Ship of Fools: The future of socialism in the UK

Thread: The future of socialism in the UK Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029494

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

We've had lots of threads over the last year that have heavily featured the Scottish National Party (SNP). This isn't surprising going back to the build up to the Scottish independence referendum.

Those of us in other parts of the UK have been able to hear lots about the experience of shipmates living in Scotland, and the consensus seemed to be that the SNP had been able to succeed in the general election because having gained power in the Scottish Assembly, they had proved themselves competent at governing on devolved issues in a balanced, left wing (socialist) way.

Of course they were campaigning on devolution as well, which was only lost by a modest margin, and the devolution campaign was reckoned to be a big energising factor in getting SNP votes at the general election.

Last week saw the widely admired (and widely shared on social media) maiden speech in Parliament by Mhairi Black of the SNP (also the youngest MP for a very long time). One of her main themes was that actually Labour had lost in Scotland because they stopped being socialist and had forgotten to give a toss about the poor. The wider context of the speech was her/their opposition to the welfare proposals in the budget.

So, if it's true that the left wing stance of the SNP is the major factor in their success, could that success spark a new left wing movement in the UK? (I'm not going to use a name for it, due to the connotations of words like nationalist and socialist together).

In the general election, we had a candidate from TUSC (The Trade Union and Socialist Congress) but they were a side show really.

In the meantime, the Labour Party are having a leadership election to replace Ed Milliband. "Proper Left Winger" Jeremy Corbyn originally made it onto the ballot by a whisker, apparently on the basis that it was important to have a broad debate. Depending on where you look, Corbyn is the run away popular choice, although the vote is based on a transferable ballot system.

All sorts of "new" Labour people are coming out of the woodwork to say how disastrous it would be if Corbyn wins, including Tony Blair, who has apparently gone as far as to say that he wouldn't want to win an election on a left wing platform even if he thought he could....

So - could there be a new, popular socialist movement inspired by the SNP, or could Labour elect Corbyn and go back to being socialist themselves?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Although it should be noted that on some issues the SNP isn't socialist either - no intention to nationalise Scottish industry for example (although the Scottish government did by Prestwick Airport, that was more because there are arguments to say that that is vital infrastructure and needed to be maintained even though it's running at a loss). Also, socialism is also generally international looking, and nationalism is quite an unusual position for a hard socialist to agree with. Nationalism is almost always right wing (even in the UK - UKIP, BNP, Britain First etc).

I think the hard left Socialist Worker type groups will ever have a foothold - the concerns of people are generally the HNS, schools, welfare - things like nationalising industries and totally scrapping union legislations introduced over the last 30 years aren't among the things the bulk of the electorate want.

The future of left of centre politics in the UK is an interesting question. In Scotland and Wales it seems that the SNP and PC are well established. There are some small left of centre parties in England, most notably the Greens. It's unclear at present what the future of the LibDems is, but they also represent a left of centre position (despite their coalition with the Tories), we need to see how they settle down under their new leader. If Corbyn wins the Labour leadership they may well find votes by coming back towards the centre, even if they don't quite cross back to the left (although they may well lose votes from the other side of the party, likely to the benefit of UKIP and Tories). If Corbyn loses and Farron manages to hold the LibDems together in the left of centre position then there may be defections from the left of Labour to the LibDems. New players on the field are very difficult to predict, but some form of left of centre regional identity party inspired by SNP and PC seems possible, and of potential new players the most plausible.

So, my reading of it is that the future of English left of centre politics is one or more of:

Growth of the Green Party
Revitalisation of the LibDems (possibly with Labour defections)
A return leftwards for Labour
An unknown new player, most plausibly a left of centre English/Regional party

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

It strikes me that Labour are sunk whichever way they turn. If they stay where they are, they will not be distinct enough from the Tories and LibDems (although that will change as the Tories show their true colours and if the LibDems move leftward. If they move strongly to the left, their will be general acclamation that they have "returned to their roots", but they won't be able to garner enough votes from the other parties to win an election.

IMHO, Labour's best prospect is to move leftwards and also hope that the SNP (who are popular as much for Nationalist sentiments as for Socialist ones) will shoot themselves badly in the foot. But I doubt that this will happen.

Assuming Britain hasn't gone federal by 2020, I think we are likely to have either a Tory government or a Lib/Lab/SNP coalition.

[ 22. July 2015, 13:09: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Mr Blair should shut his trap. One of the main beefs the electorate had with Labour was the ballooning welfare bill. Funnily enough it was Mr Blair who started that.

Mr Miliband, in his early years as Labour leader, gave an interesting speech in which he said the main problem with Blairism was that it wanted to organise society along all the lines of Thatcherite capitalism, and then use regulation* and the welfare system to bodge the output into something more acceptable to a socialist. However, since inequality tends to widen under untrammelled capitalism, it follows that the welfare system also has to balloon.

Unfortunately Mr Miliband didn't seem to have any practical ideas about what to do instead, and I'm not convinced Mr Corbyn does either. In fact Mr Osborne's tactic of raising the minimum wage, raising the personal allowance, and then cutting tax credits - taken in isolation - seems a lot more coherent than anything Labour have come up with.

* Well, except of the banks, obviously ...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I'm not sure if there is any point to Labour now; certainly, it has nothing to do with socialism. But then I didn't find people like Harold Wilson or Callaghan particularly socialistic. It's often said that Callaghan introduced neo-liberalism to British politics in 1976, in a famous speech, dealing with the cuts required after an IMF loan. Quote: 'you can't spend your way out of a recession'. Ah, sounds familiar!

Whether or not a left-wing movement will develop in England is an interesting question. Impossible to say, since on the one hand, England is quite a conservative society, on the other hand, who knows what storms and alarms may be on the horizon.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Quote: 'you can't spend your way out of a recession'. Ah, sounds familiar!

Yes, and...

CALLAGHAN SLAMS THE BREAKS ON SPENDING

According to to the back cover of that Supertramp album.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Blair needs to learn that he has had his time, and it is over. He was a failure in the end, and that is partly why his party lost.

Of course, the reason Labour lost was primarily because people didn't trust Milliband to run the country. It was not primarily that we didn't trust them on welfare or the economy specifically. It is that Milliband failed to sell himself and his party as a viable party of government. Blair was one of the people who made personality so important, of course.

Now, they seem to have lost their way. It seems like they are saying "The Tories won, so their ideas must be right. We had better just agree with them". Which is idiotic crap, of course. Their job is to represent the 75% of people who didn't vote for the government.

A future for the left, for socialism? I think there is still strong support for socialism in this country. The problem is that there is no single political party that represents us. For some, the Greens are the true socialist representatives, but for others, their environmental focus is divertionary. For others, they will support Labour because they are historically the socialist party, but for others, their internal battles and inability to stand up for themselves makes them inviable.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Blair needs to learn that he has had his time, and it is over. He was a failure in the end, and that is partly why his party lost.

Hang on, though. Without Blair, the Labour party hasn't won a general election since 1974 and hasn't won a majority of seats in England since, I think, 1966. Labour didn't lose because of Blair, it finally won because of him.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Blair needs to learn that he has had his time, and it is over. He was a failure in the end, and that is partly why his party lost.
Hang on, though. Without Blair, the Labour party hasn't won a general election since 1974 and hasn't won a majority of seats in England since, I think, 1966. Labour didn't lose because of Blair, it finally won because of him.

Yes he did bring them a win. But in the end, the changes he made in the party and in the expectations of party leaders, he lost the party the recent elections.

I said he was a failure in the end. He won for him, not for the party.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Yes he did bring them a win. But in the end, the changes he made in the party and in the expectations of party leaders, he lost the party the recent elections.

I said he was a failure in the end. He won for him, not for the party.

He brought them three wins. And while, as Enoch Powell said, all political careers end in failure, this analysis seems to overlook the fact that when the Labour party eventually lost, it had been led for three years by Gordon Brown.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

To get an idea of what the Ship thinks, I have started a poll in The Circus.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I think that there is a good argument for a leftward leaning leader of the Labour party, who is strong on the disinctive aspects of the Left (protecting the NHS from privatisation; care for the under-privileged; enhancing education for all; etc etc), but who can then reach towards the Centre (where all elections are won).

The problem as I see it with "new" Labour is that it now has little to distinguish itself from the LibDems or even the Tories. Its message seems to be "we won't screw things up as much as the Tories are going to" - to which the obvious response is "but you did that already!"

Where is the passion for equality, for justice, for compassion?

There is space in UK politics for a genuine leftward leaning party. Whether that party will continue to be the Labour party is another matter. (And whether the domineering right wing press will ever allow any leftwing party space to breathe is a whole different discussion!)

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I think that there is a good argument for a leftward leaning leader of the Labour party, who is strong on the disinctive aspects of the Left (protecting the NHS from privatisation; care for the under-privileged; enhancing education for all; etc etc), but who can then reach towards the Centre (where all elections are won).

To be successful, I think Labour needs to make a positive case for itself. The Conservatives still exist in the minds of many of the electorate as the default safe pair of hands for the economy. "We hate the Tories / the rich" might get the left riled up, but it doesn't swing the centre. The Tories can win with a negative "don't trust the socialists with the economy" campaign, but Labour needs a positive vision.

Blair provided that. He was a good orator, and presented a positive case for his party. Gordon Brown, by contrast, had all the charisma of a bank manager, and Ed Miliband couldn't sell anything to anyone. Cameron won the last election largely by default.

Compare Labour to the SNP - Alex Salmond is a reasonable speaker, if rather in the pugnacious Prescott mould, but Nicola Sturgeon is the best political speaker since Blair or Thatcher.

Labour needs someone who can make the case not that a Labour government won't screw over the poor - that won't win an election - but that a Labour government will be actively good for the middle.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I think that the left has answers for various issues if they make their case.

For example, the research supporting an austerity platform has been publically discredited.

Promoting the construction of affordable housing to take some heat out of the rental market.

Addressing concerns about the immigration on low pay work through the strengthening of workers rights rather than via immigration caps.

I think alot of people would support the renationalisation of the railways - as we pay vast amounts in subsidy for a poor service anyway.

The adoption of a negative income tax system would be a more effective way to overhaul the welfare state.

The left needs to change the framing of these debates, it is the failure to argue the initial premises of various issues that is the major failing of opposition.

(Moving left is not necessarily the same thing as going for a fully socialist idea of the state.)

[ 22. July 2015, 21:34: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Essentially, if I were to chose between the USA and Denmark - I would go to scandinavia rather than the States.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

I think the big factor in Blair's success was hope (and that against the background of a Tory party in disarray, with a bunch of leaders less appealing than Major).

The triangulation was a factor, but only that, for a time people really did believe that 'things can only get better'.

The problem of course is that Blair did this whilst the not really shoring up the existing vote (which continued to fall numerically) and building a party within a party rather than taking the party with him. Finally the public's natural suspicion of the over-slick re-asserted itself - at least for anyone with a weaker reality distortion field than Blair.

The problem with triangulation is that it works less effectively when everyone does it, especially when you sound (like the post-blairites) like you don't really believe what you are saying anyway.

I'm not sure that saying 'We are exactly like the Tories but less so' is a particularly winning strategy. People will just go for the real thing instead.

[ 22. July 2015, 21:41: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think that the left has answers for various issues if they make their case.

For example, the research supporting an austerity platform has been publically discredited.
..

The left needs to change the framing of these debates, it is the failure to argue the initial premises of various issues that is the major failing of opposition.

I think the issue is that they largely no longer believe that arguing the initial premises have merit, and some of them don't really believe in initial premises.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

My essential disconnect with politicians is that alot of them look at the USA and see its wealth and power as success - the tories blatantly want our country to function more like that. I look at the states, and see the massive divisions and people being dirt poor in a wealthy nation, as exactly what I don't want to copy.

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

Perhaps the biggest challenge for the left in gaining credibility is to dissociate itself from excessive union power - which I've always argued is anarchistic rather than left wing. Recall how it brought Callaghan down and helped Thatcher into No.10?

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
Perhaps the biggest challenge for the left in gaining credibility is to dissociate itself from excessive union power - which I've always argued is anarchistic rather than left wing. Recall how it brought Callaghan down and helped Thatcher into No.10?

I think I'm right in saying that they've changed the rules for the leadership election of the Labour Party this time around. Milliband famously got the better of his brother on the back of the union vote, but this time around it's more of a one member one vote thing. Which is ironic, as Unite, the biggest union, have publicly backed Corbyn, who would be very much their type of man I suppose - but their support doesn't actually mean anything in terms of actual votes.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

The problem for Labour vis-a-vis the unions is that on the one hand, they absolutely need the unions to finance them. The Tories can get money from big business at a drop of a hat, but Labour would be utterly sunk if the unions pulled their financing. But on the other hand, Labour really needs to distance itself from the - at times - toxic nature of the unions. Union connections are a vote-loser - even an election-loser.

If there were election campaign financing rules that created a more level playing field, then Labour could afford to cut the ties with the unions and would become more credible. But as long as they can be portrayed as the unions' pet poodles, they are in trouble.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
Perhaps the biggest challenge for the left in gaining credibility is to dissociate itself from excessive union power - which I've always argued is anarchistic rather than left wing. Recall how it brought Callaghan down and helped Thatcher into No.10?

Union power is not excessive and hasn't been for 30 years. Ordinary union members helped elect Ed Miliband (there was no block vote). What the left needs is to expand and rebuild the union movement. Almost everyone who is employed has need of a union, and the problem the union movement has at present is that it is seen as representative of only some sections of workers, and that allows the right to practice divide and rule - pointing at train drivers and saying the fact that they have good pay and conditions is a reason to hate unions rather than a reason to join one yourself.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

My wife, a teacher (now retired) always told her colleagues to join a union. This was especially so they could be supported in the case of allegations being made against them (almost inevitable these days) rather than to improve pay and conditions. She didn't mind which union they joined, although she personally felt that NUT tended to be too militant and "political".

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by OddJob:
Perhaps the biggest challenge for the left in gaining credibility is to dissociate itself from excessive union power - which I've always argued is anarchistic rather than left wing. Recall how it brought Callaghan down and helped Thatcher into No.10?
Union power is not excessive and hasn't been for 30 years. Ordinary union members helped elect Ed Miliband (there was no block vote). What the left needs is to expand and rebuild the union movement. Almost everyone who is employed has need of a union, and the problem the union movement has at present is that it is seen as representative of only some sections of workers, and that allows the right to practice divide and rule - pointing at train drivers and saying the fact that they have good pay and conditions is a reason to hate unions rather than a reason to join one yourself.

But does it inherently benefit the left if someone joins a union? I've never been a member of one personally. The only benefit I might have got would have been the sort of protection BT mentions above. Certainly not any sort of collective bargaining on pay and conditions in any of the places I've worked. They all had individual contracts with merit based pay reviews.

There are plenty of significant manufacturing jobs here in the north west and that are very well paid and the people doing them wouldn't necessarily identify as "working class". I'm not sure that people in those well paid jobs would be instinctive or natural labour voters.

I imagine most people now join a union for "selfish" reasons - protection in disputes being the main one. Not out of any sense of comradeship with their fellow workers.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It may take a while, but the best hope for socialism is for the electorate to wake up to the essential aggression of this present government. One nation Toryism will be seen to be an oxymoron.

But that will take time. Meanwhile, the probable election of Jeremy Corbyn may well turn out to be a repeat of the Michael Foot fiasco period. In that respect, Tony Blair may well be right.

Eventually. the floating vote, the centre ground of British politics, will see the ugliness and partisanship of this present government for what it is. But I think we may have to live through some social destruction (disguised as 'reform') first. I like Doublethink's analysis. It's US free marketing v Scandinavian equity. Many seem to have forgotten that equitable societies need wealth redistribution. They will need to learn that again.

Meanwhile, I think the Labour Party looks set for a wilderness time.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Although I was very cross at Blair for getting involved in the debate, I think Barnabas' scenario may well be depressingly correct. I think we need to remember that Conservatism today is still very much in the thrall of the legacy of monetarism and the Thatcher years; it is very different to the more benevolent One Nation Toryism of the 1950s which had no desire to argue with some of the 1940s Socialist reforms.

The big question-marks in the present debate must be the SNP (and nationalism in general) and the future of the LibDems. Labour will need to distance themselves from these while regaining popular appeal.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

I imagine most people now join a union for "selfish" reasons - protection in disputes being the main one. Not out of any sense of comradeship with their fellow workers.

That's always been the case. Trade unionism is about enlightened self-interest - you stand together because the alternative is falling seperately. I'm a teacher and while legal representation is important, so is having the skills and support to call on when you're threatened with redundancy. In my first job the head screwed up their budgetting and got themselves into a position of needing to plan 12 redundancies. A concerted campaign of industrial action reduced that to one, who we couldn't help because they weren't a union member. I should note that only the NUT took action while the other two teaching unions rolled over. Militancy is what gets results (as the RMT know well). I'm also well aware that the terms and conditions: the 35 hour week, protected planning time, guaranteed lunch breaks, decent sick pay and pensions are a result of long and persistent trade union activity.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

Is Jeremy Corbyn's election probable? I would guess that Liz Kendall will be eliminated first, her votes going to Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham (more to Cooper). Then, if Corbyn is not eliminated on this round, Cooper (probably) will go, and Burnham will pick up enough votes to win. And if Cooper is ahead of Burnham, she will pick up enough votes to win.

Socialism? I worry more about the future of liberalism, but then many (on the right) would call Rawlsian liberalism socialist.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The only public poll so far suggests that Corbyn will defeat Burnham in the final round 53-47. The accuracy of the polling is, of course, open to considerable debate.

The result will come down to the balance of two forces: the groundswell of popular support and social media campaigning for Corbyn against the fear of what the media will do to Labour if he's elected, a fear being desperately fanned by the right of the party.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

The relationship between Labour and the unions needs re-defining.

The Labour party was founded as - and needs to return to being - the political arm of the union movement.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I'd love to think that. But (a) lots of people would refuse to vote for Labour if they were so closely linked to the Unions; and (b) the whole Union movement is not what it was. The rise of the Tory policies may encourage Unions to grow again, but they are much less likely to succeed in today's scenario of casualised and fluctuating labour forces than they were in the old traditions of job stability in heavy industry.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The only public poll so far suggests that Corbyn will defeat Burnham in the final round 53-47. The accuracy of the polling is, of course, open to considerable debate.

What I'm not clear on is this: do these polls reflect the opinions of the public at large, or a sample of the voting members of the Labour Party?

If it's the former, they are worthless, as it's not the public who will be doing the voting in this election.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

Indeed it may well be close. I will admit that my vague prediction was based on the idea that the Labour party voters understand AV, and will use their preferences rationally. It would be uncharitable to suggest that they do not and will not.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Indeed it may well be close. I will admit that my vague prediction was based on the idea that the Labour party voters understand AV, and will use their preferences rationally. It would be uncharitable to suggest that they do not and will not.

How many preferences do people have? Surely preferential voting only really applies to the three who aren't Corbyn? In reality, if your first preference is for Corbyn, it doesn't seem very likely that you'll bother with any other preferences for anyone else?

Equally, if you are starting with one of the other three as your first preference, you aren't going to put Corbyn down at all?

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

You have as many preferences as there are candidates, so four in this instance.

I'm putting Corbyn as my first preference, really struggling as to what to do with my other three - almost certainly won't be putting any preference down for Liz Kendall.

[ 23. July 2015, 10:42: Message edited by: The Phantom Flan Flinger ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'd love to think that. But (a) lots of people would refuse to vote for Labour if they were so closely linked to the Unions; and (b) the whole Union movement is not what it was. The rise of the Tory policies may encourage Unions to grow again, but they are much less likely to succeed in today's scenario of casualised and fluctuating labour forces than they were in the old traditions of job stability in heavy industry.

I guess folks need to discover the old truth. Hang together, or you'll be hanged separately.

In modern Tory terms, the term "Trade Unions" clearly includes the Law Society, the British Medical Association and any other professional body which might argue that their micro-managing policies are socially damaging.

Again, it seems to have been forgotten that much of what we call the British Way of Life was won by collective groups challenging the inequities of the status quo. You don't have to be a socialist to know that powerful and aggressive administrations can, and often do, play ducks and drakes with human rights and freedoms.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
You have as many preferences as there are candidates, so four in this instance.

I'm putting Corbyn as my first preference, really struggling as to what to do with my other three - almost certainly won't be putting any preference down for Liz Kendall.

As I suspected then....

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The only public poll so far suggests that Corbyn will defeat Burnham in the final round 53-47. The accuracy of the polling is, of course, open to considerable debate.
What I'm not clear on is this: do these polls reflect the opinions of the public at large, or a sample of the voting members of the Labour Party?

If it's the former, they are worthless, as it's not the public who will be doing the voting in this election.

No, but it's the public who will be doing the voting in GE 2020. And if that poll is accurate (a big if, admittedly) it gives the lie to those saying a Corbyn-led party would be unelectable.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What I'm not clear on is this: do these polls reflect the opinions of the public at large, or a sample of the voting members of the Labour Party?

If it's the former, they are worthless, as it's not the public who will be doing the voting in this election.

It's my understanding that it was an attempt to poll people eligible to vote in the leadership election, but there is some question over how accurately it is possible to do that.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
And if that poll is accurate (a big if, admittedly) it gives the lie to those saying a Corbyn-led party would be unelectable.

Indeed a big if: lots of recent polls suggested Ed Miliband would be Prime Minister by now...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Jeremy Corbyn is about as electable as UK PM as Donald Trump is as U.S. President. Without a sea change of opinion in the centre ground, none of the other Labour candidates have much chance either - but probably a bit more. The evidence for these opinions is not conclusive, of course, but there is a lot of wishful thinking going on on both the right and left wings of the Labour Party.

[ 23. July 2015, 13:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I was reading some of the furious debate between Blairites and the left, and I can see the Blairite point, that first you have to have a government, before you can help people. However, I think Labour are scarred by the Blair experience, well, some parts of Labour. Hence, a repeat of it, via somebody like Mrs Cooper, seems unattractive, and improbable.

Thus, to see Blair himself, the dark lord, or whatever epithet you wish to adorn him with, and others like Mandelson, (who used to be known as the prince of darkness), telling us that the left will commit suicide, might make us think that following neo-Blairism would be even worse.

And Harman's argument that Labour should not oppose Tory benefit cuts, well, the term 'Tory-lite' seems a bit feeble really. Bryan Gould calls it 'me-too' politics. You too can be an aspirational Tory without even having to use the word 'Tory'!

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was reading some of the furious debate between Blairites and the left, and I can see the Blairite point, that first you have to have a government, before you can help people. However, I think Labour are scarred by the Blair experience, well, some parts of Labour. Hence, a repeat of it, via somebody like Mrs Cooper, seems unattractive, and improbable.

As I said in the other thread. Blair's success was more down to hope than triangulation - and that against a Tory party in meltdown. The lesson the PLP took away was that triangulation was the factor though - hence their efforts since to be exactly like the Tories, only less so. Of course, triangulation on right wing issues only really works if you are the only one doing it - otherwise you can always be trumped to the right by a party of the right. So most of the post-blairites come across as believing in nothing so much as power itself.

I actually think a Blair like strategy could work - but only with severe caveats - it would require someone who was able to project hope in a manner that was able to overcome the publics heightened scepticism for which Blair himself is responsible.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, that is the trouble with the other 3 candidates, well, I don't know Ms Kendall, but Burnham and Cooper have a distinct whiff of Blairite clones. For me, they are actually less electable than Corbyn, but no doubt, the right wing media would do a bacon sandwich on him.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

And while the likes of Burnham were proud of scuppering fox hunting last week, they didn't show any leadership qualities when it came to last night's welfare bill, not even pointing out that Cameron promised, before the election, not to cut tax credits and has gone back on his word.

[ 23. July 2015, 15:13: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

A friend was telling me that part of Middle England is so terrified/angry with the SNP or anything to do with them, that they will never be tempted to vote Labour, in case of demonic contamination. I suppose this might be true, in which case, Labour's task seems a huge one, along with the Scottish seats, which are presumably lost for a long time, or forever. I think they need about 100 seats to win an election, and that is in England. Gordon Bennett, I think I will join the DUP, at least they vote against benefit cuts.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And while the likes of Burnham were proud of scuppering fox hunting last week, they didn't show any leadership qualities when it came to last night's welfare bill, not even pointing out that Cameron promised, before the election, not to cut tax credits and has gone back on his word.

It struck me that the Blairites have given up really, I mean, given up opposing the Tories. Harman seemed to be saying that Labour should not support the people who voted Labour, but the people who voted Tory. Hang on, I thought the point of a party was to persuade people? I suppose if you agree with the Tories, there's no point.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

Andrew Rawnsley was predictably scathing about JC in his "Observer" column this week. About the only positive thing he could say for a Corbyn leadership was that the old 80's idea that Labour loses elections because it isn't left-wing enough would be tested to destruction. That made me think, well actually that's not a bad idea really. Labour will probably lose in 2020 anyway, so why not pitch a truly radical set of policies with a personable, credible leader and see what happens? Seemed to work for the SNP. When you're in the dumper you've got to roll the dice - Blair's reforms were, in their way, quite a risk for the party.

As a prospective voter in this election (who may or may not use my vote) I have to say that so far Corbyn has seemed likeable, straight talking and calm under fire. I would never have thought it 2 months ago, but of the 4 he looks the most like PM material. The other 3 certainly ain't doing it for me.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I joined the Labour Party today, because of Jeremy Corbyn. 30 years ago I'd have had him shot.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I joined the Labour Party today, because of Jeremy Corbyn. 30 years ago I'd have had him shot.

Is that 'cos he appeals to you politically, or because you're one of the Labour opponents who are allegedly all registering as members in order to vote for Corbyn and ensure the ruin of the Labour party?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, (just replying to Touchstone), I am having strange reverse perception syndrome. I mean that Burnham, Cooper and Kendall strike me as grotesque puppets, jerking around, and looking rather manic. I suppose they are under a lot of stress, but to me, they look unprofessional and definitely unelectable. On the other hand, Corbyn seems relaxed, and quite adult, but maybe he has nothing to lose. Quite admirable really. He is like the grown-up with 3 kids having hissy-fits, trying to calm them down.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
No, but it's the public who will be doing the voting in GE 2020. And if that poll is accurate (a big if, admittedly) it gives the lie to those saying a Corbyn-led party would be unelectable.

It doesn't say anything like that at all. If we assume the poll's accuracy (yeah, we know...), all it says is that the public prefers Corbyn to Burnham as Labour leader. It says nothing about whether the public prefers either Burnham or Corbyn to Cameron.

The Tory press seems to be chortling with glee at the idea that Labour will pick Corbyn. I wonder how many of the public-at-large who selected Corbyn in this poll are Conservative voters.

Frankly, it's hard to see any of the candidates as particularly electable. Corbyn has a spine and a personality, but I don't think his politics will get any support from the middle. Burnham is a sponge, Cooper is a lightweight, and Kendall seems confused about what her party is for.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Part of the issue is that the leadership candidate should not be who the public would vote for now (we know that, it was Cameron) it is who they can be persuaded to vote for. If we have a left wing labour there is a chance of dragging the overton window back more to the left - which will affect all three parties. This is worth doing to counter the rise of the far right, and would be an achievment in itself even if we lost the next election.

We should either fight the casualisation labour, or promote the Danish flexicurity model. What we should not do, is build and an economy that is designed to service corporations - the purpose of a nation is to provide a good quality of life for those within it. In exchange, we give up our freedom to just take whatever we want and kill anyone who pisses us off. Money, laws permitting the operation of businesses, courts to arbritate etc are there as tools to achieve this. Likewise economic markets should not be the tail wagging the dog.

Politicians currently seem to believe their obligations extend only to those who are interested in being wealthy, and have the skills to achieve that.

In fact, they are just as obligated to a bloke who makes Joey Essex look clever, who pushes trolleys for tescos his entire working life on the minimum wage. And that bloke has as much right to a good quality of life as Alan Sugar. Which means our economy should be organised in such a way that he can get a job, that its wages should be sufficient to support himself without recourse to charity or welfare or working more than 40 hrs a week, he should be able to get secure longterm housing (even if he doesn't own it) and he shouldn't need to go to a fucking foodbank.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

Brilliant post, Doublethink, clearly articulating why the idea of socialism is still relevant, indeed urgent, in modern Britain.

We are through the looking glass now, the rise of the SNP, UKIP and the Greens have trashed all our old notions of "electability". The majority of people in the UK are looking for an alternative to the dismal agenda of the Tories, in many ways this should be an open goal for Labour.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If we have a left wing labour there is a chance of dragging the overton window back more to the left - which will affect all three parties.

Why do you think this might succeed now when it didn't in 1983, 1987, 1992 and, arguably, 2015?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Has anyone noticed that by 2020, Jeremy Corbyn will be 71?

Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on :

Labour needs to decide whether it wants to be (far) left of center, and distinctively socialist, or center left, and in Government. But what do I care? I vote green, for a future for humanity.

Cheers, 2RM.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Has anyone noticed that by 2020, Jeremy Corbyn will be 71?

I'm sure he won't be rude enough to use his opponents' youth and inexperience against them.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Labour needs to decide whether it wants to be (far) left of center, and distinctively socialist, or center left, and in Government. But what do I care? I vote green, for a future for humanity.

Are they likely to form a government after the next election?

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Labour needs to decide whether it wants to be (far) left of center, and distinctively socialist, or center left, and in Government. But what do I care? I vote green, for a future for humanity.
Are they likely to form a government after the next election?

I Personally think that's not going to happen, unless the Tories implode (possible with the EU referendum coming up, but Cameron & Osborne are proving to be highly competent tacticians, adept at keeping their own people happy) and/or Labour can reinvent themselves as they did in the 90s. I don't think this reinvention will consist of Blairism redux, as whatever the rights and wrongs that brand is now too toxic.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Has anyone noticed that by 2020, Jeremy Corbyn will be 71?

And everyone else will be older too. Britain's population is ageing. The over-65's now outnumber people under the age of 16 for the first time.

I don't know much about Corbyn's brand of socialism, but the trend for younger PMs or presidents while our populations get older and older (and also enjoy good health for longer) doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Labour needs to decide whether it wants to be (far) left of center, and distinctively socialist, or center left, and in Government. But what do I care? I vote green, for a future for humanity.
Are they likely to form a government after the next election?

My own suspicion is that they are not. Despite the punishing attack on the size of the state being perpetrated by the Cameron/Osbourne duo, I think Labour's best chance of election comes 2025. If I was a Labour planner, this is what I would be aiming for, and grooming credible potential prime-ministers/chancellors for. It might help also, by then, to have have a solid, long-term economic strategy in place, integrated with their social objectives.

Best wishes, PV.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If we have a left wing labour there is a chance of dragging the overton window back more to the left - which will affect all three parties.
Why do you think this might succeed now when it didn't in 1983, 1987, 1992 and, arguably, 2015?

I'm an optimist ?

I think it would work, if it could be well argued and well presented. I am not arguing for a socialist goverment in the classical sense, with the nationalisation of most major industries etc. To an extent the left/right language is outdated.

If I were to set out the principles/objectives I would want our government to work to:

Respect for human rights, including those of people we dislike
Engagement with the management of long term threats to the species and the nation (e.g, climate change)
Belief that the nation exists for the benefit of all its citizens
Evidence based policy formation
Elegant and efficient technical solutions to bureacratic issues
Clear & honest expression of the aims, objectives and rationales of policies

My fundamental issue with tory government is that I simply do not believe that the market efficiently and effectively delivers core public services - and I believe that sub-contracting what are effectively national monopolies leads to corruption and profiteering. I believe this because I keep seeing it happen, whether that be the PFI disaster or the post office sell off or the functioning of the nuclear and rail industries.

I distrust people who see this and then do it anyway, coincidentally handing of vast assessts and wealth to people they either currently have business connections with or rapidly develop business connections with.

I think leaving philanthropy to fill the gaps left by welfare is an abdication of the responsibilities of the state - and leads to a patronage system where only the compliant and attractive get their basic needs met. Subcontracting public services to third sector charities cannabilises the charitable sector, dependent on government grants they can do nothing different and become subject to goverment control losing their independence. (See Kidscape for a recent example.)

[ 23. July 2015, 20:34: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

No government will ever be good at evidence based policy making, as evidence is frequently at odds with what they think is right. Look at drugs policy...

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
Labour needs to decide whether it wants to be (far) left of center, and distinctively socialist, or center left, and in Government. But what do I care? I vote green, for a future for humanity.

Cheers, 2RM.

Both of these would be an alternative to the Conservatives, which the Tory Lite party that Labour has become is not.

With no real alternative the populace becomes more and more pathetic.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Belief that the nation exists for the benefit of all its citizens

Doublethink

Could you redraft this one? I don't trust a government who want to redraw Human Rights as British Rights not to redraw the boundaries of citizenship either. Not on present evidence.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Has anyone noticed that by 2020, Jeremy Corbyn will be 71?

Same age as King Charles in fact ...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

lowlands_boy. The former. His politics are closer to my vision of Christianity. I've been moved ...

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

My fundamental issue with tory government is that I simply do not believe that the market efficiently and effectively delivers core public services - and I believe that sub-contracting what are effectively national monopolies leads to corruption and profiteering. I believe this because I keep seeing it happen, whether that be the PFI disaster or the post office sell off or the functioning of the nuclear and rail industries.

I distrust people who see this and then do it anyway, coincidentally handing of vast assessts and wealth to people they either currently have business connections with or rapidly develop business connections with.

I think leaving philanthropy to fill the gaps left by welfare is an abdication of the responsibilities of the state - and leads to a patronage system where only the compliant and attractive get their basic needs met. Subcontracting public services to third sector charities cannabilises the charitable sector, dependent on government grants they can do nothing different and become subject to goverment control losing their independence. (See Kidscape for a recent example.)

That gets a whole lot of ticks from me.

But I'm not sure it gets to the heart of the current distrust of socialism. Toryism has successfully presented itself as "tax-cheaper", better at "managing public finances", to an electorate who, at least in the soft centre, think that is preferable to the more positive redistribution policies which get majority support in Scandinavia. I'm not sure enough people care yet about the terrible inefficiencies of PFI or the hi-jacking of the charitable sector, or the real long term consequences of moving (like the US is) towards an "Uber" or "Gig" fend-for-yourself labour market.

Doublethink, I hope you are right that the case may be makeable that severe social damage will be the result of modern day Toryism let loose. I've just not seen anything like that work. This modern day Toryism will fracture and/or implode sooner or later, will not be able to point back to 2008 any more. So the messes will become, clearly, the responsibility of their policies. And the centre will shift again. Anything which can make that happen sooner, rather than later, will be good.

I don't think Corbyn can foster that myself, but it would be nice to be proved wrong if he gets in. I just think he's wide open to being portrayed as Michael Foot version 2 i.e. living in the past, not up to "the real challenges of the modern world".

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Corbyn's great advantage over the other candidates at the moment is that he's never been in either the cabinet, or even the shadow cabinet, and therefore has no need to defend any of the policies of the last 20 years.

He also has a substantial record of voting against the Labour party when they were in government.

These things give him the capacity to say what he thinks without any excuses over why he hasn't backed it up with action. Other candidates are inevitably stuck with defending issues from government which are perceived to have led to them losing in 2010, or issues from opposition that led to them losing in 2015.

He doesn't yet have to concern himself with selling any policies to the public, even if small opinion polls suggest he might be popular (see caveats others have already given).

As Blair and other candidates have pointed out, first you have to actually win an election to implement any policies at all.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Corbyn's great advantage over the other candidates at the moment is that he's never been in either the cabinet, or even the shadow cabinet, and therefore has no need to defend any of the policies of the last 20 years. ...

So that gives him the sort of experience a person needs to lead a party and in due course become a prime minister?

I suppose the one thing you could plead is that unlike the others, he hasn't ever got far enough in life to be able to demonstrate his inadequacy or incompetence.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think there is something of a revolt going on in the Labour Party against the right wing, and people like Cooper and Burnham seem very stale and contaminated by the Blair/Brown years.

This is probably unfair, since they can't unlive their past, but then politics is not noted for its fairness.

I think there is a deep suspicion about neo-Blairism, not just because of Blair's own peculiar trajectory, but because it raises basic principles. Is Labour critical of capitalism, or content to support it, with a few tweaks? Obviously the latter, and the view is that the English public will not tolerate too trenchant a critique of capitalism.

A right-wing acquaintance said to me that Osborne will deliver affluence for the majority for the next 5 years - well, if he does, Labour might as well have a long snooze.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If we have a left wing labour there is a chance of dragging the overton window back more to the left - which will affect all three parties.
Why do you think this might succeed now when it didn't in 1983, 1987, 1992 and, arguably, 2015?

Labour gained both votes and seats in 1987 and 1992. Not enough, but Mrs Thatcher's majority was considerably larger than Mr Cameron's.

1983 was right after the Falklands War.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'm sure I heard Yvette Cooper defending our destruction of Gadhafi as humanitarian. So the 'unforeseeable' unintended consequence of the mass murder in Tunisia and destruction of its economy is just collateral for that. Was worth such humanitarian action.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Corbyn's great advantage over the other candidates at the moment is that he's never been in either the cabinet, or even the shadow cabinet, and therefore has no need to defend any of the policies of the last 20 years. ...
So that gives him the sort of experience a person needs to lead a party and in due course become a prime minister?

I suppose the one thing you could plead is that unlike the others, he hasn't ever got far enough in life to be able to demonstrate his inadequacy or incompetence.

Well, if you only quote one half of the post. I said it's to his advantage now . If he wins the job, and has to start keeping all sorts of different groups of people happy, having not really had to care much what other people think before, then he might well find that more challenging....

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Corbyn's great advantage over the other candidates at the moment is that he's never been in either the cabinet, or even the shadow cabinet, and therefore has no need to defend any of the policies of the last 20 years. ...
So that gives him the sort of experience a person needs to lead a party and in due course become a prime minister?

