Current Affairs The Labour Party

[catcherintherye]

It encapsulates the feelings towards current politics perfectly. Just because people don’t like May or Corbyn doesn’t mean that people will gravitate towards an alternative party. Arguably, people are becoming more passé towards politics due to the dearth of policies which actually speak to the man on the street. As the article sums up towards the end, it puts the country in the horrible position of a populist movement springing up.

I think that's a good point mate.

I also think, if we are honest Corbyn is representative of a populist movement. What he's not is a leader of a well established political party, hence the contradiction. He shoots himself in the foot because he tries to be.

In all honesty, Labour and the Tories are in serious trouble, once the Brexit fall out happens. I think the political map will be redrawn.

 

[catcherintherye]

I should be ideal Lib Dem material really, but have no clue what they really stand for, so I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable voting for them. I know Jo Swinson a bit, and she's a nice enough lady but she's a very long way from being prime minister material. That's kind of the point of the article I think - that politicians from all parties are really poor at the moment, hence why 'don't know' scores so highly on tests of who would be the best PM.

Would you vote lib dem though mate? Or Labour? Or other?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Would you vote lib dem though mate? Or Labour? Or other?

I honestly have no idea. If there was an election tomorrow I'm not sure I'd vote at all, as they're all pretty bad (from the perspective of my ideals).

 

[tsubaki]

I think that's a good point mate.

I also think, if we are honest Corbyn is representative of a populist movement. What he's not is a leader of a well established political party, hence the contradiction. He shoots himself in the foot because he tries to be.

In all honesty, Labour and the Tories are in serious trouble, once the Brexit fall out happens. I think the political map will be redrawn.

This is a criticism that is often raised about Corbyn, but like most criticisms often raised about Corbyn it really does not stand up to scrutiny that well.

I mean, how do we define success as a British political leader? Increased electoral performance (election wins especially)? Increases in the party membership / improvement of its finances? Commons defeats for the Government? Bringing in internal improvements in the party that makes success more likely in the next generation? Being proved right by events?

Corbyn only gets labelled as a failure as a leader for three reasons - firstly, the refusal of a large chunk of the PLP to acknowledge either that they are wrong (whether it be over Syria, over the daft focus on "immigration concerns" or something like the Salisbury attack) or even that they lost two leadership elections, secondly because its in the interest of the political class (and its hangers-on) as a whole to portray him as such because of the threat he (or rather, any reform of the status quo) represents to them, and lastly because the image of a strong leader has been so debased by decades of idiotic political / media spin (via Thatcher, Blair (especially), Cameron/Clegg and now May - though the phenomenon is even worse abroad) that it is doubtful that the term has any actual meaning any more.

The Labour Party that fought the 2015 election was in a seriously bad way; its politics were ludicrous and its presentation even worse. Its membership was declining, it was in severe financial peril and it deservedly got smashed. Fortunately, it had the sense to do something about it and the results should be obvious.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

This is a criticism that is often raised about Corbyn, but like most criticisms often raised about Corbyn it really does not stand up to scrutiny that well.

I mean, how do we define success as a British political leader? Increased electoral performance (election wins especially)? Increases in the party membership / improvement of its finances? Commons defeats for the Government? Bringing in internal improvements in the party that makes success more likely in the next generation? Being proved right by events?

Corbyn only gets labelled as a failure as a leader for three reasons - firstly, the refusal of a large chunk of the PLP to acknowledge either that they are wrong (whether it be over Syria, over the daft focus on "immigration concerns" or something like the Salisbury attack) or even that they lost two leadership elections, secondly because its in the interest of the political class (and its hangers-on) as a whole to portray him as such because of the threat he (or rather, any reform of the status quo) represents to them, and lastly because the image of a strong leader has been so debased by decades of idiotic political / media spin (via Thatcher, Blair (especially), Cameron/Clegg and now May - though the phenomenon is even worse abroad) that it is doubtful that the term has any actual meaning any more.

The Labour Party that fought the 2015 election was in a seriously bad way; its politics were ludicrous and its presentation even worse. Its membership was declining, it was in severe financial peril and it deservedly got smashed. Fortunately, it had the sense to do something about it and the results should be obvious.

A couple of points on this. I appreciate that he's leader of the opposition, and so there is a limit to his scope, but all of the things you mention there are only really of interest to the Labour party. Lest we forget, even with the growth in membership, the membership of the party represents about 4% of total Labour voters, and even less of the electorate as a whole. Corbyn is fond of banging on about being for 'the many' rather than the few, so that's perhaps worth remembering.

Secondly, the apparent opposition to Corbyn by 'the establishment' is something that's trotted out by populists all the time. It's done so in a sense that it's 'the establishment' that's keeping the people down, and only by the outsider storming the ramparts can the righteous order be restored. It's a narrative Farage has used with Brexit, and just as with Brexit, I suspect that for most sensible people in 'the establishment', the opposition to Corbyn is more akin to their opposition to Brexit, in the sense that they think it would be terrible for Britain, rather than that their ivory tower would be disrupted.

