Jeremy Corbyn

527 posts / 0 new
Last post
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Corbyn Lives to Fight Another Day

quote:

This is because the crisis is so urgent. We need a clear break from neoliberalism soon. We need parties in power that can embrace the network society, devolve power, end austerity, and challenge the global banking industry. And to do all of this we need them to be able to mobilize their societies and fight.

Corbyn’s Labour has not achieved this yet. It has been a capture of a vehicle. Now is the time to transform the vehicle. I hope he succeeds but for me, whether Corbyn wins or loses, this is a transition in British politics towards formats in which the oppressed and exploited can fight back.

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

Corbyn Lives to Fight Another Day

quote:

This is because the crisis is so urgent. We need a clear break from neoliberalism soon. We need parties in power that can embrace the network society, devolve power, end austerity, and challenge the global banking industry. And to do all of this we need them to be able to mobilize their societies and fight.

Corbyn’s Labour has not achieved this yet. It has been a capture of a vehicle. Now is the time to transform the vehicle. I hope he succeeds but for me, whether Corbyn wins or loses, this is a transition in British politics towards formats in which the oppressed and exploited can fight back.

This has laid bare how neoliberals, or at least establishment types have hijacked progressive parties. You can go right, righter or rightest.

It also exposes the belief of the political establishment and supporters thereof. They think of democracy as a situation where you choose a leader amongst your betters who then decides what is in your best interests. Your opinion is not welcomed. That is why the parliamentarians feel it is their right to overthrow the leader. They represent the monied interests of their territory rather than the constituents themselves.

Elites chose representative democracy, and even then were nervous that the rabble would overthrow them and take all their wealth. So far representative democracy has served well enough to prevent an uprising but their control is slipping.

sherpa-finn

You can go right, righter or rightest.

But so long as you go Trudeau, all is understood, and all is forgiven. 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Elites chose representative democracy, and even then were nervous that the rabble would overthrow them and take all their wealth.

Did they choose this after things like Aristocracy ceased to work for them?

nicky

http://labourlist.org/2016/07/luke-akehurst-nec-has-closed-loopholes-tha...

If he wins he will still be in the same position:

With an 18 per cent rating on whether people want him to be PM compared to 62 per cent for Theresa May and behind “don’t know” on 20 per cent
8 per cent behind the Tories in the opinion polls
Without the confidence of over 80 per cent of the PLP
With a frontbench so full of holes Labour cannot physically transact the day-to-day business of parliamentary opposition
With the Soft Left so alienated they are actually leading the charge against him
With public knowledge of the low esteem his closest colleagues have for his performance
With many of the young people who he inspired in 2015 deeply disillusioned that he let them down during the referendum campaign
With the activists and councillors who are Labour’s campaigning backbone in open rebellion

josh
mark_alfred

Re:  Post #174

Here's a fuller version of the video referred to in post #174.  While it's a bit ironic that the situation of Labour turned out to be similar to the situation that she portrayed the Cons as being in, it's worthy to note that she is quite adept at jousting with the Cons.  Just looking at it from the perspective of performance, she was quite good.

Speaking of the performance, politics in the UK is wild.  I've never seen anything like this in Canada.  It's like an even more aggressive version of the Press Gallery Dinner here in Canada, but held regularly in UK's parliament. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8krXNqQZa1U

 

mark_alfred

Quote:

Corbyn lost a meaningless vote held by his party's MPs, a group which never supported him or accepted him as leader...Mulcair lost a vote of the rank and file

Delegates actually, rather than a rank and file OMOV.

josh

 

His sectarianism and that of Momentum 

 

What is this sectarianism? A majority of Labour voters are a sect? Interesting.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

If I was the leader of the Labour right now, I would call a press conference, I would ask for an election to be called to allow voters to give their opinion on Theresa May as Prime Minister, and I would announce that if I became Prime Minister I would not honour the referendum. At least we'd get to see whether the voters preferred straight talk to the weasling of the Conservatives and the Eagle led Labour MPs.