I suppose the one thing you could plead is that unlike the others, he hasn't ever got far enough in life to be able to demonstrate his inadequacy or incompetence.

He has apparently been a competent and successful MP for twenty years or more. That is more than many people manage.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Corbyn's great advantage over the other candidates at the moment is that he's never been in either the cabinet, or even the shadow cabinet, and therefore has no need to defend any of the policies of the last 20 years. ...
So that gives him the sort of experience a person needs to lead a party and in due course become a prime minister?

I suppose the one thing you could plead is that unlike the others, he hasn't ever got far enough in life to be able to demonstrate his inadequacy or incompetence.
He has apparently been a competent and successful MP for twenty years or more. That is more than many people manage.

Indeed, although it's slightly less remarkable when you start with youth on your side and represent a seat that is rock solid for your party (in Corbyn's cases since 1937). I mean, any idiot who's halfway competent can measure their success in staying in parliament for 20 years in those terms...

I listened to the LBC leaders' debate the other day and have to say that he came across as the most coherent of any of them. I didn't agree with much of what he was saying but at least he didn't (unlike the others) come across like he was receiving his opinions from a broken teleprinter at the end of a malfunctioning long-wave link...

The point on experience is well-made though. If you're the sort of person who wants their MP to be a backbencher and an extension of your local social work provision then he's certainly been good at that. He was however a little more alarming when he directly answered the question "what experience have you had which would contribute to being PM" with what amounted to "I was on a borough council planning committee in the late 1970s."

If that was Boris, you'd think he was satirising himself - the problem is no one outside the Labour faithful knows Corbyn so they can't calibrate whether to be amused by this or dumbfounded.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Apparently Corbyn notoriously doesn't have a sense of humour. So either he was deadly serious or he has the driest sense of humour ever and no-one has figured it out yet.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Apparently Corbyn notoriously doesn't have a sense of humour. So either he was deadly serious or he has the driest sense of humour ever and no-one has figured it out yet.

There is now a Corbynjokes twitter account that someone has set up. They're along the lines of "Doctor, doctor, I think I'm a kleptomaniac". "A rise in opportunist crime is a direct corollary of poverty caused by heartless austerity"

Or 'My wife went to the West Indies today'. 'Jamaica?' 'No, Cuba.'

A bit silly, but I found them an amusing distraction this afternoon.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
If we have a left wing labour there is a chance of dragging the overton window back more to the left - which will affect all three parties.
Why do you think this might succeed now when it didn't in 1983, 1987, 1992 and, arguably, 2015?
Labour gained both votes and seats in 1987 and 1992. Not enough, but Mrs Thatcher's majority was considerably larger than Mr Cameron's.

1983 was right after the Falklands War.

I don't disagree with any of that, but did the Overton Window shift in 1983, 1987, 1992 or 2015 in a way that affected all main parties?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Dunno, I only know about the election results because I checked on Wikipedia. [Hot and Hormonal]

My wider point is that the eighties aren't necessarily the best point of comparison, because Mr Cameron is a lot less popular than Mrs Thatcher.

Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on :

So Mrs Thatcher had considerable work to do. Defeating inflation, resolving Britain's dismal industrial relations, kicking the Argentines out of the Falklands, getting a realistic tax regime sorted, that kind of stuff. Broad brush colours, painted with gay abandon.

These days, politics is more subtle, and, therefore less obviously attractive and motivational. The trick, I think, for all political persuasions, is to provide a vision the people can unite behind. And that vision will never our own immediate self-interest.

People need something bigger than themselves, to set the context for their lives, and provide them with an honourable purpose to be proud of. They need more than pandering to each individuals desire to be richer than their neighbour. 'Without a vision, the people die.' We deserve that vision, and will respond to it, when it is provided.

[ 25. July 2015, 16:26: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
So Mrs Thatcher had considerable work to do. Defeating inflation, resolving Britain's dismal industrial relations, kicking the Argentines out of the Falklands, getting a realistic tax regime sorted, that kind of stuff. Broad brush colours, painted with gay abandon.

These days, politics is more subtle, and, therefore less obviously attractive and motivational. The trick, I think, for all political persuasions, is to provide a vision the people can unite behind. And that vision will never our own immediate self-interest.

People need something bigger than themselves, to set the context for their lives, and provide them with an honourable purpose to be proud of. They need more than pandering to each individuals desire to be richer than their neighbour. 'Without a vision, the people die.' We deserve that vision, and will respond to it, when it is provided.

Most of the horrors of the C20 derive from people looking to politics to give them that and demagogues of right and left trying to sell them politics that will give it to them.

One of the collateral benefits of Christianity, is that the gospels should wean us from that particular delusion. Politics cannot and never will give us the kingdom of heaven.

Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Most of the horrors of the C20 derive from people looking to politics to give them that and demagogues of right and left trying to sell them politics that will give it to them.

One of the collateral benefits of Christianity, is that the gospels should wean us from that particular delusion. Politics cannot and never will give us the kingdom of heaven.

Indeed, I don't entirely disagree.

Political philosophy, it has been said, is about 'who gets what, and says who?' If we deal with politicians at this level, demanding of them appropriate ideals, such as truth, justice, goodness, honour, nobility, and kindness, then, I suggest we can have political visions that are not incompatible with informed Christian thinking.

Best wishes, PV.

[ 25. July 2015, 18:14: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Corbyn has now come out in favour of the nationalisation of the railway and energy sectors. Not sure how compatible a state energy sector is with the EU competition requirements?

However, of equal significance, he has also refused to rule out campaigning for "out" in the EU referendum if he feels that Cameron's negotiations to stay in are too sacrificial for workers rights.

All interesting prospects, as I can't see him being able to take a big chunk of the parliamentary Labour party with him on an out vote...

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Corbyn has now come out in favour of the nationalisation of the railway and energy sectors. Not sure how compatible a state energy sector is with the EU competition requirements?

However, of equal significance, he has also refused to rule out campaigning for "out" in the EU referendum if he feels that Cameron's negotiations to stay in are too sacrificial for workers rights.

All interesting prospects, as I can't see him being able to take a big chunk of the parliamentary Labour party with him on an out vote...

As to the first point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France#Status_of_EDF
Reasonably comfortably. It's certainly possible for that state to have a controlling interest and a near monopoly in the energy sector within EU rules.

I don't think Corbyn will try to push the PLP into backing no unless the deal Cameron gets is really bad. I suspect his position is a bargaining one so that Cameron doesn't run too far to the right to appease his own backbenchers.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

According to Owen Jones, we could be seeing a return of left-wing Euroscepticism, thanks to the Greek crisis.

If Corbyn became Labour leader, and decided to go down this route, politics could enter a very odd place where Labour backbenchers support Mr Cameron's campaign for Yes, while Tory backbenchers support Mr Corbyn's No ...

[ 26. July 2015, 14:13: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

If we leave Mr Corbyn for a bit, and return to the OP, two questions.

The first, is why does anyone automatically assume that the decline or even death of socialism would be a disaster? Why is socialism regarded as a good thing? Might not even the left, yet alone the moderately progressive, be better off without it? Why should it be better for the poor and marginalised that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the state. Does the state even truly embody the community. Have the poor actually benefitted in the countries that have been most committed to this assumption?

States don't tend to be all that good at running things, and especially not without the sort of vigilance that challenges their competence or integrity. One has to suspend one's judgement to regard the record of the Soviet Union, its satellites and its successor states as persuasive.

The second question, is do people vote for the SNP because they perceive it to be socialist, or because it's Scottish and they perceive it to be administratively competent? My suspicion that it's being Scottish and that it runs Scotland well that wins it its votes.

And is the SNP all that socialist anyway, rather than better at doing social services, and more committed to them - which is not the same thing at all?

Might not pursuing the socialist dream, however inspiring it may be to those that have bought the belief, have been a distraction, something that has divided the general left and ensured it has been less likely to win elections rather than more so.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Nationalisation of everything is not the only form of socialism. Full blown socialism does involve collective ownership, but that does not need to be by the government or necessarily at national level. You can look at Mondragon for another example of how to do socialism. The conflation of socialism with Stalinism is not particularly useful because that's not what the vast majority of people who consider themselves socialist mean by it.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why is socialism regarded as a good thing?

Because almost everything good about my country was dragged - by socialists - from the closed hands of the ruling classes.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because almost everything good about my country was dragged - by socialists - from the closed hands of the ruling classes.

A. Is that true? I don't recognise it in remotely such absolute terms in the history of the country I happen to live in. And, more saliently,

B. Might the same people have done the job better if they had not been cumbered with some of the dogmas of socialism?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Well, it's the same country as mine...

The weekend, employment rights, pensions, the NHS, H&S at work Act, minimum wage, Human Rights Act, Equal Pay Act. I could, and probably will, go on.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, it's the same country as mine...

The weekend, employment rights, pensions, the NHS, H&S at work Act, minimum wage, Human Rights Act, Equal Pay Act. I could, and probably will, go on.

But how many of those are directly attributable to socialism. Much of the core concept of the Welfare State and its advocacy ultimately goes back to Lloyd George who was emphatically not a socialist.

The Human Rights Act was partly the achievement of Tony BlaIr, who most socialists deny having ever been anything to do with them.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

<SNIP>

The second question, is do people vote for the SNP because they perceive it to be socialist, or because it's Scottish and they perceive it to be administratively competent? My suspicion that it's being Scottish and that it runs Scotland well that wins it its votes.

And is the SNP all that socialist anyway, rather than better at doing social services, and more committed to them - which is not the same thing at all?

Might not pursuing the socialist dream, however inspiring it may be to those that have bought the belief, have been a distraction, something that has divided the general left and ensured it has been less likely to win elections rather than more so.

I would tend to agree that the the Scottishness of it must be a factor, particularly following the independence referendum.

I grew up in Wales and was still there during the Welsh "devolution" vote in the 90s. That was passed but only by a wafer thin margin, bearing in mind that what was on offer was far less power than the Scottish devolution proposals of the same time.

In my experience, Welsh nationalism in the 70s and 80s was primarily focused on securing the status of the Welsh language, and associated things like establishing S4C (the Welsh TV station), without there ever being much clamour for independence. (If we ignore extremists like "Sons of Glyndwr" who were interested in burning English holiday homes).

If we now compare the political scene in Scotland and Wales, the Welsh nationalist party (Plaid Cymru) have 11 seats in the Welsh Assembly and only 3 MPS in Westminster, whereas SNP have conquered all before them.

That also makes me disagree with Mhira Black's assertion that Labour lost in Scotland because they stopped being socialist. If that was true they should have lost in Wales as well, whereas Welsh politics remains dominated by Labour and the Conservatives, Labour apparently not having been stuffed for their lack of socialism, and still having some seats where they could get a roll of wallpaper elected (to quote another poster on one of the other recent SNP threads)

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, it's the same country as mine...

The weekend, employment rights, pensions, the NHS, H&S at work Act, minimum wage, Human Rights Act, Equal Pay Act. I could, and probably will, go on.
But how many of those are directly attributable to socialism. Much of the core concept of the Welfare State and its advocacy ultimately goes back to Lloyd George who was emphatically not a socialist.

But wasn't Lloyd George doing those things, at least in part, with an eye toward co-opting the left and thus thwarting the rise of the Labour Party? If so, then it could be argued that socialists played a role in the development of the Liberal welfare-state, by pushing the Liberals to the left.

[ 27. July 2015, 20:11: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
States don't tend to be all that good at running things, and especially not without the sort of vigilance that challenges their competence or integrity.

Most people in this country who call themselves socialists definitely believe in the sort of vigilance that challenges integrity.

The State seems to be doing alright at running the NHS - certainly compared to the US health system. There are some bits of the NHS that have been outsourced to private companies that aren't doing quite so well.

(I gather there was a story in the Mail and Telegraph recently about Michael Gove being refused treatment at hospital for a hurt foot because there was no consultant available at the weekend. They omitted to mention that the hospital in question was private.)

The BBC seems at least as well run as any equivalent private company also.

There was certainly a drop in quality in the railways when they were privatised. Some of that has been clawed back since Railtrack was effectively brought back under state control.

I don't think there's any general rule that the state is always worse at running things than the market.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

I don't think there's any general rule that the state is always worse at running things than the market.

There's a difference between a monopoly and someone in a competitive market. Where's the incentive for a monopolist to innovate, or to optimize its customer service, or whatever?

Some things (railways, water pipelines, roads, ...) are natural monopolies: it makes no sense to talk about rival road companies offering roads between towns A and B.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Dafyd and Leorning Cniht, I think those are good points. Something that nobody ever seems to ask is which things should be the responsibility of the state and which things shouldn't.

The socialist seems to start with the assumption that everything should be - at one time even the distribution and sale of eggs. The current Conservative Party seems to start with the assumption nothing should be unless it has to be - hence such inanities as privately run prisons. If you're imprisoned, aren't you at least entitled to be be held by your sovereign rather than handed over to some nameless company?

There will always be a middle area, which will look different in different countries and cultures. But nobody ever seems to analyse the whys of this seriously.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Natural monopolies of products or services that require universal coverage - possibly with the additional modifier of requiring large amounts of fixed infrastructure.

Which would then include: utilities, post, railways, health services, roads, justice services, bus services, tube service

The universal coverage thing is an issue because service is required in areas where it is unprofitable.

Plus I would say a good sign something *might* need to be state run is if it is security critical (ie nuclear facilities, the army). Or if we are paying very large amounts of subsidy for a long time.

Most people I know with left wing views do not advocate nationalising everything.

Though I think, in general, such people like to see co-op, mutual and partnership models of business valued and supported.

What I think would help is more widespread recognition that it is not, in fact, the primary purpose of business to produce a profit.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There was certainly a drop in quality in the railways when they were privatised.

Utter rubbish. The improvements since privatisation have been immense.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What I think would help is more widespread recognition that it is not, in fact, the primary purpose of business to produce a profit.

I don't quite understand that. I mean, all the employees of a company are only there because they're being paid - in order to make a profit, in other words - but it's wrong for the owners of the company to be running it for the same reason?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There was certainly a drop in quality in the railways when they were privatised.
Utter rubbish. The improvements since privatisation have been immense.

Since privatisation passenger numbers have doubled but capacity hasn't. Given that doubling passenger numbers should double the pot of revenue out of which capacity increases can be funded - even before above-inflation fare rises - this suggests to me that money is leeching out of the system somewhere.

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think this is primarily because of shareholders' dividends, but because of the inefficiency of the franchise system.

Having said that, I do think the franchise model is so idiosyncratic that it doesn't tell us much about the merits of state or private ownership. It is a weird misbegotten hybrid between state control and free markets.

(IIRC the best performing operators are Merseyrail, which works more closely with the local authorities than most of its kin, and the Open Access operators, which fend for themselves with minimal government involvement. If I am right about this, that suggests that being neither fish nor fowl is one of the franchise system's many failings.)

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What I think would help is more widespread recognition that it is not, in fact, the primary purpose of business to produce a profit.
I don't quite understand that. I mean, all the employees of a company are only there because they're being paid - in order to make a profit, in other words - but it's wrong for the owners of the company to be running it for the same reason?

Some parties have more to lose. The owners (shareholders for plcs etc) stand only to lose a limited amount of wealth. The workers often stand to lose their entire income and with that their house, car and, thanks to government policy over the last 35 years or so, any dignity they may once have had.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There was certainly a drop in quality in the railways when they were privatised.
Utter rubbish. The improvements since privatisation have been immense.

The cost of those improvements was immense too, way more than was ever done under British Railways.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, all the employees of a company are only there because they're being paid - in order to make a profit, in other words - but it's wrong for the owners of the company to be running it for the same reason?

Being paid a salary is not the same as making a profit. Making a profit is when you invest x amount of money and get x+y amount out. A salary is when you turn your time and hard work into money.

People earn a salary because they need the money. People earn a profit because they've got money they don't need.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There was certainly a drop in quality in the railways when they were privatised.
Utter rubbish. The improvements since privatisation have been immense.

That's not actually contradicting what I said.

The railways immediately post-privatisation in the late nineties were in no way an immense improvement on the railways pre-privatisation. Since then, Railtrack has been taken back under public control and there have been huge injections of public money.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Some parties have more to lose. The owners (shareholders for plcs etc) stand only to lose a limited amount of wealth. The workers often stand to lose their entire income and with that their house, car and, thanks to government policy over the last 35 years or so, any dignity they may once have had.

Unless there is a very severe unemployment problem in the area, the workers can find other jobs. Once the employer loses his capital, it's gone. If he had not lost it, he could have used it to create more jobs.

Moo

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What I think would help is more widespread recognition that it is not, in fact, the primary purpose of business to produce a profit.
I don't quite understand that. I mean, all the employees of a company are only there because they're being paid - in order to make a profit, in other words - but it's wrong for the owners of the company to be running it for the same reason?

It's not hard to find people who choose lower paid work because it's something they believe in, and it's quite hard to find people who go to work only because of the money.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

Which would then include: utilities, post, railways, health services, roads, justice services, bus services, tube service

Utility supply (but not necessarily power generation).

The post I'll let you have - the requirement for a monopoly is largely driven by the cross-subsidy / universal service requirement.

Railways and roads certainly. The tube is a railway.

Justice, certainly: Legal systems, courts and police services are a necessary geographic monopoly. I'll add in the fire brigade.

Bus service: It's less obvious that this is a natural monopoly. To the extent that it is, it's generated by cross-subsidy and universal service requirements. It's quite possibly better off as a monopoly, but it's not in quite the same category of obviousness as roads and railways.

Health services: Again, this one's more up for debate. For emergency services, there is a de facto natural monopoly: if you are in an accident, you're going to the closest hospital with the appropriate facilities, and not shopping around for a deal.

For routine medical care, scheduled surgery etc., there isn't the same natural monopoly.

However, we have a single purchaser. Once we decide that we want a tax-funded health system, you automatically pull in government regulated service levels, licensing, and all the rest of it. It's still not quite a natural monopoly though - it's sensible to talk about individual people having a choice of doctor in a way that doesn't make sense about roads.

Education is in a similar position. "Everybody" agrees that educating the nation's children is a public good, and should be paid for out of taxation. There's some disagreement over exactly when the free stuff should start and end, but those are details. It does not automatically follow that schools should be run by the government, or that individual pupils should be forced to attend a particular school. Those things are possible, of course, but they are choices.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Utility supply (but not necessarily power generation).

Yes, to a point. Though it tends to depend - again - on the type of powerstation, and the kind of demand. In many cases power production itself can end up being a natural monopoly as this piece explores:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n17/james-meek/how-we-happened-to-sell-off-our-electricity

Furthermore, in the UK at least we are in an interesting position - where it apparently makes sense for German and French taxpayers to invest in British power companies, but not for British taxpayers to do the same.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Bus service: It's less obvious that this is a natural monopoly. To the extent that it is, it's generated by cross-subsidy and universal service requirements. It's quite possibly better off as a monopoly, but it's not in quite the same category of obviousness as roads and railways.

When the bus services were deregulated back in the 1980's there was an outbreak of "cherry-picking" such that there were plenty of bus services on some routes but none on others. It was chaotic: buses from different operators would operate at the same time, race each other to pick up customers and, of course, they wouldn't recognise each others tickets. Cross-subsidy only works when the income from one route, running at a profit can be used for another. All this of course is academic if one doesn't rely on public transport.

The comedian Mark Steel suggested that "Public transport should be paid for by those who do not use it" and he has a very good point.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Like schools - it's not just parents of school-age children who pay for them, but all taxpayers.

And, in effect, parents who send their children to private schools could almost be considered public benefactors, since they're paying for State provision but not using it [Devil]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Yes, to a point. Though it tends to depend - again - on the type of powerstation, and the kind of demand.

When one company owns all the power stations in an area, that is an actual monopoly. It doesn't mean that it is a necessary monopoly, though. The article you quote describes the transition between a highly inefficient state-operated monopoly (the CEGB) to a more efficient state-regulated array of private monopolists. It points out that, because of the regulatory structure that was set up, the vary significant efficiency savings largely accrued to the private monopolists and not to the customers.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Yes, to a point. Though it tends to depend - again - on the type of powerstation, and the kind of demand.
When one company owns all the power stations in an area, that is an actual monopoly. It doesn't mean that it is a necessary monopoly, though.

The issue is that it's hard to create a regime where you actually get a successful competitive market for base-load. So whether or not a monopoly is 'natural' or not - it may in fact make more sense to regulate a single company than multiple ones.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

On that argument, I'm also a public benefactor because my children left school nearly 20 years ago, but I still pay taxes.

Sioni Sais, I don't agree with you about bus deregulation. The services are poor. Round here they are expensive. However, the situation before they were deregulated was indefensible.

The operators got blanket subsidies, but there was no real accountability. Indeed, nobody knew, or could have found out, what connection there was between the subsidies and the buses that ran. Even the operators wouldn't have known. They were complacent fossils that ran services to suit their own or their unions' convenience rather than to provide anything the public might want. The routes were frozen, in many cases as they had been in the 1930s. That's fifty years previously. The mechanism for changing them was so byzantine and obstructive that no one in their right mind ever tried. There were frequent examples of two routes running on the same road, with one of them forbidden to pick up or set down passengers for fear it might prove a pirate bus to the other.

The old system was a cosy network of mutually back-scratching vested interests from which the poor benighted passenger got very little.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Thing is, with a regulated system you can always improve regulation, and it's very much noticeable how much better public transport is in those areas, like London, where there is still significant regulation. If you leave things to the market, you're stuck with what the market serves up, and it's often rotten.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So whether or not a monopoly is 'natural' or not - it may in fact make more sense to regulate a single company than multiple ones.

Sure. That's certainly possible. I'm not arguing that the only reason to have a state-run service is that it is a natural monopoly, but that for those things which are natural monopolies, you need to have either state ownership or tight state regulation of the monopolist.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On that argument, I'm also a public benefactor because my children left school nearly 20 years ago, but I still pay taxes.

Fair enough - but at least you did make use of the system for your children. Those who send their children to private schools pay twice; those without children pay for a service they do not require - because it's for the common good.

quote:
I don't agree with you about bus deregulation. The services are poor. Round here they are expensive. However, the situation before they were deregulated was indefensible.

I think one's experience of pre-regulation bus services may have depended on one's location. I suspect that some Council-run operations were good, and others awful. The situation in the early 70s generally was pretty bad.

I'm inclined to think that the best system is the one currently in operation in London, with an overall authority co-ordinating services and setting standards for contracted operators. That ensures a coherent system but means that the operators are kept up to scratch. My experiences of Edinburgh a couple of years ago were also good.

Round here we have a local bus company which is wholly-owned by the local authority. In theory that should be good as they don't need to pay a dividend to shareholders. However (and quite apart from having been dragged into a "bus war" with another operator) politics have intervened. Some Councillors apparently see it as a "cash cow" to raise revenue, while there are rumours of buses serving some areas better according to their political allegiances.

There is also the issue of subsidised services. The Borough Council, who own the company, can't subsidise it because that would be seen as unfair competition. The County Council on the other hand won't subsidise it, preferring other operators, because they are always at loggerheads with the Borough Council. And so it goes on ...

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On that argument, I'm also a public benefactor because my children left school nearly 20 years ago, but I still pay taxes.
Fair enough - but at least you did make use of the system for your children. Those who send their children to private schools pay twice; those without children pay for a service they do not require - because it's for the common good.

This is a common, but massively wrong-headed, argument.

Of course those who send their children to fee-paying schools use the state sector. They rely on it to provide an educated workforce, including many of the teachers and ancillary staff at their own school, their employees, their contractors, tradesmen, drivers, shopworkers, police, army, health service - virtually the entire fucking workforce has been educated in state schools.

Unless you honestly think that the few percent of privately-educated people could manage to live while never interacting in any way with the vast lumpen masses. I know they pretend it's true sometimes, but in reality, they benefit far more than they ever pay.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

The railways immediately post-privatisation in the late nineties were in no way an immense improvement on the railways pre-privatisation. Since then, Railtrack has been taken back under public control and there have been huge injections of public money.

Railtrack is one of the most horrifying creations of privatisation. A fatigued rail killed four people and the board admitted there might be 1200 other dodgy rails on the network requiring speed restrictions at the least. In China people are executed for that.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On that argument, I'm also a public benefactor because my children left school nearly 20 years ago, but I still pay taxes.

We'll benefit from your children, my children and those of others when we retire. They after all will comprise most of the workforce which provide the taxes from which our state pensions and health care will be paid from.

quote:

Sioni Sais, I don't agree with you about bus deregulation. The services are poor. Round here they are expensive. However, the situation before they were deregulated was indefensible.

The operators got blanket subsidies, but there was no real accountability. Indeed, nobody knew, or could have found out, what connection there was between the subsidies and the buses that ran. Even the operators wouldn't have known. They were complacent fossils that ran services to suit their own or their unions' convenience rather than to provide anything the public might want. The routes were frozen, in many cases as they had been in the 1930s. That's fifty years previously. The mechanism for changing them was so byzantine and obstructive that no one in their right mind ever tried. There were frequent examples of two routes running on the same road, with one of them forbidden to pick up or set down passengers for fear it might prove a pirate bus to the other.

The old system was a cosy network of mutually back-scratching vested interests from which the poor benighted passenger got very little.

It was poor before, but the outcome was that a half-baked system serving a muddle-headed ideology was replaced by another. The concept of matching provision to need has never caught on.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Of course those who send their children to fee-paying schools use the state sector. They rely on it to provide an educated workforce, including many of the teachers and ancillary staff at their own school, their employees, their contractors, tradesmen, drivers, shopworkers, police, army, health service - virtually the entire fucking workforce has been educated in state schools.

I agree totally, but you are working with a larger canvas than I am. I simply meant that those who choose to spend their money on private education are also paying the direct costs of the state provision which they're not using.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Sure. That's certainly possible. I'm not arguing that the only reason to have a state-run service is that it is a natural monopoly, but that for those things which are natural monopolies, you need to have either state ownership or tight state regulation of the monopolist.

Yes, and I think we are largely agreement. Re the post above, the other point I was trying to make was that whilst the CEGB may have been massively inefficient - that wasn't a necessary consequence of them being state run (as the German and French examples show us).

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What I think would help is more widespread recognition that it is not, in fact, the primary purpose of business to produce a profit.
I don't quite understand that. I mean, all the employees of a company are only there because they're being paid - in order to make a profit, in other words - but it's wrong for the owners of the company to be running it for the same reason?

Profit is a crude indicator rather than an end in itself. The purpose of businesses are the provision of products/services and the provision of livelihoods. In exchange for this, we - as a society - provide large amounts of social and practical infrastructure. By organising corporate law such that profits must be maximised we, in effect, program businesses to act as a whole rather like psychopaths. This is not healthy.

During the recession, some commentators wanted to kill off so called zombie businesses - because they were operating at breakeven and servicing their debt but not decreasing it. This was seen as entirely negative - with no apparent recognition that maintaining their function of providing livelihoods and services was in fact useful.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Unless you honestly think that the few percent of privately-educated people could manage to live while never interacting in any way with the vast lumpen masses. I know they pretend it's true sometimes, but in reality, they benefit far more than they ever pay.

There are two benefits to education. One is the benefit that accrues to the individual being educated, and the other is the benefit that accrues to society as a whole from having educated people.

As Doc Tor points out, the second benefit accrues to us whether or not we have children, and whether our children are educated in the state system or privately.

I think it's obvious that the benefits of an educated populace exceed the costs in general. There are plenty of arguments around how much this is true for a university education (with the current result that that's not free), and there are other arguments around free preschool.

As a general philosophical position, I don't think governments should prefer one reasonable choice I might make over another reasonable choice. This philosophical position leads me to be attracted to school voucher-like systems, but there are a number of practical issues with that that may be difficult to manage.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

As a general philosophical position, I don't think governments should prefer one reasonable choice I might make over another reasonable choice. This philosophical position leads me to be attracted to school voucher-like systems, but there are a number of practical issues with that that may be difficult to manage.

The biggest one being that most parents are in no way qualified to judge the quality of a school, and are liable to let their kids be screwed out of a decent education by slick marketing. It's bad enough in England as it is with the pseudo-competition in the state sector, particularly at 6th form level. Allow the private sector access to public cash and things will get far worse. You only have to look at Sweden to see what a disaster vouchers are.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

I recall reading the autobiography of Sir John Harvey Jones, industrialist and one time chairman of ICI. He mentioned that profit and employment where often wrongly assumed to be the purpose of industry (or business). The actual point was to generate wealth.

Wealth presumably being for the benefit of all concerned...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I recall reading the autobiography of Sir John Harvey Jones, industrialist and one time chairman of ICI. He mentioned that profit and employment where often wrongly assumed to be the purpose of industry (or business). The actual point was to generate wealth.

Wealth presumably being for the benefit of all concerned...

Some presumption! There must be a few shareholders/stockholders on board. I wonder how they feel about not receiving the full proceeds of their investment.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Well, a successful business can make employees better off through their salary, customers and suppliers better off through trade, shareholders better off through dividends, government better off through tax receipts...

Of course, it can also crap on suppliers, employees and others, and dodge taxes...

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There must be a few shareholders/stockholders on board. I wonder how they feel about not receiving the full proceeds of their investment.

There's a problem with the philosophy that a business' job is to earn as high returns for its shareholders as it can, which is that it ends up prioritising short term profits that aren't sustainable, earned for instance by cutting staff and selling off assets. The shareholders can then move their money to another business leaving the old business no longer sustainable. This is not much good for the wider economy.

If a business issues shares it is within its rights to stipulate that it is not aiming to maximise the short term return on those shares.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There must be a few shareholders/stockholders on board. I wonder how they feel about not receiving the full proceeds of their investment.
There's a problem with the philosophy that a business' job is to earn as high returns for its shareholders as it can, which is that it ends up prioritising short term profits that aren't sustainable, earned for instance by cutting staff and selling off assets. The shareholders can then move their money to another business leaving the old business no longer sustainable. This is not much good for the wider economy.

If a business issues shares it is within its rights to stipulate that it is not aiming to maximise the short term return on those shares.

AFAIK that kind of clause would have to be written into the Articles of Association. Many investors would be discouraged by that. In any event, the shareholders could vote to change them. Look what happened to the building societies - 95% of them demutualised to the long-term benefit of no one.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
it's quite hard to find people who go to work only because of the money.

You just found one *waves*

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Profit is a crude indicator rather than an end in itself. The purpose of businesses are the provision of products/services and the provision of livelihoods.

I cannot agree. When Messrs Sainsbury, Woolworth, Smith et al first opened their stores I find it far more likely that they were motivated by a need to earn money than by a desire to provide other people with the ability to purchase goods. And frankly I find both more believable than the idea that they were motivated by a desire to provide employment to others.

That ability to earn money is the driving force behind business, not a pleasant side-effect of whatever it is the business does. And employing staff is a necessary consequence of the business becoming too large for the owner to run single-handedly, rather than an end in itself.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I think for a lot of people who start their own business it's about being able to make a living doing something they enjoy. I also think that for some business owners they are proud to be able to pay people a decent wage and look after them well.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

That ability to earn money is the driving force behind business, not a pleasant side-effect of whatever it is the business does.

I take it you have never tried to start your own business.

Neither have I, but I used to be an employee of a startup, and saw what hours the owner worked. If you just want to make money, there are much better options that don't involve eighteen-hour days and risking your entire capital, and which more crucially give some kind of guarantee that you will actually receive some money ...

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Getting back to Corbyn for a moment, the Unison union (second largest in Britain) have now joined Unite (the largest) in endorsing Corbyn as the leadership candidate. Union members are still free to vote as they choose, but Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper were apparently both hoping for and expecting this endorsement. Corbyn is bookmakers favourite with some bookies.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Profit is a crude indicator rather than an end in itself. The purpose of businesses are the provision of products/services and the provision of livelihoods.
I cannot agree. When Messrs Sainsbury, Woolworth, Smith et al first opened their stores I find it far more likely that they were motivated by a need to earn money than by a desire to provide other people with the ability to purchase goods. And frankly I find both more believable than the idea that they were motivated by a desire to provide employment to others.

That ability to earn money is the driving force behind business, not a pleasant side-effect of whatever it is the business does. And employing staff is a necessary consequence of the business becoming too large for the owner to run single-handedly, rather than an end in itself.

I wasn't stating why a person might start a business, I was stating what a business is for - its function in society.

A very small business might have only one person in it, the owner, it would still be trying to provide a livelihood to that person - and by definition it would be doing something - otherwise it would simply be a person standing around rather than business.

As a society we facilitate the operation of businesses, in order that they should perform these functions.

[ 29. July 2015, 21:50: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

It's all about the ends and the means.

I believe that the ends of a business are to provide income to the owner(s). The actual service provided and employment of others are means by which this end is achieved.

You, on the other hand, believe that providing a service and employing people are ends in themselves, regardless of profitability.

Is that a fair summary?

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Haven't been on the Ship in a bit, but I agree with Doublethink here regarding the purpose of businesses, work, etc. -- though I hasten to mention that I mean ontologically, rather than the ideas in the minds of the people who might start a business. The shoemaker makes shoes so that people might be shod; the baker bakes bread so that people might eat; the house-builder makes homes so that people might have a roof over their heads; and they are all paid money so that the shoemaker can eat and have a home, the baker can have shoes, etc.

Obviously, the desire for money (for shoes, food, housing, entertainment and so on) is part of what helps us get up in the morning and go to work, but I think that we should never lose sight of what that work is actually for, both in society and (at least for those of us who believe in God) in (so far as we can discern such matters) the eyes of God.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Profit is a crude indicator rather than an end in itself. The purpose of businesses are the provision of products/services and the provision of livelihoods. In exchange for this, we - as a society - provide large amounts of social and practical infrastructure. By organising corporate law such that profits must be maximised we, in effect, program businesses to act as a whole rather like psychopaths. This is not healthy.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Obviously, the desire for money (for shoes, food, housing, entertainment and so on) is part of what helps us get up in the morning and go to work, but I think that we should never lose sight of what that work is actually for, both in society and (at least for those of us who believe in God) in (so far as we can discern such matters) the eyes of God.

If I didn't need the money, I wouldn't work. You seem to be suggesting that's wrong in some way.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I believe that the ends of a business are to provide income to the owner(s). The actual service provided and employment of others are means by which this end is achieved.

You, on the other hand, believe that providing a service and employing people are ends in themselves, regardless of profitability.

Is that a fair summary?

I think Doublethink is viewing this from the perspective of wider society, whereas you are viewing it from the perspective of the individual business owner.

There are a bunch of societal costs to providing the infrastructure and institutions within which a business can flourish - society agrees to provide these because it is assumed that the benefits to society from those businesses will outweigh the costs.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If I didn't need the money, I wouldn't work. You seem to be suggesting that's wrong in some way.

While many people work for the money, many who don't need the money still work, and more still who do need the money don't work.

Your motivation is not everyone's, by any stretch.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I think that both sides are important and equally valid.

A business owner seeks to earn an income to at least cover living costs to house, feed, clothe, educate his family. He does this by running a business that a) fits his talents, abilities and (possibly) interests and b) meets a need in society.

Society needs businesses that meet the needs of society.

From the perspective of society, the question is how do we collectively ensure that the businesses we need to meet our needs exist? And, part of that also includes cost - the business needs to be their, and the product needs to be affordable.

In many situations, businesses are able to supply the needs of society at an affordable price. That's true of things like clothing, food, consumer goods - although there may need to be provision to support the extreme poor to enable them to afford essentials, and there may be additional regulation to cover (for example) health and safety of employees or fair wages.

The question comes when we address high cost items that most individuals would not be able to afford. It costs a lot of money to run a modern hospital, schools, public transport etc. How does society ensure that those who need, but can't personally afford, these goods and services access them? There are a range of models, including:

1. Philanthropy where the wealthy individuals in society pay for these on behalf of the poor
2. For rarely used services, insurance schemes allow everyone to pay a small (hopefully affordable by all) amount to pay for services that they may need.
3. Loans or grants paid by society to individuals who use these services - eg: loans for students to go to university
4. Direct government payments for these services on behalf of society - which is, more or less, how the NHS is funded
5. Direct government ownership of providers of these goods and services

Generally, left-wingers prefer options 3 or 4 and right-wingers options 2 or 3. I tend to think that those who state option 1 is the prefered approach are on a political axis normal to the left-right.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

There are a number of flaws in the arguments about motivation.

For a start, the high-minded are saying that because some people are not motivated to work by their pay packets, nobody should be. Perhaps all should be as the best are. Most of us are not. Designing society round the illusion that we will all be as the best should be is lethal.

Second, for a person who makes a profit rather than earns a wage, i.e. works on their own account rather than for someone else, that profit is their wage.

Third lots of fairly poor people are in that position. There are quite a lot of people who earn salaries (i.e. wages) that are high, much higher than the net profits a lot of small businesses are making.

Fourth, people do things for lots of different motives. It is not our job to tell them their motives are inferior than ours unless they really are. That is rarely the case.

Fifth, some jobs give back more than others. A person can be more emotionally committed to being, say, a doctor or a monumental mason (to make an odder choice) than they are likely to be to working on an assembly line. I used to ask professional educators who grumbled that accountants earned more than they did, whether they'd rather be an accountant. They'd answer, 'No - I like my job; I'd hate to be an accountant'. To which the next question is, 'don't you think, then, that if you were an accountant, you ought to be paid more to make up for doing it?'.

Sixth, if you put your own money, credit, inheritance or house at risk, it's reasonable that you should get a good recompense for doing so.

Finally, the decision whether one goes for short term or long term returns is a rational one, not a doctrinal one. There are good reasons why a person, family or group of people might prioritise one over the other. Having said that, though, I don't think it's in society's long term interest if people are discouraged from choosing longer rather than shorter term returns by fears that somebody else will change the rules so they don't recover them.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There are a number of flaws in the arguments about motivation.

I think the problem is that Doublethink's original question about what a business is for has been misinterpreted as a question about the motivation of its owners.

To my mind the motivation of the business owners is irrelevant. Society should encourage businesses that work towards the common good and discourage those that work towards the common detriment.

Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on :

So, all the unions seem to be coming out for Corbyn. Unite, Unison, etc. These are the guys who chose Ed Milliband, and so lost Labour the last election. Do they want a Labour Government, really? It seems they prefer to pursue petty intra-party politics, instead.

Cheers, PV.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
So, all the unions seem to be coming out for Corbyn. Unite, Unison, etc. These are the guys who chose Ed Milliband, and so lost Labour the last election. Do they want a Labour Government, really? It seems they prefer to pursue petty intra-party politics, instead.

Cheers, PV.

You know this how?

The Tor household is, I suppose, reasonably left-wing (considering I'm in it, and I brought up the Torlets). Miss Tor is eligible to vote next time, with Master Tor shortly behind. Neither of them would have voted Labour last time, but are now expressing their support for a Corbyn-led Labour party. I've rarely voted Labour, either - I think I did in 97, just to make sure. If Corbyn was leader, then I'd seriously consider it. I'd seriously consider joining the party, for that matter.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Is the real problem not Corbyn, so much as that none of them - Corbyn included - look remotely like leaders?

We have a Conservative Party that thinks it won the election by pulling a selection of tired old policies from the 1980s out of its back pocket. Now we have a Labour Party that seems to think that doing the same thing is at least better than appearing to have no policies at all.

A bit of straight talking.

When power changes hands in the UK you don't win an election. Somebody else loses. You win by being around at the right time and not being too unelectable to fail to catch the baton when the public decide the last lot have had it long enough.

The Conservatives are not inspiring. They got back into power on only 37% of the vote because just enough of the electorate thought they'd be more of the same thing rather than something different. Next to nobody changed their vote to Conservative because they wanted housing association tenants to have the right to buy.

If the EU referendum doesn't get them first, they're almost bound to foul up over Scotland. However, unless they repeal the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas, the next election will not be until 2020. To win it, Labour needs to pick up a substantial tranche of floating voters from somewhere without losing too many of those it has got. Is there anything about any of the choices it appears to be offering at the moment that strikes anyone as likely to do that?

The only place on the left it can take votes from is the Greens, and most people vote Green because they believe in it. The Lib-Dem vote collapsed so markedly that I suspect that's its core 'I'd vote for them if they put up a pig' vote. If they play their cards right, though, they could pick up dissatisfied social democrats from a Corbyn led Labour Party. The only places Labour can get votes from are the unaffiliated, the floating voters who voted Conservatives this time and are fed up with them, and five years worth of new voters less five years of dead ones.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

The only place on the left it can take votes from is the Greens, and most people vote Green because they believe in it. The Lib-Dem vote collapsed so markedly that I suspect that's its core 'I'd vote for them if they put up a pig' vote. If they play their cards right, though, they could pick up dissatisfied social democrats from a Corbyn led Labour Party. The only places Labour can get votes from are the unaffiliated, the floating voters who voted Conservatives this time and are fed up with them, and five years worth of new voters less five years of dead ones.

Your analysis is partial, because you missed a critical piece of data: turnout.

A third of the electorate didn't vote at all. It wouldn't take many of those 33% to turn up and queer the pitch for any of the main parties.

If Corbyn's presence brings out those who either haven't voted or have got out the habit of voting, even by two or three percent, all bets are off. This happened in spades for the SNP in Scotland.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The bit of the puzzle that's missing is that Corbyn can do a lot of the "straight-talking, honest bloke" stuff that Farage can do. There are a lot of disaffected Labour voters out there who responded positively to Farage's schtick, even if they didn't examine the ideology behind the rhetoric very closely. Corbyn has the "outsider" potential that might very well draw back a lot of those voters, because he doesn't sound like a modern politician. If Labour can get even half of those UKIP voters on board they'll romp home in 2020. It's pretty likely that 2015 will be a high water mark in terms of UKIP support. Labour will lose some votes to the lib dems, though not many, and they'll take maybe half of the Green vote (it's worth looking at how the Green vote was supressed in areas with a strong left-Labour candidate). Combine with tory fatigue and I think Corbyn has a fighting chance of being PM. More so than the other three candidates, in fact.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If Labour can get even half of those UKIP voters on board they'll romp home in 2020. It's pretty likely that 2015 will be a high water mark in terms of UKIP support. Labour will lose some votes to the lib dems, though not many, and they'll take maybe half of the Green vote (it's worth looking at how the Green vote was supressed in areas with a strong left-Labour candidate). Combine with tory fatigue and I think Corbyn has a fighting chance of being PM. More so than the other three candidates, in fact.

But how many voters will Labour lose because it's being led by Corbyn?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Your analysis is partial, because you missed a critical piece of data: turnout.

A third of the electorate didn't vote at all. It wouldn't take many of those 33% to turn up and queer the pitch for any of the main parties.

If Corbyn's presence brings out those who either haven't voted or have got out the habit of voting, even by two or three percent, all bets are off. This happened in spades for the SNP in Scotland.

And you think Corbyn has the ability to do that?

Did Michael Foot?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If Corbyn's presence brings out those who either haven't voted or have got out the habit of voting, even by two or three percent, all bets are off. This happened in spades for the SNP in Scotland.
And you think Corbyn has the ability to do that?

Pass. We might find out.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But how many voters will Labour lose because it's being led by Corbyn?

I think in that sense the monstering by the press has been to Labour's benefit - those who were likely to believe the press allegations of "red Ed" have already gone. I strongly suspect Corbyn would pick up far more than he lost.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If Labour can get even half of those UKIP voters on board they'll romp home in 2020. It's pretty likely that 2015 will be a high water mark in terms of UKIP support. Labour will lose some votes to the lib dems, though not many, and they'll take maybe half of the Green vote (it's worth looking at how the Green vote was supressed in areas with a strong left-Labour candidate). Combine with tory fatigue and I think Corbyn has a fighting chance of being PM. More so than the other three candidates, in fact.
But how many voters will Labour lose because it's being led by Corbyn?

Depends on how much effort the Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express etc put into it. Damn all to do with politics and policies.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

It might also depend what happens to other populist left wing anti-austerity parties in other parts of Europe in the meantime. Such as in Spain.

And it'll be interesting to see the SNP reaction if Corbyn wins.

Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You know this how?

I just read the electoral runes, just like any other interested individual. It's a cliche, but the electorate did not vote in the conservatives this time around because Labour was not far left enough. The fact is, they who control the centre ground will win the next election. With a right of right leaning Tory consensus, Labour has an open goal. But it seems determined to ignore it, in favour of internecine strife that has everything to do with egos, and nothing to do with the national interest.

Cheers, PV.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Let's assume (it's a big assumption because people are complicated) that elections are won on the centre ground. Where is the centre ground? What policies typify 'centrist' views? What place does political discourse have in moving that centre ground towards (and away from) the left?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

If the party that is the best fit for middle ground policies always wins, then all we electors are doing is changing the faces; the policies stay the same. All a political party needs to do is prune its policies until they match those of the last lot and the ones before them.

This is, to a large degree, what happens which is why politics is so boring and turnouts so low, but it mustn't be the only thing. Democracy needs debate, and in a changing world, doing the same thing will lead to disaster. Whether he wins office as leader or PM, Corbyn is already a factor in the political chatter. At the moment the resistance to him is of the 'well he's obviously wrong' sort, but eventually it will have to grapple with policies and start to give reasons why he's obviously wrong, and at that point Corbyn will start to pull the middle ground across and he will have an impact on the policies of others.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If Labour can get even half of those UKIP voters on board they'll romp home in 2020. It's pretty likely that 2015 will be a high water mark in terms of UKIP support. Labour will lose some votes to the lib dems, though not many, and they'll take maybe half of the Green vote (it's worth looking at how the Green vote was supressed in areas with a strong left-Labour candidate). Combine with tory fatigue and I think Corbyn has a fighting chance of being PM. More so than the other three candidates, in fact.
But how many voters will Labour lose because it's being led by Corbyn?
Depends on how much effort the Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Express etc put into it. Damn all to do with politics and policies.

This seems to be a recurring theme: a candidate loses because he is insufficiently left-wing. But if a sufficiently left-wing candidate loses it is because of some other factor, such as the press brainwashing people. There never seems scope for 'the people just aren't into you'.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Has it occurred to you that quite a lot of us prefer our politics boring? We've got lives to live.

[ 31. July 2015, 11:33: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
This seems to be a recurring theme: a candidate loses because he is insufficiently left-wing. But if a sufficiently left-wing candidate loses it is because of some other factor, such as the press brainwashing people. There never seems scope for 'the people just aren't into you'.

It can hardly be a recurring theme when there hasn't be a left wing leader of a major party in 30 years. I do think Miliband's personality, the lack of inspirational qualities, did a lot to undermine his campaign. The tories are massively helped by having the vast majority of the media on their side, however.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The tories are massively helped by having the vast majority of the media on their side, however.

That would be the vast majority of traditional news media (TV, radio, newspapers and associated web material). We saw in the Scottish Independence campaigning (and subsequently) substantial use of social media to report news with a different bias from the traditional news media. It's as easy to share a story from an "independent"* news source on your Facebook feed as it is to share something from the BBC.

So far, the main UK political parties have failed to realise that social media is changing the playing field when it comes to how people get their news. I think the SNP caught on during the Referendum campaign - and, that may have been a factor in their success.

* there is, of course, no such thing as independent news.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Enoch

quote:
Has it occurred to you that quite a lot of us prefer our politics boring? We've got lives to live.

Not just that, but some of us have lived long enough to know that rather than trying to achieve something by slamming people with a 'big idea' you might get where you want with less fuss by a series of small steps or nudges.

For example, you own a restaurant and you want to do your bit to tackle the rise in obesity: food police give you calorie counts for everything; nanny state insists you advertise that chips may not be the 'healthy' choice; the nudge is to make salad the default setting for the side dish so people have to ask for chips.

As for social media, I wouldn't be too quick to give them much credit: the age group who use it the most voted the least.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for social media, I wouldn't be too quick to give them much credit: the age group who use it the most voted the least.

'least' being 70% in Scotland, about 49% in E&W.

Which doesn't disprove Alan's point.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for social media, I wouldn't be too quick to give them much credit: the age group who use it the most voted the least.

And, therefore, if anyone can encourage that age group to come out and vote for them will have a significant swing in their favour. If Labour had managed to get even a few percent of the non-voters to come out and vote for them the general election result would have been very different.

I would also add that although the younger age group were lowest nationally at turning out, their turn out in Scotland was higher - and despite most mainstream media being very anti-SNP there is a good argument to be made that this social-media influenced demographic turning up at the polling stations that swung things for the SNP.

Finally, the use of social media is rapidly spreading through most demographic groups. Older generations used to getting their news on the TV at 10pm or from the paper on the train into work may not trust newsitems shared on Facebook, but they will be seeing them. More importantly, they'll see their friends and family discussing the news.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Enoch
quote:
Has it occurred to you that quite a lot of us prefer our politics boring? We've got lives to live.
Not just that, but some of us have lived long enough to know that rather than trying to achieve something by slamming people with a 'big idea' you might get where you want with less fuss by a series of small steps or nudges.

For example, you own a restaurant and you want to do your bit to tackle the rise in obesity: food police give you calorie counts for everything; nanny state insists you advertise that chips may not be the 'healthy' choice; the nudge is to make salad the default setting for the side dish so people have to ask for chips.

Alternatively, if you are disabled, or can't find a job, oh what the heck, let's just cut the subsistence level support you are on. That's not a nudge, that's a fucking great shove, to someone or even a whole family that is walking a thin line in the first place.

Then again, that isn't boring either. It makes a lot of people feel very smug to have their preconceptions of shirkers, scroungers and spongers confirmed by a government made up of people who have never gone without a thing.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Tis worth noting that a big factor in Corbyn getting on the ballot was his use of social media.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
This seems to be a recurring theme: a candidate loses because he is insufficiently left-wing. But if a sufficiently left-wing candidate loses it is because of some other factor, such as the press brainwashing people. There never seems scope for 'the people just aren't into you'.
It can hardly be a recurring theme when there hasn't be a left wing leader of a major party in 30 years. I do think Miliband's personality, the lack of inspirational qualities, did a lot to undermine his campaign. The tories are massively helped by having the vast majority of the media on their side, however.

Helped, no doubt, but significantly? Wikipedia has a page listing UK newspaper circulation figures. The combined circulation of newspapers that are perhaps sympathetic to the Tories (which I take to be the Express, Daily Mail, Star, Telegraph, the Sun and the Times) is 5,441,885, according to the latest figures listed on that page. This is fewer than half the 11,334,576 votes the Conservatives gained at the 2015 election. And of course, not everyone who buys those newspapers will vote, some will buy more than one paper and many will vote but not vote Tory.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

You're neglecting Sky News, which leans heavily to the right, and also the influence of the press over the coverage of the BBC. The BBC very much follows the papers in deciding what to cover and the views on it to give voice to.

You're also ignoring the online presence of those papers, particularly the Mail.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Also, the influence of the media extends beyond those who actually read/watch. If someone reads right wing newspapers and then discusses politics with friends and colleagues then he will be passing on the prejudices and expectations of the right wing media. If that happens often enough without others being informed of alternative views then the right wing views become accepted by default.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

The Guardian website is free. They can check it out any time they want...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm not persuaded by politicians who say 'it's not fair; people would vote for us if the press weren't so biased against us'.

First of all, there have always been papers of different political persuasions. People can choose which ones to read or not read.

Second, why should we assume people are swayed by the paper they read, rather than that they choose what paper to read because it fits the prejudices they've already got?

Third, we're repeatedly being told the readership of newspapers is steadily shrinking.

Fourth, and most importantly, shouldn't we credit people with being able to make up their own minds? I make up my own mind - or at least believe I do. Wouldn't it be conceited of me to imagine that only me and a few like minded friends are capable of reaching our own conclusions, but that the rest of the community are incapable of doing so?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The combined circulation of newspapers that are perhaps sympathetic to the Tories (which I take to be the Express, Daily Mail, Star, Telegraph, the Sun and the Times) is 5,441,885, according to the latest figures listed on that page.

It's not just the people who buy newspapers. The newspaper headlines are prominently displayed in every newsagent and many supermarkets, so you've got a shelf of right-wing advertising slogans with a few dissenting voices.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

When I go to the supermarket I have to pass rows of various brands of baked beans stacked quite prominently. Still can't stand them.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I'll put myself forward as one person whose vote Jeremy Corbyn would lose. For me Tony Blair was the best prime minister of the the last 50 years. Shame he got Iraq wrong but apart from that I like him.

I'd be highly likely to vote Labour if Liz Kendall was leader, and I might do so if Yvette Cooper was as I'd like to see a woman leader. I'll definitely vote Conservative if Jeremy Corbyn is leader, and if he became prime minister, I'd be looking into my options to emigrate. I have no personal animus against him but would want to protect the modest savings that my pension depends on while they are still worth something.

I want someone who starts by looking at what the government can afford to spend, and then looks to see how that amount can be spent most fairly, to give opportunities to the disadvantaged etc. Someone whose starting point for public expenditure is what we deserve, not what we can afford, I regard as highly dangerous.

There's a compelling argument for running a public deficit during a recession. But even on George Osborne's projections, we would have been out of recession ( assuming there isn't another one ) for 7 years before the deficit is ended. Arguing for continuing a big deficit after years of growth is just economic illiteracy in my opinion.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The problem with the "7 years of growth" argument is that GDP per capita hasn't passed the point it was at before the crash. In effect the economy hasn't grown at all since 2008. Until the economy starts real growth, and until that feeds through into increases in tax revenue (which it definitely hasn't done yet), deficit spending is going to be required to avoid a downward spiral. The economically literate thing to do would be to strategically spend more in certain areas to promote that growth. Instead Osborne has made small but painful cuts and failed to do anything to stimulate growth. Corbyn's plans are built around stimulating the economy and helping to make sure that the technological advances made in the UK result in jobs and money being made in Britain.
EDIT: I should note that I voted SNP at the last general election and Green the 2 before that. If Corbyn wins I will be voting Labour at the next election; if he doesn't I'll be voting Green for the next Holyrood election and hoping we get another referendum on independence before Osborne and co find a way to screw things up even more.

[ 31. July 2015, 20:57: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You're neglecting Sky News, which leans heavily to the right, and also the influence of the press over the coverage of the BBC. The BBC very much follows the papers in deciding what to cover and the views on it to give voice to.

You're also ignoring the online presence of those papers, particularly the Mail.

I've only ever heard people moan that the BBC is blatantly left wing. Which couldn't be true if the press was right wing and the beeb followed it.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You're neglecting Sky News, which leans heavily to the right, and also the influence of the press over the coverage of the BBC. The BBC very much follows the papers in deciding what to cover and the views on it to give voice to.

You're also ignoring the online presence of those papers, particularly the Mail.
I've only ever heard people moan that the BBC is blatantly left wing. Which couldn't be true if the press was right wing and the beeb followed it.

I can imagine BBC News employees spending a lot of time reading (and being influenced by what they read in) the Guardian. The Daily Mail not so much.

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Has it occurred to you that quite a lot of us prefer our politics boring? We've got lives to live.

This.

True, there may be a few who get motivated enough to go out and vote for Corbyn. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of voters simply aren't that interested in politics, and all they want is a government that operates competently in the background.

They're just not going to do the political equivalent of tombstoning.

Posted by PilgrimVagrant (# 18442) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
You're neglecting Sky News, which leans heavily to the right, and also the influence of the press over the coverage of the BBC. The BBC very much follows the papers in deciding what to cover and the views on it to give voice to.

You're also ignoring the online presence of those papers, particularly the Mail.
I've only ever heard people moan that the BBC is blatantly left wing. Which couldn't be true if the press was right wing and the beeb followed it.

Seems to me the BBC is not so much left, as liberal. It insists on telling the truth as it is, and the freedom to tell that truth. I can understand both right and left wings of our political firmament being unable to distinguish this from political bias, but we should ignore such squealing, pay our license fees, and thank the Lord for the institution we have, independent as it is from either commercial or political pressures. It may not be how we would design a media organisation today, but the fact is, it works, and we should not meddle with it until such time as it demonstrably fails to work.

Cheers, PV.

[ 31. July 2015, 21:18: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I want someone who starts by looking at what the government can afford to spend, and then looks to see how that amount can be spent most fairly, to give opportunities to the disadvantaged etc.

I fail utterly to see why you'd even consider voting Conservative, based on your statement above.

Osborne has borrowed/will borrow £415bn to the end of 2015. The last Labour government borrowed £407bn in total, including the years 2007- onwards. He's fiscally incompetent as well as fiscally ignorant. I wouldn't trust him with my lunch money, let alone the national economy.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Has it occurred to you that quite a lot of us prefer our politics boring? We've got lives to live.
This.

True, there may be a few who get motivated enough to go out and vote for Corbyn. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of voters simply aren't that interested in politics, and all they want is a government that operates competently in the background.

They're just not going to do the political equivalent of tombstoning.

If you prefer your politics boring I suppose you want more of the same, and no changes. So you're someone who likes things how they are. People who want interesting politics are those who want something different. They are therefore the currently disadvantaged, those without much of a stake.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not persuaded by politicians who say 'it's not fair; people would vote for us if the press weren't so biased against us'.

First of all, there have always been papers of different political persuasions. People can choose which ones to read or not read.

Second, why should we assume people are swayed by the paper they read, rather than that they choose what paper to read because it fits the prejudices they've already got?

Third, we're repeatedly being told the readership of newspapers is steadily shrinking.

Fourth, and most importantly, shouldn't we credit people with being able to make up their own minds? I make up my own mind - or at least believe I do. Wouldn't it be conceited of me to imagine that only me and a few like minded friends are capable of reaching our own conclusions, but that the rest of the community are incapable of doing so?

People should be trusted to make their own minds up, but the right-wing press is dominant, and much of it has at times been owned by well-heeled and distinctly litigious people (I give you Robert Maxwell for one). The press generally panders to its audience using half-truths and untruths which people actually want to believe. Moreover most of the headlines in newspapers aren't news at all, but press releases and editorials.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[T]he right-wing press is dominant, and much of it has at times been owned by well-heeled and distinctly litigious people (I give you Robert Maxwell for one).

That would be that right-wing magnate Robert Maxwell who was also, erm, Labour MP for Buckingham.

Edited to add: ...who owned the Daily Mirror, which I don't think has ever been a 'right-wing' newspaper?

[ 31. July 2015, 21:33: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
[T]he right-wing press is dominant, and much of it has at times been owned by well-heeled and distinctly litigious people (I give you Robert Maxwell for one).
That would be that right-wing magnate Robert Maxwell who was also, erm, Labour MP for Buckingham.

Edited to add: ...who owned the Daily Mirror, which I don't think has ever been a 'right-wing' newspaper?

You're right on identity - my excuse is that I was looking for a press baron who isn't in a position to sue The Ship. Cap'n Bob wouldn't hesitate for a moment.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I've only ever heard people moan that the BBC is blatantly left wing. Which couldn't be true if the press was right wing and the beeb followed it.

You obviously only talk to right-wingers. The BBC is liberal on social issues, but leans heavily to the right on economic issues and has certainly bought the monetarist balanced-budget, must-cut-the-deficit-at-all-costs narrative spewed out by the right. It's also been joining in the ridiculous panicking over a few hundred desperate people trying to get into the country.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's also been joining in the ridiculous panicking over a few hundred desperate people trying to get into the country.

This is the 'few hundred' people that includes two thousand trying to cross in just a single night?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

That number refers to the number of attempted entries, not the number of people. In other words, the same person trying several times on one night is counted more than once.

(source).

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

2000 attempts. Not 2000 people. This is the effect of the media bias; the distortions they promote become received wisdom. The migrants are overwhelmingly unsuccessful in their attempts so it is the same few hundred returning again and again.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's also been joining in the ridiculous panicking over a few hundred desperate people trying to get into the country.

"Desperate", you say. What I can't get my head round is why they can't seek asylum in France, or any of the other countries they've had to go through to get to Calais. It's not like Britain is the only country in the whole world where they can escape whatever persecution they're fleeing from.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What I can't get my head round is why they can't seek asylum in France, or any of the other countries they've had to go through to get to Calais. It's not like Britain is the only country in the whole world where they can escape whatever persecution they're fleeing from.

From the linked Independent article:

quote:
There were 31,945 applications for asylum in the UK last year. Germany by contrast had 202,815. France had 64,310 - twice the number of the UK.

It is true that asylum seekers who've passed through half of Europe to get to the UK have not claimed in the first safe country that they've come to - but within Europe Britain is not pulling its weight in terms of accepting asylum applications.

If the 'first safe country' rule was strictly enforced, all of the strain would be borne by Greece, Spain and Italy (actually, these already receive a disproportionate number of applications), and none of it by Sweden, Norway or Finland. How would that be equitable?

[ 01. August 2015, 08:39: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Here are two links Corbyn fans might like to read.

Admittedly you might regard the first as so tarnished a source and a commentator that you need not take it seriously, but for those old enough, it describes a barmy world we can remember. We don't want to go back there.

The second evidences a contradiction of the left that ought to disturb people far more than it does.

[ 01. August 2015, 08:48: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I had the impression that the UK is (deliberately) accepting a lower number of asylum seekers than other countries, such as Germany. Presumably, this is to ward off attacks by UKIP and the right wing media, that Britain is a soft touch, and so on.

Hence the current hysteria over thousands of migrants (or a swarm, in Cameron's words) storming the ramparts of Britain.

What about Syrian refugees? How many have the UK accepted? I suppose the right wing will say hopefully none or very few.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
"Desperate", you say. What I can't get my head round is why they can't seek asylum in France, or any of the other countries they've had to go through to get to Calais. It's not like Britain is the only country in the whole world where they can escape whatever persecution they're fleeing from.

It's a whole lot easier to build a new life in a country where you have some vague grasp of the language and culture, and the English language and British culture are way more pervasive in the places a lot of these people come from than any other European culture. Plus, London already has thriving migrant communities from most of these countries so they can feel a little less isolated and have more chance of getting work. Whether the people at Calais are fleeing persecution or abject poverty I couldn't say, but I don't begrudge people in either situation wanting to make their lives better.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Arguably, it's Burnham, Cooper and Kendall who are the Jurassic dinosaurs at the moment, in political terms. In other words, anti-austerity and anti-neo-liberal politics are surfacing in Europe and the US, and are not harking back to the dark days of the 70s. They are pointing out that neo-liberalism led to the biggest crash since the 30s!

Well, I just don't see the point in the 3 stooges, that is, Burnham and co. If I want Tory policies, then I know what to do. I suppose Tory-lite has its appeal, but I'm not sure what it is.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What I can't get my head round is why they can't seek asylum in France, or any of the other countries they've had to go through to get to Calais. It's not like Britain is the only country in the whole world where they can escape whatever persecution they're fleeing from.

Having talked to a few migrants in jail, the reasons include:

a) frequently, existing family connections in the UK
b) the legal job market is more flexible and more open to non-nationals (much more so than in France)
c) the informal economy is also more accessible
d) in the UK, you are likely to be encouraged to work rather than classified into some sort of assisted status. I don't know about the UK, but in France asylum-seekers are prohibited from working. Migrants who've made it as far as Europe are usually pretty enterprising and seeking to be entrepreneurial.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

The second evidences a contradiction of the left that ought to disturb people far more than it does.

I am concerned about it, but no more than I am about the UK government cosying up to the House of Saud, known for funding terrorism and radical Wahhabism at Mosques and Madressas all over the world. From what I've heard from Corbyn, he talks to Hamas and Hezbollah in the interests of peace, and points out that, while the Hamas charter does not recognise Israel, the Likud charter equally refuses to recognise Palestine now or in the future (and when will Labour Friends of Israel be called to account for that?). Whether Corbyn's comments about the individual preacher mentioned are based on personal interaction or include knowledge of the comments quoted I don't know. I would like to know and it would disappoint me if he made the remarks knowing what had been said. I do, however, consider diplomatic mis-steps to be less important than actual invasions supported by Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose Tory-lite has its appeal, but I'm not sure what it is.

It's what we vote for when we're sick to death of Tory-real.

Not really having followed this thread the only gut feeling I get is that Britain, in it's whole history, has never been truly socialist and is never likely to be. It just doesn't seem to suit the foundations on which the fortunes of this little isle have been built.

If Labour chooses the hard Left it may regain some of it's pride but very little else IMO.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I've only ever heard people moan that the BBC is blatantly left wing. Which couldn't be true if the press was right wing and the beeb followed it.
You obviously only talk to right-wingers. The BBC is liberal on social issues, but leans heavily to the right on economic issues and has certainly bought the monetarist balanced-budget, must-cut-the-deficit-at-all-costs narrative spewed out by the right. It's also been joining in the ridiculous panicking over a few hundred desperate people trying to get into the country.

The complaint seems to arise primarily on the BBC'S own "Have Your Say" forums, not being sure that I know many right wingers. Although HYS does seem to be a bit of a green ink forum.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

It's a sign of Labour's desperate situation that the choice for its next leader is between a personable backbencher from the left wing fringe who has some wacky opinions...and three identikit spadbots. Could they not find anyone in between, I mean really? Did Broon's ruthless monstering of all real and imagined rivals really destroy a whole generation of serious, credible, believable Labour politicians?

Labour can't go back to Blairism. Blair succeeded because the Tories descended into chaotic irrelevance and Labour was able to replace them as the sensible party for a season. But times change and Labour-leaning voters will need to see a bit more than just "sensible" from the party if they are to come back to it. Not necessarily left wing, but something to inspire them.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
in the UK, you are likely to be encouraged to work rather than classified into some sort of assisted status. I don't know about the UK, but in France asylum-seekers are prohibited from working.

They are prohibited from working in the UK as well. In fact, according to the BBC, the French and British provision for asylum seekers is actually pretty similar.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose Tory-lite has its appeal, but I'm not sure what it is.
It's what we vote for when we're sick to death of Tory-real.

Not really having followed this thread the only gut feeling I get is that Britain, in it's whole history, has never been truly socialist and is never likely to be. It just doesn't seem to suit the foundations on which the fortunes of this little isle have been built.

If Labour chooses the hard Left it may regain some of it's pride but very little else IMO.

Well, yes. I'm not sure what people mean by 'socialism', as it seems to cover a huge amount of ground, from comrade Vladimir to comrade Balls.

Your point about pride is a good one. I think some Labour members feel a deep sense of humiliation that they allowed Blairism. And yes, Blair won 3 elections.

But Blairism has poisoned Labour, and possibly, destroyed it. It's ironic that commentators are saying this of Corbyn. Yet, anti-austerity is not Jurassic, it's neo-liberalism that threatens us with more economic chaos.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

a) frequently, existing family connections in the UK
b) the legal job market is more flexible and more open to non-nationals (much more so than in France)
c) the informal economy is also more accessible
d) in the UK, you are likely to be encouraged to work rather than classified into some sort of assisted status. I don't know about the UK, but in France asylum-seekers are prohibited from working. Migrants who've made it as far as Europe are usually pretty enterprising and seeking to be entrepreneurial.

So in short Britain is a soft-touch when it comes to immigration.
But of course entrepreneurs are welcome. Hay-seeds such as myself who've never really made a massive contribution to GDP are quite at liberty to pack their bags and live in someone else's country if the don't like what's happened to this one.

Does this bring to socialism of the Federal European kind?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
So in short Britain is a soft-touch when it comes to immigration.

I don't know whether it is or not, but the perception is that it's easier to get on in life there. Which I think is true compared to France in terms of social mobility.

quote:
But of course entrepreneurs are welcome. Hay-seeds such as myself who've never really made a massive contribution to GDP are quite at liberty to pack their bags and live in someone else's country if the don't like what's happened to this one.

Have you ever actually got to know an economic migrant? Like, someone who travelled overland from sub-Saharan Africa to Europe via Libya? I have.

To make that journey, I think you have to be thinking a little more than "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence". We're not talking the mid-life-crisis Brits upping sticks and moving to France on a whim. People are migrating because they're desperate.

Someone wrote a novel a while back imagining an influx of migrants from a disaster-struck Europe to Africa. I think it's worth pondering that scenario for a bit before thinking in Daily Mail headline terms.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But these swarms of black people trying to penetrate the ramparts into our fair isle must be driven back. Meanwhile, why not try bombing a few more countries, that tends to stiffen the sinews and the backbone. It may even lead to more exports, after all, the niggers have always respected the stiff crack of the whip and the firm hand of discipline.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I've only ever heard people moan that the BBC is blatantly left wing. Which couldn't be true if the press was right wing and the beeb followed it.

You just have heard people moaning that the BBC is too right of centre.
New Labour complained that the BBC was too far right; governments always complain that the BBC is biased towards the opposition.

Everyone thinks the BBC is too biased away from their own position. The difference is that the right-wing is in a position to moan louder. Also the soft left is more likely to accept that if everyone thinks the BBC is biased it's probably somewhere in the middle.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But these swarms of black people trying to penetrate the ramparts into our fair isle must be driven back. Meanwhile, why not try bombing a few more countries, that tends to stiffen the sinews and the backbone. It may even lead to more exports, after all, the niggers have always respected the stiff crack of the whip and the firm hand of discipline.

I think you're using the wrong epithet for that sort of rant. The sort of 1920s toff you'd get that sort of proclamation from wouldn't use the n-word, generally. "Wog", on the other hand...

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

Everyone thinks the BBC is too biased away from their own position. The difference is that the right-wing is in a position to moan louder. Also the soft left is more likely to accept that if everyone thinks the BBC is biased it's probably somewhere in the middle.

The issue here is with some parts of the media taking the positions of the Tories and Labour, splitting the difference and then calling that the centre.

A good example of this is the current position of the media on austerity. 'Everyone' 'knows' that austerity is a policy at the 'centre' of politics - and the beeb have tended to go along with that view.

That makes it easier for the right wing media to brand even mildly keynesian policies as 'Socialist' rather than what they are - largely mainstream macro-economics.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I suspect that Corbyn is a Keynesian, but in today's climate, that is judged to be hard left. Maybe the same is said of Obama in the US, by the right wing, I mean. I suppose the NHS is pure Marxism-Leninism.

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

a) frequently, existing family connections in the UK
b) the legal job market is more flexible and more open to non-nationals (much more so than in France)
c) the informal economy is also more accessible
d) in the UK, you are likely to be encouraged to work rather than classified into some sort of assisted status. I don't know about the UK, but in France asylum-seekers are prohibited from working. Migrants who've made it as far as Europe are usually pretty enterprising and seeking to be entrepreneurial.
So in short Britain is a soft-touch when it comes to immigration....

A soft touch? Really? Eutychus wrote that in France asylum seekers are 'prohibited' from working. It's similar in the UK - almost all asylum seekers are not allowed to work and employers are fined up to £20,000 per person for employing people who aren't allowed to work. The Refugee Council said that "Most asylum seekers are living in poverty and experience poor health and hunger" (source).

In 2012, the weekly state benefit for a single adult asylum seeker was (in UK currency):

Norway £88.65
Germany £67.56
Finland £52.33
Sweden £47.60
Netherlands £46.46
France £41.42
UK £36.62
Portugal £32.82
(source: today's Guardian newspaper)

So, at least in 2012, France, and several other European countries, provided a higher level of benefits to asylum seekers than the UK did. The UK rate is now £36.95 per week - an increase of £0.33 in 3 years.

That's for people who are lucky enough to receive any state support. Asylum seekers who do not apply as soon as they reasonably could have done are prohibited by law from receiving any state support (money to buy food or housing) under s55 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act. The homelessness charity Shelter reported on the effects of this law after it was introduced: "From January to December 2003, s.55 of the legislation denied asylum support to 9,415 destitute people. Such was the impact of the legislation that it threatened to undermine the Government's own target to reduce rough sleeping by two
thirds." source. (Court cases have mitigated the effects of s55 a bit, but it remains the law.)

[ 01. August 2015, 13:35: Message edited by: Alwyn ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Not only does Britain pay less to asylum seekers but Britain accepts a far lower number of asylum seekers than the tabloids and grandstanding politicians would lead the public to believe. Source.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

So do the people in Calais, if they are to be described as Asylum seekers, know this? I can't see they do, otherwise why threaten lorry-drivers and employ other extreme measures to enter the UK.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Reasons a) b) and c) above, plus a perception, even if erroneous, of d) apply.

[ 01. August 2015, 20:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If you prefer your politics boring I suppose you want more of the same, and no changes. So you're someone who likes things how they are. People who want interesting politics are those who want something different. They are therefore the currently disadvantaged, those without much of a stake.

For once, this isn't about me. The vast majority in Britain aren't that interested in politics. They're really not going to vote for a completely inexperienced Corbyn as PM, with Dennis Skinner at the Treasury and Diane Abbott at the Foreign Office.

And FWIW, I doubt having Corbyn as leader of Labour will help the disadvantaged. He may excite the small minority of Labour activists, but 72% of Labour voters don't support him ( source ). If he takes over, you can be very sure that large numbers of them will stop supporting Labour.

So the likely outcome would be a heavy defeat in 2020, with Scotland then deciding to end the bromance. Either would leave the Tories free to head off to the right. Not going to help the disadvantaged.

Normally I wouldn't bother about Labour engaging in Syriza style attempted-defiance-of-reality politics, but I think this one could end badly for those we'd both like to help.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:

And FWIW, I doubt having Corbyn as leader of Labour will help the disadvantaged. He may excite the small minority of Labour activists, but 72% of Labour voters don't support him ( source ).

the same misreading would indicate that none of the candidates have the support of the majority of Labour voters. After all, 64% of Labour voters wouldn't support Andy Burnham. [Roll Eyes]

[ 02. August 2015, 01:09: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

I am so angry at the moment.

“So wickedly, devilishly false is that common
objection, ‘They are poor, only because they are
idle’.

John Wesley, 1753.

Over in Hell Adeodatus wrote these words that sums up what I think very well.

The great question of our time is how the Right (however you define that) has managed to turn a crisis due to a failure of unfettered capitalism and neo-liberal economics in to a justification for unfettered capitalism and neo-liberal economics?

It is an astounding achievement of propaganda over truth.

The second question for me personally is how we, on the left (however you define that) have lost the argument (for now)? Have we been overwhelmed and were we in an unwinnable position or have we been guilty of failing in the fight? Either by not fighting hard enough or smart enough?

That is the future of socialism in the UK. It getting the truth to cut through.

On economic policy
On healthcare
On social care
On the appalling way we treat asylum seekers
(yes, we are still locking up children)

There's a fight to be won.

AFZ

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Given your list, Alienfronzog, with which it is difficult to disagree, why are you so sure that socialism is the answer rather than part of the problem?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Given your list, Alienfronzog, with which it is difficult to disagree, why are you so sure that socialism is the answer rather than part of the problem?

Part of the problem, how? You must think socialist policies have been enacted in some way, but where and when? By Europe? By Ian Duncan Smith? By the post-WW2 creation of the welfare state?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If you prefer your politics boring I suppose you want more of the same, and no changes. So you're someone who likes things how they are. People who want interesting politics are those who want something different. They are therefore the currently disadvantaged, those without much of a stake.
For once, this isn't about me. The vast majority in Britain aren't that interested in politics. They're really not going to vote for a completely inexperienced Corbyn as PM, with Dennis Skinner at the Treasury and Diane Abbott at the Foreign Office.

And FWIW, I doubt having Corbyn as leader of Labour will help the disadvantaged. He may excite the small minority of Labour activists, but 72% of Labour voters don't support him ( source ). If he takes over, you can be very sure that large numbers of them will stop supporting Labour.

So the likely outcome would be a heavy defeat in 2020, with Scotland then deciding to end the bromance. Either would leave the Tories free to head off to the right. Not going to help the disadvantaged.

Normally I wouldn't bother about Labour engaging in Syriza style attempted-defiance-of-reality politics, but I think this one could end badly for those we'd both like to help.

I disagree. This is about you, and nearly everyone is very interested in politics. We care very much about crime, the cost of living, job security, education, the places we live, and the friendliness of our neighbourhoods. There's lots more we would care about if it went missing: policing by consent, freedom of speech and movement, access to justice, etc.

What we find boring is people posturing to look electable, and that's all the Westminster lot seem to do. Corbyn is different, hence the sudden interest.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Given your list, Alienfronzog, with which it is difficult to disagree, why are you so sure that socialism is the answer rather than part of the problem?
Part of the problem, how? You must think socialist policies have been enacted in some way, but where and when? By Europe? By Ian Duncan Smith? By the post-WW2 creation of the welfare state?

I'm afraid that is part of the failure of the Labour party since 2010 - by completely failing to stand up to the "socialism caused the failure of free-market capitalism" narrative put out by Camborne and their chums it has allowed it to become accepted as an a priori truth that cannot be challenged. It is also part of Labour's failure that the only leadership contended prepared to stand up to this torrent of bullshit is an inexperienced lightweight who has less chance of winning a general election than Peppa Pig.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Why are people describing 20 years in politics as inexperienced ?

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Why are people describing 20 years in politics as inexperienced ?

With all due respect to the man (and I have considerable respect for Corbyn) 32 years of going his own sweet way on the back benches is not a good preparation for leading the party. Add to this the not inconsiderable demands of running the country, and I really don't think he'll be up to it. Swing voters certainly won't.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Why are people describing 20 years in politics as inexperienced ?

Experience only counts if you've held a shadow cabinet position, apparently. The fact that Corbyn has been involved in leading political campaigns coordinating hundreds of thousands of activists through CND (vice chair) and Stop the War (chair) is deemed irrelevant.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

alienfromzog - a stonking and memorable post. Yes, indeed, I actually marvel at the sheer coup de theatre which the right wing have done, by blaming Labour for the fuck-up of neo-liberalism, and of course, like a baby sucking its dummy, Labour has accepted the charge!

Gordon Bennett, Labour have traduced us, fucked us over again and again. I still remember old Callaghan introducing the notion of neo-liberalism to the Labour Party conference in 1976. Talk about the rot setting in, and Blair simply kidded us that Thatcherism could have a human face.

It's not surprising then, that when a voice is raised against this betrayal and darkness, that people respond to it, as if a voice in the wilderness.

I suppose I see it as doomed. Labour is too heavily corrupted now. But at least, voices have spoken, we have got off our knees.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Why are people describing 20 years in politics as inexperienced ?
Experience only counts if you've held a shadow cabinet position, apparently. The fact that Corbyn has been involved in leading political campaigns coordinating hundreds of thousands of activists through CND (vice chair) and Stop the War (chair) is deemed irrelevant.

I'm afraid that's very different from leading the PLP. Corbyn would find it very difficult to get the moderate backbenchers to line up behind him - they would just defy the party whip as he has done over 500 times. In 2020 the Tories would simply say "do you really want this uncontrollable rabble running the country?" - job done.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
alienfromzog - a stonking and memorable post. Yes, indeed, I actually marvel at the sheer coup de theatre which the right wing have done, by blaming Labour for the fuck-up of neo-liberalism, and of course, like a baby sucking its dummy, Labour has accepted the charge!

Gordon Bennett, Labour have traduced us, fucked us over again and again. I still remember old Callaghan introducing the notion of neo-liberalism to the Labour Party conference in 1976. Talk about the rot setting in, and Blair simply kidded us that Thatcherism could have a human face.

It's not surprising then, that when a voice is raised against this betrayal and darkness, that people respond to it, as if a voice in the wilderness.

I suppose I see it as doomed. Labour is too heavily corrupted now. But at least, voices have spoken, we have got off our knees.

The minimum wage
Tax credits
Maximum working hours
Massively increased spending on NHS & schools (what the Tories are always throwing in our faces!)
Yes the Iraq war was a fuck up. Blair wasn't perfect - which of us are? He risked his immortal soul to get stuff done, all we risk is a bit of ragging on an internet forum.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

And the right-wing in the Labour party might split away, as they did before. As we used to say, vote SDP, keep politics out of politics!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
alienfromzog - a stonking and memorable post. Yes, indeed, I actually marvel at the sheer coup de theatre which the right wing have done, by blaming Labour for the fuck-up of neo-liberalism, and of course, like a baby sucking its dummy, Labour has accepted the charge!

Gordon Bennett, Labour have traduced us, fucked us over again and again. I still remember old Callaghan introducing the notion of neo-liberalism to the Labour Party conference in 1976. Talk about the rot setting in, and Blair simply kidded us that Thatcherism could have a human face.

It's not surprising then, that when a voice is raised against this betrayal and darkness, that people respond to it, as if a voice in the wilderness.

I suppose I see it as doomed. Labour is too heavily corrupted now. But at least, voices have spoken, we have got off our knees.
The minimum wage
Tax credits
Maximum working hours
Massively increased spending on NHS & schools (what the Tories are always throwing in our faces!)
Yes the Iraq war was a fuck up. Blair wasn't perfect - which of us are? He risked his immortal soul to get stuff done, all we risk is a bit of ragging on an internet forum.

He risked his immortal soul? Was that when he 'reformed' the NHS, thus opening the door to the Tories?

So we should accept a right-wing Labour party gratefully? Oh fuck, they told me that when I quit, a long time ago. Wilson and Callaghan know what they're doing, they said, yeah yeah yeah.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

As a strategic / tactical point, while the right celebrate and declare the smallest of victories as world-changing, we on the left seem to always let the best be the enemy of the good.

Blair got a lot wrong. There was also a lot to celebrate and by not doing so, I do think we concede too much.

If you look at the 2015 manifesto it was less than it should be - but a hell of a lot better than the vindictive incompetence we have now.

I don't know the answer but I do worry that the anti-Blair hand wringing is actually unbelievably counter-productive.

And finally, as Simon Wren-Lewis observes to describe anti-austerity as 'extreme' when it's really mainstream economics is insane. If you read Alistair Darling's book on the crisis, (it's fascinating) I am left of him, but how much would I prefer him as chancellor to our current idiot!

AFZ

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
alienfromzog - a stonking and memorable post. Yes, indeed, I actually marvel at the sheer coup de theatre which the right wing have done, by blaming Labour for the fuck-up of neo-liberalism, and of course, like a baby sucking its dummy, Labour has accepted the charge!

Gordon Bennett, Labour have traduced us, fucked us over again and again. I still remember old Callaghan introducing the notion of neo-liberalism to the Labour Party conference in 1976. Talk about the rot setting in, and Blair simply kidded us that Thatcherism could have a human face.

It's not surprising then, that when a voice is raised against this betrayal and darkness, that people respond to it, as if a voice in the wilderness.

I suppose I see it as doomed. Labour is too heavily corrupted now. But at least, voices have spoken, we have got off our knees.
The minimum wage
Tax credits
Maximum working hours
Massively increased spending on NHS & schools (what the Tories are always throwing in our faces!)
Yes the Iraq war was a fuck up. Blair wasn't perfect - which of us are? He risked his immortal soul to get stuff done, all we risk is a bit of ragging on an internet forum.
He risked his immortal soul? Was that when he 'reformed' the NHS, thus opening the door to the Tories?

So we should accept a right-wing Labour party gratefully? Oh fuck, they told me that when I quit, a long time ago. Wilson and Callaghan know what they're doing, they said, yeah yeah yeah.

We should ideally have a Labour party and leader that is decent, caring, competent and realistic about what can be achieved politically in this country. Alternatively Labour can jealously guard its left wing ideological purity, but then it will never be elected and will never be able to help the people it should be helping.

A "right wing" Labour party is infinitely preferable to a right wing Tory party IMO.

Wilson resigned 40 years ago and is long dead. Do you hear Tories still banging on about Ted Heath's "betrayals" of their party, for God's sake?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

A "right wing" Labour party is infinitely preferable to a right wing Tory party IMO.

You are assuming that a "right wing" Labour party circa 2015 would be the same as a "right wing" Labour Party circa 1997. They are not, and they would not be.

Imagine the Blair government minus all those (some relatively small scale) re-distributive measures you list above. That is what a "right wing" Labour party circa 2015 would bring you, because they are constrained by their acceptance of a particular set of austerity policies and have failed to fight back against the Tories notion that there is a huge drain on society caused by 'other people' stiffing the state in a way that causes harm to 'you' as a 'hardworking decent person'. Their acceptance of the Welfare Bill was an indication of where the current Labour party is ideologically.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

A "right wing" Labour party is infinitely preferable to a right wing Tory party IMO.
You are assuming that a "right wing" Labour party circa 2015 would be the same as a "right wing" Labour Party circa 1997. They are not, and they would not be.

Imagine the Blair government minus all those (some relatively small scale) re-distributive measures you list above. That is what a "right wing" Labour party circa 2015 would bring you, because they are constrained by their acceptance of a particular set of austerity policies and have failed to fight back against the Tories notion that there is a huge drain on society caused by 'other people' stiffing the state in a way that causes harm to 'you' as a 'hardworking decent person'. Their acceptance of the Welfare Bill was an indication of where the current Labour party is ideologically.

I'm not saying I want a right wing Labour party, but if that's the alternative to the current regime then I'll take it. My frustration with the current leadership contest, as I have said above, is that the only contender prepared to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy is manifestly unelectable. Labour conspicuously lacks a natural leader at the moment - someone of moral courage who will take it forward rather than back to the 90s or the 70s.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
Wilson resigned 40 years ago and is long dead. Do you hear Tories still banging on about Ted Heath's "betrayals" of their party, for God's sake?

There are one or two knocking around but, yes, nothing like you get in the Labour party.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
The great question of our time is how the Right (however you define that) has managed to turn a crisis due to a failure of unfettered capitalism and neo-liberal economics in to a justification for unfettered capitalism and neo-liberal economics?

Talking about definitions, what do you mean by 'unfettered capitalism' and 'neo-liberal economics' in this context? These terms often seem to take in everything from the current situation, with government spending accounting for what, 40-something percent of GDP? to some kind of Ayn Rand reader's wet dream and everything in between.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I still remember old Callaghan introducing the notion of neo-liberalism to the Labour Party conference in 1976. Talk about the rot setting in

Out of interest, if you thought the rot set in with Callaghan's 1976 speech, how did you feel when the lights went out a few years earlier or when you (or perhaps your parents) were working a three-day week?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I'm afraid that's very different from leading the PLP. Corbyn would find it very difficult to get the moderate backbenchers to line up behind him - they would just defy the party whip as he has done over 500 times. In 2020 the Tories would simply say "do you really want this uncontrollable rabble running the country?" - job done.

That presumes Corbyn taking the same dictatorial approach that Blair did, treating MPs as lobby fodder there to rubber stamp his personal agenda. If you look at what he is saying, he's talking about developing democratic policy making processes within the PLP and then asking the whole party to abide by that collective decision. There is a difference between defying a tyrant and ignoring a democratic process: the difference between a rebel and a terrorist.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Experience only counts if you've held a shadow cabinet position, apparently. The fact that Corbyn has been involved in leading political campaigns coordinating hundreds of thousands of activists through CND (vice chair) and Stop the War (chair) is deemed irrelevant.

Ability to engage in the running a set of campaigns for your various pet causes is not relevant experience for running a country in any way at all.

If anything, it's a counter-indication. It implies he sees politics as about causes rather than government.

And did he manage to sign up the rest of his own party to his pet causes, yet alone those who vote for other parties or the floating voters he would need to win to win an election?

If he hasn't been able to win his own party to his way of thinking over the last 30+ years he's been an MP, what reason is there to suppose he'll be able to lead it effectively if he gets elected now, yet alone inspire the rest of us into supporting him.

I see no evidence of the sort of breadth of vision that has anything to offer the rest of us that do not already share his particular rather narrow set of prejudices.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Obviously I disagree strongly, not least because few of the current cabinet had previous relevant experience before taking up office either and that didn't stop them, and they still got re-elected despite being markedly incompetent.

The only way to find out is to give Corbyn a go. If it's as bad as you claim, he'll be gone in 2-3 years and Labour will have had a chance to develop some of their younger talent for the next leadership election, because it's blindingly obvious that the other three raging mediocrities don't have the ovaries to take on Cameron.

And since when has getting your own party to agree with you been a measure of whether someone is a suitable leader? Churchill spent years in the 30s being mocked and isolated for his views, and a lot of people seem to think he did quite well once in office. It wouldn't surprise me if, in the future, austerity becomes as dirty a word as appeasement.

[ 02. August 2015, 13:02: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Touchstone wrote:

Wilson resigned 40 years ago and is long dead. Do you hear Tories still banging on about Ted Heath's "betrayals" of their party, for God's sake?

So you scornfully dismiss a reference to 40 years ago? Good grief, the Labour Party is in a worse state than I thought, if this is the level of political and historical illiteracy.

Better not mention Attlee then, or (heaven forbid), 1900.

If people want a right-wing Labour Party under Yvette Cooper, go for it. I'll be on my way.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

If people want a right-wing Labour Party under Yvette Cooper, go for it. I'll be on my way.

And so, ultimately, will Scotland. If neither major party can hope to win Scotland then the argument that we are in any sense a United Kingdom looks increasingly flaky. Corbyn is the only long term hope for Scotland staying in the union.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

If people want a right-wing Labour Party under Yvette Cooper, go for it. I'll be on my way.
And so, ultimately, will Scotland. If neither major party can hope to win Scotland then the argument that we are in any sense a United Kingdom looks increasingly flaky. Corbyn is the only long term hope for Scotland staying in the union.

Yes, some irony. Nu Labour and the Tories between them have destroyed the union. How will they camouflage this? They can blame UKIP!

I notice Kinnock in today's Observer going on about Trotskyists entering Labour to vote for Corbyn.

Nothing like a Red scare to calm things down!

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Speaking of Cooper, I'm starting to think she might win it. While Corbyn is polling very well, it doesn't look like he's polling over 50% and I can't imagine him picking up many second preferences (you're either going to think he's the best thing since sliced bread or the worst candidate around).

Yvette Cooper, meanwhile, has kept her head down, not said anything at all controversial, is a Brownite so probably regarded as more ideologically sound, and is a woman (in a party that often thinks that sort of thing is important). I suspect she'll mop up a lot of second preferences.

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:

And FWIW, I doubt having Corbyn as leader of Labour will help the disadvantaged. He may excite the small minority of Labour activists, but 72% of Labour voters don't support him ( source ).
the same misreading would indicate that none of the candidates have the support of the majority of Labour voters. After all, 64% of Labour voters wouldn't support Andy Burnham.

You've definitely missed the point. On the one hand we have three centre left candidates saying very vaguely the same sorts of things. On the other hand, we have a far left candidate saying something very, very different. Whereas a Kendall supporter would almost certainly be OK with a (similar feel) Cooper leadership, a Corbyn leadership would be a long way away from their politics.

Or to put it differently, 72% of Labour voters want a centre left candidate, and only 28% a far left one.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Centre left? Gulp. So left-wing that they didn't oppose Tory benefit cuts.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Centre left? Gulp. So left-wing that they didn't oppose Tory benefit cuts.

I'd like to think they weren't against benefit cuts per se - things like Higher Rate Pension Relief, charitable status on private school fees, and rent capping are all areas that could do with a second look.

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I disagree. This is about you, and nearly everyone is very interested in politics. We care very much about crime, the cost of living, job security, education, the places we live, and the friendliness of our neighbourhoods.

As I said earlier, most people want a boring government that gets on with things competently in the background. The Tories won the last election because the electorate believed they did that. The electorate are never going to begin to believe that Corbyn will do that.

The one thing the Tories got traction with in the campaign, and hammered home repeatedly, was the idea that if you voted Labour you'd end up with the SNP running the country. An electorate that's scared of the SNP isn't going to elect Corbyn.

quote:
There's lots more we would care about if it went missing: policing by consent, freedom of speech and movement, access to justice, etc.

Which is why I'm worried. Having a credible opposition keeps the Tories near the centre. Without that, the right wing get to run the country.

The need for compromise is an inevitable part of politics. The electorate really aren't going to vote for Corbyn, so Labour needs to choose between sitting in the audience impotently watching the Tories run things, or being a centre left party that doesn't go as far as its members would like, but is much, much better than letting The Other Lot run riot.

Read what Neil Kinnock has to say today.

quote:

What we find boring is people posturing to look electable, and that's all the Westminster lot seem to do. Corbyn is different, hence the sudden interest.

If any of the other three weren't so boring, Corbyn wouldn't stand a chance. Perhaps they're keeping their powder dry during the silly season...

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Centre left? Gulp. So left-wing that they didn't oppose Tory benefit cuts.

You can't ask for party discipline as leader if you don't give it. Harman as acting leader told the party how to vote.

Incidentally, given Corbyn's persistent refusal to follow party discipline, he can expect a massive dose of his own medicine if he takes control. Which is going to make Labour even less electable.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
You can't ask for party discipline as leader if you don't give it. Harman as acting leader told the party how to vote.

Incidentally, given Corbyn's persistent refusal to follow party discipline, he can expect a massive dose of his own medicine if he takes control. Which is going to make Labour even less electable.

Iain Duncan Smith found this out the hard way. The Labour Party could learn from the Conservatives' experiences in the late 90s / 2000s. Or of course they could just find out for themselves.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Touchstone wrote:

Wilson resigned 40 years ago and is long dead. Do you hear Tories still banging on about Ted Heath's "betrayals" of their party, for God's sake?

So you scornfully dismiss a reference to 40 years ago? Good grief, the Labour Party is in a worse state than I thought, if this is the level of political and historical illiteracy.

Better not mention Attlee then, or (heaven forbid), 1900.

If people want a right-wing Labour Party under Yvette Cooper, go for it. I'll be on my way.

My point was that picking at ancient scabs will not help us plot a course for the future. I can assure you that no-one admires Clem Attlee more than me, if only Labour had someone of half his stature now.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Touchstone wrote:

Wilson resigned 40 years ago and is long dead. Do you hear Tories still banging on about Ted Heath's "betrayals" of their party, for God's sake?

So you scornfully dismiss a reference to 40 years ago? Good grief, the Labour Party is in a worse state than I thought, if this is the level of political and historical illiteracy.

Better not mention Attlee then, or (heaven forbid), 1900.

If people want a right-wing Labour Party under Yvette Cooper, go for it. I'll be on my way.
My point was that picking at ancient scabs will not help us plot a course for the future. I can assure you that no-one admires Clem Attlee more than me, if only Labour had someone of half his stature now.

Is it an ancient scab? Callaghan introduced neo-liberalism to the Labour Party conference in 1976 and probably very few people understood what he was talking about. But they soon did!

And that was the beginning of Labour's infatuation with it, culminating in Blair. As far as I can see, Burnham, Cooper and Kendall are following that line, hence their support for benefit cuts.

George Santayana: those who do not remember the past, are compelled to repeat it.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Callaghan introduced neo-liberalism to the Labour Party conference in 1976 and...that was the beginning of Labour's infatuation with it, culminating in Blair.

With a holiday from it in the early 1980s? Or is Michael Foot a neo-liberal right-winger too?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Interesting paper here on neo-liberalism from Bella Caledonia, hence quite a lot of material on Scotland, but plenty on the general trend towards neo-liberalism in the UK. Ironic really, since it will probably destroy the union.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/01/13/neoliberalism-vs-the-deep-state/

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Touchstone wrote:

Wilson resigned 40 years ago and is long dead. Do you hear Tories still banging on about Ted Heath's "betrayals" of their party, for God's sake?

So you scornfully dismiss a reference to 40 years ago? Good grief, the Labour Party is in a worse state than I thought, if this is the level of political and historical illiteracy.

Better not mention Attlee then, or (heaven forbid), 1900.

If people want a right-wing Labour Party under Yvette Cooper, go for it. I'll be on my way.
My point was that picking at ancient scabs will not help us plot a course for the future. I can assure you that no-one admires Clem Attlee more than me, if only Labour had someone of half his stature now.
Is it an ancient scab? Callaghan introduced neo-liberalism to the Labour Party conference in 1976 and probably very few people understood what he was talking about. But they soon did!

And that was the beginning of Labour's infatuation with it, culminating in Blair. As far as I can see, Burnham, Cooper and Kendall are following that line, hence their support for benefit cuts.

George Santayana: those who do not remember the past, are compelled to repeat it.

Thanks for the useful quote, I must try to remember that one. [Roll Eyes]

I'm not sure Callaghan himself knew that he was "introducing neo-liberalism to the Labour Party" when (in Roy Hattersley's words) he "did grievous bodily harm to Keyne's general theory of employment, interest and money" in his 1976 speech. More likely he had been panicked by some unduly pessimistic treasury forecasts into taking a hard line on public spending for the benefit of the IMF.

I wouldn't describe Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock or John Smith as neo-liberals.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Callaghan introduced neo-liberalism to the Labour Party conference in 1976 and...that was the beginning of Labour's infatuation with it, culminating in Blair.
With a holiday from it in the early 1980s? Or is Michael Foot a neo-liberal right-winger too?

Well, that's an interesting question, the extent to which even the Labour left were infected. Well, no time or space here to look into that.

I think the left were trying to maintain the so-called 'post-war consensus', but Callaghan threw a grenade into that. Keynes, who the hell is that? Oh, I remember, some poofter who screwed around in the Bloomsbury set.

I suspect that Corbyn is a Keynesian, but in today's climate, that is considered hard hard left. What, a fucking investment bank? Comrades, come rally, and the last fight let us face ...

[ 02. August 2015, 15:54: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Now you see, I was rather expecting the answer to be 'no of course not, don't be such a blithering idiot' but this site always throws up surprises. I think the next ten years of Labour opposition could be quite fun.

[ 02. August 2015, 16:01: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Or is Michael Foot a neo-liberal right-winger too? Well, that's an interesting question.
Now you see, I was rather expecting the answer to be 'no of course not, don't be such a blithering idiot' but this site always throws up surprises. I think the next ten years of Labour opposition could be quite fun.

[code]

[ 02. August 2015, 16:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Now you see, I was rather expecting the answer to be 'no of course not, don't be such a blithering idiot' but this site always throws up surprises. I think the next ten years of Labour opposition could be quite fun.

Very amusing. Well, I have noticed, as with the Scottish referendum, that as well as old crusties like me, crawling out of the woodwork, some young people have got interested in Corbyn's ideas, whereas Cooper et al have all the appeal of a wet haddock.

Maybe the anti-austerity movement is a widespread one, in Europe and the US and maybe other places. Who knows, maybe it will fizzle out, but I do think that neo-liberalism is the biggest con since sliced white bread. And a brilliant one, actually.

"A man who wants to act virtuously, necessarily comes to grief." Machiavelli the knife, (condensed).

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
the same misreading would indicate that none of the candidates have the support of the majority of Labour voters. After all, 64% of Labour voters wouldn't support Andy Burnham.
You've definitely missed the point.

No, I rather think you are, after all your original conclusion from that article was "72% of Labour voters don't support him" (actually getting the article to say that would be a stretch), so in that context it would perfectly apt to point out that "64% of Labour voters don't support Andy Burnham" or "80% of Labour voters don't support Liz Kendall".

quote:

On the one hand we have three centre left candidates saying very vaguely the same sorts of things.

Well, in that case it shouldn't matter should it? If they are all saying the same things, and if 'everyone' agrees with them, then come voting day, the chance that someone slightly to the left of centre might become leader will concentrate minds and drive them to unite under a single candidate.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

An open question: should political parties make compromises with the electorate?

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Err.. absolutely?

I mean, politics is a conversation between parties and the electorate - the successful party is one that is most able to come to an agreed position with the most numbers.

Quite different from selling double glazing.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
An open question: should political parties make compromises with the electorate?

I want to elect someone whose judgement I trust, not someone who is going to change their mind with the next ICM poll. What should happen is that parties should choose candidates who believe in the policies they advocate, and can explain why they believe what they believe and why they think it will be best for the country. I would hope and expect that any politician worth their salt would have spent more time reading and discussing their policies than will the average citizen. A certain amount of pragmatism, recognising that the time is not yet ripe for some ideas, and choosing not to delve into some issues I can accept, but pushing in a different direction because you think it will get you elected I have no time for. I can understand republicans in the UK being content to let sleeping dogs lie, but if there were a bill to abolish the monarchy before parliament I'd be unimpressed with any MP who voted against their views on that issue (in either direction).

Broadly speaking I'm with Edmund Burke:

quote:
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion

That judgment may involve allowing an issue to slide to achieve a greater goal, but wholesale abandonment of principle and reason to follow the vagaries of public opinion I have little time for. If a party wishes to change its political position, it needs to find new candidates who believe in those positions, not pretend to believe in those positions in order to get elected.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

But how far do people actually vote for policies? As I recall, one of the main lessons from the VoteForPolicies website is that we don't.

(FWIW although I would like to believe in a Corbyn-led Labour party, my main fear is that he wouldn't be able to assemble a credible Shadow Cabinet, and ISTM that elections are won by strength in depth. Tony Blair's first Cabinets were very impressive. I'm not a great fan of most of the current shower but they still manage to appear more credible than Miliband's Shadow Cabinet - the fact that the Shadow Chancellor had to be kept away from the electorate speaks volumes.)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting paper here on neo-liberalism from Bella Caledonia, hence quite a lot of material on Scotland, but plenty on the general trend towards neo-liberalism in the UK. Ironic really, since it will probably destroy the union.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/01/13/neoliberalism-vs-the-deep-state/

Not that interesting IMHO. It struck me as a lot of abstract and rather high flown twaddle.

Yes, it's possibly true that for various reasons connected with their recent pasts, pre-1603 Scotland had a less coherent self-identity than pre-1603 England. But I don't think that has any bearing on neo-liberalism, whatever that means, and not much on why people voted which way in last year's referendum.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
my main fear is that he wouldn't be able to assemble a credible Shadow Cabinet

TBH, I would say this is the same with all of the other candidates too - for one reason, because of the narrative that 'profligate spending' caused the recession, everyone with experience in the Blair government at senior level is automatically tainted. So you then get to the second tier - and here the majority of people with junior minister level are the kind of fairly anodyne lot from which Kendall et all are drawn.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

When people talk about 'hard left' I think either of the labour militant wing or some form of marxism (there is an overlap there). My impression of Corbyn is that he is advocating social democracy, which I see as to the left of the conservatives but nowhere near as extreme as marxism or even a pure socialist model. I think current talk of entryist trotskyites is a hysterical over reaction.

Left wing / right wing is unhelpfully simplistic anyway. There are a series of of dimensions that are contested really: big state vs small state, individual liberties vs social protection, economic liberties vs economic regulation, hierarchy vs meritocracy vs equality, etc etc

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

There's also a historical dimension. The article in Bella Caledonia (above), argues that there was a kind of postwar settlement, involving full employment, house building, various welfare benefits, incl. the NHS, and so on. These are associated with the Attlee govt, but Tory govts which followed tended to pay lip service to some of these elements.

Anyway, according to this narrative, everything changed in the 70s, when the oil price went through the roof, and other economic changes meant that the old 'social truce' could not hold.

This is the point when supposedly neo-liberalism took hold, which advocated privatization, free markets, austerity (if needed), deregulation, and so on.

I suppose we tend to see the early period after the war as more 'left-wing', and the later period (of neo-liberalism) as right-wing, and the above narrative continues, that Labour abandoned the one, and tied itself to the mast of the other, and became Tory-lite.

It's very difficult to say if this narrative is accurate, and it would take a large amount of research to corroborate or falsify it at various points.

But anyway, currently there are various movements in Europe and elsewhere, which reject neo-liberalism and talk in terms of Keynesian expansion. Of course, famously, Callaghan in his 1976 speech had harangued conference, 'you can't spend your way out of a recession'.

As Mark Twain supposedly said, history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

Austerity didn't start in the 1970's, nor did the neo-liberals invent it. The immediate postwar period was a time of punishing austerity - real shortages of basic commodities that were still rationed into the 1950's. Swingeing import tariffs kept the balance of payments artificially high, and also put consumer goods beyond many people's reach....

...but at the same time we found the money to set up the NHS and the welfare state, nationalised pretty much everything (this was appropriate as most industries were in a desperate state) and (less worthily) built a nuclear bomb from scratch after the yanks refused to share technology with us.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
Austerity didn't start in the 1970's, nor did the neo-liberals invent it. The immediate postwar period was a time of punishing austerity - real shortages of basic commodities that were still rationed into the 1950's. Swingeing import tariffs kept the balance of payments artificially high, and also put consumer goods beyond many people's reach....

...but at the same time we found the money to set up the NHS and the welfare state, nationalised pretty much everything (this was appropriate as most industries were in a desperate state) and (less worthily) built a nuclear bomb from scratch after the yanks refused to share technology with us.

This is a bit baffling, as you seem to be saying that I said that austerity started in the 70s, and was invented by the neoliberals. Could you point out where I said that?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... But anyway, currently there are various movements in Europe and elsewhere, which reject neo-liberalism and talk in terms of Keynesian expansion. Of course, famously, Callaghan in his 1976 speech had harangued conference, 'you can't spend your way out of a recession'. ...

That's the big Syriza question.

We'd all like to get out of recession. Some shipmates may think otherwise, but I'm sure George Osborne would like to get out of recession.

However, do people believe in Keynes because there's hard evidence that he was right? Or do they believe in him because recession is bad, austerity is unpleasant and it is more consoling to believe you can spend your way out of it?

There was a man called Richard Murphy on the World at One today who clearly regards himself as a respected economist and obviously believes that. However, you either do, or you don't. It's my suspicion that whether you believe that is in the realm of faith. If you don't, you're stuck with having to conclude you have to live within your means, that debt will come back to bite you on the b*m.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Anyway, according to this narrative, everything changed in the 70s, when the oil price went through the roof, and other economic changes meant that the old 'social truce' could not hold.

This is the point when supposedly neo-liberalism took hold, which advocated privatization, free markets, austerity (if needed), deregulation, and so on.

You seemed to be saying that austerity started in the 1970s as part of a neo-liberal drive to reign in public spending. I wanted to point out that in the 1940s a socialist government used austerity to pay for immense public spending of the sort we probably can only dream of today. (Partly because people would no longer accept that level of restraint on their personal consumption).

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Anyway, according to this narrative, everything changed in the 70s, when the oil price went through the roof, and other economic changes meant that the old 'social truce' could not hold.

This is the point when supposedly neo-liberalism took hold, which advocated privatization, free markets, austerity (if needed), deregulation, and so on.

You seemed to be saying that austerity started in the 1970s as part of a neo-liberal drive to reign in public spending. I wanted to point out that in the 1940s a socialist government used austerity to pay for immense public spending of the sort we probably can only dream of today. (Partly because people would no longer accept that level of restraint on their personal consumption).

Well, no, I certainly wasn't saying (or the narrative I am describing wasn't saying) that neoliberals invented deregulation, free markets, austerity, and so on. That would be bonkers. I would think that some of those flow from the ideas of Adam Smith, c. 1776.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... But anyway, currently there are various movements in Europe and elsewhere, which reject neo-liberalism and talk in terms of Keynesian expansion. Of course, famously, Callaghan in his 1976 speech had harangued conference, 'you can't spend your way out of a recession'. ...
That's the big Syriza question.

We'd all like to get out of recession. Some shipmates may think otherwise, but I'm sure George Osborne would like to get out of recession.

However, do people believe in Keynes because there's hard evidence that he was right? Or do they believe in him because recession is bad, austerity is unpleasant and it is more consoling to believe you can spend your way out of it?

There was a man called Richard Murphy on the World at One today who clearly regards himself as a respected economist and obviously believes that. However, you either do, or you don't. It's my suspicion that whether you believe that is in the realm of faith. If you don't, you're stuck with having to conclude you have to live within your means, that debt will come back to bite you on the b*m.

Well, some economists point out that Osborne actually did begin to do some 'fiscal stimulus', after a couple of years, since he realized that austerity on its own might choke the economy.

Of course, this is hotly disputed, as many things in economics are.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, no, I certainly wasn't saying (or the narrative I am describing wasn't saying) that neoliberals invented deregulation, free markets, austerity, and so on. That would be bonkers. I would think that some of those flow from the ideas of Adam Smith, c. 1776.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I wanted to illustrate how left and right pick and choose economic policies from the same basket: When the Tories returned to power in 1951 they did so partly by portraying themselves as anti-austerity. Conversely, when socialists adopt policies that might be regarded as "right wing" or "neo liberal", it isn't necessarily the great betrayal that many complain about. The end to which those policies are being deployed is what matters: will it benefit the few or the many?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
We'd all like to get out of recession. Some shipmates may think otherwise, but I'm sure George Osborne would like to get out of recession.

However, do people believe in Keynes because there's hard evidence that he was right? Or do they believe in him because recession is bad, austerity is unpleasant and it is more consoling to believe you can spend your way out of it?

There was a man called Richard Murphy on the World at One today who clearly regards himself as a respected economist and obviously believes that. However, you either do, or you don't. It's my suspicion that whether you believe that is in the realm of faith. If you don't, you're stuck with having to conclude you have to live within your means, that debt will come back to bite you on the b*m.

You see. THIS is the problem.

'Hard evidence' might be in a little short supply to anyone versed in natural sciences but evidence there is plenty.

And it all stacks up one way really, Osborne is an idiot. Or something more worrying.

Keynes' insights have been hugely vindicated by the current crisis.

Moreover 'living within your means' is a dangerous myth. Osborne's policies have shrunk the economy (or more precisely meant that it's grown significantly below capacity) and thus made the whole 'reducing the deficit' aim much harder. We're not quite in a deflationary spiral but the same forces are at work. It's no coincidence that the chancellor missed his debt targets- it's because he completely missed from his calculations the effects of his own policies.

I have further thoughts on this here.

AFZ

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

However, do people believe in Keynes because there's hard evidence that he was right? Or do they believe in him because recession is bad, austerity is unpleasant and it is more consoling to believe you can spend your way out of it?

There is plenty of hard evidence that he was right - which is why it remains mainstream macroeconomics. I can't speak for the motivations of everyone who believe Keynes of course.

Equally, is there any evidence that cutting government spending during a recession does anything other than prolong the recession? Or do people believe that because economics is hard and it's easier to believe that a country is like a household and the national debt is like a credit card?

[ 03. August 2015, 20:48: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Given that public spending as a percentage of GDP was so much lower in the 1920s and 1930s, and given his views on reducing debt in times of prosperity, I sometimes wonder whether Keynes himself would support some of the 'Keynesian' solutions bandied around these days.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, some economists point out that Osborne actually did begin to do some 'fiscal stimulus', after a couple of years, since he realized that austerity on its own might choke the economy.

Indeed, and the compulsory surplus in times of economic growth is also very Keynesian.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, some economists point out that Osborne actually did begin to do some 'fiscal stimulus', after a couple of years, since he realized that austerity on its own might choke the economy.
Indeed, and the compulsory surplus in times of economic growth is also very Keynesian.

Actually this argues that this isn't quite accurate.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, some economists point out that Osborne actually did begin to do some 'fiscal stimulus', after a couple of years, since he realized that austerity on its own might choke the economy.
Indeed, and the compulsory surplus in times of economic growth is also very Keynesian.
Actually this argues that this isn't quite accurate.

This one is even more pertinent.

AFZ

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Doesn't the example of Japan provide a problem for Keynsianism?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Doesn't the example of Japan provide a problem for Keynsianism?

No. Not remotely.

Why do you think it does?

AFZ

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

AFZ, Luigi - fair enough. What I'm trying to argue is that fiscal stimulus (albeit rather half hearted) and surpluses during growth periods are in themselves Keynesian ideas; I'm not arguing that Mr Osborne is particularly good at implementing them.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Ricardus - a year ago I would have argued your point of view.

I am not arguing that surpluses or more accurately 'close to surplus' shouldn't be aimed for in times when growth is strong - especially when economy is above trend. That is the time to run a surplus!

Over the past year or so I read up a lot on macroeconomics and was surprised at how few years we have had surpluses since the late 1940s and yet national debt as a % of GDP has fallen dramatically over that period. All very counter-intuitive.

Further the Tories had two surpluses in 18 years in power and Labour had four(!) in 13 years. So this whole we should balance surpluses - or in George Osborne's view, have more surpluses - than deficits just isn't backed up with the experience of the richest countries (G7 etc) in the world over the past 60 years.

Which is not the same as saying we can live beyond our means in the long term.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I think it is possible (and this is confirmed in the links) to run a sort of 'sustainable deficit', in that if the deficit as a percentage of total debt is equal to the growth rate as a percentage of GDP, total debt will remain constant as a percentage of GDP even though it increases in absolute terms.

Obviously though when the economy contracts, debt as a percentage of GDP will in increase quite sharply (even in the utterly counterfactual scenario where spending and tax receipts remain unchanged), so to restore sustainability, this increase would have to be counteracted at some point in the future.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Ricardus - a year ago I would have argued your point of view.

I am not arguing that surpluses or more accurately 'close to surplus' shouldn't be aimed for in times when growth is strong - especially when economy is above trend. That is the time to run a surplus!

Over the past year or so I read up a lot on macroeconomics and was surprised at how few years we have had surpluses since the late 1940s and yet national debt as a % of GDP has fallen dramatically over that period. All very counter-intuitive.

Further the Tories had two surpluses in 18 years in power and Labour had four(!) in 13 years. So this whole we should balance surpluses - or in George Osborne's view, have more surpluses - than deficits just isn't backed up with the experience of the richest countries (G7 etc) in the world over the past 60 years.

Which is not the same as saying we can live beyond our means in the long term.

Good point.

Furthermore, it should be noted that in those 18 years the Conservatives had both peak North Sea oil revenues and the privatisation receipts. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the various privatisations, you can only sell things once. If you look at the record 1979-2008, the Tories were notable worse than Labour. If you strip out the privatisation revenues the gap is huge. And that's before you get to some real-world macro that if you were targeting significant surpluses, you may well make the economy smaller and thus end up with smaller revenues. (As an aside, Gordon Brown's 'Golden rule' of only borrowing to invest (over the course of the economic cycle) is actually very sound policy. Whether he actually did this or not, of course is another matter!)