 

[tsubaki]

A couple of points on this. I appreciate that he's leader of the opposition, and so there is a limit to his scope, but all of the things you mention there are only really of interest to the Labour party. Lest we forget, even with the growth in membership, the membership of the party represents about 4% of total Labour voters, and even less of the electorate as a whole. Corbyn is fond of banging on about being for 'the many' rather than the few, so that's perhaps worth remembering.

Well, for a start that post was in response to a statement that he wasn't very good at being "a leader of a well established political party" so surely pointing out that he is actually rather a good leader of a well established political party was appropriate. However the first point was the fact that Labour under his leadership got 12.8 million votes at the last General Election - more than any Labour leader since Blair in 1997 - and it was the fifth best GE performance in their entire history (Wilson and Attlee beat it twice, Blair once). His appeal is not limited to members of the party, snowflake millenials or the cult (delete as appropriate) - as the 9.6% swing to Labour in that election would tend to demonstrate.

Secondly, the apparent opposition to Corbyn by 'the establishment' is something that's trotted out by populists all the time. It's done so in a sense that it's 'the establishment' that's keeping the people down, and only by the outsider storming the ramparts can the righteous order be restored. It's a narrative Farage has used with Brexit, and just as with Brexit, I suspect that for most sensible people in 'the establishment', the opposition to Corbyn is more akin to their opposition to Brexit, in the sense that they think it would be terrible for Britain, rather than that their ivory tower would be disrupted.

That is the thing with populists though, they tend to identify things that are of popular concern and then use them to promote their own agendas - whether its dying babies, criminal activity, privatizations, the decline in living standards, service personnel being treated appallingly, the increased instability of work or pressure on social housing stocks.

Just because they do that doesn't negate the fact that all of those things actually exist, nor does it mean that other people (who hold rather more long-established, better evidenced and more thought out views) don't get to comment on them and suggest alternatives either. In fact, if you want to use Brexit as an example then I'd be willing to put money on the ignoring of those issues (over years) being rather more to blame for that vote than one allotment-based Communist was.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Well, for a start that post was in response to a statement that he wasn't very good at being "a leader of a well established political party" so surely pointing out that he is actually rather a good leader of a well established political party was appropriate. However the first point was the fact that Labour under his leadership got 12.8 million votes at the last General Election - more than any Labour leader since Blair in 1997 - and it was the fifth best GE performance in their entire history (Wilson and Attlee beat it twice, Blair once). His appeal is not limited to members of the party, snowflake millenials or the cult (delete as appropriate) - as the 9.6% swing to Labour in that election would tend to demonstrate.



That is the thing with populists though, they tend to identify things that are of popular concern and then use them to promote their own agendas - whether its dying babies, criminal activity, privatizations, the decline in living standards, service personnel being treated appallingly, the increased instability of work or pressure on social housing stocks.

Just because they do that doesn't negate the fact that all of those things actually exist, nor does it mean that other people (who hold rather more long-established, better evidenced and more thought out views) don't get to comment on them and suggest alternatives either. In fact, if you want to use Brexit as an example then I'd be willing to put money on the ignoring of those issues (over years) being rather more to blame for that vote than one allotment-based Communist was.

I can't speak for others of course, but I don't think populists are bad because they propose things are popular. Indeed, that's largely what politicians have tried to do for aeons. Where they're dangerous is that they both over-egg the scale of the problem, and massively over-simplify the solution to that problem. We've seen the former used by Trump in his crazy rhetoric about the migrant caravan in the run up to the midterms, and various other parties across Europe with regards to George Soros.

I don't believe Corbyn succumbs to that so much, but he does succumb to the latter. The Labour manifesto was frankly barking. We've seen in this parliament how much time has been spent dealing with Brexit, and Labour wanted to do that plus nationalise numerous industries and do a whole bunch of stuff that would exhaust a government at the best of times, let alone one with Brexit on their plate. Now you could justly say that the Tories have been awful at managing Brexit, but I don't believe Labour would be so much better that they'd be able to chomp on all of that successfully before 2022.

Populists are dangerous because they fundamentally distort what is possible. We have seen that in Greece when Syriza promised all manner of things that they'd be able to do, but the reality was far more sobering. The same is largely happening here, as Johnson et al promised ridiculous things with regards to Brexit, and then May's more realistic deal was rejected out of hand.

Politicians should stop treating the public like mugs, but it's difficult when you've got those (usually harking from the sidelines) their outlandish claims that never have to come into contact with reality. If they do, you simply create a narrative around fake news or bogeymen to explain the failure of your ridiculous plans.

 

[Number_25]

Populists are dangerous because they fundamentally distort what is possible. We have seen that in Greece when Syriza promised all manner of things that they'd be able to do, but the reality was far more sobering. The same is largely happening here, as Johnson et al promised ridiculous things with regards to Brexit, and then May's more realistic deal was rejected out of hand.

