|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Jeremy Corbyn out?
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what is needed is Labour's position. And, Labour are in no condition to have a position on anything at the moment. Of course, Corbyn should be trying to sell his opinions to the party, but at the moment he still has to convince them that he's the person to be leading them.
I would hope that if the Labour Party, collectively, had taken the gift horse of the rip down the middle of the Tory party to take the political lead behind Corbyn then he would have had the opportunity to develop and express his vision. But, the PLP decided to rip apart their own party as well.
Michael Heseltine took on Mrs Thatcher when the country was on the verge of going to war in the Middle East. If a member of the PCP had said, in her hearing, that it wasn't fair to expect her to keep her eye on the ball on the subject, because of a leadership election, she'd have handbagged him to death. Both candidates ought to be setting forth their response to Brexit and what the government should be looking to achieve in their negotiations, and the fact that neither has been able to do so adequately is deeply depressing.
Yes!
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think that if Smith had done as badly as Corbyn there would have been a challenge to his leadership.
After the 2015 election all the candidates, for the Labour leadership, were asked if they would step down if things were going badly. The reason being that it became apparent that Ed Miliband, for all his princely virtues, did not go down well on the doorstep, but the party declined to challenge his leadership. All of them agreed that this would have been a good idea, indeed, Jeremy Corbyn said that he favoured annual leadership elections [Stephen Fry voice] mwah! irony is a cruel mistress![/Stephen Fry voice]. So, yeah, he would have been challenged, IMO.
[x-post - responding to Amika, on the previous page].
[ 16. September 2016, 19:20: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
Do you think there would have been a 'coup', or even a vote of no confidence?
I think there would. As soon as MPs sniff that the current leader might not be consistent with their best chance of re-election I think they get froggy. They did with Thatcher and Blair while in government leave alone in opposition. The Conservative party went through leaders like changes of underwear during the Blair years. It is a predictable reaction to the possibility of not being re-elected.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
I think it is highly likely that if a Tory Leader was doing as badly they'd face a challenge - the Tories do take notice of opinion polls. Of course in the last 35 years no Tory leader of the opposition has actually done that badly in terms of personal ratings.
Mind you their MPs wouldn't back a candidate they didn't believe in, just to widen the debate - they take winning elections far too seriously.
The only thing surprising about the challenge is that it was after just one year. However, the panic that there might be a snap election after the Brexit vote was largely responsible for that - IMV.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I believe Corbyn's biggest problem is his outsider status and that Owen Smith would have been allowed to continue in incompetence. Whether he would be left alone for the whole five years is moot, but he would surely have lasted longer than nine months.
As a more or less complete outsider on this one, this rings true. But it does not excuse COrbyn from being incompetant as a leader, if he is -- and I have to say based on all the links in this thread, that there's at least a prime facie case that he is.
However, my real point is that, again based on the links in this thread, it seems crystal clear that over many years in Parliament, Corbyn has worked hard and assiduously to be recognized as an outsider and to maintain that status, almost in the face of what it takes to be an effective member of a party. He clearly valued being an outsider far above anything he might have achieved as a contributing, supportive member of the PLP.
Why is anyone -- why are you -- surprised that a person who has made a virtue of being an outsider is asked to "pay the price" for being one?
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
"clearly valued being an outsider"?
Clearly valued doing the right thing over being popular with his colleagues, would be more accurate.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
"clearly valued being an outsider"?
Clearly valued doing the right thing over being popular with his colleagues, would be more accurate.
Doing the right thing like: voting against the Anglo-Irish agreement, being paid £20K to appear on an Iranian propaganda channel, supporting conspiracy theorists who say that the Jews caused 9/11?
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Oh well, I am wrong there. I just saw Corbyn's speech to Bloomberg, where he rejects hard Brexit, and WTO terms, and favours a Norway-type solution. Well, that's probably not gonna happen.
He has also just said he wants to explore a universal basic income / citizen's dividend as a policy. Which is an idea that has merit, but is probably unworkable unless there are restrictions on how, if at all, non-citizens can claim it. Which in turn rules out the Norwegian model.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
"clearly valued being an outsider"?