So what you are saying is that the referendum results should be overthown and voters should be told it isn't an option.

Offering the voters the chance to elect a Prime Minister who states clearly at the beginning of the campaign that if elected will reject the EU referendum isn't telling the voters anything except they have a chance to reverse the outcome of the referendum. So the voters would most definitely have an option. They could vote for someone who promises to declare Article 50.

The referendum was not legally binding. People knew that when they voted. So any government could have chosen to ignore the result without going to an election. But I'm not suggesting that.

And as far as that goes, the Labour Party was in favour of 'Remain', and in fact castigated Corbyn for not campaigning for 'Remain' with enough vigour. So they wouldn't be going against any party principle. They would be doing exactly as the party wished.

You must know that the new Conservative Prime Minister doesn't want to declare Article 50, and has said she won't declare it until at least next year. But what's the hold-up? Negotiations to leave cannot start until the declaration is made, so if you want to critcise someone, it really should be the Conservatives. They say they'll declare Article 50, just not right now, and there'll be an election, just not right now. Those are the people who are frustrating the wishes of the voters.

 

 

Rev Pesky

nicky wrote:
http://labourlist.org/2016/07/luke-akehurst-nec-has-closed-loopholes-tha... If he wins he will still be in the same position: With an 18 per cent rating on whether people want him to be PM compared to 62 per cent for Theresa May and behind “don’t know” on 20 per cent 8 per cent behind the Tories in the opinion polls Without the confidence of over 80 per cent of the PLP With a frontbench so full of holes Labour cannot physically transact the day-to-day business of parliamentary opposition With the Soft Left so alienated they are actually leading the charge against him With public knowledge of the low esteem his closest colleagues have for his performance With many of the young people who he inspired in 2015 deeply disillusioned that he let them down during the referendum campaign With the activists and councillors who are Labour’s campaigning backbone in open rebellion

Jeez, maybe Tony Blair will come back and save Labour.

SeekingAPolitic...
quizzical

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
Elites chose representative democracy, and even then were nervous that the rabble would overthrow them and take all their wealth.

Did they choose this after things like Aristocracy ceased to work for them?

i was going to make a smart ass nasty comment about this comment of yours then decided not to. not worth the effort to respond to someone's innate sense of privilege leaving them with no sense of how unsuitable their comment is.

quizzical

wow and who are the NEC to decide what the actual members can and cannot do? WTF????

Rev Pesky

Here's a good one. Two days after I was criticised for suggesting the Labour leader start an election campaign with a promise to NOT declare Article 50 (if elected), new leadership challenger Owen Smith says he'll offer another referendum:

Corbyn challenger Owen Smith

Quote:
Labour leadership challenger Owen Smith has promised to hold a second referendum on Brexit if he topples Jeremy Corbyn and then wins a general election

...He told the Guardian many Leave voters now regret their decision and are angry after being 'clearly misled' by the Brexit campaign.

He insisted Labour should be committing to a second referendum, or at least a general election, once the nature of Brexit is finalised.

Well, he's half-way there. Afraid to stand by his principles, he offers a second referendum, which is ridiculous. No one wants another referendum. The majority just want it to go away. But the foot-dragging on declaring Article 50, and the offer of another referendum will keep it around for a while yet.

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
i was going to make a smart ass nasty comment about this comment of yours then decided not to. not worth the effort to respond to someone's innate sense of privilege leaving them with no sense of how unsuitable their comment is.

I haven't a clue what's so contentious about my comment.  Nor, for that matter, one would require "privelege" to post it.

My point was simply that if "the elites" chose democracy for us (as opposed to, say, people fighting for it) but they worried about losing power, one has to wonder why they didn't just stick with the old system that worked so well for them.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Because they saw it as somewhat appeasing our natural desire for freedom, equality and dignity without actually giving up too much power.

