Labour’s EU election manifesto focuses on issues that matter. Download it here

Much-praised Corbyn speech launched Labour’s election campaign – but what is Labour’s campaign platform? Find out below

Labour launched its European Parliament election campaign today with a widely-praised speech by Jeremy Corbyn in which the Labour leader concentrated on the real issues facing the UK – and pulled no punches in his assessment of ‘snake oil’ salesman Nigel Farage.

Jeremy Corbyn’s manifesto foreword

Labour’s full manifesto for the elections, like its 2017 general election predecessor, majors on the same fundamental, real-life issues facing the people of this country: poverty and austerity, protecting our environment and climate, protecting our people at home and at work, preserving our rights – and tackling the rise of the far right:

With its commitment to end austerity, invest in our communities, take urgent action to protect the planet, strengthen employment laws and human rights, promote equality and more, it’s a thing of beauty.

And you can download the document in full right here:

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. Those like Jeremy who make out that you can transform society and shift wealth and power ‘from the many to the few’ without replacing the capitalist system are certainly salesmen for snake-oil.

      1. I agree – Danny’s posts are boringly predictable and add nothing to the debate.

      2. Aye, he’s a cheeky c*** innee? The sort who crashes a party and takes a dump in the sink!

    1. So what you are actually saying is you don’t agree with the Labour Party’s policies as laid out in the well received and popular 2017 manifesto (apart from the commitment to recognise the ‘oh so sacred’ referendum result of course).
      Are you sure you’re in the right party?

    2. Do you think you can sell ‘replacing the capitalist system’ to people without first showing examples of a working alternative when “Didn’t work in Russia and China” has been the mantra for generations?
      Capitalism’s had millennia to indoctrinate the people and you think they’ll just accept assurances that socialism can work at least as well or better – right.
      First we have to prove ourselves with smaller steps that make people’s lives better.

    3. I must have gotten something wrong here – I tend to skim over the echo chamber comments and find what Danny has to say, usually, a refreshing dose of for-real (Marxist) socialism. As time goes by the ‘Corbyn project’ looks less likely and so deserves straight up criticism.

  2. I am becoming more convinced that the essentially 19thC language of ‘capitalism’ v. ‘socialism’ as simplistic binary alternatives is too outmoded to be of much use in taking things forward or convincing peopl of anything. A new language is required that actually relates to people’s perceptions and the core issues of capital, its nature, its ownership and control in terms of concrete experience.

    “Didn’t work in Russia and China” has, indeed been a mantra. Well – trouble is that calling either ‘socialism’ requires a stretch of the reality – and neither actually did a lot in terms of substituting a more equitable distribution of capital resources (of which political power is one expression). People are unimpressed not simply as a result of propaganda.

    “First we have to prove ourselves with smaller steps that make people’s lives better.”

    … or simply stick to the reality of the knitting rather than a jumper made out of the scotch mist of ‘ideology’.

    … which, boringly, brings us back to the EU question – as every day I become more convinced that, whatever the starting point, the development of a more egalitarian society, and tackling the issues of climate change, can *only* be achieved in close collaboration within that sort of union.

    1. Agreed, the truth of matter is we need a mixed economy with the natural monopolies and major natural resources in the hands of the people.

      1. “the natural monopolies and major natural resources in the hands of the people.”

        … and that’s an illustration of what I’m on about. The precise nature of that control and how it operates is crucial. Simply handing power to a political cabal, for instance, isn’t necessarily much of an advance – you still end up with a concentration of capital – in different hands. At the other extreme, you can’t run anything by a process of continual majority voting.

        The wordy aspirations of ‘ideology can end up by only getting you as far as your own backside 🙂

      2. In essence I think that is what Labour’s view of socialism is Jack T , a mixed economy BUT with the power firmly established in the hands of the people. That could partly be achieved by having much more accountability of our MPs to their electorate than we have at present .Thinking here of our own CLPs whereby certain Centrist MPs give no regard whatsoever to the membership ( countered with an effective deselection system ) , and for the wider electorate , then a change of the voting system to a PR basis so that , as here in my constituency a rock solid Tory with a very lazy invisible MP ,who has no worries at all about performance and accountability , backed by a effective ” Recall system” . But that is all pie in the sky and my own wish list ,,,, one can but dream.