Clearly valued doing the right thing over being popular with his colleagues, would be more accurate.
Doing the right thing like: voting against the Anglo-Irish agreement, being paid £20K to appear on an Iranian propaganda channel, supporting conspiracy theorists who say that the Jews caused 9/11?
An explanation of the latter two accusations is well covered in this article I think.
Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I believe Corbyn's biggest problem is his outsider status and that Owen Smith would have been allowed to continue in incompetence. Whether he would be left alone for the whole five years is moot, but he would surely have lasted longer than nine months.
Amika - there are hints of a view here that seems to be commonly held by Corbyn supporters - certainly people like Billy Bragg seem to buy it. It is that the establishment / status quo attacks Corbyn because he is not one of them and that they (Labour's mainstream and the Tories' mainstream) are quite happy to take it in turns in power. Corbyn is a real threat to this cosy little set up and this is why he is attacked - or at least that's how the story goes.
This position just doesn't stack up. The Tories attack him because they see a chance of destroying Labour for a generation - perhaps permanently. They'd happily face him in 2020. They'd love to be in power and are not scared of him.
The left that isn't behind him fear that very thing. Again it is not the thought that he will sweep to victory and bring in a fairly Milibandesque set of policies, it is the thought of the Tories being in power for a generation they really dread.
The biggest problem with the view that the establishment is working together, is that in the 2015 election it was very obvious that Labour MPs and members were incredibly disappointed / depressed by the result. The status quo / establishment isn't this homogeneous blob. In fact there are a number of mini-status quos and they certainly aren't working together.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amika:
I think not because 1) Most members of the PLP agree with Owen Smith's politics
How significantly different from Jeremy Corbyn's policies are Owen Smith's politics?
His platform is roughly speaking, "the same as Jeremy, but I can get the Parliamentary Party and the electorate behind me".
He's anti-austerity, anti-zero hour contracts, pro-50% higher rate tax, pro-rail nationalisation.
He voted for Trident, so if you think getting rid of Trident is the single overriding issue in UK politics today (more important than austerity) then you'll vote for Corbyn. I think we should get rid of it, but I think austerity is more important.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
According to The Guardian, Corbyn admits he has made mistakes and appeals to his parliamentary colleagues to get behind him provided they broadly accept his ant-austerity policies.
He doesn’t get it, does he? Not even yet. It’s not so much his policies that many people find unattractive, as it is his incompetence, his ‘go-it-alone’ behaviour and his general lack of leadership skills.
I fear that he will win the vote and we'll get more of the same in-fighting and more failing to be an effective opposition.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think he gets it better than you do. He knows that he's not an expert at front bench politics, but also knows that there is a significant chunk of the PLP, possibly even a majority, who are determined to see him fail whether he's competent or not, because they hate his policies. This is why the messaging from the anti-Corbyn crowd has changed over the last 12 months. They're no longer slagging off his policies because they have too much support (even Owen Smith pretends to support them now) and so are now playing the man instead (the man they were previously saying was such a nice and decent man). The question has to be: were they lying then or are they lying now? Or, more likely, is it a case of "both, and" rather than "either, or"?
Had the PLP spent the last months working with Corbyn to achieve the platform he was elected on, and helping him learn the ropes of being at the top of the party rather than sniping from the sidelines then the picture would look rather different. The issue is that the only thing the right of the PLP fear more than a Corbyn defeat in 2020 is a Corbyn victory.
[ 17. September 2016, 14:35: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
How significantly different from Jeremy Corbyn's policies are Owen Smith's politics?
His platform is roughly speaking, "the same as Jeremy, but I can get the Parliamentary Party and the electorate behind me".
He's anti-austerity, anti-zero hour contracts, pro-50% higher rate tax, pro-rail nationalisation.
The issue is one of trust. Nobody thinks Owen Smith believes in those policies or is committed to implementing them. He's mouthing support for them because he thinks that's what the party wants to hear. If (fat chance) he's elected leader he'll switch to whatever he thinks will get him support with the PLP and/or the general public. He's the sort (to paraphrase The West Wing) who if addressing a group of cannibals would promise them missionaries.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
So someone who opposes Corbyn's policies is a tory-lite/blairite/traitor who sneers, but someone who agrees with them is just saying so to get votes and can't be trusted? We really are truly screwed. This is through the looking glass stuff.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
No, it's that Owen Smith's policies and actions to date do not match what he is doing now. So it's difficult to trust someone who has changed his spots to stand for election.
This is the guy who backed Pfizer over some of the NHS changes that are currently destroying the NHS.
Not quite as bad as watching Andy Burnham equivocate before an audience. I was near enough to see his face as he changed what he was going to say.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
No, it's that Owen Smith's policies and actions to date do not match what he is doing now. So it's difficult to trust someone who has changed his spots to stand for election.
This is the guy who backed Pfizer over some of the NHS changes that are currently destroying the NHS.
Not quite as bad as watching Andy Burnham equivocate before an audience. I was near enough to see his face as he changed what he was going to say.
And yet Smith's voting record suggests that since entering Parliament, he's consistently voted to prevent greater private sector involvement in the NHS. And according to this Telegraph article, he was helping brief Ed Milliband against Pfizer's takeover of AstraZeneca. Which hardly suggests he's only just changed his tune on private involvement in the NHS.
But this whole thing about Smith only supporting left-wing policies to get elected as leader really isn't backed up by the facts. He's consistently voted against austerity measures while he's been an MP. In fact, his voting record as a whole is similar to Jeremy Corbyn's, so the suggestion he's really a right-winger intent on austerity and privatisation, as he's constantly being accused of, seems nonsense.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
How significantly different from Jeremy Corbyn's policies are Owen Smith's politics?
His platform is roughly speaking, "the same as Jeremy, but I can get the Parliamentary Party and the electorate behind me".
He's anti-austerity, anti-zero hour contracts, pro-50% higher rate tax, pro-rail nationalisation.
The issue is one of trust. Nobody thinks Owen Smith believes in those policies or is committed to implementing them. He's mouthing support for them because he thinks that's what the party wants to hear.
And yet his voting record is consistent with the policies he's now putting forward. So either he's been putting forward these policies because he foresaw that Corbyn would be elected leader and he planned to run against him for the last six years. Or else when you say 'Nobody think Owen Smith believes in those policies' what you mean is 'Nobody who supports Corbyn wants to think Owen Smith believes in those policies.'
[ 17. September 2016, 19:28: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Owen Smith has voted with the whip since being elected. When that was against cuts he voted against cuts, when that was to abstain he abstained, even when anyone with an ounce of conscience was voting against.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Owen Smith has voted with the whip since being elected. When that was against cuts he voted against cuts, when that was to abstain he abstained, even when anyone with an ounce of conscience was voting against.
That still doesn't show that he's really a right-wing, pro-austerity and privatisation candidate who's only taking on these policies to be elected, which seems to be the charge against him.
And doesn't the fact that he can vote in line with the party whip and still come out with a voting record similar to Corbyn's suggest that the "PLP is a bunch of right-wingers" line is a bit of a myth?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Personally I think a major part of the appeal is that Corbyn was against war in Iraq. Owen wasn't around. People who feel angry about that decision of the PLP naturally turn to Corbyn as someone who was visibly against the war.
Maybe there's also a personality following to do with getting the bus home and sitting on the floor, and not looking or sounding like a typical politician. Owen looks and sounds more typical.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
That still doesn't show that he's really a right-wing, pro-austerity and privatisation candidate who's only taking on these policies to be elected, which seems to be the charge against him.
And doesn't the fact that he can vote in line with the party whip and still come out with a voting record similar to Corbyn's suggest that the "PLP is a bunch of right-wingers" line is a bit of a myth?
Labour have been in opposition the whole time Smith has been in parliament. Voting against the government doesn't always mean being against the policies (c.f. tories voting against hikes in tuition fees when Blair was in charge). When you're in opposition you need a competing narrative as well as opposition in commons votes. In the last parliament that narrative was "we'll do austerity too but it will be a bit slower and a bit nicer". The mood music, if not always the whipped votes, was in favour of cuts to benefits and Owen Smith was nowhere to be seen.