I suppose my question was why, as "elites", they had to give up any power at all.

If it's because the people would no longer tolerate their rule then I'd say they weren't really the agent of choice.

Anyway, if in fact "the elites" really did choose "democracy" on our behalf, what system would otherwise have been the people's first choice?  Events like the Boston Tea Party and the French Revolution suggest to me that the people also kind of liked the whole "democracy" thing.

mark_alfred

Two days after I was criticised for suggesting the Labour leader start an election campaign with a promise to NOT declare Article 50 (if elected), new leadership challenger Owen Smith says he'll offer another referendum

I'm not sure if you're referring to me or not.  I do know that I said some people may have been alarmed by the haste which Corbyn announced that Article 50 should be acted on immediately.  I didn't say whether or not I agree or disagree or whatever, because I really don't know.  But, to dwell on the subject further, I think a referendum gives a mandate to begin negotiations and studies on such a serious issue.  I don't think it necessarily creates an obligation to pull the plug immediately (IE, invoking Article 50 and starting the two year countdown of separation), especially in the case of such a close result.  Regardless, yes, I do agree that a second referendum is an idiotic idea. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It's actually a pretty funny tactic.  Buddy takes on exactly the same risk as someone declaring that they'd deny and ignore the results -- namely some pretty profound voter mistrust and cynicism -- but without even being able to say he's acting one some sort of principle.  Pandering to remainers without even the courage to join them.

quizzical

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
i was going to make a smart ass nasty comment about this comment of yours then decided not to. not worth the effort to respond to someone's innate sense of privilege leaving them with no sense of how unsuitable their comment is.

I haven't a clue what's so contentious about my comment.  Nor, for that matter, one would require "privelege" to post it.

My point was simply that if "the elites" chose democracy for us (as opposed to, say, people fighting for it) but they worried about losing power, one has to wonder why they didn't just stick with the old system that worked so well for them.

just sayin your words seemed to me mocking the notion there's a cabal of families and their associates who've controlled the world for a very long time.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
i was going to make a smart ass nasty comment about this comment of yours then decided not to. not worth the effort to respond to someone's innate sense of privilege leaving them with no sense of how unsuitable their comment is.

I haven't a clue what's so contentious about my comment.  Nor, for that matter, one would require "privelege" to post it.

My point was simply that if "the elites" chose democracy for us (as opposed to, say, people fighting for it) but they worried about losing power, one has to wonder why they didn't just stick with the old system that worked so well for them.

Because they saw it as somewhat appeasing our natural desire for freedom, equality and dignity(all of which the people were and are fighting for) without actually giving up any real power.  Once they set up what they called "democracy", they immediately set up limits on what it covered and who it involved-the gender limit, the property requirement, bans on the democratic state doing anything to help the impoverished and dispossed the first-past-the-post system, the three-fifths compromise, whites-only voting and the Electoral College and Senate in the U.S.-in order to make the term "democracy" as meaningless as possible.

And they made absolutely certain that democracy never extended to the economic decisions in any society.

It has taken centuries of struggle and the deaths of many good people to remove even SOME of those limits.  It will take much more struggle and pain before democracy is finally established anywhere.  We all need to show respect for the sacrifices and heroism involved in such struggles.

Rev Pesky

mark_alfred wrote:

Two days after I was criticised for suggesting the Labour leader start an election campaign with a promise to NOT declare Article 50 (if elected), new leadership challenger Owen Smith says he'll offer another referendum

I'm not sure if you're referring to me or not.  I do know that I said some people may have been alarmed by the haste which Corbyn announced that Article 50 should be acted on immediately.  I didn't say whether or not I agree or disagree or whatever, because I really don't know.  But, to dwell on the subject further, I think a referendum gives a mandate to begin negotiations and studies on such a serious issue.  I don't think it necessarily creates an obligation to pull the plug immediately (IE, invoking Article 50 and starting the two year countdown of separation), especially in the case of such a close result.  Regardless, yes, I do agree that a second referendum is an idiotic idea. 

To be honest I'm not sure who the critics were. I could go back and look, but...nah,,, forget it.

I will point out that negotations can't start until Article 50 is declared. What the new Prime Minister, and the various 'Leave' supporters seems to be saying is they had no plan to deal with winning the referendum. Maybe next time they'll think of that before they have a referendumb.

The EU has made it clear they want to start the negotations now. I'm still not convinced the UK parliament can even pass the enabling legislation. They may require the consent of the Scottish, Welsh, and Irish devolved parliaments, and they certainly won't get it from Scotland.

Which only goes to show, if you have no idea what you're going to do after some referendumb, don't hold the referendumb. What'll we call the people who drove the referendumb (all Tories)? Referendummies? (I know, that taking the joke a bit far, but honestly the whole episode is like something from Through The Looking Glass.)

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

It's actually a pretty funny tactic.  Buddy takes on exactly the same risk as someone declaring that they'd deny and ignore the results -- namely some pretty profound voter mistrust and cynicism -- but without even being able to say he's acting one some sort of principle.  Pandering to remainers without even the courage to join them.

Exactly.

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
i was going to make a smart ass nasty comment about this comment of yours then decided not to. not worth the effort to respond to someone's innate sense of privilege leaving them with no sense of how unsuitable their comment is.

I haven't a clue what's so contentious about my comment.  Nor, for that matter, one would require "privelege" to post it.

My point was simply that if "the elites" chose democracy for us (as opposed to, say, people fighting for it) but they worried about losing power, one has to wonder why they didn't just stick with the old system that worked so well for them.

Ken answered that question very well, but to be more concise, violent uprisings tended to happen under the old system when people felt completely powerless, so the elites designed a system with enough sway to make it appear that people had choices when they didn't. Ever notice, for example, public opinion polling indicating that people prefer higher taxes on the rich but that never seems to be delivered, or how politicians across the political spectrum generally end up going back on promises to expand programs to help people? Ever notice that governments seem incapable of balancing budgets, there are always cuts to services people need, but somehow governments find money to spend on their well-connected friends?

lagatta

Yes, one commentator in the UK, who generally supports Corbyn, said he always looks like a guy who has slept in his car.

lagatta

Yes, one commentator in the UK, who generally supports Corbyn, said he always looks like a guy who has slept in his car.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Books | Review | Corbyn: The Strange Rebirth of Radical Politics

quote:

Naturally the leaders of what has become known as the ‘Chicken Coup’ want the current crisis they have unleashed within the party to be discussed in terms of Corbyn’s alleged failings and weaknesses, as well as Labour’s short term electoral prospects, as if the latter were reducible to the former. But as Seymour convincingly argues in the book, the current electoral prospects of the party need to be understood as part of a long-term decline.  It is a symptom of neoliberalism and the exhaustion of Blairism, which had undermined the very basis of ‘labourism’.

In this context, Corbyn faces an uphill struggle in electoral terms, no doubt. Seymour notes that Labour have for some time polled in the low thirties, and he is not confident that Corbyn can reverse this. But there is certainly no reason to think any other potential leadership candidate would fare any better, and good reason to think they would likely do worse.

quote:

It makes for an enjoyable read.  But Seymour cautions Corbyn supporters that the extraordinary success of last year came not from the strength of the left, but the weakness of the right and, perhaps more importantly, that of the labour movement itself. He is not optimistic about the prospects for electoral success, let alone the possibilities of an effective left-wing government in the UK, and sees Corbynism mainly as holding out the promise of a longer term renewal and reorientation of left-wing politics.

In the meantime, he warns, Corbyn is ‘surrounded by a surprisingly resilient and bellicose old guard’ and will not be able to keep ‘the right-wing attack dogs on the back foot for long’. He predicted, though, that the rogue right-wingers in the party ‘ceaselessly agitating for a party coup are likely, through their bombastic, deluded air of entitlement, to powerfully alienate those whom they would need as supporters and allies.’