The sheer cheek of the Conservatives to claim any sort of record of economic competence is astounding. It is perhaps their absolute confidence in doing so that makes them so convincing to anyone who hasn't actually looked at the figures.

AFZ

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
... Over the past year or so I read up a lot on macroeconomics and was surprised at how few years we have had surpluses since the late 1940s and yet national debt as a % of GDP has fallen dramatically over that period. All very counter-intuitive.....

Why is that counterintuitive? In the late 1940s, we'd just fought a long, and close-run war largely on credit, and were faced with a huge amount of reconstruction.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why is that counterintuitive? In the late 1940s, we'd just fought a long, and close-run war largely on credit, and were faced with a huge amount of reconstruction.

It's counterintuitive because the prevailing economic orthodoxy is that in order to cut national debt you have to run big surpluses and cut public services to do that. The lesson of the post war period is just the opposite - you have to rebuild the economy with strong investment both in productivity and public services.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why is that counterintuitive? In the late 1940s, we'd just fought a long, and close-run war largely on credit, and were faced with a huge amount of reconstruction.

I presume the OP meant that counter-intuitive bit is that the debt/GDP ratio fell, even as the UK didn't run surpluses.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Chris and Arethosemyfeet - yes that is the counter-intuitive part as far as I am concerned.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think it is possible (and this is confirmed in the links) to run a sort of 'sustainable deficit', in that if the deficit as a percentage of total debt is equal to the growth rate as a percentage of GDP, total debt will remain constant as a percentage of GDP even though it increases in absolute terms.

Obviously though when the economy contracts, debt as a percentage of GDP will in increase quite sharply (even in the utterly counterfactual scenario where spending and tax receipts remain unchanged), so to restore sustainability, this increase would have to be counteracted at some point in the future.

Ricardus - I largely agree with this. Though I think it is worth remembering that the recent deficit/debt problem was linked with the largest world-wide recession in over 60 years. My point here is that this sort of problem doesn't happen regularly.

The part that I was less convinced by is this:

quote:
Ricardus:
Indeed, and the compulsory surplus in times of economic growth is also very Keynesian.

Then of course there is the recent IMF paper that argues something even more radical

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's counterintuitive because the prevailing economic orthodoxy is that in order to cut national debt you have to run big surpluses and cut public services to do that. The lesson of the post war period is just the opposite - you have to rebuild the economy with strong investment both in productivity and public services.

Sorry. Wrong analysis and wrong diagnosis.

'Prevailing orthodoxy' or what, the dominant condition at the time was that the UK and Europe had been smashed to pieces by a huge war. Reconstruction from that was the first priority and made reconstruction a necessity. Like the war, a lot of that had to be done on credit.

However, that did mean more debt. It has taken two generations to pay off. We would all have been a great deal more prosperous, if over most of my lifetime a large part of our taxes did not have to go first on servicing that historic debt. There might also have been less inflation over the fifty + years after 1945 if those two generations had not had to carry that burden.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

In addition to the direct debt burden, which was predominantly to pay off the supply of war goods under the Lend-Lease agreement, Sterling became a convertible currency. That resulted in devaluation from $4.03 to $2.80 in (I think) 1947 which probably had a greater adverse effect than the direct debt. Still, it was a condition for lend-lease, and Britain was in no position to negotiate.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
the dominant condition at the time was that the UK and Europe had been smashed to pieces by a huge war. Reconstruction from that was the first priority and made reconstruction a necessity. Like the war, a lot of that had to be done on credit.

However, that did mean more debt. It has taken two generations to pay off.

Depending on what you mean by "pay off". The actual loans incurred during the war and post-war reconstruction may have been paid off, but in the process we've taken out even more debt. In terms of actual money owed, the UK is in debt at historic levels, and apart from a couple of blips where the Treasury managed to pay off some of that, the debt has been rising steadily for decades (since long before the 2008 banking collapse).

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Actually, UK debt as a % of GDP fell dramatically in the years following WW2:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/UK_GDP.png

That's largely attributable to the strong economic recovery brought about by investment. That investment went way beyond reconstruction and went into slum clearance and massive house building programmes. A council house building programme on that scale today, even paid for with additional borrowing, would pretty much certainly result in a drop in the debt to GDP ratio. Yes, in a magic wand situation where you could have the investment without the debt, everyone would be better off, but that's not one of the options on the table.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In terms of actual money owed, the UK is in debt at historic levels

Looking at it in purely nominal terms is misleading, as it discounts the effects of inflation and GDP growth.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Wasn't it Gordan Brown who organised paying off the last of the war debt ?

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Wasn't it Gordan Brown who organised paying off the last of the war debt ?

Apparently so.

AFZ

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why is that counterintuitive? In the late 1940s, we'd just fought a long, and close-run war largely on credit, and were faced with a huge amount of reconstruction.
It's counterintuitive because the prevailing economic orthodoxy is that in order to cut national debt you have to run big surpluses and cut public services to do that. The lesson of the post war period is just the opposite - you have to rebuild the economy with strong investment both in productivity and public services.

Hi there Arethosemyfeet. Broadly I would agree with your position. The part that I have changed my understanding of is, 'the deficit fetishism' that is currently so in vogue is almost totally based in a media/political consensus and not an orthodoxy of macro-economists.

There are many more macro-economists who would advocate an anti-austerity position than defend Osborne's record. At least that is now my understanding.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
We would all have been a great deal more prosperous, if over most of my lifetime a large part of our taxes did not have to go first on servicing that historic debt.

We might all have been more prosperous, apart from the people who lend the money in the first place.
Presumably the debt repayments don't just disappear into a black hole. Somebody receives them and can use them as capital. I'm not saying that every use of investment capital is productive, but there's no reason to think that the debt repayments were significantly less productive than any other economic transaction.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Hi there Arethosemyfeet. Broadly I would agree with your position. The part that I have changed my understanding of is, 'the deficit fetishism' that is currently so in vogue is almost totally based in a media/political consensus and not an orthodoxy of macro-economists.

There are many more macro-economists who would advocate an anti-austerity position than defend Osborne's record. At least that is now my understanding.

Oh yes, I certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Reconstruction from that was the first priority and made reconstruction a necessity. Like the war, a lot of that had to be done on credit.

However, that did mean more debt. It has taken two generations to pay off. We would all have been a great deal more prosperous, if over most of my lifetime a large part of our taxes did not have to go first on servicing that historic debt.

I'm reminded of this:

http://assets.amuniversal.com/091c7f409ee3012f2fe600163e41dd5b

Doubtful. If reconstruction of basic infrastructure hadn't taken place, then all sorts of businesses would either have not been as profitable or not existed to start with. To large extent, economic recovery relied upon borrowing to fund investment in reconstruction.

The counter factual you are posing doesn't exist in any possible world.

[ 05. August 2015, 23:35: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

To back up my previous assertion that more economists (two thirds) regard Osborne's economic policies (2010-2015) negatively rather than positively.

Here is the article in the Independent that reports the survey I am referring to.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In terms of actual money owed, the UK is in debt at historic levels
Looking at it in purely nominal terms is misleading, as it discounts the effects of inflation and GDP growth.

Yes, I know it's not perfect. And, inflation would need to be taken into account to put those numbers onto a common base relating to the value of the currency. The debt in 1945 was about £25b, inflated to current values that's about £1000b. Our current debt is about 40% above that.

The comparison with GDP is really a measure of ability to repay the debt - or rather, how much of that GDP the government gains in tax revenue with which to repay debt. Which is important if we want to borrow more, but unless we do actually repay debt seems to not mean much at all. I know the household budget comparison isn't all that great. But, I have a mortgage. If I get a pay rise I can choose what to do with that extra cash, but if I don't use it to pay more towards the mortgage then the amount I owe hasn't changed.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Alan - AIUI the reason why debt is almost always compared to GDP and not inflation is because it is the most meaningful measure. With debt it either needs to be paid, you need to borrow more or it needs to be serviced.

As far as I can see, GDP is relevant to all three courses of action.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If I get a pay rise I can choose what to do with that extra cash, but if I don't use it to pay more towards the mortgage then the amount I owe hasn't changed.

But how important that amount is to your budgeting has changed. My pay has almost doubled in the last 8 years, but my mortgage repayments have changed little. The proportion of my income going on mortgage repayments has fallen drastically, as has the risk associated with an increase in interest rates. Debt to GDP ratio is the only meaningful measure of how badly indebted a country is, otherwise we end up concluding that New Zealand's national debt is a much bigger problem than Jamaica's. EDIT: mortgage lenders acknowledge this same thing by the use of income multiples as part of judging how much they can lend you.

[ 06. August 2015, 10:26: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Yes, the debt as %GDP is a measure of how problematic a debt is.

It doesn't alter the fact that if that's the only measure you use then everything looks great in good times as GDP rises, and that ratio falls, even if there is no net repayment of debt - or even if more loans are taken out. Common sense suggests that when times are good you reduce debt, or at the very least don't increase it, so that if the good times end the debts don't become a problem.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

While ratios of GDP have some use*, it ought not to be treated as the be-all and end all of economic indicators. As an instance it is boosted by investment in high-cost programmes (like my old friends HS2, new runways and the aircraft carriers) and I've yet to hear an explanation of what Quantitative Easing does to it. It may well do nothing directly, but I bet it has knock-on consequences.

*only some use: if the economy changes structurally, eg from industrial to service-based, the GDP then and now will be less comparable than they would be otherwise. Moving from "Empire preference" to European trading has had an effect (although that is unknown to me; I'm just sceptical of GDP and most economic indicators).

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Common sense suggests that when times are good
you reduce debt, or at the very least don't increase it, so that if the good times end the debts don't become a problem.

But that is partly drawn from the experience of individuals - where ending up in debt when your income runs out (and you are a pensioner) is generally a bad thing.

OTOH, for a company borrowing makes sense as long as investment returns are greater than interest rates (as long as you factor in interest rate rises, of course).

quote:

It doesn't alter the fact that if that's the only measure you use then everything looks great in good times as GDP rises, and that ratio falls, even if there is no net repayment of debt

The effects of GDP rises is relatively small, but constant - it's not as if the debt magically halves and then doubles again - it's also not as if the recession returns us back to the prior state - the economy of 2015 is much much bigger than that of 1945 inspite of all the recessions since.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Common sense suggests that when times are good
you reduce debt, or at the very least don't increase it, so that if the good times end the debts don't become a problem.
But that is partly drawn from the experience of individuals - where ending up in debt when your income runs out (and you are a pensioner) is generally a bad thing.

But, it's also the experience of larger bodies.

A business taking out a loan to invest in a new product line that fails to sell will also struggle to repay the interest on that loan.

A country with a significant fall in income such that it can no longer cover interest payments on loans is generally a bad thing (ask Greece).

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, the debt as %GDP is a measure of how problematic a debt is.

It doesn't alter the fact that if that's the only measure you use then everything looks great in good times as GDP rises, and that ratio falls, even if there is no net repayment of debt - or even if more loans are taken out. Common sense suggests that when times are good you reduce debt, or at the very least don't increase it, so that if the good times end the debts don't become a problem.

And that's pretty much what the Labour governments did over the period 1997-2007. What you're missing is that, with a rising population, even in the worst recession in living memory in the UK the economy only dipped in cash terms to where it had been maybe 5 years previously. Even in cash terms UK debt fell from 1997 to 2002.

Greece's problem is that it can't control its currency, and control is in the hands of people actively trying to harm it. The UK and most other countries do not have that problem.

[ 06. August 2015, 11:54: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Alan - I wonder if we are talking past each other a bit here.

Of course debt shouldn't be forever increased as if it doesn't matter - it does.

Perhaps this analogy helps. I'd say that paying off your mortgage as you get close to retirement is an excellent idea. You don't want as big a mortgage at that point as you had when you were younger.

However, if a company stopped borrowing to invest and paid off all its debt, I think it would be regarded as being wound down and being got ready for the knackers yard.

I think a country is more like a company than a household. To my knowledge not a single country has got close to paying off all its debt - whereas lots of people pay off their mortgage.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Some countries do have a net negative amount of debt, mostly oil rich nations that have accumulated sovereign wealth funds e.g. Norway. Norway apparently does still have national debt at around 30% GDP, though. My guess is that the ROI on its sovereign wealth fund is greater than the interest rate on its borrowing so it makes more sense to borrow than to use savings.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Thanks arethosemyfeet. Didn't check myself. When I checked the G12 countries some time ago I noticed that generally speaking the richest nations all had pretty significant debt.

But then capitalism is based on debt and the presumption that tomorrow we will produce (and consume) more than we did today.

As some economists point out the choice is between public and private debt. They argue that those who think the choice is between public debt and no debt haven't noticed that that is not the way the system works.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

A business taking out a loan to invest in a new product line that fails to sell will also struggle to repay the interest on that loan.

Except we aren't talking about investments in a single big ticket item - but a multitude of things which will have different periods of return - and generally there will be plenty of places to invest in that yield reasonable returns before you are forced to plough your money into white elephants (this government otoh would rather spend on HS2).

quote:

A country with a significant fall in income such that it can no longer cover interest payments on loans is generally a bad thing (ask Greece).

The issue with Greece is it borrowed in a currency it couldn't control. THAT was a large part of the CAUSE of the subsequent significant fall in income.

Other countries within the EU have had similar issues - for Ireland, Italy and SPain the story is similar to that of Greece (and in normal times, currency adjustments would have pulled Italy out of trouble as generally they have a fairly strong export sector). For places like Latvia, the issue was a boom driven by a large increase in *private* borrowing in foreign currencies like the Euro and Swiss Franc.

[ 06. August 2015, 12:31: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

The economics teacher at my school had a quote: 'An economist is someone who will tell you tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today.'

This may be stating the obvious, but isn't one of the problems of economics that insofar as economists have thought of ways of resolving economic crises, they tend to be ways of resolving the previous crisis?

I have just finished reading Yanis Varoufakis' The Global Minotaur. Though he is predictably scathing about aspects of neoliberal economics, he also thinks attempts to resolve the current crisis via Keynesian or Marxist methods are also doomed to failure, because the current world crisis was not primarily caused by the sort of problems that Keynes and Marx were responding to*. He sees the current crisis as caused by imbalances of global trade exacerbated by other bits of nonsense such as CDOs.

(* Which incidentally is another reason to be wary of cartoon stereotypes of What Syriza Believe.)

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The economics teacher at my school had a quote: 'An economist is someone who will tell you tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today.'

I don't know if this quote will end up applying to pollsters and bookmakers in respect of the Labour leadership election, but in polls out today, Corbyn wins in the first round with a straight majority.

Bookies have now made him odds on - 1/2 with Ladbrokes

Interesting stuff.....

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

And apparently he is saying we should be trying to get on with Russia. Not, I think, a good move.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

You think the Cold War, part two, is a better approach ?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

The quote the Telegraph appears to be hanging this on is:

quote:
Mr Corbyn told the channel: "What is security? Is security the ability to bomb, maim, kill, destroy, or is security the ability to get on with other people and have some kind of respectful existence with them?"

We've moaned about soundbite politics for years, now an MP with a significant public profile is not talking in soundbites the press seem gripped by hysteria.

The other day someone asked him if Blair should be tried as a war criminal, and he said if he's a war criminal he should stand trial - which mutated to Corbyn demands Blair war crimes trial about 5 seconds after the torygraph saw it.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The quote the Telegraph appears to be hanging this on is:

quote:
Mr Corbyn told the channel: "What is security? Is security the ability to bomb, maim, kill, destroy, or is security the ability to get on with other people and have some kind of respectful existence with them?"
We've moaned about soundbite politics for years, now an MP with a significant public profile is not talking in soundbites the press seem gripped by hysteria.

The other day someone asked him if Blair should be tried as a war criminal, and he said if he's a war criminal he should stand trial - which mutated to Corbyn demands Blair war crimes trial about 5 seconds after the torygraph saw it.

Absolutely. One of the ways in which our democracy is very broken is the soundbite-politics. The answer to so many questions in the real world is "It's not as simple as that"

Our print media is deeply poisonous to our democracy.

AFZ

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And apparently he is saying we should be trying to get on with Russia. Not, I think, a good move.

I've no time for Mr Corbyn. He stands for a vision that does not inspire me in any way. It's a complete delusion, and a very stupid one, to say 'because this man has conviction, he must be a good thing'. Some people were saying the same about the Ayatollah Khomeini when he first returned from Paris.

All the same why is saying we should be trying to get on with Russia so wrong? It's hardly a sign of being a lefty these days. Russia doesn't even claim to be the dictatorship of the proletariat any more.

When there are so many things wrong about Mr Corbyn, why pick on that one, which might not be wrong?

Incidentally, I know he's talking about the environment now, but what's his history on it? I was talking to a person recently who is quite into green things. We both agreed that of the main parties in England, the Labour Party is usually weakest on the environment. Whether it's because quite a lot of them have nimby tendencies, even the Conservatives are better on it.

[ 12. August 2015, 08:37: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Jeremy Corbyn has tended to steer clear of anything that could be, even remotely, linked to either climate change of global warming. This is probably to avoid his brother Piers being embroiled in any subsequent debate, or his being asked whether or not he, Jeremy, agrees with his brother that CO2 emissions have nothing at all to do with global warming which is not, in any case happening.

In fact some of Piers Corbyn says about weather patterns being more closely linked to solar activity is quite interesting and is certainly worth reading.

As for the Labour Party and environmental concerns not being the most natural of bedfellows, I think that still holds good.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

In fact some of Piers Corbyn says about weather patterns being more closely linked to solar activity is quite interesting and is certainly worth reading.

Weather patterns or climate change? If the former then, in comparison with what? If the latter, I prefer to rely on people with actual expertise in the field.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

In fact some of Piers Corbyn says about weather patterns being more closely linked to solar activity is quite interesting and is certainly worth reading.
Weather patterns or climate change? If the former then, in comparison with what? If the latter, I prefer to rely on people with actual expertise in the field.

Note that Piers Corbyn is in the Weather Business, with particular reference to long-range forecasts. Personally, I reckon he's little better than an astrologer, but YMMV.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In fact some of Piers Corbyn says about weather patterns being more closely linked to solar activity is quite interesting and is certainly worth reading.

Solar output varies by about 0.2%. Case pretty much closed.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

Tony Blair is in the news saying that Labour will be "annihilated" at the next election if Corbyn is the new leader. I don't actually think this will be the case. I think that Corbyn will inspire core Labour supporters and a few non-voters (although non-voters don't generally tend to vote, hence the name) to turn out rather than sitting at home. This will result in sitting Labour MPs in Wales, inner London and the northern cities being returned with socking great majorities. Labour may even win a few seats back in Glasgow.

However, swing voters in Basildon, Worcester, Morley etc. who voted Tory in 2015 because they didn't trust Labour on the economy, will take one look at Corbyn, throw up their hands in horror and re-elect the Tories. Possibly a few more marginals will go Tory, but the recovery of the LibDems (they surely must recover?) will restrict their majority to 25 or so.

Therefore Labour will probably have a decent chance with a sensible leader in 2025.

Does this sound naive? I think the phrase "a few more marginals" may be rather optimistic...

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I don't know. Some marginals recently elected Labour candidates just as left wing as Corbyn. The key, I think, is going to be the behaviour of the Labour right. If they shut up and use the internal processes of the party proposed by Corbyn to influence policy then Labour stands a much better chance than if they keep mouthing off about how doomed Labour are in the press. Corbyn's message is nowhere near as radical as is being made out, and if the message, rather than the propaganda, reaches people then I think we may be surprised at how much support Labour can muster. A lot will depend on how the tories end up addressing their Europe problem.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

I agree about the Labour right, if the party elects Corbyn (as long as it's above board) then they should accept the democratic decision and get on with it.

Yes, the Tory Europe monster is still out there, biding its time. It hasn't been slain.

[ 13. August 2015, 10:11: Message edited by: Touchstone ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I think the phrase "a few more marginals" may be rather optimistic...

Very optimistic indeed. I think there is a large demographic of voters who currently vote Labour because they're essentially moderate Tories. Turn Labour into the Socialist machine of old and those voters will abandon the party in droves.

While it's true that the change would also provide a morale boost to the core Labour voters, most of them are already voting Labour anyway so the electoral impact would be minimal. They might steal a few votes from the SNP and Greens, but not enough to make up for their losses.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Very optimistic indeed. I think there is a large demographic of voters who currently vote Labour because they're essentially moderate Tories. Turn Labour into the Socialist machine of old and those voters will abandon the party in droves.

That's not what's on offer. The tory manifesto in 1951 was more socialist than what Corbyn's proposing. This is what I mean about the propaganda getting through rather than the actual message. Most of Corbyn's supposedly "hard left" ideas are supported by a substantial majority of the population, including the limited nationalisation he proposes.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The tory manifesto in 1951 was more socialist than what Corbyn's proposing.

That's interesting - have you any examples?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think this is a link to the Conservative Party 1951 Manifesto. I found it in the Wiki article re the 1951 General Election.

It doesn't look very Corbynesque to me.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The tory manifesto in 1951 was more socialist than what Corbyn's proposing.
That's interesting - have you any examples?

An excess profits tax, building of 300K houses annually by the government, tariffs to prevent 'dumping' of agricultural produce from elsewhere etc.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Despite the free market rhetoric there is significant emphasis on state intervention through preventing monopolies, and also ensuring good relationships between management and workers through the activities of trade unions. More socialist than Corbyn was perhaps an exaggeration but a lot of that manifesto would be dismissed as "hard left" by the current press and the right of the Labour party.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I wouldn't respect any party campaigning on a manifesto written for the world which by 2020 will be 69 years ago.

Also, no party should be planning to win the next but one election in 2025. The Conservatives got in this year with a small majority and on only 37% of the vote. It's got a very good chance of fouling up completely, on Scotland, on Europe or on something else. Any worthwhile opposition party should be aiming at the next election in 2020. If it doesn't think it's worth winning, or capable of winning it, then Labour doesn't deserve the name of the official opposition. Let the LibDems take over or the SNP stand for seats in England. And if Labour wants to throw away the baton, let one of them pick it up.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I wouldn't respect any party campaigning on a manifesto written for the world which by 2020 will be 69 years ago.

Also, no party should be planning to win the next but one election in 2025. The Conservatives got in this year with a small majority and on only 37% of the vote.

Not only 37% of the vote but c.25% of the electorate. Three-quarters of the country didn't vote for the party in power.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

No, I don't think we should be going for Cold War II, but I don't think that saying something which could be interpreted as being nice to Putin is good politics in the sense of getting people to think his approach is more sensible that his opponents allow.

When I was in northern Norway on the eclipse/aurora trip I went on this March, there was a military exercise going on close to the border. With the way that Putin reacts, I'm not sure that was a good idea. Having plans, yes. Practising cold weather movements, yes. Trundling around in tanks where he can observe them and turn them to propaganda, no.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Got to show the bugger we're ready. He's the one who started the long-range reconnaisance flights again, not to mention his opertaions against Georgia and the Ukraine (yeah, sure, right that's a totally spearate entity doing that, isn't it?).

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Very optimistic indeed. I think there is a large demographic of voters who currently vote Labour because they're essentially moderate Tories. Turn Labour into the Socialist machine of old and those voters will abandon the party in droves.
That's not what's on offer. The tory manifesto in 1951 was more socialist than what Corbyn's proposing. This is what I mean about the propaganda getting through rather than the actual message. Most of Corbyn's supposedly "hard left" ideas are supported by a substantial majority of the population, including the limited nationalisation he proposes.

I've been seeing Corbyn as a moderate Keynesian, but I understand that the right-wing media have to talk in terms of 'hard left' and so on, in order to stoke up their lurid fantasies. Well, whatever they are doing.

It will be interesting to see if the Corbyn team can manage to separate the fantasies being spread about their policies from the reality. I'm not sure how they would do that though, or rather, where. Both the Grauniad and the Independent seem to be gunning for him as well as the obvious Wail and Torygraph.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

When I was in northern Norway on the eclipse/aurora trip I went on this March, there was a military exercise going on close to the border. With the way that Putin reacts, I'm not sure that was a good idea. Having plans, yes. Practising cold weather movements, yes. Trundling around in tanks where he can observe them and turn them to propaganda, no.

Exercise Joint Warrior/Cold Winter.

It's happened every year since the early 1960s at least. Regular as clockwork. To be honest, he'd probably read much more into us suddenly *not* doing it...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I've been seeing Corbyn as a moderate Keynesian, but I understand that the right-wing media have to talk in terms of 'hard left' and so on, in order to stoke up their lurid fantasies. Well, whatever they are doing. ...

Sort of tangent alert

There's an interesting question to ask of anyone who claims to be a Keynsian or is described as one.

Are they a Keynsian because they understand economics, have studied Keynes and are persuaded he was right? Or are they Keynsian because they want to be able to spend more public money than they think the state/public can afford, and they think saying "Keynes" gives them a magic bullet that will enable them to get away with it?

Am I being cynical? I don't think so. Can anyone persuade me otherwise?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Am I being cynical? I don't think so. Can anyone persuade me otherwise?

You asked this in another thread, and my response (which you didn't reply to) is the same, do any of the people who push austerity have hard evidence that it works? Or are they basing their ideas on some kind of cargo cult comparison to a Swabian/Home Counties housewife?

Furthermore, do those in power push austerity because they believe it works, or because they are ideologically committed (usually because it suits them and their kind) to smaller government?

[ 13. August 2015, 17:34: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You asked this in another thread, and my response (which you didn't reply to) is the same, do any of the people who push austerity have hard evidence that it works? Or are they basing their ideas on some kind of cargo cult comparison to a Swabian/Home Counties housewife?

Furthermore, do those in power push austerity because they believe it works, or because they are ideologically committed (usually because it suits them and their kind) to smaller government?

They advocate austerity because they draw the apparently self-evident conclusion that you can't spend money you have not got. They are also not persuaded by simple assertions that somehow national economies aren't bound by the same economic basics as apply to ordinary people and businesses, like them.

Obviously there's a legitimate argument that you can borrow money to spend on capital projects if you've a reasonably sound conviction that that investment will pay itself off, i.e. pay for itself.

Being rude about such beliefs, as in

quote:
basing their ideas on some kind of cargo cult comparison to a Swabian/Home Counties housewife

may be amusing, but it doesn't persuade them. It isn't that people believe in austerity. It's that they don't have the confidence to believe in anything else. Nobody's managed, or probably even tried, to change their mind.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
basing their ideas on some kind of cargo cult comparison to a Swabian/Home Counties housewife
may be amusing, but it doesn't persuade them. It isn't that people believe in austerity. It's that they don't have the confidence to believe in anything else. Nobody's managed, or probably even tried, to change their mind.

Hang on - you asked for evidence, what evidence do you have that austerity works?

If you believe in austerity in the absence of evidence, then it's a fool's errand to try and persuade you otherwise.

[ 13. August 2015, 18:30: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :

Up the thread, Enoch asked what Jeremy Corbyn's record on the environment was.
I happened to hear a piece on the Today programme on Radio 4 a little while ago, where the reporter went round Jeremy Corbyn's constituency interviewing people. One of the places they stopped was a park which Jeremy Corbyn campaigned to save for local people rather than having the land built on.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The differences are mostly pretty obvious:
In general, personal income does not keep growing over time, it tends to plateau and ultimately fall. National economies tend to keep growing over the long term. This means that debt will always shrink relative to the size of the economy so long as interest payments are made, and sometimes even if they're not. With household income just paying the interest tends to mean your debt is more or less stationary (ignoring inflation for the moment as both are affected by that).

There is also a question of scale. One person cutting back on spending means that person saves money, and barring specific circumstances (like cutting back on the petrol you need to get to work) doesn't result in a drop in income. Cutting government spending, particularly money that goes into the pockets of the poorest, does tend to reduce tax yields because it dampens the growth mentioned in the previous paragraph. In a weak economy this can be sufficient to keep the economy shrinking, causing a vicious circle if the government continues cutting to try to balance the budget. It's this feedback mechanism, which can be virtuous or vicious, that is lacking in household budgets.

Lastly there is the factor of control over money. Money is not a concrete thing with a fixed value. Inflation can be controlled, if crudely, by the use of interest rates and, if deflation becomes a risk as it is at present, by printing money (or in the more modern sense creating it electronically). This new money can then be used strategically to promote economic growth.

It is prudent if you have high debt levels during a boom period, to gradually raise taxes and reduce spending where possible (business is less likely to need investment support in a boom, for example) and further reduce to the debt to GDP ratio. So long as the economy grows sufficiently in the boom it may not be necessary, however, for reasons mentioned already.

I understand that the household budget comparison is alluring, because everyone prefers a model that matches their day-to-day experience (it's the same reason people are so much more comfortable with Newtonian mechanics than relatively or quantum mechanics), and are inclined to believe the thing they can understand is more likely to be true than the thing they don't. The problem is that it's bollocks.

[ 13. August 2015, 18:40: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Hang on - you asked for evidence, what evidence do you have that austerity works?

The 1930s?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Hang on - you asked for evidence, what evidence do you have that austerity works?

The 1930s?

Caveat Lector*

(*let the reader beware)

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

This is balanced, and not written by neo-libs waving the flag for unfettered capitalism.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

When I was in northern Norway on the eclipse/aurora trip I went on this March, there was a military exercise going on close to the border. With the way that Putin reacts, I'm not sure that was a good idea. Having plans, yes. Practising cold weather movements, yes. Trundling around in tanks where he can observe them and turn them to propaganda, no.
Exercise Joint Warrior/Cold Winter.

It's happened every year since the early 1960s at least. Regular as clockwork. To be honest, he'd probably read much more into us suddenly *not* doing it...

Thank you - it is helpful to be aware of the context fully.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

One of the big ironies of this election campaign. One of the reasons why Corbyn is expected to win whilst the Blairite candidate Kendall is due to finish last is the new voting system.

For those that don't know until early 2014 the Labour leadership election rules were that the leader should be elected by an electoral college with one third of the votes going to the Parliamentary party, one third to the party membership and on third to member of affiliated trade unions. At the start of 2014 the electoral college was abolished and replaced with a one member one vote system supplemented with votes from 'affiliated supporters' who could sign up for £3.00

Now here's the huge irony. Who was pushing for these reforms? It was the blairites. Here's an article from the website of the blairite Progress group praising the changes link. Here's an article from the blairite journalist John Rentoul explaining why these changes will ensure the next leader will be from the right of the Labour Party link.

Meanwhile the main opposition to the changes came from the left of the party. Here's an article by a left wing Labour MP you may have heard of called Jeremy Corbyn explaining why he's opposed to these changes link.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Excellent Doc. Thanks. Even if the Tory spin on it were 110% true, it's inhumane. In other words the reality is inhumane. As was Thatcher - whom I supported unequivocally and therefore as was I - in destroying the miners. London booms while south central Wales empties. The theoretical average of the rich getting richer more than the poor getting poorer is still OK.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

On the voting system, if Yvette Cooper was ahead by a mile, the Blairites would be purring with congratulations about how well it has worked. It's just another way of trying to attack Corbyn.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On the voting system, if Yvette Cooper was ahead by a mile, the Blairites would be purring with congratulations about how well it has worked. It's just another way of trying to attack Corbyn.

The Blairites thought that the voting system would enable them to beat Cooper from the right. From the Rentoul article I linked to above

quote:
If there is a leadership election next year, therefore, it will be decided by party members, who will be joined by “registered supporters” paying £3, and by union members, called “affiliated supporters”, whose fee will be paid through their union. They will all vote on equal terms and, crucially, they will vote through Labour HQ. The union bosses will not be able to send out flyers for their preferred candidate with the ballot papers, as they did for Ed Miliband. That is why I think a Blairite candidate such as Gloria De Piero could beat Yvette Cooper, who is the current favourite.

At first when it was clear that Corbyn was ahead there was talk of launching an immediate leadership coup against him. That talk has stopped. Now there is talk od some kind of 18 month 'deal' link. I don't think that will get far either.

For all that the hard left think about Thatcher and Blair one thing that can be said about both of them is that they both treated the hard left (or the left or whatever you call it) as an enemy that needed to be taken seriously. The present Labour right have treated the left wing of their party as a group of silly fools who can be indulged and patted on the head, hence the 'lending' of nominations that enabled Corbyn to be nominated this year and Abbott to be nominated in 2010. I don't think most of the Labour right have any idea what's about to hit them.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I heard Yvette Cooper justify the West's destroying Gadhafi as 'humanitarian'.

God help us.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I heard Yvette Cooper justify the West's destroying Gadhafi as 'humanitarian'.

God help us.

He may not be running Libya any more but then nobody else is doing so effectively. A whole lot like the regime change the West effected in Iraq, where we "humanely" destroyed Saddam Hussein.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And wonder why 40 tourists are murdered down the road and the sea is full of Syrian and Ethiopian corpses.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On the voting system, if Yvette Cooper was ahead by a mile, the Blairites would be purring with congratulations about how well it has worked. It's just another way of trying to attack Corbyn.

Just to stress this point as recently as May 22 this year John Rentoul, a journalist very closely associated with the blairite camp, was again predicting that Cooper would be beaten, from the right, by Kendall.
link . That was the blairite plan at the time. They would have been disappointed at the prospect of Cooper being ahead. Th idea of Cooper being beaten from the left wasn't even on their radar. What a difference a summer makes.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I find it odd how many people seem to have a hard-on about Corbyn. You would expect this among the left, since they have been starved for a long time of sustenance, but the right-wing media seem equally excited by it. I suppose they are gloating over a Labour mess, but there seems more to it than that. I guess that it's a change from the usual tedium and stupidity of politics.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I find it odd how many people seem to have a hard-on about Corbyn. You would expect this among the left, since they have been starved for a long time of sustenance, but the right-wing media seem equally excited by it. I suppose they are gloating over a Labour mess, but there seems more to it than that. I guess that it's a change from the usual tedium and stupidity of politics.

I think that many on the right, particularly in the Conservative Party, are being quite foolish about this. They just think he'll make Labour unelectable and help them. In fact as Janet Daley and Norman Tebbit have noted

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11820578/Enemies-of-Jeremy-Corbyns-politics-should-not-be-delighted-by-his-ri se.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11805260/The-hard-Left-wants-to-seize-power-on-the-streets-not-at-Westminster .html

Corbyn could have a great deal of capacity to cause disruption for the government both inside and outside the House of Commons. Corbyn has practiced this kind of politics his whole life, indeed he grew up with it (his parents met at a pro-Republican meeting at the time of the Spanish civil war). The Tories should not underestimate him.

[ 02. September 2015, 20:42: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

That second article is terrifying. One can only hope it proves to be untrue, and that even if Corbyn wins he'll continue to attempt to achieve his ends via democratic means rather than the "direct action" of a minority of the population trying to impose their will on the majority.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That second article is terrifying.

The only sense in which it is terrifying is that someone has paid Janet Daley to write it. What were they thinking?

I could write an article on how the neo-liberals want to enslave the vast mass of humanity in an ever-increasing spiral of debt and legal restrictions on liberty. The difference between mine and the Torygraph's version of the future is that mine would be true, whereas theirs is just a glove puppet with 'socialism' drawn crudely on the front, to be produced with a loud 'boo!' to scare the already-fretful.

Or you could read what JC has actually said, rather than stuff made up about him.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11805260/The-hard-Left-wants-to-seize-power-on-the-streets-not-at-Westminster .html

You know, there was a time when the Telegraph was a serious newspaper. I haven't read such a creative article in ages...

AFZ

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The scary things about those articles are that people consider Corbyn to be "far left" and union leaders "Trotskyite". Next thing they'll be calling the National Front moderates.

I do think the election process has created a cloud of suspicion of dirty tricks and an impression of illegitimacy that, whoever wins, will cast a shadow over the party and it's leadership. I think it's great that the vote encompasses as much of the grass roots Labour support as possible, and therefore the 3 quid fee is brilliant. But, we have an impression (true or otherwise) of a flood of people affiliating themselves solely for the purpose of voting who don't actually have any association with the party, or even who have loyalty for other parties. With hindsight, it might have been better to have announced in advance that there was a deadline for affiliation to the Labour party so as to get a vote that was relatively early in the process - the close of nominations for candidates, for example. As it is, I suspect whoever wins will have the "is this who the Labour Party members really wanted?" question over their head for a long time.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That second article is terrifying. One can only hope it proves to be untrue, and that even if Corbyn wins he'll continue to attempt to achieve his ends via democratic means rather than the "direct action" of a minority of the population trying to impose their will on the majority.

If an organised far-left movement exists with sufficient power that it is able to bring about power cuts, then:

a. Where is it?
b. Why is it not doing so already?
c. Why would it be helped by having Mr Corbyn in opposition? (Ms Daley implies that this apocalypse will unfold as soon as Mr Corbyn is Labour leader, rather than if he wins the next General Election.)
d. Are the Barclay brothers determined to turn the Telegraph into a right-wing version of Pravda?

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The scary things about those articles are that people consider Corbyn to be "far left" and union leaders "Trotskyite". Next thing they'll be calling the National Front moderates.

I do think the election process has created a cloud of suspicion of dirty tricks and an impression of illegitimacy that, whoever wins, will cast a shadow over the party and it's leadership. I think it's great that the vote encompasses as much of the grass roots Labour support as possible, and therefore the 3 quid fee is brilliant. But, we have an impression (true or otherwise) of a flood of people affiliating themselves solely for the purpose of voting who don't actually have any association with the party, or even who have loyalty for other parties. With hindsight, it might have been better to have announced in advance that there was a deadline for affiliation to the Labour party so as to get a vote that was relatively early in the process - the close of nominations for candidates, for example. As it is, I suspect whoever wins will have the "is this who the Labour Party members really wanted?" question over their head for a long time.

A quick google this morning didn't reveal any posts detailing how many voters Labour had disqualified that were newer than about a week ago.