His positions (and they are plural in both cases) on Iraq and Trident indicate that he's willing to say whatever he thinks is more popular at the time. He used to be supportive of the Iraq war and has since tried to say he'd have voted against it. He used to oppose Trident and is now for it. Who knows what he really believes about anything?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
His positions (and they are plural in both cases) on Iraq and Trident indicate that he's willing to say whatever he thinks is more popular at the time. He used to be supportive of the Iraq war and has since tried to say he'd have voted against it. He used to oppose Trident and is now for it. Who knows what he really believes about anything?
Given that the majority of the Labour selectorate appear to be against Trident, I'm going to suggest that whatever his motive for becoming pro-Trident, it probably wasn't to court votes in the leadership election ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
His positions (and they are plural in both cases) on Iraq and Trident indicate that he's willing to say whatever he thinks is more popular at the time. He used to be supportive of the Iraq war and has since tried to say he'd have voted against it. He used to oppose Trident and is now for it. Who knows what he really believes about anything?
I have a pretty clear view of where Owen Smith is coming from generally - as do I for many well-known politicians. Of course I don't know exactly how they will vote on every issue. I want politicians who are reflective and know how to respond to the current context.
I don't want a lazy thinker like Corbyn who does everything according to his pure socialist ideology. He could work out even before the Kosovo crisis happened that he'd be against it. I find his simplistic, black and white, goodies and baddies thinking extremely unconvincing. I suspect that this explains his poll ratings much more than his policies.
[ 18. September 2016, 09:10: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
He used to be supportive of the Iraq war...
Based on a quick google I couldn't find evidence of that. It seems to me that the most one can say is that he didn't take a strong stand. Granted, contrast that with Corbyn who had a very clear stand, but that means one can afford to be fair.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
His positions (and they are plural in both cases) on Iraq and Trident indicate that he's willing to say whatever he thinks is more popular at the time. He used to be supportive of the Iraq war and has since tried to say he'd have voted against it. He used to oppose Trident and is now for it. Who knows what he really believes about anything?
Given that the majority of the Labour selectorate appear to be against Trident, I'm going to suggest that whatever his motive for becoming pro-Trident, it probably wasn't to court votes in the leadership election ...
No, it was to court support from a faction of the PLP who treat being willing to blow up the world as a shibboleth of responsible government.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Kinnock thinks Corbyn's got to go. To be fair he knows about losing Elections
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Given that the majority of the Labour selectorate appear to be against Trident, I'm going to suggest that whatever his motive for becoming pro-Trident, it probably wasn't to court votes in the leadership election ...
No, it was to court support from a faction of the PLP who treat being willing to blow up the world as a shibboleth of responsible government.
Except that he voted in favour of renewing Trident back in January 2015, when Mr Miliband was still leader. So again, unless he magically foresaw that Labour would lose the election, Mr Corbyn would become leader, and a year later he would have the opportunity for a leadership challenge, the evidence still suggests that his volte-face was unrelated to his leadership ambitions.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Kinnock thinks Corbyn's got to go. To be fair he knows about losing Elections
Another take would be he did get the Labour vote up to (34.4%) from the Foot low (27.6%), but still hadn't done enough to make Labour electable in the minds of too many voters after the Foot years. Foot of course saw Labour's vote drop by 9% and lost 52 seats. So a lot better than Foot.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
There are certainly hints of déjà vu with this Corbyn episode and that of Foot. Both maybe a little too principled and true of heart to make political Leaders.
If you look at what happened to British politics once Thatch burnt herself out, then you see an exercise in the stealing of clothes. Blair off of Major, then Cameron off of Blair. We are told that Brexit has shaken British politics to it's core. H,mmm, we will have to wait and see, there is no evidence so far that the pattern has altered much.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
rolyn wrote: quote:
We are told that Brexit has shaken British politics to it's core. H,mmm, we will have to wait and see, there is no evidence so far that the pattern has altered much.
Since we haven't got any real live Brexit (or even any intimations of what it will mean) yet, then we'll certainly have to wait some while longer to see how this one pans out.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Given that the majority of the Labour selectorate appear to be against Trident, I'm going to suggest that whatever his motive for becoming pro-Trident, it probably wasn't to court votes in the leadership election ...
No, it was to court support from a faction of the PLP who treat being willing to blow up the world as a shibboleth of responsible government.
Except that he voted in favour of renewing Trident back in January 2015, when Mr Miliband was still leader. So again, unless he magically foresaw that Labour would lose the election, Mr Corbyn would become leader, and a year later he would have the opportunity for a leadership challenge, the evidence still suggests that his volte-face was unrelated to his leadership ambitions.
The party leadership isn't the only promotion opportunity aided by being on-message. Under any Labour right leader it has been verbotten to be anything other than rabidly pro-violence if you want to remain in cabinet.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought that it's the other way round, Brexit is a symptom of a great shake-up in politics and society, partly because of the great crash, but also the onrush of globalization, which is taking no prisoners. Many of the old shibboleths don't seem appropriate, so most politicians are flapping about, and repeating old shibboleths.
It's summed up by Hinkley, the massive cost, the outsourcing to other countries, the likelihood of time and cost overruns. Rejoice, rejoice, Mad Max is here.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that it's the other way round, Brexit is a symptom of a great shake-up in politics and society, partly because of the great crash, but also the onrush of globalization, which is taking no prisoners. Many of the old shibboleths don't seem appropriate, so most politicians are flapping about, and repeating old shibboleths.
It's summed up by Hinkley, the massive cost, the outsourcing to other countries, the likelihood of time and cost overruns. Rejoice, rejoice, Mad Max is here.
They are probably both true, I think. Certainly inter-related.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Except that he voted in favour of renewing Trident back in January 2015, when Mr Miliband was still leader. So again, unless he magically foresaw that Labour would lose the election, Mr Corbyn would become leader, and a year later he would have the opportunity for a leadership challenge, the evidence still suggests that his volte-face was unrelated to his leadership ambitions.
The party leadership isn't the only promotion opportunity aided by being on-message. Under any Labour right leader it has been verbotten to be anything other than rabidly pro-violence if you want to remain in cabinet.
Which is why Mr Miliband appointment Emily Thornberry as Shadow Attorney General, I suppose ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
So someone who opposes Corbyn's policies is a tory-lite/blairite/traitor who sneers, but someone who agrees with them is just saying so to get votes and can't be trusted? We really are truly screwed. This is through the looking glass stuff.
To be fair, I can't see a Shadow Cabinet in which most of the not entirely tiny beasts returned to office thinking that they could win an election on magic money tree policies. Owen would be like a Welsh husband who has assured his mates that he's totally up for going to the Cup Winners Cup Tie in Europe only to discover that Rachel Reeves has decided that the money needs to be set to one side for Mfanwy's wedding. "Well, see lads, I know I promised you the moon on a stick, but Rachel here, well, she's been doing her sums, lads, and she tells me we don't have the money. And Chris, Yvette and Liz all agree with her. Apparently there's this thing called 'Brexit' and this other thing called 'capital flight' and it means that we can't just go round chucking money about now and worry about the consequences later. Look, Boyo, there's no point calling me a Red Tory. I don't like it any more than you do but there we are".
The problem that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls faced was trying to set out social democratic policies in the aftermath of the financial crash when the whole Blair/ Brown thing of distributing the proceeds of growth a bit more fairly had just gone Pete Tong. And then, just as we had crawled, painfully, out of the slump into slightly more propitious circumstances, lo and behold the British electorate, bless their fur and whiskers decide to hole the British economy under the waterline by voting for Brexit. The idea that, in these circumstances, we could indulge, say, in the luxury of re-nationalising the railways is a joke. In the unlikely event of the reality based community taking over from the Corbynistas, the idea that Corbyn's policies surviving serious politicians who would quite like to win an election and then govern competently are close to zero.