        WRT” old language ” IMO it maybe a case of being able to relate the benefits of Socialism to people in a way that they can relate to in their daily lives , that is the “selling ” of it , Features , Applications, Benefits , FABs

        Back to the point of the article and IMO the Manifesto looks pretty reasonable to me .

      3. And, I should add that one of the reasons that I have supported Corbyn is that he does have the ability to use political language meaningfully (except when he’s taking on an impossible task – as with Brexit). Some of his advisers are, however of the ‘usual suspects’ camp.

        rob – you say “with the power firmly established in the hands of the people.”

        Nobody’s going to disagree with that. But it’s this sort of statement that falls into the ‘motherhood and sliced bread’ category that can be used and abused. Every fraud in history bangs on about ‘the people’ and ‘The Peepleswill’. Note the popularity of the terms with Farage and Trump.

        You do say more about precise areas of improvement – so this isn’t aimed at you, and I totally agree with “a case of being able to relate the benefits of Socialism to people in a way that they can relate to in their daily lives ”

        .. but the general point is that there is little taste for vague sloganising that rattles on about abstractions such as ‘socialism’, ‘capitalism’ and ‘neoliberalism’, detaching politics from lived experience.The urge to accumulation of capital, for instance, isn’t just something imposed by multinationals – the average person quite likes a modest amount of such accumulation – a house, a garden, a pension etc., and would resist any philosophy that tried to impose an idea of common ownership that put these sort things beyond bounds. Similarly, small business owners, like those I know who do plumbing, building or decorating, for instance, like the degree of control that they have from their ownership. It’s about (amongst other things) control.

        The problem arises with excessive capital accumulation and massively unequal control – financially, in resources – and politically. Of which the other side is the lack of control that comes from having too few resources and being at the sharp end of inequality.

        You end up in a position where the word ‘socialism’ has little to offer unless it recognises these complexities and – importantly – the way in which political power (capital) is used to create a dynamic balance. Otherwise, you do end up with failure.

      4. RH , thanks for the response , for once not at each others throats ( phew ) , some very good points and I was using the “Socialist labelling ” here within this blog as I hope that most of us can appreciate that the use of “jargon ” in the outside world is of little use other than to alienate the very target audience we wish to convince .
        We should not however be shy IMO about the term Socialism it is nothing to be ashamed of as such , and has in the past and even now present , been the target of RW attacks to discredit real Democratic Socialism that is to be expected and countered.
        This in my view does not preclude the average “Joe” from bettering him/herself and the accumulation of proportionate wealth in relation to society as a whole is perfectly within the realms of a modern DS society,( yes I know there is a while debate t be had over proportionality , thinking here of Billionaires/Amazons etc ) .
        I could go on at some length re the redistribution of wealth and benefits of DS ( most of which is learnt from some fantastic sessions at the last The World Transformed events at Conference and elsewhere ) but that would very much be preaching to the converted here on SBox.Suffice to say there may well be a need for a simple online pack to advise / train those out canvassing how to succinctly and quickly put over the benefits to the average person of DS jargon free.

        In any case the thread of this is about the Manifesto which in my view still pretty good 😉

    2. Mmmm what you need is someone who speaks convincingly whilst saying nothing.Now let me see,that nice Mr Blair did that rather convincingly,and he is an uncritical supporter of the EU.He sounds like just the sort of person you are looking for RH.

      1. Don’t be f.ing stupid, John – it’s not a good look.

        My complaint is almost the direct opposite – except the rhetoric I’m criticising doesn’t even sound convincing. That’s the point.

        Now – have you got a real argument that addresses the *actual* issues? Or do you prefer parrot politics?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: