Current Affairs The Labour Party

[Number_25]

think it works better when we have differing groups within labour as long as they can express there views within party guidelines, it stops it becoming prisoner of one particular strand of thought..
saying that If people are being forced out of the party for there views , it cant be a good thing in the long run.
The current problem as far as I can make out there is not a alignment between the members of the party , and some MP's and the wishes of the wider labour voting public, hard job getting all that right but until it does it makes the party weaker.

There's a bit of confusion here.

I want Labour to be a broadchurch - but not the sort of highchurch many within the PLP want.

If polls are to be believed, our policies have mass support. It's just an issue of cutting through all of these attacks to get them out there, this is why having a mass-movement of members that can directly go out there and talk to people is so important right now.

 

[abelard]

@abelard

Just a reminder that when you refer to UBI in the "replacement" sense you miss an opportunity to leverage the absolute support of Charles Murray to this plan (I think he even claims some authorship in one of his post-curve books), so there's the racism card available when/if necessary.

No charge. Have at them.

I imagine the current lot of feckless Tories is sufficiently incompetent so as to hand things over to Labour at some point soon if Labour can only keep from shooting themselves in the foot, as you have outlined above. What you really need to prepare for is the aftermath of that, which will carry strong echoes of what we are seeing these days in the former colonies. If I'm lucky, I'll still be around to watch that in real time.

I am aware of Chuckles' thoughts on UBI. They are at least more coherent than the methodological premise of the Bell Curve - that pseudoscience works like negative integers in that you can combine two of them (race and IQ) and somehow end up with a positive. The main argument - that government investment is pointless because poor people are predestined always to be that way - is also pretty demonstrably untrue.

People who haven't actually read the Bell Curve often accuse Murray of arguing that race determines intelligence, and they become flustered and tend to look foolish because he doesn't quite do this in the Bell Curve (though he does still manage to cite at great length Rhodesian pseudoscience connecting race and intelligence).

He does however make this argument far more explicitly (and even less scientifically) in other works, which, even more thankfully for your favourite torturer sex-pest's continued status as "silenced" best-selling dark money-think tank multimillionaire, people are even less likely to have read. Racism aside, Human Accomplishment
simply on logical grounds should have been more than enough to put an end to the amusing notion of Charles Murray as a serious intellect, but there is of course no shortage of angry conservative rubes willing to buy (but also not read) his books simply because of the enemies he attracts.

Anyhow, back to UBI, I don't really feel like I understand it well enough to have a strong view myself yet. It would be good politics though for Labour to make a big show of trialling it somewhere (Corby, perhaps), so they can cash in on the technofuturists'-new-clothes appeal - which our gullible, fatuous would-be technocrats still fawn over even after Theranos - without being too beholden to any unintended effects. But there are likely much faster and cheaper ways to restore Britain back into the 20th century.

BTW, what is it you're going for in the last paragraph? That the "Deep State" will go after Jez like they are with The Donald? That's perhaps true on the surface, but subtantially a bit absurd; Britain is really out of its "depth", to continue the metaphor, relative to America, and unlike, say, this, the worst that can be leveraged against Corbyn personally is that he can be a bit of a pedant when it comes to manhole covers or muesli.

 

[abelard]

further to my previous rant, it is also worth noting that the way Labour has handled the anti-semitism kerfuffle so far is also very likely to be most harmful to the one issue on which Corbyn is trying to stand on principle: telling the truth about Israel.

most voters' awareness of this story is unlikely to include Margaret Hodge, Pete Willsman, or any clear understanding of what the IHRA, NEC, or JC even are.

they will however retain some dim conflation of "Jeremy Corbyn" and "anti-semite", not likely sufficient to shape the way they vote come the next GE, but certainly enough so that when Corbyn does speak out the next time Israel carpet bombs Lebanon or conquers more of the West Bank or pulls a Sharpesville in Gaza, they'll recall that "well, ee's always had it in for 'em though innit"

it's precisely on the one issue where Corbyn really does care passionately, and where his stance really is admirable and courageous, that the utter abdication of any sort of message in response to a media that will continue to run rampant is likely to be most damaging.