Right now the question is how do you mitigate the effects of Brexit and what social democratic policies are remotely viable in the aftermath. We live in a world where the SPD scored 23% in Berlin and started playing "Seven Nation Army" at the post election party. Labour needs a Danton, someone whose analysis is "La Patrie est en danger" and "De l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace ". Not the kind of emo rubbish that currently constitutes the Smith-Corbyn debate, that basically we can have Corbynite policies and the only thing at state is whether or not Corbyn or Smith is the go to guy for delivering them.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Your understanding of economics is flawed. A national economy isn't a household budget, it's not the case that when the economy is in trouble you have to tighten your belt and hold of spending. In a national economy that makes things worse, not better. You need to invest in things that have a multiplier effect through the economy, like housing and infrastructure, and on providing support to the new businesses that will provide the jobs and put people to work to pay off debt in the boom that follows. It's called priming the pump. We've got the lowest borrowing costs in history, it's time to put them to work.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
If we are going to argue about who has a flawed grasp of economics, it might be worthwhile answering the as-yet unanswered question: If you are serious about wanting to end the policies of austerity, why would you support the guy whom even anti-austerity economists have lost confidence in?
FWIW, since the last time the railways were nationalised was in 1948, which was hardly an era of outstanding national prosperity, I don't think rail renationalisation is necessarily a daft idea, but I don't believe Mr Corbyn is the guy to do it.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
There's a difference between a properly costed Keynesian economic policy and the sort of thing that's been going on in the Labour leadership contest.
It's a bit like the inverted version of the Laffer curve.
According to the Laffer curve you can, in certain circumstances, raise revenue by cutting taxes. If tax rates are zero you get nothing, if tax rates are 100% you get nothing. So, if taxes are too high, cutting them raises revenue. But the idea that you can get more revenue by cutting taxes indefinitely is cargo cult stuff. Eventually you fall down the wrong side of the curve.
The same is true of Keynesian theory. Up to a certain point you can prime the pump. If you invest in public works you can, up to a point, stimulate economic growth. But only up to a point. To pay for this little lot you have to either borrow, divert money from other departments or raise taxes. Now if you have a proper plan, this might work, but if you merely have an aspiration to spend a shed load of money without worrying about where it is coming from, then you might bump up against obstacles.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I don't accept the premise of the question. Even if I did, the answer would be "because he's the only game in town". Show me a better candidate who is committed to sensible economic policies I'll gladly vote for them. Until then, Corbyn's the best option available.
EDIT: cross-posted
It's been made very clear the money is to come from borrowing. So long as it produces more growth than it costs to service the debt, that's not a problem - debt will fall as a percentage of GDP over the medium term.
[ 18. September 2016, 20:00: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't accept the premise of the question.
So are you saying that David Blanchflower, Simon Wren-Lewis, Thomas Piketty, and Richard Murphy don't exist?
quote:
Even if I did, the answer would be "because he's the only game in town". Show me a better candidate who is committed to sensible economic policies I'll gladly vote for them.
David Blanchflower and Simon Wren-Lewis both back Mr Smith.
The way it looks to me, Mr Smith's capacities are unproven, whereas Mr Corbyn's are proven to be not up to the job. Basically it is the equivalent of putting the inexperienced Academy kid on the pitch in place of the signing who has flopped all season.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Arethosemyfeet wrote: quote:
It's been made very clear the money is to come from borrowing. So long as it produces more growth than it costs to service the debt, that's not a problem - debt will fall as a percentage of GDP over the medium term.
As Callan pointed out, the theory is sound up to a point. The point comes when you just can't get anyone to lend you the folding stuff at a realistic rate (aka a Credit Crisis). Nobody knows when that will occur - it's more a matter of confidence than of calculation. There's no point borrowing at 48% (which is what Greece had to do in 2012).
The point here is that an anti-austerity strategy has to have a realistic costed plan. Not of course some pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. Do that and you should be able to get it to fly. Lenders are reasonably realistic - they tend to be outfits committed to the longer term such as pension funds etc. But right now no such thing exists.
Which is why it is worrying that economists who do have insight into how this can be made to work are walking away.
(I'm only talking about the borrowing component here of course).
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Oh well, Rachel Reeves has just written an article arguing the most important thing to do WRT Brexit is to end free movement of Labour so scratch my points about Labour's mainstream dragging Owen Smith to a reality based economic policy.
