Corbyn's manifesto is robust and spells out how he intends to fund his spending. In contrast,
the May's manifesto is vague. On other issues, the difference is clear. Corbyn supports the
Human Right Bill, while May opposes it; He plans to abolish tuition fees, while May supports
the excessive fees; He is opposed to restricting legal aid for those unable to afford the
services of a lawyer, while May is in support of cutting legal aid. Corbyn has proposed to
increase funding for social care by 1.5bn while May proposed a pseudo tax for those
suffering from long-time sickness. Theresa May is in support of reducing funding for those
living with disabilities while Corbyn proposes to support people living with disability. Corbyn is
committed to providing 30 billion in extra funding over the next Parliament through
increasing income tax for the highest 5 percent of earners while May advocates converting
Britain into a low tax haven for oligarchs and tax evading multinationals.

During his Gettysburg address, Abraham Lincoln spelt out what true democracy means when
he said it should be the, "Government of the people by the people for the people." Corbyn has
come to the political stage to make Britain stick to this definition of democracy rather than its
current definition, which is the government of the 1% for the 1% by the 1%.

Finally, my opinion might not matter in the grand scheme of things, but I urge British voters to
take time to read the manifesto of the two parties, carry out their own research on Corbyn and
Theresa May (rather than outsourcing this function to a biased media), consider the interest
of others especially those on the margins and re-examine the trustworthiness of both
candidates before casting their votes. As for me, my mind is made up and I will be for voting
for Jeremy Corbyn. Even if the pollsters are right and Corbyn loses and even if Corbyn ends
up with a single vote, I am determined to make sure that the single vote is my vote.

Selah.

Ahmed Sule, CFA

@Alatenumo

May 2017