There was an amusing Guardian article detailing how Buzzfeed had had a cat disqualified, whereas Matthew Parris of The Times had failed to get votes for his family of four Llamas.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I just read the Janet Daley article, see above - wow, talk about mad right wing fantasy time. I suppose people get their rocks off on this stuff, kind of panty wetting time. Oh well. Back to something serious.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The scary things about those articles are that people consider Corbyn to be "far left" and union leaders "Trotskyite". Next thing they'll be calling the National Front moderates.

If they had said some of that about Terry Fields and Dave Nellist, MPs elected in 1983 who were members of the Trotskyist Militant Tendency they may have had a point. That was the nearest thing ever to a serious far-left Parliamentary group.

[ 03. September 2015, 11:20: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Bibliophile

quote:
(his parents met at a pro-Republican meeting at the time of the Spanish civil war).

And opposing Franco makes you someone to distrust, disbelieve and denigrate?

While we have to assume that you are pro-Franco and see him as a good guy.

[ 03. September 2015, 11:43: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

My late father-in-law was a gun-runner for the Republicans, and was shelled by Franco's navy.

He wore that as a badge of honour, just as much as he did his chest full of real medals.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Bibliophile
quote:
(his parents met at a pro-Republican meeting at the time of the Spanish civil war).
And opposing Franco makes you someone to distrust, disbelieve and denigrate?

While we have to assume that you are pro-Franco and see him as a good guy.

I think, according to right wing genetic theories, little Jeremy was infused by the Republican ambience surrounding his conception, epigenetics or something. It's rumoured that when he exited the womb, he distinctly enunciated, 'permanent revolution now, down with Stalinism'.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just read the Janet Daley article, see above - wow, talk about mad right wing fantasy time.

I'd be inclined to believe you, if it weren't for the fact that all the stuff she describes happened in this very country less than four decades ago.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Bibliophile
quote:
(his parents met at a pro-Republican meeting at the time of the Spanish civil war).
And opposing Franco makes you someone to distrust, disbelieve and denigrate?

While we have to assume that you are pro-Franco and see him as a good guy.

The Republican side not only included Communists and Anarchists but was increasingly dominated by these groups. I wouldn't call Franco a 'good guy' but in the context of the Spanish Civil War he was the lesser of two evils.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just read the Janet Daley article, see above - wow, talk about mad right wing fantasy time.
I'd be inclined to believe you, if it weren't for the fact that all the stuff she describes happened in this very country less than four decades ago.

What all of it, every little bit?

What about

quote:
Remember, instead, the life-or-death struggle with Arthur Scargill and how close the country came to having its economy undermined and the daily life of its population made unendurable.

In terms of the economy being in the pits and daily life made very difficult, you probably need to look to the Winter of Discontent rather than the miners strikes of the 80s. The coal strikes certainly had significant economic impact in pit villages, but little impact beyond that - the trains still ran (as well as they did before), the lights stayed on, shop prices didn't go through the roof. Thatcher wanted to close the pits, the strike effectively just moved up the timetable.

The Winter of Discontent did have significant effects, there were frequent blackouts and the trains frequently stopped etc. It's difficult to judge the overall economic effects as the economy was already in the pits, it was government attempts to limit pay rises to try and curb very high inflation that was the main cause of the walkouts. And, some of those economic troubles resulted from external events - the oil crisis a few years earlier, an exceptionally cold winter. And, of course, it was a union led protest against a Labour government that was further to the left than Corbyn is - the fact is that the strikes were a result of a left wing government refusing to let the unions have their way.

For the scenario that Janet Daley envisages to occur the first thing we would need is militant, ultra left wing union leadership. And, then for Corbyn to stand up to them and not let them have a free hand to do what they want. Yes, I can see Corbyn standing against militant unions. But, any other Labour leader would as well, or a Tory leader for that matter. If (and, it's a very big if) we had militant union leadership willing to call out their members on mass strikes, and a union membership willing to follow, such that we could face another Winter of Discontent scenario it's going to make no difference who is the Labour leader or PM.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
My late father-in-law was a gun-runner for the Republicans, and was shelled by Franco's navy.

He wore that as a badge of honour, just as much as he did his chest full of real medals.

I assume that he had plenty of good qualities but it was a good thing both for Spain and for Europe that he and his comrades lost.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
My late father-in-law was a gun-runner for the Republicans, and was shelled by Franco's navy.

He wore that as a badge of honour, just as much as he did his chest full of real medals.
I assume that he had plenty of good qualities but it was a good thing both for Spain and for Europe that he and his comrades lost.

Because European fascism played a complete blinder in the 1930s and 1940s? Your thought processes continue to astound me.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
My late father-in-law was a gun-runner for the Republicans, and was shelled by Franco's navy.

He wore that as a badge of honour, just as much as he did his chest full of real medals.
I assume that he had plenty of good qualities but it was a good thing both for Spain and for Europe that he and his comrades lost.

Because Franco was a lovely bloke wasn't he?

You're not that bothered by fascism then?

We've had revisionist adulation for Franco on here before, IIRC from conservative Catholics who didn't mind he was a bastard because he wasn't a bastard to them.

[ 03. September 2015, 15:45: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You're not that bothered by fascism then?

I think the phrase you're looking for is "not at all bothered by fascism"... [Disappointed]

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just read the Janet Daley article, see above - wow, talk about mad right wing fantasy time.
I'd be inclined to believe you, if it weren't for the fact that all the stuff she describes happened in this very country less than four decades ago.

A lot changes in 40 years so it would be wrong to assume that militant activism will take the same form now as it did 40 years ago.

We saw for example over the last couple of years a number of instances of harassment of UKIP meetings by rent-a-mob left wing activists. Groups like UAF, having completely ignored UKIP for years suddenly started attacking them in Spring 2013. By an amazing coincidence this was also the time when it became clear that UKIP were an electoral threat to Labour as well as to the Conservatives.

Then there was the Scottish referendum where the most notable form of harassment was the trolling by the so called 'cybernats', nationalist trolls who harassed unionists online. That of course was in addition to the usual sorts of left wing activism.

Now the people who organise these kinds of activities like to pretend that they are 'the people' or at least they represent 'the people' but of course they are not. What they can be however is politically useful to certain interests, like for example the Labour Party.

This is the kind of politics that Corbyn grew up with and practised his whole life. Expect to see more of it when Corbyn becomes leader and expect both Conservatives and 'Blairites' who oppose Corbyn to be targets.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
My late father-in-law was a gun-runner for the Republicans, and was shelled by Franco's navy.

He wore that as a badge of honour, just as much as he did his chest full of real medals.
I assume that he had plenty of good qualities but it was a good thing both for Spain and for Europe that he and his comrades lost.
Because European fascism played a complete blinder in the 1930s and 1940s? Your thought processes continue to astound me.

If Franco had lost then Spain would have become Communist. Portugal would then have come under severe threat of a Communist take over. The post WWII map of Europe might have been quite different as well with France, Italy and perhaps also Greece being in much greater danger of a Communist takeover.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
My late father-in-law was a gun-runner for the Republicans, and was shelled by Franco's navy.

He wore that as a badge of honour, just as much as he did his chest full of real medals.
I assume that he had plenty of good qualities but it was a good thing both for Spain and for Europe that he and his comrades lost.
Because Franco was a lovely bloke wasn't he?

You're not that bothered by fascism then?

I don't wish to bang on about communism too much (bearing in mind 'Commandment 8' but I have to ask.

Are you not that bothered by communism then?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

The basic rule in discussing with Bibliophile is:

X is not a Communist ⇒ X is good
X is in any way related to Communism ⇒ X is bad

I thought this scheme might be helpful.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

We are dealing with hypotheticals.

If a Stalinist dictator had come to power in the wake of a Republican victory in the Spanish Civil War and proceeded to murder thousands of his former opponents, set up Spanish gulags and massacre the Iberian equivalent of the Kulaks ... then yes, we might be looking back at Franco as the lesser of two evils.

As it is, this didn't happen. Franco won and was a bastard.

A Stalinist scenario wasn't the only possible outcome of a Republican victory - not that a Republican victory was on the cards given the level of fascist support that Franco was receiving from Nazi Germany and the logistical advantages that Franco enjoyed.

The Republicans were pretty divided among themselves too - and although there were hard-left elements they weren't all communists by any manner of means. We can only hypothesise as to whether they'd have continued on a hard-left trajectory had they defeated Franco in 1938/39.

Sure, the Republicans were receiving Soviet aid but from what I understand, the chances of them winning were pretty slim - given the odds stacked against them and also their own internal in-fighting.

For all we know, had the Republicans won they might have moved to a more moderate and democratic position once the immediate danger of fascist resurgence was over.

It's easy to idealise the Republican side - they committed some heavy shit too - some 5,000 RC clergy, monks and nuns were killed by the Republicans - some due to collaboration with the fascists but others simply out of anti-clerical rage ...

It strikes me that in most fictional and historical accounts there is a balance struck. For instance, Hemingway doesn't glamourise the Republican side in For Whom The Bell Tolls - there are graphic accounts of the massacre of nationalist/fascist sympathisers as well as accounts of fascist atrocities.

Whatever one makes of George Orwell's account in Homage to Catalonia, his portrait of the various Republican factions doesn't paint them in an idealistic light either.

But the issue of what would have been worse - a fascist Spain or a communist one - is purely hypothetical.

We didn't end up with a communist Spain, we had a fascist one. And the bastards tried again as recently as 1981. I'd travelled around Spain the year before and was aghast when that happened ...

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If Franco had lost then Spain would have become Communist. Portugal would then have come under severe threat of a Communist take over. The post WWII map of Europe might have been quite different as well with France, Italy and perhaps also Greece being in much greater danger of a Communist takeover.

This is the sort of thing I expect someone who's a first year history/politics student to come out with. Not a 40 yo.

Why do you continually conflate democratic socialism with Stalinist communism? Can you genuinely not tell the difference? And does it worry you that everybody here has pegged you as an apologist for fascism?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Actually, there was a fascist plot again the next year, 1982, but it was nipped in the bud early on.

It's difficult to hypothesise about an alternative outcome to the Spanish Civil War as WW2 changed the whole political landscape ...

But I doubt that any of the Western powers would have sat idly by had a communist government come to power on their own doorstep in Western Europe.

The only thing that can be said in Franco's favour is that he kept Spain out of WW2.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
My late father-in-law was a gun-runner for the Republicans, and was shelled by Franco's navy.

He wore that as a badge of honour, just as much as he did his chest full of real medals.
I assume that he had plenty of good qualities but it was a good thing both for Spain and for Europe that he and his comrades lost.
Because European fascism played a complete blinder in the 1930s and 1940s? Your thought processes continue to astound me.
If Franco had lost then Spain would have become Communist. Portugal would then have come under severe threat of a Communist take over. The post WWII map of Europe might have been quite different as well with France, Italy and perhaps also Greece being in much greater danger of a Communist takeover.

in fairness, and to be quite honest I'm not sure why I'm getting involved, that is exactly the take of most leading 20th century Spanish specialist historians (Carr, Preston, Rees, etc - and yes, it's a strange quirk of things that until recently most leading historians of modern Spain were British; Spanish academia holding to the pact of forgetfulness about it all) and certainly what I was taught as an undergraduate 15 years ago.

I did rather get the impression that my particular professor was saying it through gritted teeth (and writing it in his books) as he was an instinctive fan of the POUM, but it is indeed a generally held argument that on balance Europe (and Spain by the 1960s) was better off with a Nationalist victory than it probably would have been had the other side won - particularly once Stalin had helpfully bankrupted his own clients by pinching the national gold reserves for "safe keeping."

Even by the standards of European civil wars the Spanish one was particularly nasty. Land and Freedom is an excellent film, but it's not the whole story.

Incidentally, for those interested Land & Freedom is excellent, Homage to Catalonia likewise. Paul Preston's biography of Franco is as good a place as any to go into the historiography, along with Raymond Carr's "Spanish Tragedy." Hemingwayites will doubtless be well aware of "For Whom The Bell Tolls."

If you want something darkly humorous (in a bleakly tragic sort of way), do some reading around the only sizable International Brigades equivalent on the Nationalist side - General Eoin O'Duffy's Irish Brigade. Not only did they allegedly sustain their only fatalities to friendly fire, but they still returned to Dublin with more men than they left with.....

FWIW.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Actually, there was a fascist plot again the next year, 1982, but it was nipped in the bud early on.

It's difficult to hypothesise about an alternative outcome to the Spanish Civil War as WW2 changed the whole political landscape ...

But I doubt that any of the Western powers would have sat idly by had a communist government come to power on their own doorstep in Western Europe.

The only thing that can be said in Franco's favour is that he kept Spain out of WW2.

Indeed, Lt Col Antonio Tejero's Operacion Galaxia - he seized the Cortes and the whole thing only ended when the King went on national TV to order them back to barracks. In the great scheme of things, but for that timely masterstroke, they came very close to turning back the clock.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Actually, there was a fascist plot again the next year, 1982, but it was nipped in the bud early on.

It's difficult to hypothesise about an alternative outcome to the Spanish Civil War as WW2 changed the whole political landscape ...

But I doubt that any of the Western powers would have sat idly by had a communist government come to power on their own doorstep in Western Europe.

The only thing that can be said in Franco's favour is that he kept Spain out of WW2.
Indeed, Lt Col Antonio Tejero's Operacion Galaxia - he seized the Cortes and the whole thing only ended when the King went on national TV to order them back to barracks. In the great scheme of things, but for that timely masterstroke, they came very close to turning back the clock.

sorry, 23-F rather than Galaxia - it has been a long day.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There were two attempts - one is the instance you mention when rebels took over the Cortes and held the Spanish parliament hostage for around 18 hours - and when tanks took to the streets of Valencia ...

It was only the timely intervention of King Juan Carlos on national TV appealing for the military to put down, rather than support, the uprising that saved the day.

That was in 1981.

The following year there was a lesser known and less dramatic attempt when a bunch of conspirators got together to plot a coup to coincide with the Spanish General Elections.

That was uncovered and folded up at an early stage. I only found out about that one when reading up on the first - which I vividly remember.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just read the Janet Daley article, see above - wow, talk about mad right wing fantasy time.
I'd be inclined to believe you, if it weren't for the fact that all the stuff she describes happened in this very country less than four decades ago.

Again: if far-left radicals have sufficient power and/or numbers to re-run the apocalypse of the seventies* - then why aren't they doing so already?

It can't be that they're waiting for their mole in Parliament to give the signal, because the whole point of Ms Daley's article is that they don't care about Parliamentary democracy.

* I wasn't around at the time, but for the sake of argument I'll assume it was apocalyptic.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
in fairness, and to be quite honest I'm not sure why I'm getting involved, that is exactly the take of most leading 20th century Spanish specialist historians and certainly what I was taught as an undergraduate 15 years ago.

Which is interesting, but certainly far from conclusive. Given that even after the Republicans had lost, the moderate left still had enough will left to fight the Stalinists and win.

A further alternative is the UK and France support the legitimate government of Spain from the get-go and the coup is crushed in a matter of months.

If you could recommend some books, I'd be interested.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
in fairness, and to be quite honest I'm not sure why I'm getting involved, that is exactly the take of most leading 20th century Spanish specialist historians and certainly what I was taught as an undergraduate 15 years ago.
Which is interesting, but certainly far from conclusive. Given that even after the Republicans had lost, the moderate left still had enough will left to fight the Stalinists and win.

A further alternative is the UK and France support the legitimate government of Spain from the get-go and the coup is crushed in a matter of months.

If you could recommend some books, I'd be interested.

aside from the ones in the earlier post, anything by Preston or Carr is a good starting point, or maybe Tim Rees. Raymond Carr in particular has a very high status in Spanish academia. He was crawling all over it when they weren't allowed to/preferred not to.

I agree that it could have gone very differently had it been crushed at the start. However, in fairness to Britain and Spain, they didn't just decide to have nothing to do with it.

Quite apart from anything else it really wasn't clear what was going on in Spain (a country, let's not forget, that had been in and out of dictatorship for much of the preceding years - well since 1898 really).

You'd had Emilio Mola hooning round the place broadcasting bloodcurdling speeches through tannoys about what he was going to do to the reds. Miguel Primo de Rivera's dictablanda (literally bland dictatorship), a near civil war at the beginning of the 1920s, prime ministers being assassinated, anarchosyndicalists, pogroms against the church, incipient Falangists, all sorts.

It's often forgotten that Franco launched his coup *in defence of the republic* because they feared there was going to be a Soviet takeover. That's not where they ended up by the time they won - but it actually started as a much more Ataturk/Turkish style coup in defence of the constitution than anything else. Insofar as anyone can ever really know, it's likely that at that point they meant it/genuinely believed that's what they were doing too. By the time they won, things had changed, but that was more a function of the way the war changed the thoughts on both sides.

The west really didn't know who to back for the best, and so didn't really back anyone. There was sharp practice on both sides though. Stalin pinched all the gold, while a certain well known US oil company supplied the Nationalists with all the oil they wanted free of charge throughout...

I'm not sure anyone comes out of it looking good.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

Britain and France - in fairness to Britain and France.

Obviously.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
My late father-in-law was a gun-runner for the Republicans, and was shelled by Franco's navy.

He wore that as a badge of honour, just as much as he did his chest full of real medals.
I assume that he had plenty of good qualities but it was a good thing both for Spain and for Europe that he and his comrades lost.
Because Franco was a lovely bloke wasn't he?

You're not that bothered by fascism then?
I don't wish to bang on about communism too much (bearing in mind 'Commandment 8' but I have to ask.

Are you not that bothered by communism then?

It's news to me that Franco's opponents were all communists. Besides which, I think on balance communism bothers me less than fascism.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If Franco had lost then Spain would have become Communist. Portugal would then have come under severe threat of a Communist take over. The post WWII map of Europe might have been quite different as well with France, Italy and perhaps also Greece being in much greater danger of a Communist takeover.
This is the sort of thing I expect someone who's a first year history/politics student to come out with. Not a 40 yo.

Why do you continually conflate democratic socialism with Stalinist communism? Can you genuinely not tell the difference?

The Communists whole aim, had the Republicans won, would have been to eliminate their erstwhile democratic allies once the nationalists were out of the way.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And does it worry you that everybody here has pegged you as an apologist for fascism?

People here can think what they like. Saying something is the lesser of two evils is not the same thing as supporting it. For example during the Spanish Civil War there was, as you know, instances of armed conflict between communists and anarchists. I would say in that instance that the communists were the lesser of two evils, that doesn't make me an apologist for communism.

Anyway we're going way off topic and I've already been told off by the admins for rabbiting on about this subject too much. Anyone who wants to tell me what a terrible person they think I am can do so on the 'Hell' thread with my name on it.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Why do you continually conflate democratic socialism with Stalinist communism? Can you genuinely not tell the difference?
The Communists whole aim, had the Republicans won, would have been to eliminate their erstwhile democratic allies once the nationalists were out of the way.

I'm sure it was. Except that the democratic allies (you know, the ones you ought to be supporting) could deal with the communists and proved to be more than willing to do so.

But well done on not answering the question. Give it another go.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

One interesting thing Corbyn has said is this

quote:
“I don’t think we can go on having policy made by the leader, shadow cabinet, or parliamentary Labour party. It’s got to go much wider. Party members need to be more enfranchised. Whoever is elected will have a mandate from a large membership.”...

Corbyn, who has rebelled against his party more than 500 times in his career, said MPs would not be “corralled” by whips into voting the same way as the leadership under a more consensual style of management. However, in recent days, the MP for Islington North appears to have been hardening his stance against any MPs who might be tempted to launch a coup against him or resist policies they do not like, such as scepticism about Nato and opposition to Trident.

He previously told the Independent: “I will absolutely use our supporters to push our agenda up to the parliamentary party and get them to follow that. We have to encourage the parliamentary Labour party to be part of that process and not to stand in the way of democratising the party and empowering the party members. It is going to be an interesting discussion.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/27/jeremy-corbyn-labour-membership-policy-leadership

Now if he is planning radical changes to the 'whipping' system in the parliamentary labour party then that could have some significant impact on the government. Firstly it could mean the breakdown of 'the usual channels'

quote:
"Usual channels" is a term used in British politics to describe the relationship between the Whips of the Government and the Opposition. Essentially, this is to obtain co-operation between the two parties, in order to ensure as much business as possible can be dealt with in each parliamentary session.

Negotiations in the "usual channels" take place daily, with key roles being played by unelected civil servants such as the private secretary to the Chief Whip. They determine how the time in each House of Parliament is spent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usual_channels

Secondly it could mean a breakdown of the 'pairing' system

quote:
In parliamentary practice, pairing is an informal arrangement between the government and opposition parties whereby a member of a House of Parliament agrees or is designated by the party whip to abstain from voting while a member of the other party needs to be absent from the House due to other commitments, illness, travel problems, etc. A pairing would usually be arranged or approved by the party whips and will usually not apply for critical votes, such as no-confidence votes.

From Wikipedia

When the 'bedroom tax' vote was held in the lat parliament the government majority on that vote was less than the number of Labour MPs who didn't show up to the vote. When asked about this the Labour whips said 'we have an established pairing arraangement with the Conservatives'.

Now a pairing system is obviously more useful to the governing party as MPs who are also ministers will tend to be more busy outside the House of Commons. If the system did break down it could make life more difficult for the government.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Maybe there are reasons to look at the way whips work in the Commons. There's no reason to assume that the conventions that have become established over the years are the best way for things to work.

At the moment when a vote happens each MP will make his or her choice based on at least three sets of instructions - the direction of the Parliamentary party through the whips, the expressed desires of his or her constituents, and his or her own personal convictions. These may all be in conflict. Why should the whips hold the trump card? An MP is elected to represent a constituency, and if the messages from constituents is to vote against the instructions of the whips shouldn't that be what happens? But, MPs are also not automata following the instructions of others (party leadership or constituents), they are individual human beings with the abilities and characters that that entails - and, often, it's those that got him or her elected in the first place. So, why shouldn't their own personal convictions also be a big part in decisions.

I've said it before in discussions on coalition and minority governments, there is benefit IMO in a "weak" government that can't rely on passing legislation by herding their members like sheep into voting the way they want. If a government can't rely on that through a small majority (or, no majority) then they have to get legislation passed by cross-party support, and that means they need to convince MPs that their proposed legislation is the best thing for the country. A weakened whip system would have the same effect.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Maybe there are reasons to look at the way whips work in the Commons. There's no reason to assume that the conventions that have become established over the years are the best way for things to work.

At the moment when a vote happens each MP will make his or her choice based on at least three sets of instructions - the direction of the Parliamentary party through the whips, the expressed desires of his or her constituents, and his or her own personal convictions. These may all be in conflict. Why should the whips hold the trump card? An MP is elected to represent a constituency, and if the messages from constituents is to vote against the instructions of the whips shouldn't that be what happens? But, MPs are also not automata following the instructions of others (party leadership or constituents), they are individual human beings with the abilities and characters that that entails - and, often, it's those that got him or her elected in the first place. So, why shouldn't their own personal convictions also be a big part in decisions.

Quite. Party whips are inherently undemocratic. The priority of any MP must be to represent their constituents within Parliament. Anything that gets in the way or relegates that priority is not to be endorsed.

It seems impractical to canvas opinion on every matter within the constituency, so there is an element of trust that the electorate has to have in their representatives. So I agree with you that they should be able to use their judgement in coming to decisions, as their constituents should have been provided with a fair impression during the election campaign as to how they think and are likely to vote.

What galls me is when there is an issue arising over which their is a party whip which goes against the constituents' democratic will and the MP chooses to follow the whip.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Well, away from Franco and chums and back on the "future of socialism in the UK", the final televised hustings for the Labour leadership contenders were last night.

Corbyn still seems to be the runaway favourite, securing 80% in a post debate opinion poll by Sky TV.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

I've just cast my vote (not for JC) and I know several people who've also not voted for him. None of us has featured in any poll. If opinion polls were accurate there would be a gang of blokes building Stonehenge in the garden of No.10.

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

I voted for YC, then AB. I have friends who have voted YC or JC but none of them appear to have voted AB first.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I've just cast my vote (not for JC) and I know several people who've also not voted for him. None of us has featured in any poll. If opinion polls were accurate there would be a gang of blokes building Stonehenge in the garden of No.10.

Well, I suppose it's largely the same demographic likely to be shy tories and shy kendalites.

On the other hand, my own anecdata suggest that Corbyn will win - me, my Dad, my sister (all new signups as either members or supporters) and the vast majority of Labour folk I know are voting Corbyn. A small number are voting Cooper, but I concur that I don't think many are putting Burnham as their first choice. Now that would be hilarious - if Corbyn wins because Burnham goes out early and transfers just enough votes to push Corbyn over the line.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Burnham's ability to change his mind/policies/principles every five seconds is hurting his chances badly on both the left and the right of the party I think.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
On the other hand, my own anecdata suggest that Corbyn will win - me, my Dad, my sister (all new signups as either members or supporters) and the vast majority of Labour folk I know are voting Corbyn.

Out of interest, having signed up do you intend to do any more for the party by way of campaigning or canvassing? I ask because I wonder how many of the new members will do the hard work of trying to selling Jeremy Corbyn on the door step.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Out of interest, having signed up do you intend to do any more for the party by way of campaigning or canvassing? I ask because I wonder how many of the new members will do the hard work of trying to selling Jeremy Corbyn on the door step.

I'll do what I can but doorstep campaigning is a bit of a non-starter out here.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Does doorstep campaigning still happen anywhere? I understood that these days it's mostly to turn people who've expressed interest into solid votes, rather than cold-selling (as it were) - but that's based on an article I read a while ago, not on personal experience.

(No-one has ever knocked on our door to solicit our vote ever.)

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Does doorstep campaigning still happen anywhere? I understood that these days it's mostly to turn people who've expressed interest into solid votes, rather than cold-selling (as it were) - but that's based on an article I read a while ago, not on personal experience.

(No-one has ever knocked on our door to solicit our vote ever.)

Yes it happens in lots of places and I'm surprised it doesn't happen in your area. I regularly get candidates and canvassers on the door at election time. Doorstep knocking it central to how elections are done in the UK. How do you think political parties get information for their databases on how people vote? They knock on people's doors and ask them.

Incidentally this is a lesson that US politicians could well learn. Research in the States has shown that while candidates often spend the bulk of their huge budgets on TV ads that doorstep knocking is actually a much more cost effective way of boosting their vote.

I'm curious to know why Arethosemyfeet says doorstep knocking is a non-starter in his area?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Yes, door-to-door stuff does happen a lot but I think whether you've seen it may all depend on where you live (as parties have fewer volunteers these days they have to target resources where they're most likely to be effective). Also telephone canvassing is becoming more popular, I think, as it enables you to reach a lot of people without trudging up their garden paths.

My instinct is that a lot of people have signed up for Jeremy Corbyn, will vote for him, but then won't be around when the telephoning / leaflet delivering / canvassing starts with the hard work of selling Corbyn on the door step. But, hey, I could be wrong and they might all be in for the long haul.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

I have come across door knocking in my area, but I'm not surprised that Arethesemyfeet, from his location, doesn't see it. It's a slightly different prospect knocking door to door down streets, not so easy in spread out rural areas.

When I lived in a rural community of 120 people spread across farming country I never saw door to door knocking either. Then the politicians set up stall in the local town on market day.

Other times I've seen the politicians try to catch parents at the school gates (it's how I met one of our local guys, cycling past him into school).

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Our island has around 500 registered voters spread across 30 square miles. A more efficient use of time would be discussing politics with people I see anyway, either in person or online. Oddly, I think, canvassing works better in an anonymous situation. When you already know a lot of the folk it can become tangled in other relationships and I don't think that's a good thing.

I suspect that it is true that a lot of the new sign ups won't be particularly active, but it's worth remembering that a lot of long-time Labour members also support Corbyn, and in any party not all members are activists.

[ 06. September 2015, 13:43: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
My instinct is that a lot of people have signed up for Jeremy Corbyn, will vote for him, but then won't be around when the telephoning / leaflet delivering / canvassing starts with the hard work of selling Corbyn on the door step. But, hey, I could be wrong and they might all be in for the long haul.

I might. I resigned from Labour Party membership when it got rid of clause 4. Before that, I did a lot of door to door work - seeing it as a 'witness' for kingdom values.

Now that there's a chance of something akin to clause 4 returning, I might resume my commitment.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Yes, door-to-door stuff does happen a lot but I think whether you've seen it may all depend on where you live (as parties have fewer volunteers these days they have to target resources where they're most likely to be effective).

I suspect the lack of canvassing here may not be unconnected both to the obscenely large Labour majorities and to the obscenely low turnouts in this part of the world.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Is there no hope then that get-out-the-vote campaigns would be worth doing then?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

38 Degrees had a campaign on Join the Vote in April before the General Election with mixed results. Voter turnout in the 2015 general election was 66.1% compared to 65.1% in 2010.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I might. I resigned from Labour Party membership when it got rid of clause 4. Before that, I did a lot of door to door work - seeing it as a 'witness' for kingdom values.

Now that there's a chance of something akin to clause 4 returning, I might resume my commitment.

Sorry Leo. I was minded to sit on my hands, but I can't let that pass. What on earth is the connection between clause 4 and kingdom values?

If someone were to say that they campaigned for flat rate taxation or a leave vote in the EU referendum because they saw it as witnessing to kingdom values, they would rightly be mocked back to the local party office. IMHO the same goes for clause 4. There is no difference.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Here are the two versions:

http://www.labourcounts.com/oldclausefour.htm

Personally, I think the new one is better if taken at face value - but they are both freighted with subtext.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

I suspect that the three quid brigade's enthusiasm for canvassing may well depend on where they live. In Old Labour heartlands (Northern Cities, the Welsh valleys, inner London), representatives of a Corbyn-lead Labour Party may well be invited in for a drink. If they doorstep floating voters in Basildon or St.Ives the reception will be somewhat less effusive.

I stand by my prediction earlier in this thread that if JC is Labour leader at the next general election (and does anyone think that's likely, I mean seriously?), then many sitting Labour MPs will be returned with increased majorities but more marginals will be lost.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Is there no hope then that get-out-the-vote campaigns would be worth doing then?

Well I eat my words. Having checked the statistics, it seems the turnout this time round matched the national average. Which means it has almost doubled from 2005 when it was 37.5%.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I might. I resigned from Labour Party membership when it got rid of clause 4. Before that, I did a lot of door to door work - seeing it as a 'witness' for kingdom values.

Now that there's a chance of something akin to clause 4 returning, I might resume my commitment.
Sorry Leo. I was minded to sit on my hands, but I can't let that pass. What on earth is the connection between clause 4 and kingdom values?

If someone were to say that they campaigned for flat rate taxation or a leave vote in the EU referendum because they saw it as witnessing to kingdom values, they would rightly be mocked back to the local party office. IMHO the same goes for clause 4. There is no difference.

I did not say that Clause 4 was a kingdom value but that canvassing was a witness to such values - it would take a long study of Isaiah to detail them but disarmament, equalities, elimination of poverty and hunger, righting injutsice will do for starters.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I did not say that Clause 4 was a kingdom value but that canvassing was a witness to such values - it would take a long study of Isaiah to detail them but disarmament, equalities, elimination of poverty and hunger, righting injutsice will do for starters.

That sums up the historical problem in the Labour Party. Some people were and still are so preoccupied with means that they have lost sight of the objectives. There's plenty of room for arguing that all those things which you mention, and more besides, aren't dependent on the existence and implementation of Clause 4 (or an equivalent). Clause 4 might have given a doctrinal basis for all those things but nothing more than that, and another doctrinal basis could have done just as well. Instead we got Mandelson and Blair [Frown]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

But common ownership is the key to Claise 4 - andf the practice of the early chburch.

For how i see socialism reflecting kingdom values.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

At first when it started to look like Corbyn might win there was talk from some people on the Bairite wing of the Labour Party about launching an immediate leadership coup against him. That talk rapidly faded. Then there was talk of ptting Corbyn 'on notice' that he had effectively 18 months notice to prove himself before he might be challenged. That talk has also faded. The latest idea was to reintroduce the Parliamentary Shadow Cabinet elections that Labour had until 2011. The idea being it would be a way for the Parliamentary Labour Party to put limits on Corbyn's power. Now it seems that idea is off the cards as well

quote:
In the end, none of those in favour of elections laid a motion, meaning there will be not be a vote at next week’s meeting. It will be the first to be chaired by whoever is selected as the party’s new leader on Saturday.

It is the latest sign that opponents of Corbyn have all but given up on mounting any immediate challenge to his authority if he is elected leader.

MPs from the modernising [i.e. Blairite] wing of the party, including Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt, have called on colleagues to accept the result and embrace unity if Corbyn wins.

The rival leadership campaigns have all ruled out legal attempts to challenge the results of the contest if they lose.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/07/jeremy-corbyns-critics-back-away-from-bid-to-elect-shadow-cabinet

Some people had speculated that Corbyn might have ahd quite a bit of trouble from backbenchers from the right of the party. However it looks to me as though the Blairites are in a full speed retreat even before the votes are counted. I suspect that they're doing this indicates they think he's not just going to win but win with a big majority

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

The day after Corbyn is elected (and I still don't accept that it's a done deal), the right wing media will open the trapdoor of the massive silo of stinking ordure that is currently hanging over his head. (They're holding fire at the moment because they want him to win.) The shitstorm will not stop or even abate for the next 4 years and 9 months, or until JC steps down for the good of his party and his own sanity.

After a year or two of this, and once Labour's poll ratings are firmly camped below 20%, the Blairites won't need to get any blood on their hands. Corbyn will have to quit long before the next election.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
The day after Corbyn is elected (and I still don't accept that it's a done deal), the right wing media will open the trapdoor of the massive silo of stinking ordure that is currently hanging over his head. (They're holding fire at the moment because they want him to win.) The shitstorm will not stop or even abate for the next 4 years and 9 months, or until JC steps down for the good of his party and his own sanity.

After a year or two of this, and once Labour's poll ratings are firmly camped below 20%, the Blairites won't need to get any blood on their hands. Corbyn will have to quit long before the next election.

I may agree with the first part of your analysis (though not the stepping down bit), but the second part doesn't necessarily follow.

Remember, Corbyn is not supposed to win. And yet, here he is, the undisputed front-runner. He's supposed to be unpopular, stuck in the eighties, a dinosaur, attached to all manner of unpopular causes, and, and.

The Right Wing Media will undoubtedly have a field day/week/month/year. Yet a few well-timed questions across the dispatch box, skewering the vacuous PR machine that is Cameron, public speeches on YouTube that the media can't skew, interviews where the public get to hear his unfiltered words - all of which he's doing now - could change the game. The more hysterical the Mail gets, the less effective it becomes. Even moderate Tory voters will suffer cognitive dissonance and start to question their usual mouthpieces. No one but the rabid right takes their news from Fox, and they're not going to vote for the Other Guy (or Gal) anyway.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

You know, I'd love to believe that. But Corbyn will be driving along the edge of a cliff for 4 years and sooner or later something will happen (it may be something apparently quite trivial) that'll cause the wheels to come off and send him crashing over.

I also still firmly believe that the floating voters in English marginals who decide general elections are not going to buy into the JC project. I'm afraid theses people want to see their own economic prosperity safeguarded, first and foremost.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Whilst floating voters in English marginals have decided recent elections, it's pretty widely acknowledged that if Corbyn wins the leadership it's because he has changed the game. Corbyn doesn't need to target tories to win a majority. The tory vote was such a small proportion of the electorate that he could win without taking a single vote from them. Even if he just piles up votes in safe Labour areas and gets a significant plurality of the national vote without winning a plurality of seats then the clamour for PR will become deafening.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I also still firmly believe that the floating voters in English marginals who decide general elections are not going to buy into the JC project. I'm afraid theses people want to see their own economic prosperity safeguarded, first and foremost.

The irony being that their own economic prosperity (and that of their children) is being fatally undermined by:

(a) capitalism entering an end-game scenario where a very few people own absolutely everything,

and

(b) their inability to make choices that might change that.

All we're left with at the end of that road is to burn shit down. I'd like to avoid that, if only for my kids' sake.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The right wing political parties (not just in the UK) have managed to sell a story that says that what's good for the people at the top of the ladder is good for everyone. They tell us stories about trickle-down benefits. And, even when everyone knows that it just doesn't work like that, people still believe it. And, the turkeys vote for Christmas. Time after time.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
The day after Corbyn is elected (and I still don't accept that it's a done deal), the right wing media will open the trapdoor of the massive silo of stinking ordure that is currently hanging over his head. (They're holding fire at the moment because they want him to win.) The shitstorm will not stop or even abate for the next 4 years and 9 months, or until JC steps down for the good of his party and his own sanity.

After a year or two of this, and once Labour's poll ratings are firmly camped below 20%, the Blairites won't need to get any blood on their hands. Corbyn will have to quit long before the next election.

Dropping a massive silo of stinking ordure over the heads of the leaders of opposition parties is what the press do. Miliband had nearly five years of it non stop. Farage's had the hostility of most of the press, especially the Tory supporting newspapers the Mail and The Times. In fact the only party leader not to get this treatment was the press' golden boy David Cameron. If Miliband can put up with five years of non stop insults I think Corbyn could manage it as well. Don't forget that Corbyn's been through this before. In the eighties when he started his career he was part of what the tabloids called the 'loony left' that was heavily attacked y those tabloids.

Second don't expect the Labour vote to collapse. Firstly many of the middle of the road floating voters who gave Blair his huge majorities have already switched to other parties. Secondly although he'll lose some voters he'll also gain some, specifically Green voters, non voters (especially younger non-voters) and non ideological protest voters. Labour's poll numbers may or may not dip but thy won't collapse.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
You know, I'd love to believe that. But Corbyn will be driving along the edge of a cliff for 4 years and sooner or later something will happen (it may be something apparently quite trivial) that'll cause the wheels to come off and send him crashing over.

I also still firmly believe that the floating voters in English marginals who decide general elections are not going to buy into the JC project. I'm afraid theses people want to see their own economic prosperity safeguarded, first and foremost.

I think that's right. I've been saying since the election, that if Osborne can deliver prosperity for the middle class for the next 5 years, they will win again.