My current plan for Election Day 2020 is not quite finalised but visiting a polling station won't be high on my list of priorities.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
As Callan pointed out, the theory is sound up to a point. The point comes when you just can't get anyone to lend you the folding stuff at a realistic rate (aka a Credit Crisis). Nobody knows when that will occur - it's more a matter of confidence than of calculation.
At this point government borrowing rates are low, so there is clearly room to borrow. Arguing that something unexpected could happen that would raise rates is really an argument for never borrowing enough 'just in case', you either choose to trust the current yield curve on gilts, or you don't - in which case you are making an argument based on something else (ideology perhaps).
[Your Greek comparison is off because there were
other factors there that don't apply in this case - most importantly that they were effectively borrowing in a foreign currency.]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
To my mind, the problem isn't that borrowing for massive infrastructure projects is unsustainable (the model is presumably FDR's New Deal), but that it's possible to screw it up. And given that Mr Corbyn doesn't talk to his own economists, I'd say the chance of him screwing up and turning the UK into Venezuela is very high.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Yes, this is a very good time to borrow money on long term fixed interest repayment programmes for capital projects that deliver long term tangible benefits.
It's not a good argument for borrowing money just for the hell of it nor because you think borrowing money is fun, nor because you've got an ideological belief that spending public money is inherently good irrespective of what you spend it on, nor simply to create jobs, nor to fund current revenue expenditure.
A depressing feature of those of all parties responsible for managing public expenditure is that none of them ever seem to have understood this.
There are times when one despairs of people being able to spot the obvious. It's like not being able to see traffic lights because you are distracted by all the flashing adverts.
[ 19. September 2016, 11:35: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
As Callan pointed out, the theory is sound up to a point. The point comes when you just can't get anyone to lend you the folding stuff at a realistic rate (aka a Credit Crisis). Nobody knows when that will occur - it's more a matter of confidence than of calculation.
At this point government borrowing rates are low, so there is clearly room to borrow. Arguing that something unexpected could happen that would raise rates is really an argument for never borrowing enough 'just in case', you either choose to trust the current yield curve on gilts, or you don't - in which case you are making an argument based on something else (ideology perhaps).
[Your Greek comparison is off because there were
other factors there that don't apply in this case - most importantly that they were effectively borrowing in a foreign currency.]
I would have thought that the current financial state of the national accounts might spook the markets were a government to declare its intention to go on an uncosted spending spree financed entirely on the old never-never. Like the Irish Republican Army, the deficit hasn't gone away.
It might be added that, at the moment we are on the verge of re-negotiating the terms, under which, 85% of our foreign trade takes place. This may well take around a decade to resolve and it is the opinion of most informed observers that we will get a worse deal than the one that currently exists. I suspect, therefore, that attempts to borrow large sums of money predicated on the ability to repay it as a result of continual economic growth may be viewed with some scepticism by the markets, even were our debts less severe. Given that much of the electorate hold the position that the Labour government borrowed too much (I report, I do not condone), I doubt very much that it would get as far as the markets, but the sight of Mr McDonnell out on the stump for the next few years attempting to rehabilitate the record of Mr Gordon Brown will do something at least to alleviate the mournful scene our current political position presents.
The irony here is that the far left, who as the old joke goes, predicted seventeen out of the last five recessions are now arguing for favourable economic conditions which will continue inevitably. No more crises of capitalism! All hail the stability of the global financial markets!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yes, this is a very good time to borrow money on long term fixed interest repayment programmes for capital projects that deliver long term tangible benefits.
Conversely there are very few times where cutting back on maintenance of infrastructure to save money short term makes any sense, and this is not one of them.
Failing to maintain roads (as an example) under the rubric of austerity, is frankly just barmy.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Oh well, Rachel Reeves has just written an article arguing the most important thing to do WRT Brexit is to end free movement of Labour so scratch my points about Labour's mainstream dragging Owen Smith to a reality based economic policy.
My current plan for Election Day 2020 is not quite finalised but visiting a polling station won't be high on my list of priorities.
I think it will be essential: not to vote for someone, but to vote against someone or something else, that is very nasty indeed. Politics isn't pleasant now and it won't improve in the next few years.
[ 19. September 2016, 12:22: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