 

[mezzrow]

BTW, what is it you're going for in the last paragraph? That the "Deep State" will go after Jez like they are with The Donald? That's perhaps true on the surface, but subtantially a bit absurd; Britain is really out of its "depth", to continue the metaphor, relative to America, and unlike, say, this, the worst that can be leveraged against Corbyn personally is that he can be a bit of a pedant when it comes to manhole covers or muesli.

Naw, the deep state in the UK is mostly behind Corbyn even if under the surface, imho. He will either bring about some form of socialist order that will endure and spawn worthy successors, or politics will carry on as it has to date with the swing of the pendulum back and forth between capitalism and a controlled economy.

What are you going to do with the far right if it will not go away of its own accord but instead, grows? What rough beast, etc, etc is where I'm going with this. The failure of the Obama ascendancy to deal with this possibility, coupled with the rank incompetence of HRC in losing a lay down setup election has led us to our current argy-bargy over here.

The most difficult consequences are the ones that are unintended. Both sides have their blind spots. I give you both some morning comedy and something to vault for when the dreaded day comes.

I live to serve.

 

[tsubaki]

I'm growing increasingly concerned that the media seems to be giving socialists a harder time in interviews than fascists.

When has this not been the case? The far right has always been received more positively in the mass media, especially the papers, than the left has.

 

[tsubaki]

BTW, what is it you're going for in the last paragraph? That the "Deep State" will go after Jez like they are with The Donald? That's perhaps true on the surface, but subtantially a bit absurd; Britain is really out of its "depth", to continue the metaphor, relative to America, and unlike, say, this, the worst that can be leveraged against Corbyn personally is that he can be a bit of a pedant when it comes to manhole covers or muesli.

TBH Corbyn, or at least what he represents, is far more of a threat to the establishment than the Donald is (or Le Pen was in France).

If one big Western economy reverses course from the path of ever higher debt, ever higher spending, ever more sell-offs and ever deeper cuts as well as bringing in some much needed honesty to the financial world then the pressure on the rest of them, especially the US, will be massive.

 

[mezzrow]

TBH Corbyn, or at least what he represents, is far more of a threat to the establishment than the Donald is (or Le Pen was in France).

If one big Western economy reverses course from the path of ever higher debt, ever higher spending, ever more sell-offs and ever deeper cuts as well as bringing in some much needed honesty to the financial world then the pressure on the rest of them, especially the US, will be massive.

Agreed. Have at it. The whole world will be watching. I think Corbyn in charge is inevitable, at this point.

How'd you like to have put a chunk of change on that five years ago? Every bit as unlikely as Trump in the White House. We miss so many opportunities through ignorance and failure to see the future...

 

[abelard]

TBH Corbyn, or at least what he represents, is far more of a threat to the establishment than the Donald is (or Le Pen was in France).

If one big Western economy reverses course from the path of ever higher debt, ever higher spending, ever more sell-offs and ever deeper cuts as well as bringing in some much needed honesty to the financial world then the pressure on the rest of them, especially the US, will be massive.

Oh... sure. Financially, Trump has done almost everything that they could have asked and then some. They don't love the tariffs, mind, but then some interpret that as serving an even deeper state still.

I just meant that they would have to work much harder to smear Corbyn because his supporters are generally pretty well educated and informed, and not emminently manipulable halfwits like the Trumplings, and because Trump is legitimately a criminal who, for example, has helped the Iranian Revolutionary Guards launder their money. Corbyn might have once forgotten to water his elderly neighbour's plants one time, back in 1974.

But I actually think once the shock wears off, a Corbyn government would go down easier than you might think, not least because he would almost certainly cause the economy in Britain to improve for the first time in almost a decade.

The parallels with Lula are instructive: Economist types were frothing at the mouth about Castro and all but begging the CIA to murder him long before he actually took power, and the Brazilian Davos set withdrew its hordings in droves - only for Lula to implement achingly obvious reforms aimed at growing the national economy by helping the majority of its people, which delivered...... gasp! the largest stock market expansion of any country anywhere in the world during his tenure.

 

[tsubaki]

Oh... sure. Financially, Trump has done almost everything that they could have asked and then some. They don't love the tariffs, mind, but then some interpret that as serving an even deeper state still.

I just meant that they would have to work much harder to smear Corbyn because his supporters are generally pretty well educated and informed, and not emminently manipulable halfwits like the Trumplings, and because Trump is legitimately a criminal who, for example, has helped the Iranian Revolutionary Guards launder their money. Corbyn might have once forgotten to water his elderly neighbour's plants one time, back in 1974.

But I actually think once the shock wears off, a Corbyn government would go down easier than you might think, not least because he would almost certainly cause the economy in Britain to grow again for the first time in almost a decade.

The parallels with Lula are instructive: Economist types were frothing at the mouth about Castro and all but begging the CIA to murder him long before he actually took power, and the Brazilian Davos set withdrew its hordings in droves - only for Lula to implement achingly obvious reforms aimed at growing the national economy by helping the majority of its people, which delivered...... gasp! the largest stock market expansion of any country anywhere in the world during his tenure.

Oh I agree that a Corbyn government would do a lot of good economically; but there would be some people who would stand to lose a fortune and almost all of them are at the top of the food chain. There is no reason to think they'd just meekly acquiesce in them losing money, power or the status that comes from that.

 

[mezzrow]

Oh... sure. Financially, Trump has done almost everything that they could have asked and then some. They don't love the tariffs, mind, but then some interpret that as serving an even deeper state still.

I just meant that they would have to work much harder to smear Corbyn because his supporters are generally pretty well educated and informed, and not emminently manipulable halfwits like the Trumplings, and because Trump is legitimately a criminal who, for example, has helped the Iranian Revolutionary Guards launder their money. Corbyn might have once forgotten to water his elderly neighbour's plants one time, back in 1974.

But I actually think once the shock wears off, a Corbyn government would go down easier than you might think, not least because he would almost certainly cause the economy in Britain to improve for the first time in almost a decade.

The parallels with Lula are instructive: Economist types were frothing at the mouth about Castro and all but begging the CIA to murder him long before he actually took power, and the Brazilian Davos set withdrew its hordings in droves - only for Lula to implement achingly obvious reforms aimed at growing the national economy by helping the majority of its people, which delivered...... gasp! the largest stock market expansion of any country anywhere in the world during his tenure.

And what has been his reward? How are things in Brasil today?

On his first morning as a prisoner, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had a breakfast of bread, butter and coffee.

Later on Sunday, he watched a final soccer championship match between Corinthians, which he roots for, and its archrival, Palmeiras. His team won on penalties.

Mr. da Silva, 72, is no ordinary prisoner: Outside the building where he is confined is a plaque with his name on it, commemorating the opening of the building in 2007, during his presidency of Brazil.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/world/americas/brazil-lula-jail.html

Rule of Acquisition # 285. Still in force.

 

[abelard]

And what has been his reward? How are things in Brasil today?

On his first morning as a prisoner, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had a breakfast of bread, butter and coffee.

Later on Sunday, he watched a final soccer championship match between Corinthians, which he roots for, and its archrival, Palmeiras. His team won on penalties.

Mr. da Silva, 72, is no ordinary prisoner: Outside the building where he is confined is a plaque with his name on it, commemorating the opening of the building in 2007, during his presidency of Brazil.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/world/americas/brazil-lula-jail.html

Rule of Acquisition # 285. Still in force.

Quite. They've come along way since 1964, at least. And Lula was demonstrably guilty, even though that's obviously the last reason why anyone in Brazilian politics goes to jail.

The UK, on the other hand, and to a much lesser extent the US, have stronger institutions than Brazil though. Both were vastly more economically left-wing within living memory than what Corbyn or Sanders are proposing. There will be no doubt be much gnashing of teeth, commissioning of op-eds and think tank reports, and threats to withdraw capital should Corbyn win, but I think comparisons to Brazil, which has an actual deep state rather than just Q-Anon reveries, are a bit overblown.

We'll see...

 

[tsubaki]

Quite. They've come along way since 1964, at least. And Lula was demonstrably guilty, even though that's obviously the last reason why anyone in Brazilian politics goes to jail.

The UK, on the other hand, and to a much lesser extent the US, have stronger institutions than Brazil though. Both were vastly more economically left-wing within living memory than what Corbyn or Sanders are proposing. There will be no doubt be much gnashing of teeth, commissioning of op-eds and think tank reports, and threats to withdraw capital should Corbyn win, but I think comparisons to Brazil, which has an actual deep state rather than just Q-Anon reveries, are a bit overblown.

We'll see...

I hope you are right, but the reaction to even minor events - like Osita Mba whistleblowing on the (at best) deeply suspicious links between the top of HMRC and firms who wanted to pay less tax, or like the investigation into James Ibori (in which the cops who exposed and convicted him and the bent solicitor who laundered his stolen money were accused in Parliament and at subsequent court hearings of being bent themselves), or the revelations in the latest Private Eye that the rigging of the LIBOR rate was at the direction of senior managers at the various banks (and who let lesser figures go to prison for less serious offences), or even the involvement of (and failure by) the Big Four accountancy firms in every major financial scandal of the past forty years - does not suggest we have stronger institutions than Brazil.

 

[abelard]

I hope you are right, but the reaction to even minor events - like Osita Mba whistleblowing on the (at best) deeply suspicious links between the top of HMRC and firms who wanted to pay less tax, or like the investigation into James Ibori (in which the cops who exposed and convicted him and the bent solicitor who laundered his stolen money were accused in Parliament and at subsequent court hearings of being bent themselves), or the revelations in the latest Private Eye that the rigging of the LIBOR rate was at the direction of senior managers at the various banks (and who let lesser figures go to prison for less serious offences), or even the involvement of (and failure by) the Big Four accountancy firms in every major financial scandal of the past forty years - does not suggest we have stronger institutions than Brazil.

I'm not at all trying to edify Britain. I've no doubt that what you describe would continue under Corbyn, and that those involved would resist any efforts at reform. But they would do so within a much narrower set of confines, and would have to contend with a solid bloc of popular political opposition, which in Britain, unlike Brazil, still actually means something. One of the few reassuring things about Brexit (or even Trump) is that voter decisions which elites so unanimously opposed (and in the US, they were not at all sure about Trump before he sacked Bannon, kissed the Koch ring, and appointed Goldman Sachs to run the cabinet) are still nonetheless likely to proceed in one form or another simply because enough people demonstrated their support for them through the accepted processes.

A bit of perspective is needed. In Brazil, which elected a vaguely Corbynish leader in 1964, the military responded by launching a coup d'etat, followed by two decades of military rule, in which hundreds of people were assassinated, or secretly detained or executed. Probably tens of thousands more were arrested and tortured, to say nothing of the countless others and their families who were fired, harrassed, surveilled, persecuted, and generally socially blacklisted. And Brazil was considerably more benign than Argentina, Paraguay, or Chile.

Today, in the Financial Times, possibly the most mainstream elite publication in the world, you can find detailed exposés on the Big Four, and calls to reform the auditing system. Anyone who tried to publish something similar in Brazil then, and increasingly now, given the premptive coup against Lula and the rise of Bolsonaro, would likely be fired, if not arrested and tortured or simply disappeared. Sure, if Corbyn provides even a fraction of the rope that Trump has, his adversaries will waste little time pouncing and using it to hang him. He will face stern resistance, at least initially, but nobody is going to start strafing Westminster, or rounding up Momentum's facebook likers, throwing them in back of vans, and affixing electrodes to their testicles. I mean, "elite" Labour's nefarious scheme to stop him was Owen Smith. It's not that Britain is so wonderful, but that so much of human politics has been so much worse, and it is really does reek of privilege to, in moments of cynicism, start floating those types of comparisons.

For anyone who has ever spent any time talking to victims of the deep state in countries where the concept actually holds meaning, it's particularly offensive having to endure petulant Republican manchildren whinging about X-Files grade conspiracies simply because the corporate press is however haltingly doing its job and attempting to inform the public about their Dear Leader.

 

[peteblue]

TBH Corbyn, or at least what he represents, is far more of a threat to the establishment than the Donald is (or Le Pen was in France).

If one big Western economy reverses course from the path of ever higher debt, ever higher spending, ever more sell-offs and ever deeper cuts as well as bringing in some much needed honesty to the financial world then the pressure on the rest of them, especially the US, will be massive.

So how would Corbyn being in charge reduce debt and ever higher spending.......

 

[tsubaki]

So how would Corbyn being in charge reduce debt and ever higher spending.......

Well, seeing as its you, I would say he would nationalize somethings that we currently have operating in ways that are vastly wasteful of money but which the Government dare not be seen to nationalize (the railways for instance, but also defence housing and the various PFI schemes) and also look to cut some welfare costs (housing benefit being the biggest) by building more affordable / social housing.