It's rather a big if, though. It assumes that neo-liberalism, having crashed the world economy, will now become a peaceful ocean of prosperity. Well, maybe.

It also assumes that Cameron and Osborne will not crash on various rocks which lie ahead.

The refugee issue has shown them (in my book, at least), to be moral pygmies, who produce shame in fellow citizens. Obviously, not everyone feels the same.

Ah well, we live in interesting times.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pink Floyd:

New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I'll buy me a football team

Money, get back
I'm all right, Jack, keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit
I'm in the hi-fidelity first class traveling set

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I think that's right. I've been saying since the election, that if Osborne can deliver prosperity for the middle class for the next 5 years, they will win again.

The problem at this point is that absent success in the UK itself - we are reliant on most of the rest of the world taking off. Even if the US could potentially be healthy, Europe looks likely to flounder for the next 5 years and Chinese growth - even if they continue to pull it off - is not likely to enrich the UK.

The second issue is that the middle classes are getting to the age where even if they have a fairly reasonable housing situation - sitting on tons of equity having paid off their mortgage - their children are far less fortunate - and all temporarily fixes to this would inflate the housing bubble even further.

The final issue is Europe, if we have moribund trade and a floundering Europe - that could pull both wings of the party even further apart.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The right wing political parties (not just in the UK) have managed to sell a story that says that what's good for the people at the top of the ladder is good for everyone. They tell us stories about trickle-down benefits. And, even when everyone knows that it just doesn't work like that, people still believe it. And, the turkeys vote for Christmas. Time after time.

This, I think is the crux of the matter.

Our democracy is desperately in need of some serious refreshing. For the debate to be better informed, and for the people at large to vote in their own interests. For the disadvantaged non-voters to turn out and vote.

The question is this: Will the (probable) ascension of Corbyn lead to such an effect? In which case, 2020 is very winnable for Labour. If not, then he cannot possibly win as the marginals are what it is all about.

I really am a proper-lefty and would love to see proper lefty policies. But unlike some (most?) of the left I don't think that the Blair/Brown governments were a disaster. There was a lot of good in there and I'd take Brown as PM / Darling as chancellor over the idiots we have at the moment every day of the week and at least twice on a Sunday.

The great failing of the left is that we let the best be the enemy of the good.

AFZ

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
for the people at large to vote in their own interests. For the disadvantaged non-voters to turn out and vote.

Or, even for people to vote in favour of those less advantaged than them, for the overall benefit of all in our nation and beyond.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
for the people at large to vote in their own interests. For the disadvantaged non-voters to turn out and vote.
Or, even for people to vote in favour of those less advantaged than them, for the overall benefit of all in our nation and beyond.

Absolutely. And for the record I am likely (in the short term) to be better off with the Tories. But the truth is - especially with the economic illiteracy and insanity (to quote Martin Wolf) of this government, people merely have to vote in their own interests. If they did very few would vote Tory.

This government won on the basis of a stunning propaganda victory which worries and saddens me. What worries me even more is that they seem to believe their own propaganda.

What I am longing for is the total and deserved deconstruction of this wall of misleading nonsense.

That is the future of UK socialism.

AFZ

P.s. If anyone wants me to provide evidence for my assertions above, I am more than happy to do so.
Long term economic plan

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

This government won on the basis of a stunning propaganda victory which worries and saddens me. What worries me even more is that they seem to believe their own propaganda.

I think they succeeded because they were able to get the media to buy into their propaganda to a large extent (see the general attitudes around things like the deficit, and regulation).

To that extent they are able to get away with things like this:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/61f867fa-2c76-11e5-8613-e7aedbb7bdb7.html#axzz3lELhcOa9

because there aren't many people joining up the dots.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, one thing I am hoping for from Corbyn is an intellectual and political deconstruction of neo-liberalism, which has been mystified by both Labour and Tory, so that very few people understand it.

It has begun to be seen as a natural and inevitable economic force, or set of forces, which we can only bow to. This seems unlikely to me, but at any rate, politicians don't generally actually discuss stuff like this.

People like Paul Mason have begun to open this up for discussion, so hopefully Labour will do the same, and not cower in their bunkers, parroting Tory phraseology, and intoning 'me too'.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I was going to quibble with alien's description of the current government as idiots. And then I remembered the origin. People - correction, men - who put their own interests and comfort above those of the demos. In the original case, by not attending the assembly of the people qualified to do so and taking part in the governance of the state. Not, obviously, the case here. But they certainly don't have the interests of the whole state in mind. So, idiots.

I certainly need neo-liberalism explained, and especially why it doesn't seem to have anything in common with the paleo-liberalism I grew up with.

[ 09. September 2015, 13:55: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, excessive deregulation led to a massive economic crash, but honestly, we have it under control now, and that nice Mr Osborne knows exactly when to press the accelerator, when to turn the steering wheel, so we should be .... CRASH.

Oh sorry, we're going to have to kill some more poor people. Never mind. Your weekly shop at Waitrose should be OK, you might find that Oyster Bay sparkling wine costs a little more, and your mortgage ditto. You're worth it.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I certainly need neo-liberalism explained, and especially why it doesn't seem to have anything in common with the paleo-liberalism I grew up with.

Right: paleo-liberalism is the doctrine that the government ought not to arbitrarily harass or imprison its subjects (especially at the behest of established churches). In particular, government ought not to arbitrarily confiscate their property. Nor ought it to artificially restrict trade by granting monopolies.
The political arguments for this are articulated by Locke. The economic arguments by Adam Smith.

From there, there are two ways you can go. One is to ask whether there any vested interests other than the government (and established churches) that are effectively harrassing people. The other is to ask whether there are any other ways in which the government is doing things to the displeasure of people with lots of property.

Progressive liberalism is when you take the first route out; you side against the wealthy when they start harassing people in their turn. Neo-liberalism is when you take the second path out of paleo-liberalism: you emphasis the importance of the interests of people with lots of property.

(That's obviously slanted, but I hope not misleading.)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

'Kill the poor' is just shorter.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
From there, there are two ways you can go. One is to ask whether there any vested interests other than the government (and established churches) that are effectively harrassing people. The other is to ask whether there are any other ways in which the government is doing things to the displeasure of people with lots of property.

Progressive liberalism is when you take the first route out; you side against the wealthy when they start harassing people in their turn. Neo-liberalism is when you take the second path out of paleo-liberalism: you emphasis the importance of the interests of people with lots of property.

(That's obviously slanted, but I hope not misleading.)

And of course libertarianism is for those that want to take neither route out but who want to stay at the paleo-liberal position. The trouble is that that the libertarian position is not a stable one. It will tend to lead to either progressivism or neo-liberalism. The last US President who could be described as a paleo-liberal, and one who is often cited as an example by people like Ron Paul, was Grover Cleaveland over 100 years ago and he was quickly followed by Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive era.

If you want to avoid both progressivism and neo-liberalism you also have to avoid libertarianism.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
The day after Corbyn is elected (and I still don't accept that it's a done deal), the right wing media will open the trapdoor of the massive silo of stinking ordure that is currently hanging over his head. (They're holding fire at the moment because they want him to win.) The shitstorm will not stop or even abate for the next 4 years and 9 months, or until JC steps down for the good of his party and his own sanity.

After a year or two of this, and once Labour's poll ratings are firmly camped below 20%, the Blairites won't need to get any blood on their hands. Corbyn will have to quit long before the next election.
Dropping a massive silo of stinking ordure over the heads of the leaders of opposition parties is what the press do. Miliband had nearly five years of it non stop. Farage's had the hostility of most of the press, especially the Tory supporting newspapers the Mail and The Times. In fact the only party leader not to get this treatment was the press' golden boy David Cameron. If Miliband can put up with five years of non stop insults I think Corbyn could manage it as well. Don't forget that Corbyn's been through this before. In the eighties when he started his career he was part of what the tabloids called the 'loony left' that was heavily attacked y those tabloids.

Second don't expect the Labour vote to collapse. Firstly many of the middle of the road floating voters who gave Blair his huge majorities have already switched to other parties. Secondly although he'll lose some voters he'll also gain some, specifically Green voters, non voters (especially younger non-voters) and non ideological protest voters. Labour's poll numbers may or may not dip but thy won't collapse.

Firstly, I think that all previous media goading of political figures, included that handed out to Milliband, Brown, even Foot, Hatton (and Corbyn) etc. in the Eighties, will look like gentle playground teasing compared to the ordeal which awaits Corbyn as Labour leader. As someone who didn't actually want the job that much, and had to be persuaded to stand, I suspect he may say "I just don't need this at my time of life", and try to arrange a handover to an anointed successor. Then things could get interesting.

In fact I'm wondering if that actually is his plan. He must know as well as anyone that the British electorate are not going to make him prime minister. Sorry, they just aren't. There is as much chance of Elvis winning the next Derby on Shergar. But he may be able to move the Labour party away from timid triangulation and bring on a generation of young leaders who have some guts and conviction, something that Blair/Brown signally failed to do.

Secondly, I am very sceptical of an electoral strategy that relies on the votes of non-voters. Non-voters don't vote, hence the epithet.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, if Osborne delivers 5 years of prosperity, then the electorate will not make any Labour leader prime minister.

However, that is one massive if. For example, it assumes that there won't be another economic crash, and that Cameron and Osborne will not crash onto various rocks.

To me, they resemble a couple of spivs, trying to sell you life insurance down the local market. We shall see.

PS. I used to have a nice folder, full of old articles explaining why the SNP could not possibly obliterate Labour in the last election.

[ 09. September 2015, 17:00: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I certainly need neo-liberalism explained, and especially why it doesn't seem to have anything in common with the paleo-liberalism I grew up with.

Neo-liberalism is, like any other terminology open to interpretation and gets applied in slightly differing ways. However, put simply, it is a belief that markets are the most efficient way to distribute resources and hence make us all better off (Most economists believe this bit). And moreover markets work best when left alone as much as possible. More precisely it is thought that government actions 'distort' markets. 'Trickle-down' economics often goes along with this - that if policies help the wealthy, all will benefit as the economy is better off.

Obviously governments are vital, in the sense that national defence is important. War would definitely distort the market. Property rights are important so the state needs to do that and the whole legal framework. However, government should do as little else as possible. Taxes are thus a necessary evil and should be kept as low as possible. The market knows best. Markets don't fail. Regulation is bad. These are the basic mantras of neoliberalism. The strongest advocates are against state schooling and certainly healthcare provision. Social security is a dangerous distortion of the market and a moral hazard.

Non-thinking advocates say things like "You can't manage an economy or interfere in any way - just look at communism..." Conversely there is a lot of academic work in this area, most notably from the Chicago school. This body of work consists of some excellent models that have brilliant internal consistently but don't work very well in the real world.

The only problem really is that the 2008-9 economic crisis is the mother-of-all-market-failures.

If you read Paul Krugman's blog (Nobel Prize winner) he is very good at pointing to the evidence that supports his assertions. Evidence is most notably absent (or fatally flawed by not knowing how to work Excel) on the other side.

If you want to move beyond dry economics to the societal effects there are a lot of places to look but one that is well established and easily accessible is the charts of productivity and real wages since WWII. There are many versions of this but basically since the second world war in the UK (and in the US) productivity has increased consistently. Until 1980, real wages tracked this increase. Since 1980 real wages have flat-lined as the wealth generated by productivity gains have been concentrated at the top. Stiglitz (Nobel Prize winner) has written a lot about how this kind of inequality is deeply destablising to the economy as a whole. There are lots of versions of this data around. They all look the same and tell the same story:this one is US data. This is important as it shows that it is a complete lie that the market knows best and is 'natural.' What we actually have is a skewed system that concentrates wealth.

Moreover it is a complete lie that to make business thrive, government needs to get out of its way. If you look properly, many of the great sucesses of big business have benefited hugely from basic research funded by the state sector. Not to mention having a safe, healthy and well educated populus to recruit a work-force from. Another interesting tale is that of Rolls Royce aero engines. In the late 1960s they developed the fan-jet engine - specifically the RB211. This subsequently was superceded by the Trent series which powers just about every type of big airliner flying today. Turbofans are the industry standard for jetliners and were a big step forward in jet technology. Unfortunately, developing the RB211 bancrupted Rolls Royce. The government rescued them in 1971 by nationalising the company. It was privatised in 1987. The point being that Rolls Royce is a world leader in aero-engines and a big employer and a big tax-payer in the form of corporation tax. None of which would be true if it hadn't been saved by the government. But of course, all government intervention is bad.

If you have the time, I would very much recommend this symposium: The economic possibilities for the new government. Saïd Business School, University of Oxford It's really informative and interesting. Sir David Hendry is especially worth listening to.

AFZ

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
Secondly, I am very sceptical of an electoral strategy that relies on the votes of non-voters. Non-voters don't vote, hence the epithet.

The thing is there are various groups of non-voters, and if someone manages to get one or more of those groups to become voters then that could have a significant influence on an electoral result. But, an electoral strategy also has to include convincing the undecided voters to vote for you. So, an exclusive reliance on getting non-voters to the polls is probably unwise.

I think the groups of non-voters that may be enticed to the polls to vote for Labour include:

The "they're all the same so it doesn't make any difference who I vote for" group. Putting up a party lead by someone who is clearly not the same as everyone else may get them to vote - although it's a two edged sword since some of this group may decide that they don't want the different candidate.
Those who are currently teenagers and will get their first election, and younger people generally. Studies I've seen have all shown that young people are generally more concerned over social justice issues, more likely to be left leaning in their politics, more likely to get involved in protests and direct action, but also less likely to actually vote. Corbyn is known to also be involved in the same protests, and may be seen as electable. And, Corbyn has made extensive use of social media, which will also put him in the face of younger people a bit more. I also think that Mhari Black might be a strong influence in encouraging younger people to vote, as an example of a young person making it to the Commons - I know her first speech was widely shared on social media.

Of course, those who simply can't be arsed to vote will still not vote. But, there is scope for increasing voter turnout from some sectors. And, with many seats relatively marginal even getting a few percent higher turnout may be enough to swing some seats.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
... This government won on the basis of a stunning propaganda victory which worries and saddens me. What worries me even more is that they seem to believe their own propaganda. ... [/URL]

Nonsense.

This government managed to get an overall majority on the basis of an unconvincing 37% of the poll. There's nothing stunning about that. ⅔ of those that voted, voted for someone else. Nor is there anything about that which gives them a legitimate mandate to implement Conservative policies rather than just steer the ship.

However, a lot more of that ⅔ voted for someone else than voted Labour. It was 37% Conservative, 30& Labour and 33% somebody else.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Thank you very much. I shall try to make time for further reading, though I have come to the conclusion that I was probably brought up in meso-liberalism, which was leaning to progressivism. My grandfather, for example, was the secretary of his local Liberal party in the 19naughties, but also organising the local branch of Joseph Arch's agricultural workers' union (which led to him being doubted by the local solicitor's wife, but admired by the local lady bountiful.) And when I started to vote, I would go down the three documents and tick the policies I agreed with, and cross those I didn't. (Except that halfway through the Tory's I would black out with marker.) And I always ticked more of the Liberal's as they then were. Grimond's time, that was.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
... This government won on the basis of a stunning propaganda victory which worries and saddens me. What worries me even more is that they seem to believe their own propaganda. ... [/URL]
Nonsense.

This government managed to get an overall majority on the basis of an unconvincing 37% of the poll. There's nothing stunning about that. ⅔ of those that voted, voted for someone else. Nor is there anything about that which gives them a legitimate mandate to implement Conservative policies rather than just steer the ship.

However, a lot more of that ⅔ voted for someone else than voted Labour. It was 37% Conservative, 30& Labour and 33% somebody else.

Notwithstanding your point about how our electoral system skews the popular vote, the Tories still won.

And this was only achieved because people believe in their 'economic competence.' That is supported by multiple opinion polls of who people trust and by consistent long term data that economics is a big driver of voting. If you look at the data, there is no doubt (happy to provide links) that they have seriously and consistently mismanaged the economy. Seriously the idea that Osborne is economic competent is astounding and laughable. In real terms our economy is in a much worse state than in 2010. (Martin Wolf makes that point in the link I provided above, and he could hardly be called a socialist). Therefore my point stands, they won because of an astounding propaganda achievement.

AFZ

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
<snip>

Moreover it is a complete lie that to make business thrive, government needs to get out of its way. If you look properly, many of the great sucesses of big business have benefited hugely from basic research funded by the state sector. Not to mention having a safe, healthy and well educated populus to recruit a work-force from. Another interesting tale is that of Rolls Royce aero engines. In the late 1960s they developed the fan-jet engine - specifically the RB211. This subsequently was superceded by the Trent series which powers just about every type of big airliner flying today. Turbofans are the industry standard for jetliners and were a big step forward in jet technology. Unfortunately, developing the RB211 bankrupted Rolls Royce. The government rescued them in 1971 by nationalising the company. It was privatised in 1987. The point being that Rolls Royce is a world leader in aero-engines and a big employer and a big tax-payer in the form of corporation tax. None of which would be true if it hadn't been saved by the government. But of course, all government intervention is bad.

If you have the time, I would very much recommend this symposium: The economic possibilities for the new government. Saïd Business School, University of Oxford It's really informative and interesting. Sir David Hendry is especially worth listening to.

AFZ [/QB]

Of course, the neo-liberal purist would just say that it should have been allowed to fail, backers should have sucked up losses, and someone else would have come along to hoover up the good bits and the engines would have been developed anyway.

There are certainly lots of people of all political/economic persuasions wondering why the government bailed out lots of banks aren't there?

My recollection of the Rolls Royce type bail out is that it's more political in nature, rather than economic - the prospect of lost jobs, "world leading company" etc etc. That doesn't make it wrong by any means, but it's not based purely on economics.

Are those sort of bailouts legal under "state aid" legislation nowadays anyway? What do you think the government would do if (for example) Dyson announced they were bust today?

Anyway, with the ballot closed, the most up to date bookmakers odds have Corbyn nailed on. But I'm a Methodist, so of course I've only looked at them ;-)

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

True and counterfactual are always problematic.

I would say that without the state aid aircraft engines would only be made in America. I think it difficult to convincingly argue that the state intervention was a bad think unless you're a purist. And I've not seen any evidence to support that purism.

AFZ

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

I agree, and in the real world politics and economics are inseparable anyway. Labour, Conservatives etc etc might as well be called "Economic Parties" rather than "Politial Parties"

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Labour, Conservatives etc etc might as well be called "Economic Parties" rather than "Politial Parties"

Given that they rarely have differing solutions, perhaps they should just be collectively called 'The Economic Party'.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Notwithstanding your point about how our electoral system skews the popular vote, the Tories still won.

I'm not disputing that. It's the word 'stunning' that I'm disagreeing with.

Nor can anyone argue that they achieved this so called 'stunning' victory because of the amazing quality of their propaganda. If it had been that good, they would have won a proper victory. The more rational conclusion is that more of the public were not-very-convinced by what they knew than by what Labour was saying.

It's a non sequitur to say that because one snake oil salesman tells you that another one's product is rubbish, then his own snake oil must be fantastic.

[ 10. September 2015, 14:50: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This government managed to get an overall majority on the basis of an unconvincing 37% of the poll. There's nothing stunning about that. ⅔ of those that voted, voted for someone else. Nor is there anything about that which gives them a legitimate mandate to implement Conservative policies rather than just steer the ship.

I would point out that the combined total of the Conservative, UKIP, DUP and UUP vote was 50.5%. That the first time in a very long time that parties of the right and centre right have gained a majority of the UK vote between them. Of course Nick Clegg was on the centre right side of the Lib Dem vote and if you add in the Lib Dem vote you get to 58.4%. In England alone this goes up to 63.3%. None of that sounds like a ringing endorsement of the left.

Given that Cameron himself is governing from the centre right, indeed his position is not too far from that of the Labour Blairites, given that all the signals are that his response to a Corbyn victory will be to move further towards a Blairite position and further away from the right of his party I don't think you need have too much fear that he will implement conservative policies rather than just 'steer the ship'.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

Another little example here of how the Conservative Party is not very conservative. From an article by the chairman of the conservative think tank the Bow Group

quote:
I recently sat in on a string of intern interviews where two consistent questions were asked of every candidate: “why are you a conservative?”, and “Who do you want to be the next President of the United States?” Half of the candidates described their long-term commitment to conservatism, before expressing their support for Hillary Clinton.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/10/the-last-of-the-conservatives-why-peter-hitchens-shouldnt-give-up-the-fight-just-y et/

[ 10. September 2015, 15:22: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Another little example here of how the Conservative Party is not very conservative. From an article by the chairman of the conservative think tank the Bow Group

quote:
I recently sat in on a string of intern interviews where two consistent questions were asked of every candidate: “why are you a conservative?”, and “Who do you want to be the next President of the United States?” Half of the candidates described their long-term commitment to conservatism, before expressing their support for Hillary Clinton.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/10/the-last-of-the-conservatives-why-peter-hitchens-shouldnt-give-up-the-fight-just-y et/

That sounds like another version of 'no true Scotsman'.

Is that organisation a credible and respected news site? Or is it a nest of loonies? I've never heard of it before.

An alternative view is that as the Conservative Party has called itself by that name for over 150 years, it now defines the word, rather than vice versa.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Another little example here of how the Conservative Party is not very conservative. From an article by the chairman of the conservative think tank the Bow Group

quote:
I recently sat in on a string of intern interviews where two consistent questions were asked of every candidate: “why are you a conservative?”, and “Who do you want to be the next President of the United States?” Half of the candidates described their long-term commitment to conservatism, before expressing their support for Hillary Clinton.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/10/the-last-of-the-conservatives-why-peter-hitchens-shouldnt-give-up-the-fight-just-y et/
That sounds like another version of 'no true Scotsman'.

Is that organisation a credible and respected news site? Or is it a nest of loonies? I've never heard of it before.

An alternative view is that as the Conservative Party has called itself by that name for over 150 years, it now defines the word, rather than vice versa.

Breitbart? For someone that's never heard of it "nest of loonies" is remarkably appropriate - well done that man! It is reasonably a real thing, however, in terms of presence and reach.

Incidentally, the Bow Group is also a nest of loonies - in Tory circles it's the Thatcherite true believers - sort of the Tory equivalent of Progress.

At least you know where you stand with Cornerstone, or the TRG - or the Fabians for that matter.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Another little example here of how the Conservative Party is not very conservative. From an article by the chairman of the conservative think tank the Bow Group

quote:
I recently sat in on a string of intern interviews where two consistent questions were asked of every candidate: “why are you a conservative?”, and “Who do you want to be the next President of the United States?” Half of the candidates described their long-term commitment to conservatism, before expressing their support for Hillary Clinton.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/10/the-last-of-the-conservatives-why-peter-hitchens-shouldnt-give-up-the-fight-just-y et/

Or they might have concluded that since the Democrats and the Republicans are both considerably to the right of the UK right of centre, either party is fine by their standards, and so they'd better just choose the one less likely to yield Donald Trump or Sarah Pailin as president.

A bit like how lots of people might have thought there wasn't much between Labour and Conservatives, and thought Cameron would be the better bet.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

Actually it strikes me even today that "Conservative" is just a convenient banner to rally around, in much the same way as others adopt "socialist."

Within the Conservative Party (as indeed within Labour or any other party of mass appeal) there are a number of mutually antagonistic tribes who one gets the impression have narrowly passed a majority vote to co-operate for the day...

Cornerstone - paleo-c/Conservative faith, flag and family types
Bow Group - dry, economic hangout for dessicated calculating machines; Bentham lives. Slightly surpirsingly, they did somehow invent World Refugee Year once.
No Turning Back - having reconsidered my post above, these are the red in tooth and claw Thatcherites
Tory Reform Group - Heath was right, corporatist, borderline 19th century municipal socialists really

Then there are your non-aligned wets, dries, shire Tories, libertarians, National Liberals (who still exist in temperament if not name), Liberal Unionists (ditto), One Nationers, Red Tories (who were a thing long before Blue Labour, incidentally), etc

all jumbled up nicely behind the same blue rosette.

No wonder they don't get on occasionally.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Another little example here of how the Conservative Party is not very conservative. From an article by the chairman of the conservative think tank the Bow Group

quote:
I recently sat in on a string of intern interviews where two consistent questions were asked of every candidate: “why are you a conservative?”, and “Who do you want to be the next President of the United States?” Half of the candidates described their long-term commitment to conservatism, before expressing their support for Hillary Clinton.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/10/the-last-of-the-conservatives-why-peter-hitchens-shouldnt-give-up-the-fight-just-y et/
Or they might have concluded that since the Democrats and the Republicans are both considerably to the right of the UK right of centre, either party is fine by their standards, and so they'd better just choose the one less likely to yield Donald Trump or Sarah Pailin as president.

A bit like how lots of people might have thought there wasn't much between Labour and Conservatives, and thought Cameron would be the better bet.

In fairness, many Tories of my acquaintance support Hillary precisely because she is the less right wing of the two, rather than there just being no need to differentiate. The entire British political spectrum is somewhere to the left of the US one, such that even some of our headbanging righties are nearly dangerous socialists in the eyes of some.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Given that Cameron himself is governing from the centre right, indeed his position is not too far from that of the Labour Blairites, given that all the signals are that his response to a Corbyn victory will be to move further towards a Blairite position and further away from the right of his party I don't think you need have too much fear that he will implement conservative policies rather than just 'steer the ship'.

The idea that this government is centre-anything is ridiculous and obscene actually.

Economic policy
Social Security
Home Office policy
NHS

to name but four areas that are of vital importance to the nation and being run from a radical-right agenda. (I'm back up my assertions when you back up yours)

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Notwithstanding your point about how our electoral system skews the popular vote, the Tories still won.
I'm not disputing that. It's the word 'stunning' that I'm disagreeing with.

Nor can anyone argue that they achieved this so called 'stunning' victory because of the amazing quality of their propaganda. If it had been that good, they would have won a proper victory. The more rational conclusion is that more of the public were not-very-convinced by what they knew than by what Labour was saying.

It's a non sequitur to say that because one snake oil salesman tells you that another one's product is rubbish, then his own snake oil must be fantastic.

I stand by my choice of adjective.

If you agree Martin Wolf (or Simon Wren-Lewis, or Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Krugman... etc.) that this government has totally mismanaged the economy then to win (whatever the mathematics) is astounding. Logic would suggest that such a level of incompetence would equal electoral wipe-out.

So, yeah, stunning is, I think, the right word.

AFZ

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

alienfromzog

To give one example of an area where the government has a centrist Blairite agenda rather than anything right wing, Education policy. This government has continued to encourage Academy schools, introduced by Blair's Labour government. They've also introduced the rather Blairite project of Free schools. However have they had any schools policy that could be described as genuinely right wing e.g. supporting grammar schools, private schools or home schooling. Have they lifted the ban on new grammar schools? No, quite the reverse, all Free schools are required to be comprehensives. Have they done anything to encourage homeschooling? No. Have they even talked about introducing school vouchers? No, they haven't even reintroduced the Assisted Places scheme from private schools abolished by Blair. And on top of that you have the continued pushing of political correctness by the odious Nicky Morgan.

Its true that they haven't adopted any of the hard left policies of banning grammar schools, private schools, homeschooling or indeed Free schools. however not having any of those hard left policies doesn't make them right wing, it just makes them centrist.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

Education? Really?

Firstly, whilst I am not one to declare Blair to be a secret Tory, the policy of academies is not one I'm a big fan of anyway. But there are some subtle but important differences between the policies:

To quote the BBC:

quote:

Are academies all about improving failing schools?

Not any more. The policy, which originated under Labour, aimed to improve struggling schools, primarily in deprived areas.

And this continues under the sponsored-academy model, where failing schools are taken over and run by an academy trust, usually under a new principal and governing body.

But this has been changed radically and accelerated by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.

Now all schools - primary as well as secondary - have been invited to convert to academy status, but priority has being given to those deemed by education watchdog Ofsted to be "outstanding" or "performing well".

Acadamisation (yes, apparently that is the word) is all about undermining local education authorities and setting up schools as independent entities. Or effectively private businesses.

This coupled with a misty-eyed nostalgia about what 1950's curriculum which is desperately unsuited to the 21st century is not particular centrist.

C- Must try harder.

AFZ

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Education? Really?

Firstly, whilst I am not one to declare Blair to be a secret Tory, the policy of academies is not one I'm a big fan of anyway. But there are some subtle but important differences between the policies:

To quote the BBC:

quote:

Are academies all about improving failing schools?

Not any more. The policy, which originated under Labour, aimed to improve struggling schools, primarily in deprived areas.

And this continues under the sponsored-academy model, where failing schools are taken over and run by an academy trust, usually under a new principal and governing body.

But this has been changed radically and accelerated by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.

Now all schools - primary as well as secondary - have been invited to convert to academy status, but priority has being given to those deemed by education watchdog Ofsted to be "outstanding" or "performing well".
Acadamisation (yes, apparently that is the word) is all about undermining local education authorities and setting up schools as independent entities. Or effectively private businesses.

This coupled with a misty-eyed nostalgia about what 1950's curriculum which is desperately unsuited to the 21st century is not particular centrist.

C- Must try harder.

AFZ

I'm not sure what exactly you think is right wing about any of that? Also if that's the right wing position and the left wing position is compulsory comprehensive schools for everyone (I think we can agree that is the left wing position unless you can think of anything further to the left of that) then I'm not sure where you think the centre ground is? what would you consider to be a centrist policy?

If the government's schools policy is right wing why have they not lifted the ban on new grammar schools?

If the government's schools policy is right wing why have they not reintroduced the assisted places scheme to support private schools?

It the government's school's policy is right wing why have they done nothing to support home schooling?

And finally if their policy is right wing why do people like Nicky Morgan continue to push political correctness in schools?

[ 10. September 2015, 19:20: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
And finally if their policy is right wing why do people like Nicky Morgan continue to push political correctness in schools?

Probably because if any government in this country re-introduced the right of teachers and pupils to discriminate against gays, women and blacks, it'd be overturned very rapidly in the courts, and the education secretary at the time would have to resign.

YMMV.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
And finally if their policy is right wing why do people like Nicky Morgan continue to push political correctness in schools?
Probably because if any government in this country re-introduced the right of teachers and pupils to discriminate against gays, women and blacks, it'd be overturned very rapidly in the courts, and the education secretary at the time would have to resign.

YMMV.

Not to mention that "political correctness" actually means "being nice to other people", and (I believe this was put in the mouth of Granny Weatherwax) "not treating other people like things". why on earth would anyone suggest resiling from doing those things?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

I'm not sure what exactly you think is right wing about any of that?

I think that having lost some of their ability to shore up priviledge using the instruments of the state (grammar schools) they have instead hit on the policy the gradual privatisation of school provision via free schools.

The vast majority of free schools are opened in areas in which there is already a surplus of school places - and generally they have been found to be less 'comprehensive' than similar schools in the same area if you start to measure things like numbers of children receiving free school meals, speaking English as a second language, having special needs etc.

At the same time, this is modern Britain, so the idealogical element has run in parallel to that of the spiv - with a lot of chains being run as leveraged property companies, or captive markets for the services provided by other companies in their owners 'portfolio'.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Academisation also means transferring publicly owned land to private owners, who can then do with it what they will. Build houses on it. Sell it to other concerns. Whatever. That is definitely not left wing, and I don't think it is centrist, either.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

I'm not sure what exactly you think is right wing about any of that?
I think that having lost some of their ability to shore up priviledge using the instruments of the state (grammar schools) they have instead hit on the policy the gradual privatisation of school provision via free schools.

But if they were really right wing why wouldn't they encourage the opening of new grammar schools. They haven't lost the ability to do that, they have a Parliamentary majority. They don't do it because they don't want to, just like they don't want to, just like they don't want to reintroduce the assisted places scheme or support homeschooling.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The vast majority of free schools are opened in areas in which there is already a surplus of school places - and generally they have been found to be less 'comprehensive' than similar schools in the same area if you start to measure things like numbers of children receiving free school meals, speaking English as a second language, having special needs etc.

So as a result of the government's policies there are now more comprehensives in Britain not less. Doesn't sound very right wing to me. You make the case that these new comprehensives are a bit less comprehensive but that would make the policy centre right at most.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

But if they were really right wing why wouldn't they encourage the opening of new grammar schools. They haven't lost the ability to do that, they have a Parliamentary majority. They don't do it because they don't want to, just like they don't want to, just like they don't want to reintroduce the assisted places scheme or support homeschooling.

I suspect that Dave 'n' Gideon don't want Grammar Schools or assisted places back as they encourage the hoi polloi to get above their station.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

They are right wing not stupid, the research underpining grammar schools has been fairly comprehensively debunked / discredited.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
And finally if their policy is right wing why do people like Nicky Morgan continue to push political correctness in schools?
Probably because if any government in this country re-introduced the right of teachers and pupils to discriminate against gays, women and blacks, it'd be overturned very rapidly in the courts, and the education secretary at the time would have to resign.

YMMV.
Not to mention that "political correctness" actually means "being nice to other people", and (I believe this was put in the mouth of Granny Weatherwax) "not treating other people like things". why on earth would anyone suggest resiling from doing those things?

Obviously I don't agree with your characterisation of Political Correctness as being the same thing as being nice. Leaving that question to one side however whether or not you want to call these kind of policies

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/ofsted-denies-enforcing-political-correctness/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11253436/Ofsted-rural-schools-failing-to-promote-British-values.html

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/27/christian-school-where-ofsted-branded-pupils-bigots-will-close-education-secretary -confirms/

political correctness or whether you want to call it 'being nice' doesn't make any of these policies 'right wing' when they are clearly not.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

So as a result of the government's policies there are now more comprehensives in Britain not less. Doesn't sound very right wing to me. You make the case that these new comprehensives are a bit less comprehensive but that would make the policy centre right at most.

Not really, enriching themselves and their chums takes precedence. I believe Peter Oborne (who is more of a true conservative than Hitchens) has written on the subject quite extensively.

And make no mistake - these are comprehensives in name only - the idea is to skim off the children that are easiest (read cheapest) to teach.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

I'm not sure what exactly you think is right wing about any of that?
I think that having lost some of their ability to shore up priviledge using the instruments of the state (grammar schools) they have instead hit on the policy the gradual privatisation of school provision via free schools.

As well as giving more power to parents, these reforms presumably cut out Local Education Authorities that were often seen by central government as a block on reform?

___

Sadiq Khan's victory in the London Mayoral contest today suggests that Corbyn's got it in the bag.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
But if they were really right wing why wouldn't they encourage the opening of new grammar schools.

Because there is nothing particularly right-wing about grammar schools except in a vague 'everything was better in the 1950s' sense?

Some of the Warsaw Pact countries had grammar schools - and in some ways grammar schools make more sense if you have a planned economy. In a planned economy it's reasonable to earmark a set number of children for the 'academic' track - you know approximately how many professionals you'll need in the future because it says so, right here, in Comrade Honecker's five-year plan. But in the UK we are supposed to have rejected top-down centralised economic planning in favour of flexibility.

The wider point is that trying to place every single question on a scale between right wing and left wing is hopelessly simplistic. It implies that the entirety of public life can be reduced to one of those abstract statements (much beloved of HR professionals) to which we must say if we 'strongly agree', 'slightly agree', 'strongly disagree' etc.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I thought after posting about being nice that a better reference than Granny Weatherwax might have been Bill's and Ted's "Be excellent to each other" which has echoes in a number of places, including, I seem to recall, the Bible.

But I see from your links that what you are calling political correctness in this case is ensuring that children are aware of other communities than their own and are prepared to accept the differences between them, and between religions. Or it might be, teaching the children not to be racist. And that the respect they expect to be paid to their own faith should be paid to others, since it is faith schools you are concerned about.

Tricky one - we had a Christian member of staff who refused to accompany a class to the local Sikh gurdwara because it was a house full of demons. (She put me in a very difficult position once when it transpired that she had been teaching her class that anyone who did not accept Christ as their saviour would go to hell. In a secular school. This came up in a lesson when we had three classes together watching a programme about Ancient Greeks, and one of the children asked whether they would go to hell, since they couldn't know about Jesus. She smiled sweetly at me, since I was the one who was supposed to be answering. I had to be professional, so I couldn't say what I thought about her teaching, but took refuge in Paul and people being judged by whether they had lived up to the standards they believed were right, and she nodded. And I felt bad, because I would have liked to have relieved their 8 year old minds of the fear.)

Someone at the local sec mod had got a child who hid in the cloakroom in tears because they had told them directly, in RE, that they and their parents would be going to hell for being atheists. It took another member of staff ages to talk them out of it. It takes some unravelling, that. As an atheist, an adult would be able to tell them not to be so silly, but a pupil to be told that by someone in authority over them, who should look as though they have the good of the pupil at heart, is bad.

Not doing this sort of thing in schools paid for and overseen by the state - what happens in church and private faith schools is another case - is definitely correct. I don't really get how the word correct, even if modified by political, gets to be a means of trivialising serious issues.

Do not do to anyone that which you would not like done to you. Was Hillel being politically correct there, teaching a gentile about the Jewish Law?

Too often now, politically correct gets to mean "stopping me doing something I want to do" while ignoring that the thing is something which will harm others wellbeing. Which is the important part of the idea.

[ 11. September 2015, 21:23: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

So, the new Labour leader is left winger Jeremy Corbyn, by a huge margin that didn't even need a second round of votes to decide it.

Tom Watson is deputy, which is very interesting too as he is extremely able and was a real rottweiler in the investigation into the media in the last year or two

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

YES!!!! And I'd have had a black-ops job done on him twenty five years ago.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

Lowlands, My thoughts exactly.

I get the impression that Corbyn will be very forthright too...

Cameron: So, Labour is more than ever in the pockets of their union pay-masters
Corbyn: I am proud of our connection with the unions. And remember the unions have 30 times the membership of the Conservative party. Now who's pocket are you in Prime Minister?

Just wondering.

I am still unsure about Jeremy because being right is not enough. We need to win. But it's gonna be interesting!