Politicians should stop treating the public like mugs, but it's difficult when you've got those (usually harking from the sidelines) their outlandish claims that never have to come into contact with reality. If they do, you simply create a narrative around fake news or bogeymen to explain the failure of your ridiculous plans.

I find this interesting.

It's almost as if capitalism and democracy are incompatible in the long run, and that all of this was inevitable.

Edit: I'll elaborate a bit. Take Greece as an example, if the people decide that they are not going to placate ECB driven austerity measures, then shouldn't we respect it as a democratic decision - or is protecting the integrity of the market more important?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I find this interesting.

It's almost as if capitalism and democracy are incompatible in the long run, and that all of this was inevitable.

Edit: I'll elaborate a bit. Take Greece as an example, if the people decide that they are not going to placate ECB driven austerity measures, then shouldn't we respect it as a democratic decision - or is protecting the integrity of the market more important?

Greece needed money. The loan they got from the ECB had certain strings attached to try and get the Greek economy ship shape again, but the Greek government could have gone elsewhere to get the money if there were people queuing up to lend to them on the same terms but with no conditions attached to the loan. That there wasn't such a queue might be indicative, no?

 

[Methuselah]

I find this interesting.

It's almost as if capitalism and democracy are incompatible in the long run, and that all of this was inevitable.

Edit: I'll elaborate a bit. Take Greece as an example, if the people decide that they are not going to placate ECB driven austerity measures, then shouldn't we respect it as a democratic decision - or is protecting the integrity of the market more important?

The Greece analogy is a very good point Number_25. All the EU had to do was sit down with Greece, analyse Greece's unique problems and agree a plan. However, the EU rules don't allow that. They have to be the same for all 27 countries. So Greece are condemned to austerity in perpetuity. Italy are on the same road. The EU is a rules based dictatorship.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The Greece analogy is a very good point Number_25. All the EU had to do was sit down with Greece, analyse Greece's unique problems and agree a plan. However, the EU rules don't allow that. They have to be the same for all 27 countries. So Greece are condemned to austerity in perpetuity. Italy are on the same road. The EU is a rules based dictatorship.

The EU lent Greece €144bn (or around 70% of Greek GDP if you prefer a relative figure). The UK lent Greece the best part of bugger all. All the socialist republics of the world lent Greece even less than we did. The Greeks had €100bn of debt effectively written off by private banks.

Seriously, socialists must be the only people who think you can get out of a mess by doubling down on the things that got you into the mess in the first place. Just as happened elsewhere, the EU make a convenient scapegoat for any government that has long refused to get their own shambolic house in order. Given the amount of money lost by German banks by lending to the likes of Greece, I'm sure they'll think twice before doing so again.

 

[Number_25]

Greece needed money. The loan they got from the ECB had certain strings attached to try and get the Greek economy ship shape again, but the Greek government could have gone elsewhere to get the money if there were people queuing up to lend to them on the same terms but with no conditions attached to the loan. That there wasn't such a queue might be indicative, no?

You are ignoring the point I'm making here.

We're likely to see another recession within the next ~5 years. This will happen time and time again. It's not the children who go to school hungry that caused it, but ultimately they're the ones who'll suffer.

Can't blame the Greek or Italian people for saying no, can you?

 

[hallamblue]

The EU lent Greece €144bn (or around 70% of Greek GDP if you prefer a relative figure). The UK lent Greece the best part of bugger all. All the socialist republics of the world lent Greece even less than we did. The Greeks had €100bn of debt effectively written off by private banks.

Seriously, socialists must be the only people who think you can get out of a mess by doubling down on the things that got you into the mess in the first place. Just as happened elsewhere, the EU make a convenient scapegoat for any government that has long refused to get their own shambolic house in order. Given the amount of money lost by German banks by lending to the likes of Greece, I'm sure they'll think twice before doing so again.

Not sure what Socialism has to do with it. America, the supposed land of rampant capitalism, props up it's own failing industries and is over $10 trillion in debt. I don't notice them suggesting austerity, they just keep racking up the debt!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You are ignoring the point I'm making here.

We're likely to see another recession within the next ~5 years. This will happen time and time again. It's not the children who go to school hungry that caused it, but ultimately they're the ones who'll suffer.

Can't blame the Greek or Italian people for saying no, can you?

Has there ever been a period in human history where those most vulnerable to change don't suffer as a result of it?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Not sure what Socialism has to do with it. America, the supposed land of rampant capitalism, props up it's own failing industries and is over $10 trillion in debt. I don't notice them suggesting austerity, they just keep racking up the debt!

Because Germany and the EU are being criticised for lending Greece money and requiring as a condition of them doing so that they sort their government out, whereas China, Venuzuela and all the other countries who might ideologically oppose any form of austerity kept their hands in their pockets.