AFZ

P.s. big fan of Tom Watson.

[ 12. September 2015, 11:38: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Well, after the leadership elections, the Labour party now has an idealistic socialist heading up the party. So I guess we are going to see just how broad the appeal of socialism, as articulated by Jeremy Corbyn, is going to be.

I think what has happened is that the idealists in the Labour party, clearly the majority, have comprehensively rejected "New Labour" pragmatism on the grounds that it did indeed lead to a Labour government, but that government turned out to me a lot more "tory" than they thought it would. So a vote for Corbyn was seen as a vote for a return to the core values and ideals of socialism. My guess at present is that it will energise the majority of the party faithful, but keep Labour in opposition. Until the wheel turns again.

I'm really hoping that it will not be the case that "those who cannot learn from history are condemned to repeat it". I really don't want to see "Michael Foot and Militant Tendency" part 2 - or anything like that. But I've got some concerns that something like that will happen.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

No it won't. Jeremy is inclusive. There is no future AT ALL, in politics, like religion, that isn't inclusive of its 'enemies'.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No it won't. Jeremy is inclusive. There is no future AT ALL, in politics, like religion, that isn't inclusive of its 'enemies'.

Yes-but who will WANT to be included? There was plenty of talk of plots before his election to get rid of him ASAP, but he has won by a large margin, and across all three categories of voter.

So MPs are going to be stuck with him, some who really want nothing to do with his ideas.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

I wish Jeremy Corbyn well, but I'm not optimistic about how the next few years will pan out after the honeymoon period is over (if indeed he gets one).

I'm afraid that the inevitable compromises that go with being leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, let alone being in government, may cause disillusionment among many of Corbyn's supporters.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Martin, there is a real problem with this claim for inclusiveness. Jeremy Corbyn voted his conscience on many occasions in the House, regardless of party leadership's efforts to unite the party on policies. That happens through having policies voted on in Cabinet, in meetings of MPs and at party conferences. His track record is one of a man who believes that in the end individual conscience is more important than the hard work of working together, seeking to unite disparate views behind common policies. That's a principled view, but it is not an inclusive one.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So, the new Labour leader is left winger Jeremy Corbyn, by a huge margin that didn't even need a second round of votes to decide it.

Such a clear margin has to be a good thing for the Labour Party - there's no question about the legitimacy of the election, and the party can now knuckle down and be an opposition. Whether Jeremy Corbyn can translate his popularity with Labour supporters into popularity with the wider public, we shall see.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

There are plenty of questions about the legitimacy of the election, unless you know something I don't. Which is entirely possible. My understanding is that some genuine Labour supporters didn't get votes, some genuine non-Labour supporters who'd paid £3 purely to create mischief did, some genuine Labour supporters were told their votes were invalid and de-registered.

I still think it's absurd inviting anyone and everyone to pay £3 to come and vote. It's hopelessly naive. It ought to have been restricted to paid-up members of the Labour party. Personally I think they should declare the election invalid. It may be that Corbyn won by a genuine majority but as far as I'm concerned there will always be a question mark over the results.

Still five years is five years and hopefully he'll be out, or well and truly curbed by then.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
There are plenty of questions about the legitimacy of the election, unless you know something I don't. Which is entirely possible. My understanding is that some genuine Labour supporters didn't get votes, some genuine non-Labour supporters who'd paid £3 purely to create mischief did, some genuine Labour supporters were told their votes were invalid and de-registered.

All of that is true, but there aren't nearly enough of them to make a difference.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

What proportion of the votes were £3 votes as opposed to people who were already members of the Labour party?

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

47% of paid up members votes, 57% of affiliates and over 80% of the £3 supporters. He'd have won even without that constituency. Those percentages are on the first rounf of voting.

The margins are just too large for small numbers of ballot papers not getting to supporters, to make any material difference. The electorate of the members and union affliates together is in the order of 200,000. (In my experience of being involved in union ballots, the most likely reason some didn't get ballot papers will have been that their details were not up to date in the party records. The bollot was overseen by an independent body - who, as far as we know, have raised no concerns over the condcut of the election.)

[ 12. September 2015, 13:52: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Just in case my memory is dodgy, here are the official results:

http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/results-of-the-labour-leadership-and-deputy-leadership-election

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Have done maths, if you drop out the registered supporters the total number of votes cast (inc spoiled ballots, which were I think about 200) is: 317066.

Votes by candidate:

Andy Burnham 74,302
Yvette Cooper 63,513
Jeremy Corbyn 162,968
Liz Kendall 16,283

Which gives Jeremy Corbyn 51.3% of the total vote.

[ 12. September 2015, 14:09: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

The maths is impressive, and clearly gives Jeremy C. a mandate. However, a leader must have people willing to follow. Regarding the current crop of M.P.s, he could find himself in a similar situation to Lady Thatcher and John Major in their latter leadership years.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

If the lib dems had done well, I think some of the right wing of the party might have jumped ship. But that is highly unlikely in the current cicumstances.

Some will want to moderate the left wing influence and they can't do that effectively if they disengage. I could see them arguing for things like, a pledge on rail nationalisation that staggers the process over a longer period of time related to franchise periods and performance. Perhaps initially using public subsidy - that is paid anyway - to purchase the rolling stock and lease back to the companies at a symbolic cost. Thereby spreading the cost of renationalisation over a longer time period.

A pledge to put policy on NATO to conference, and only after the european referendum.

Possibly an argument for turning energy companies into social enterprise or mutual comapnies on the John Lewis model rather than direct state control.

That sort of compromise.

[ 12. September 2015, 14:24: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
But if they were really right wing why wouldn't they encourage the opening of new grammar schools.
Because there is nothing particularly right-wing about grammar schools except in a vague 'everything was better in the 1950s' sense?

Some of the Warsaw Pact countries had grammar schools - and in some ways grammar schools make more sense if you have a planned economy. In a planned economy it's reasonable to earmark a set number of children for the 'academic' track - you know approximately how many professionals you'll need in the future because it says so, right here, in Comrade Honecker's five-year plan. But in the UK we are supposed to have rejected top-down centralised economic planning in favour of flexibility.

If support for the comprehensive system is not particularly left wing why is it that the strongest opposition to other types of schooling (e.g. grammar schools, private schools, homeschooling) and the strongest support for the comprehensive system comes from leftists.

You point about State planning could be said about any form of state run education, certainly including comprehensive schools.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

Penny S

I am well aware of he various arguments that are made in favour of left wing policies. None of that stops them from being left wing.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If support for the comprehensive system is not particularly left wing why is it that the strongest opposition to other types of schooling (e.g. grammar schools, private schools, homeschooling) and the strongest support for the comprehensive system comes from leftists.

Leftists support comprehensive schools. Yes, indeed. It does not follow, however, that rightists must support grammar schools. It is entirely possible, and reasonable, for both leftists and rightists to oppose the creation of new grammar schools (probably for different reasons).

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Just in case my memory is dodgy, here are the official results:

http://www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/results-of-the-labour-leadership-and-deputy-leadership-election

What is really striking is just how badly the Blairites have done. Liz Kendall coming a very bad fourth in the leadership election. In the deputy leadership you had Caroline Flint in third place and Ben Bradshaw in fifth. In the London mayoral candidate election longtime favourite Tessa Jowell was defeatd by Sadiq Khan.

Lets just remember how this contest started. Journalists were writing about the contest and suggesting that the major issue would be 'should Labour apologise for overspending in the last Labour government?', there was much talk about who the Blairite standard bearer would be Chuka Umanna or perhaps Tristram Hunt. When Kendall became the Blairite candidate there was even speculation about whether she could beat favourite Andy Burnham to the leadership.

Blairism may be thriving in the Conservative Party under 'heir to Blair' David Cameron but it seems to be on its last legs inside the Labour Party.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Just laughed my head off at Margaret Beckett in a TV interview

Q - "Do you regret nominating Jeremy Corbyn?"
A - "Yes, I hoped that Andy Burnham would win."

That's really funny....

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I feel a sense of relief, of 'coming home' and I hope many others do too.

After huge disappointment post 1997 when we got awful war mongering right wing 'tory lite' under Blair + Brown I voted Lib dem sometimes, green others. But there was never a party which really stood up for what I believe in. Now there is (if Corbyn manages to take the party with him that is)

I suspect many other people feel the same.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Just laughed my head off at Margaret Beckett in a TV interview

Q - "Do you regret nominating Jeremy Corbyn?"
A - "Yes, I hoped that Andy Burnham would win."

That's really funny....

And there you see the influence of Corbyn already, a politician giving a straight answer to a straight question [Two face]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I feel a sense of relief, of 'coming home' and I hope many others do too.

I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but if it comes down to a choice between Corbyn or George Osborne for PM at the next election, it's no contest as far as I'm concerned: I'll be backing Osborne all the way. I can't stand the man, but almost anyone would be better than Corbyn.

And yes, I do recognize that I'm a lone voice on a predominantly left-wing board.

[ 12. September 2015, 17:40: Message edited by: Ariel ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Why ? In the name of all that is rational, why ?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Too many reasons to list. "Loony Left" might sum them up.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

If that really were the only choice, I'm with Ariel on this. I don't reckon much to Osborne but Corbyn represents everything I detest about politics. He's the photographic negative of John Redwood.

The Labour Party has chosen Scarfolk. It didn't have to, but it has done.

As for this belief that he's a man of true principles, nobody could have spent the 1970s with the sort of people he mixed with and doesn't seem to have repudiated at the North London Polytechnic and elsewhere unless they have a very different concept of integrity to the one the rest of us have.

His vision has nothing to offer the rest of us who are not members of the Labour Party, were not among the 251,417, but do have votes.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

That's deeply unspecific.

He is not a communist (which seems to be what the daily express thinks).

[ 12. September 2015, 18:27: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Too many reasons to list. "Loony Left" might sum them up.

If that phrase had a meaningful definition it might help.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I dunno, but the way I see it, Ariel and Enoch have every right to dislike Corbyn, and they don't owe an explanation for that. That's democracy. He's still the chairman of the Labour Party though.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Of course, but "er yuck" is a little sparse for a discussion thread.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

And yes, I do recognize that I'm a lone voice on a predominantly left-wing board.

Oh, I don't think so!

But I wouldn't vote for Osborne at the next election, no matter who is on the ticket as Labour leader. I learned in the constituency where I was born that if the Archangel Gabriel sported a blue rosette and a donkey a red rosette, the donkey would win by 25,000 votes.

On some issues I think Jeremy Corbyn is a consummate donkey and I'm not sure he will ever be electable as prospective PM. But by comparison, Osborne is a double donkey. Corbyn has principles. My gut tells me that Osborne's principles are probably for sale in the attempt to achieve his ambitions.

Anyway, when push comes to shove, I'd rather put my trust in the red rosette. Don't see that cross on the ballot paper moving over towards the blue, under any cicumstances.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I just got an email asking me what I want him to ask David Cameron at PMQs, I'm not optimistic my question will make the cut - but I live in hope.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

For the first time I can remember (My memory only goes back to Kinnock) we have a Labour leader to the left of me.

Interesting times.

But remember the notion of Corbyn as 'Loony Left' is primarily a construct of the right-wing media. The Express and Mail are not known for their accuracy and fairness.

Anyone is free to like/dislike vote for/against whomever they like. That's democracy but I live in some hope that people will see through the myths and actually judge him on who he actually is. Just like they did with... no wait, um, how about, no. Or? no.

Osborne is a very clever politician and an appalling chancellor. History will not be kind. The best hope for Britain is that his contemporaries come to see this truth.

These are my worries... and my hopes. I am torn.

But interesting times ahead.

AFZ

P.S. Left-leaning boards? Really?

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't see that cross on the ballot paper moving over towards the blue, under any cicumstances.

I agree. Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader couldn't make me vote Conservative either!

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Why ? In the name of all that is rational, why ?

I think one very good reason, and one which could hand the Tories an open goal in 2020, would be national security. Russian bombers are buzzing our coastline to test our defences, and Corbyn wants to leave NATO? Seriously?

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

So, Corbyn vs Cameron at PMQs on Wednesday. Will certainly be interesting. In their rolling coverage today, the BBC quoted a tweet by former Sun editor David Yelland

quote:
Corbyn is so much better at communicating than Cameron, clear, fluent, open. This will be interesting no matter what your politics

That is interesting, because right through the general election campaign Cameron was accused of lacking passion. I think he speaks very well in a "cool calm and collected" fashion and obviously has a certain background. But he did have a few bursts of "passion" towards the end, and still came across quite well even though it didn't look his natural style. I think he did come across better than Milliband and that was probably a factor for a lot of people.

Now, rewind to the 80s when Labour last had a left winger in charge (who also never won a general election) and Kinnock was probably the best orator of his generation (although Scargill and Derek Hatton were pretty meaty as well - is it something about left wingers?!?!). Thatcher however was also a great speaker and didn't mind getting stuck in at PMQs against Kinnock.

So this will also be a big clash of styles, as well as the two leaders probably being further apart politically than any others have been since Thatcher v Kinnock (even if Corbyn doesn't have his party with him)

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Why ? In the name of all that is rational, why ?
I think one very good reason, and one which could hand the Tories an open goal in 2020, would be national security. Russian bombers are buzzing our coastline to test our defences, and Corbyn wants to leave NATO? Seriously?

That does not appear to be his position:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11829048/Jeremy-Corbyn-backtracks-on-calls-for-Britain-to-leave-Nato.h tml

But also, and this is important, he has stated that he wants consensus policy making in the party. He is a republican, but I don't expect him to call a referendum on the monarchy.

Posted by Edith (# 16978) on :

He has the Party with him. The MPs are another matter

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
He has the Party with him. The MPs are another matter

Well, that'll be another reason to watch carefully. When Cameron won the Conservative leadership the MPs went nuts for him when he was first called. You only had to watch the announcement of the results today and look at some of the faces to see a contrast. Whether they'll raise the roof for him anyway on Wednesday will be intestine.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Why ? In the name of all that is rational, why ?
I think one very good reason, and one which could hand the Tories an open goal in 2020, would be national security. Russian bombers are buzzing our coastline to test our defences, and Corbyn wants to leave NATO? Seriously?
That does not appear to be his position:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11829048/Jeremy-Corbyn-backtracks-on-calls-for-Britain-to-leave-Nato.h tml

But also, and this is important, he has stated that he wants consensus policy making in the party. He is a republican, but I don't expect him to call a referendum on the monarchy.

In fact, even the stop the war coalition doesn't report him saying he would withdraw the UK from NATO if elected.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Massive auto correct failure by my phone there. I meant "interesting" or course.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Why ? In the name of all that is rational, why ?
I think one very good reason, and one which could hand the Tories an open goal in 2020, would be national security. Russian bombers are buzzing our coastline to test our defences, and Corbyn wants to leave NATO? Seriously?
That does not appear to be his position:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11829048/Jeremy-Corbyn-backtracks-on-calls-for-Britain-to-leave-Nato.h tml

But also, and this is important, he has stated that he wants consensus policy making in the party. He is a republican, but I don't expect him to call a referendum on the monarchy.
In fact, even the stop the war coalition doesn't report him saying he would withdraw the UK from NATO if elected.

The Guardian do though. Right wing press have it in for him already

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Nonetheless, inaccurate.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

I read in the Indie a few weeks ago that Corbyn was in favour of withdrawal form NATO. If he isn't, he needs to start saying so loud and clear right now or that's the ball game.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
I read in the Indie a few weeks ago that Corbyn was in favour of withdrawal form NATO. If he isn't, he needs to start saying so loud and clear right now or that's the ball game.

There are a great many things he needs to clear up rapidly. That and the EU are the first two I can think of.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

The Guardian had him saying he wanted to reform the EU from within.
Guardian.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

So as a result of the government's policies there are now more comprehensives in Britain not less. Doesn't sound very right wing to me. You make the case that these new comprehensives are a bit less comprehensive but that would make the policy centre right at most.
Not really, enriching themselves and their chums takes precedence. I believe Peter Oborne (who is more of a true conservative than Hitchens) has written on the subject quite extensively.

And make no mistake - these are comprehensives in name only - the idea is to skim off the children that are easiest (read cheapest) to teach.

There are two sorts of academies: the state schools that have converted as that was the only way to maintain funding and the free school academies.

If you read the OFSTED reports of the free school academies set up by private companies or Government's cronies the school profile for inner city areas in London often shows very low numbers of special needs students compared with the demographics of local schools and very low ethnic diversity compared with the demographics of other local schools. In other words the school populations of academies are very white and very middle class.

As these schools are also very recently established, for the most part they only have intakes of two or three years on sites intended to take the full five or seven years. The limited nature of many of the sites does not forebode well for the future. (Seven year groups in converted office blocks with limited or no space to play outside could be challenging in the future.)

There are a very few companies dominating the market for free school academies in London currently - ARK schools* and the Harris Federation and there's also Toby Young's organisation. Outside London there's also the United Learning Trust

It's pure ideology replacing local authorities with big business wearing a charitable front.

The other big issue is someone somewhere has to pick up the children who are not being educated by these academies, and there are another set of companies doing that: Complete Works, TBAP - there are more, which charge the local authority a premium rate to take the more challenging students.

* sorry bit.ly link as the Wikipedia url has brackets

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Penny S

I am well aware of he various arguments that are made in favour of left wing policies. None of that stops them from being left wing.

I was under the impression that I was arguing about the use of "politically correct" as something that should be abjured, without explanation of why.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

There'd be a lot less austerity in my house if I'd stuck a £20 bet on him when Corbyn was 500/1 against with the bookmakers. Ah well, that's Methodism for you ;-)

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I find I have mixed feelings this evening. On the one hand, sheer glee: if Corbyn goes the distance (and after listening to his victory speech, I'm not sure that's certain) then a Conservative victory at the next election is assured. It might not be too far-fetched to speculate about a three-figure majority. Iain Duncan Smith can be at the DWP until 2025 and it'll all be thanks to you guys.

But on the other hand, sadness at watching the Labour Party implode in this way. I think good governments require good oppositions to keep them on their toes so the current government might suffer if it slips into complacency. I also feel sorry for the many Labour Party members I know and who must be pretty miffed tonight.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

I admit I found the controversy over the £3 supporters rather confusing. Then I looked at the Labour Party's membership fees. Sheesh, talk about stiff. £46.50 per year, which is $CAD 96.05/year. Yikes!

Labour's Canadian cousin, the NDP only charges $25.00 max (in Ontario and BC) down to $10/year Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I find I have mixed feelings this evening. On the one hand, sheer glee: if Corbyn goes the distance (and after listening to his victory speech, I'm not sure that's certain) then a Conservative victory at the next election is assured.

Don't be so sure. The landslide majority could well be repeated on a larger scale by many people who are tired of the old Labour party, some of whom are too young to remember the old days and think this is all new and exciting. Absolutely don't take a Conservative victory for granted. Also, there is still Ukip around to make noises and try to attract a share of the vote.

I'm hoping Corbyn will invigorate Cameron's campaign but I don't see anything else to hope for from it. Still, the next election is five years away, much can happen by then.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I suppose this leaves a big gap in the market for the Liberal Democrats, though they may have been too battered in May to fill it.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'm old enough to remember standing outside the polling station at the age of 11 with my friend Philip, in a half mile long row of terrace council houses where I lived, shouting 'Conservatives for ever' as our mothers liked that nice Sir Alec Douglas-Home.

Over 50 years later I joined the party and voted for Jeremy and Tom.

It's been a long journey.

Home.

And what got clever, telegenic Wilson in, was that 'it was time for a change'.

The awesome British electorate are QUITE capable of putting 70 year old Corbyn OR his heir apparent - Tom - in to Number 10.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm old enough to remember standing outside the polling station at the age of 11 with my friend Philip, in a half mile long row of terrace council houses where I lived, shouting 'Conservatives for ever' as our mothers liked that nice Sir Alec Douglas-Home.

Over 50 years later I joined the party and voted for Jeremy and Tom.

It's been a long journey.

Home.

And what got clever, telegenic Wilson in, was that 'it was time for a change'.

The awesome British electorate are QUITE capable of putting 70 year old Corbyn OR his heir apparent - Tom - in to Number 10.

I'm quite surprised Watson didn't go for the top job this time actually. Was obviously popular enough to get the deputy job and not hard to see why given his performance over Leveson follow ups. Much more popular with his MPS I would think. Sadly the deputy debate barely got a whiff of attention once Corbyn mania got going.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Seems JC is popular with the younger voter. If he picks up Russel B's disaffected followers he might be on to something. Get banging on about leaving NATO, unilateral disarmament etc. Then I fear the only thing Labour supporters will be coming home to will be the 80s wilderness years.

But then the Cold war ended in in 89 so Hey, who knows ?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Too many reasons to list. "Loony Left" might sum them up.
If that phrase had a meaningful definition it might help.

It's never had a meaningful definition. It was a phrase invented in the 1980s by the right wing media as a convenient headline phrase for their campaign against the Labour Party. And, of course, they weren't just inventing a catchy headline phrase, they also invented (or exaggerated beyond any semblance to facts) the examples of looniness they reported under the headline. Sorry, there were no left wing councils banning the singing of "Baa Baa Black Sheep", nor the reference to "manhole covers". And, where the right-wing rags could find genuine stories to berate Labour with they were things like promoting racial or sexual equality through not unreasonable policies - and of course, most of those policies have now gone through Westminster to be law of the land in equality legislation. And, of course, that Labour have always had a large number of members in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I suppose this leaves a big gap in the market for the Liberal Democrats, though they may have been too battered in May to fill it.

Hopefully not. It may be more important than ever that Tim Farron wasn't part of the cabinet and voted against a rise in tuition fees. We shall see. One thing's for certain, he'll have one hell of a job getting media time in the current climate.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

One big name Labour MP defecting to the LibDems would result in plenty of media coverage for Farron. Even an unknown backbencher defecting would be jumped on by the right wing media as evidence of Labour imploding.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Penny S

I am well aware of he various arguments that are made in favour of left wing policies. None of that stops them from being left wing.
I was under the impression that I was arguing about the use of "politically correct" as something that should be abjured, without explanation of why.

Well that's a slightly different issue. The point is that whether you think political correctness is to be abjured or supported, whether you like it or you don't like it, its still left wing and not right wing.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's been a long journey.

I've moved in the opposite direction. Fifteen years ago I was a wishy washy centrist who voted Lib Dem. I've moved quite some distance to the right since then.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's been a long journey.
I've moved in the opposite direction. Fifteen years ago I was a wishy washy centrist who voted Lib Dem. I've moved quite some distance to the right since then.

There's still time to repent and save yourself.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

It's probably to Labour's benefit to see a lib dem revival, in all honesty. The way the electoral map looks the tory majority in comprised of former lib dem seats in England. Labour will never take Yeovil (for example) regardless of who is leader, and splitting the neo-liberal vote offers Labour a way to take some seats too. I also don't think a Farron lib dems will go into a coalition with the tories, and I think Corbyn's consensualist politics are well suited to a minority government.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Unity is not off to a good start. Apparently, 7 members of the Shadow Cabinet have resigned - including Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall. I guess that isn't unexpected. It's more a comment on Jeremy Corbyn's stated policies than the man himself.

And there's the rub. There will now be a more Left Wing Shadow Cabinet, in line with the vote and the convictions of those who will serve with JC. The vacation of the centre ground is already under way and it will get taken by either the Lib Dems or the Tories.

Of course that is what Tony Blair said, and in doing so he may have guaranteed JC's victory. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If support for the comprehensive system is not particularly left wing why is it that the strongest opposition to other types of schooling (e.g. grammar schools, private schools, homeschooling) and the strongest support for the comprehensive system comes from leftists.

You point about State planning could be said about any form of state run education, certainly including comprehensive schools.

Not sure I follow. Comprehensives are defined as left-wing simply because (historically at least) the left-wing party supports them. But grammar schools can be defined as right-wing even though the right-wing party doesn't support them and parties that did support them included the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia.

The point about state planning is one of degree. If Ricardusborough has an 11+ with the top 20% going to grammar school then the percentage of children on the professional track is fixed by diktat. If Ricardusborough has a comprehensive system then the number of children who end up on the academic track will depend on a number of factors, which will include (albeit not be limited to) what the children or their parents themselves decide when they're picking their options for GCSE. In other words: consumer choice, which is the supposed to be the cornerstone of the free market.

Now this is accepting that free markets are a right-wing idea, which is what right-wingers like to believe. In that case, academies and free schools are an even more right-wing idea, in that they are supposed to be about parental choice*. But according to you they are both Blairite ideas.

In reality the idea that free markets are right wing is itself false, because although it's true that state planning was a feature of the Eastern Bloc and to a lesser extent of Old Labour, it was also a tenet of Franco's Spain - but it was not a tenet of Karl Marx himself, who wanted the state to wither away.

* FWIW I'm not against either as such - I'm suspicious of the way they have been implemented.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The awesome British electorate are QUITE capable of putting 70 year old Corbyn OR his heir apparent - Tom - in to Number 10.

It most certainly is so capable, but I am prepared to bet money on its not happening. Before I go off to bbq some steak, and open a red, let's look back to the 80's - which I'm more than old enough to remember. Labour was incapable of selling Michael Foot then, and I can't see anything to suggest that the party will be any better at selling Corbyn.

Assume that Corbyn is still leader of the party at the next election, the probable result will be that a fair number of the SNP seats return to Labour and there's an increase in the Labour vote in some safe seats, primarily in London. Offsetting this will be a loss of many Labour marginals, and a party even more riven than it is now.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
If support for the comprehensive system is not particularly left wing why is it that the strongest opposition to other types of schooling (e.g. grammar schools, private schools, homeschooling) and the strongest support for the comprehensive system comes from leftists.

You point about State planning could be said about any form of state run education, certainly including comprehensive schools.
Not sure I follow. Comprehensives are defined as left-wing simply because (historically at least) the left-wing party supports them. But grammar schools can be defined as right-wing even though the right-wing party doesn't support them and parties that did support them included the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia.

The point about state planning is one of degree. If Ricardusborough has an 11+ with the top 20% going to grammar school then the percentage of children on the professional track is fixed by diktat. If Ricardusborough has a comprehensive system then the number of children who end up on the academic track will depend on a number of factors, which will include (albeit not be limited to) what the children or their parents themselves decide when they're picking their options for GCSE. In other words: consumer choice, which is the supposed to be the cornerstone of the free market.

Now this is accepting that free markets are a right-wing idea, which is what right-wingers like to believe. In that case, academies and free schools are an even more right-wing idea, in that they are supposed to be about parental choice*. But according to you they are both Blairite ideas.

In reality the idea that free markets are right wing is itself false, because although it's true that state planning was a feature of the Eastern Bloc and to a lesser extent of Old Labour, it was also a tenet of Franco's Spain - but it was not a tenet of Karl Marx himself, who wanted the state to wither away.

* FWIW I'm not against either as such - I'm suspicious of the way they have been implemented.

I'll take your point about it being less clear cut that support for grammar schools is right wing, it would depend on the context and what they were being contrasted with. In the UK context support for grammar schools is identified with opposing or reducing the power of the comprehensive system so it is on the right in comparison with the pro-comprehensive left.

I would agree with you that economic liberalism is right wing is indeed false and I'm glad you've made that point. So many people will say that various 'third way' leftists like Tony Blair aren't really leftists because they support economic liberalism whereas of course that doesn't stop them being leftists at all.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

At the Any Questions? of 21 August, Dan Jones, a historian on the panel, said that although Jeremy Corbyn was probably not going to be the next Labour PM, electing him as leader now meant that the discussions about what Labour stood for would happen. Currently Labour makes Tory lite policies and hasn't really got a clear identity.

Someone on the Ship asked what the unions should be for as we had moved on from the Victorian labour market. But is that true? Should Labour not be there for those on 0 hours contracts and to return some of the employment rights that are being eroded. To stand up for the NHS, education, all those other public goods that are being dismantled.

At the last election Labour looked totally unelectable - Miliband and Ball did not look competent and there was no clear idea of what Labour stood for. Corbyn at least might resolve the second of those issues. And he will be a voice of opposition to the current Tory government, and they need opposing. Because at the moment their only opposition is their own backbenchers.

Various people have said that Corbyn would be good as he would ensure those discussions happen, partly because he's collegiate, unlike Blair.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

I think people fundamentally didn't trust Ed Milliband because he totally shafted a member of his own family. We know politicians are ambitious but there are limits.

Likewise, they didn't trust Clegg because he broke the tution fees promise. We know politicians can be devious, but there are limits.

The policy issues are alomost secondary in those circumstances - though I think Labour performed poorly in articulating a clear opposition to the condem government.

[ 13. September 2015, 10:29: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think people fundamentally didn't trust Ed Milliband because he totally shafted a member of his own family. We know politicians are ambitious but there are limits.

The reason I didn't trust Ed Miliband didn't have anything to do with his becoming leader. He had as much right to go for the job as David. I felt he was a 'reacter' and a bit of an intellectual lightweight rather than someone who had a firm basis for their views and policies. I liked him, and thought some of his treatment in the media and on Twitter was disgusting. I just didn't see him as PM material.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

Quetzalcoatl, I would recommend you not join the DUP. I suspect you might not feel entirely at home.

Hmm. Well, I am no socialist but this is what I would advise Corbyn:

You will never be Prime Minister. But this is OK. You probably wouldn't have enjoyed it anyway, or been any good at it.

Concentrate instead on being an excellent Leader of the Opposition. I think you will enjoy this and you might be extremely good at it.

There is therefore little point in spinning your message to appeal to as many people as possible. You might as well say what you really think, all the time.

In this way you could well win the grudging respect of people who strongly disagree with you on most issues (e.g. me); you will encourage able people who do agree with you to enter politics; and you will be able to point out the government's shortcomings while avoiding the "you're all the same" tag. Your "keeping the government honest" role will be somewhat compromised by the unlikelihood of your ever being in a position to form a government, but hey, nobody has it easy all the time.

And there's always the chance that there might be a total meltdown of the capitalist economic system sometime in the next 5 years, in which case you'll be absolutely perfectly placed.

Although to finish the post in the same vein as I began, you might just want to look at that endorsement from Gerry Adams and think again about Northern Ireland. Friends like these and all that.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Offsetting this will be a loss of many Labour marginals, and a party even more riven than it is now.

A lot will depend on the candidates in those marginals. Strong local candidates, just as left wing as Corbyn, won seats from the tories in May. Where Labour tends to be vulnerable is when it parachutes Blairite London lawyers into northern seats and expects them to do well. What Corbyn will need is to draw on the lessons of the SNP and of Obama in terms of community organising and building a groundswell of activists who are willing to staff stalls and pound pavements and make calls where it matters. If Corbyn wins it will be because, like the SNP, he has reached people who don't usually bother voting.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Strong local candidates, just as left wing as Corbyn, won seats from the tories in May.

For example...?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
The reason I didn't trust Ed Miliband didn't have anything to do with his becoming leader. He had as much right to go for the job as David. I felt he was a 'reacter' and a bit of an intellectual lightweight rather than someone who had a firm basis for their views and policies.

Yes. Lightweight was what came across, also cold and intensely ambitious. Plus, he seemed to have a semi-permanent sneer on his face. He wasn't someone I could ever have warmed to, whatever party he might have belonged to.

And I'm afraid he totally failed on the Bacon Sandwich Test. Every aspirant for the post of Prime Minister ought to be put through the Bacon Sandwich Test.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

And Ed Balls came over as a bumbling idiot. Even more so when I saw him live at a recording of The Agenda

(Corbyn came over as knowing his own mind and reasons, consistent and committed to his ideas. A politician with convictions. He also impressed by refusing to get involved in personality politics. He responded to a leading question that he was not going to be unkind to other people but he would discuss their policies.

Burnham came over as saying anything that would get him elected without any real personal commitment to anything but self-promotion. He was easily drawn into personality politics and attacking others.)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, a brilliant 3 month campaign by Corbyn, although, let's face it, the opposition were puerile really.

Corbs has brought new people into politics, and has brought back some of the deep frozen. Very good, but now comes the hard part.

First, the Labour party will be partly hostile to him - I don't know if he will sweet talk them, ask them to be neutral, or what.

Next, there will be deep-rooted skepticism among many voters about the economy and defence. I see he is already shoving Nato and so on into the long grass - very wise.

He can't do that with the economy though! I guess he has his praetorian guard of economists around him, so it will be interesting to see what they say.

I have to admire his method of reverse psychology - every time the Daily Hate and the Guardian smeared him or misrepresented him, he could use it to gather support. But will he be able to do that with the machinery of government ranged against him? I have no idea.

Politics is interesting, at any rate, for the first time in a long time.

I guess the opinion polls will be scrutinized now; if Labour start dipping, he's in trouble.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

Labour have bagged 15,000 new members since yesterday. That's a good conversion of all those £3 voters who are obviously prepared to get more involved now Corbyn has won

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
... Assume that Corbyn is still leader of the party at the next election, the probable result will be that a fair number of the SNP seats return to Labour ...

Is there really much likelihood of that? I realise I'm as far away from Scotland as North Islington is. But did former Labour voters in Scotland really flock to the SNP because it's more truly socialist than the Ed Miliband Labour Party? I think that's a fond delusion of the ideologically committed. I get the impression that what drew them were the referendum, the SNP's record for competent government and a feeling that the Scottish Labour Party had taken them all for granted.

Unless the Scottish Labour Party changes dramatically, the SNP fouls up in the way they run Scotland over the next five years, and unless English Labour MPs can show that they stick up better for the Scots at Westminster than their own Scots MPs - in which case would those English MPs be serving their own electorates - I can't see how the Labour Party can reverse that.

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
When Cameron won the Conservative leadership the MPs went nuts for him when he was first called. You only had to watch the announcement of the results today and look at some of the faces to see a contrast. Whether they'll raise the roof for him anyway on Wednesday will be interesting.

I wouldn't worry. They'll raise the roof for Corbyn as well.

By “they”, I mean the Tory M.P.s.

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I'm afraid he totally failed on the Bacon Sandwich Test. Every aspirant for the post of Prime Minister ought to be put through the Bacon Sandwich Test.

I suspect Boris Johnson would fail. And it would even help him to be elected P.M.

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but if it comes down to a choice between Corbyn or George Osborne for PM at the next election, it's no contest as far as I'm concerned: I'll be backing Osborne all the way. I can't stand the man, but almost anyone would be better than Corbyn.

I entirely get that. I didn't vote Tory at the last election, but I will at the next one. I don't want the U.K. to turn into a rainy version of Greece.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

In what way do you think the social and economic structure of the UK is similar to Greece ?

Even the IMF are arguing that austerity policies have been a mistake. Germany has a nationalised rail system. Our nuclear power statioms are partly owned by foreign states, you think that is better than their being owned by our own state ?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
I entirely get that. I didn't vote Tory at the last election, but I will at the next one. I don't want the U.K. to turn into a rainy version of Greece.

Really? I would have thought Greece over the past few years is proof of the failure of austerity measures to turn round a failing economy - even the IMF reports agree, hence the IMF's reservations about the bailout deal.

Syriza's failure was not one of economics, but rather a failure to persuade the EU to change its mind. An object lesson for Mr Cameron, perhaps ...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Greece is a damning indictment of neo-liberalism, but then, it depends on who you talk to. The advocates of it will tell you that it shows the opposite!

But I don't think Labour can win simply by saying, 'you can't cut your way to recovery', although this is correct.

It's not enough, it would need concrete proof of this, e.g. economic crisis again. Some economists say that we are heading that way. Dunno.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Some economists are asking the interesting question as to whether a Keynesian mixed economy - which is what Corbyn is talking about - is appropriate today. This is against a background of 'financialization', i.e. in a country like the UK, there is less investment in industry, and more in financial products and so on.

I don't know, since I don't understand enough economics. But it is an argument against Corbynomics, and I will be interested to see how it is pursued (and rebutted).

I suppose a country such as Germany can use Keynesian methods (e.g. state control), since it less financialized. Correct?

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

Apparently Corbyn cancelled a TV interview with establishment propaganda hack Andrew Marr that was due to take place this morning. Obviously he's very pressed for time today. He did however make sure he made time to keep an appointment to attend an event in his constituency. I don't agree with his politics but I've got to give him kudos for that.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
I entirely get that. I didn't vote Tory at the last election, but I will at the next one. I don't want the U.K. to turn into a rainy version of Greece.

Whereas I don't like bananas on toast so I'll definitely be voting Labour at the next election.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
I didn't vote Tory at the last election, but I will at the next one. I don't want the U.K. to turn into a rainy version of Greece.

Oh Sarah, that's ridiculous. You are, of course entitled to vote any which way you choose but this is completely unsound reasoning. It's the opposite of logic, in fact.

There's a nice thread here in Purg on Greece and the Euro.

AFZ

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

There is also a nice new thread in Purg specifically about Jeremy Corbyn. After a bit of reflection, I'm going to redirect specific Corbyn traffic to the new thread started by George Spigot and leave this one open for more general discussion - as in recent posts.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
alienfromzog

To give one example of an area where the government has a centrist Blairite agenda rather than anything right wing, Education policy. This government has continued to encourage Academy schools, introduced by Blair's Labour government. They've also introduced the rather Blairite project of Free schools. However have they had any schools policy that could be described as genuinely right wing e.g. supporting grammar schools, private schools or home schooling. Have they lifted the ban on new grammar schools? No, quite the reverse, all Free schools are required to be comprehensives. Have they done anything to encourage homeschooling? No. Have they even talked about introducing school vouchers? No, they haven't even reintroduced the Assisted Places scheme from private schools abolished by Blair. And on top of that you have the continued pushing of political correctness by the odious Nicky Morgan.

Its true that they haven't adopted any of the hard left policies of banning grammar schools, private schools, homeschooling or indeed Free schools. however not having any of those hard left policies doesn't make them right wing, it just makes them centrist.

Here is the post that started me off. You clearly identify policies as centrist. Including, presumably, Nicky Morgan's political correctness. How am I supposed to know that you meant left?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0