Perhaps he was giving the MPs too much credit. In fact, the attempted coup came quite quickly, and with the overwhelming support of the PLP.  Seymour initially expressed surprise at the move, which he thought ‘idiotic’ given Corbyn’s strong mandate from the membership and the disarray within the Conservative Party, and it would appear that he has better political judgement than the PLP.

How could they have been so stupid?  The obvious answer is that they are. But, to be fair, the political conditions after the Referendum looked like as good an opportunity as any to strike, and the danger was that Corbyn might consolidate his position by capitalising on the implosion of the Tories and the publication of the Chilcot Report.

lagatta
Rev Pesky

Aristotleded24 wrote:
...Ken answered that question very well, but to be more concise, violent uprisings tended to happen under the old system when people felt completely powerless, so the elites designed a system with enough sway to make it appear that people had choices when they didn't....

The elites didn't 'design a system'. They accepted the demands of people to the extent they were forced to, to protect their own wealth.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Last -minute changes to Labour leadership contest spark anger among Jeremy Corbyn supporters

quote:

Amid fears of a party split, the meeting of the National Executive Committee also provided a concession to Mr Corbyn's critics - tightening the rules about who can vote in a leadership contest.

Last time it was open to anyone prepared to pay £3 - and it was the £3 supporters, more than the paid up party members, who gave Jeremy Corbyn his swingeing victory.

This time, supporters will have to re-register and pay £25. And the thousand of new recruits  who have joined the party since the referendum will have to pay that fee if they want to vote, because the executive has ruled only those who have been party members for at least six months will have an automatic right to vote.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Labour rebels defy ban on meetings - by hitting the pub in Hounslow

Labour Party rebels in Hounslow defied party orders and showed their support for Jeremy Corbyn - by hitting the pub.

The party's ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) on Tuesday (July 12) suspended all constituency meetings during the leadership contest.

But that didn't deter Corbyn supporters in the constituency of Brentford and Isleworth .

When their branch meeting scheduled for Wednesday (July 13) was cancelled with just four hours notice, some 40 Corbyn backers instead headed to the Coach and Horses pub in Isleworth for an unofficial get-together.

There they unanimously passed a motion, which had been on the agenda for the official constituency meeting, calling on Labour members to unite behind their under-pressure leader.

Ban on meetings 'deeply undemocratic'

"This branch supports Jeremy's continuation as our democratically elected leader, and urges MPs to stop undermining him, and start attacking the Tories," the motion read.

Labour member Salman Shaheen, who was at the pub, branded the NEC's decision to suspend meetings "deeply undemocratic".

He said members wanted to show their support for Mr Corbyn but were not attacking local MP Ruth Cadbury , who was among 172 MPs to back a vote of no confidence against him....

josh

Corbyn would get a majority in either a two or a three-way contest.

http://www.newmarketjournal.co.uk/news/national/jeremy-corbyn-would-beat...

sherpa-finn

As Labour rebel MPs have been called upon to explain their non-confidence votes in Corbyn's leadership, the stories get more and more bizarre. This one probably takes the cake in terms of illustrating the gong show that the Corbyn team has been running.  

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/18/jeremy-corbyn-labour-mp-...

"Thangam Debbonaire, the Labour MP who was mistakenly appointed to a shadow ministerial role by Jeremy Corbyn, said she spent six weeks working on her brief while having treatment for cancer before she was told she did not have the job.

Debbonaire, who has since overcome breast cancer, shared her experience on her Facebook page, saying she had been appointed as shadow arts and culture minister without being asked, and was only contacted six weeks later by theLabour leader’s office, who then told her the announcement had been a mistake.

“I told Jeremy: ‘If this is how you treat me when I’ve got cancer, how will you treat me when I haven’t?’” she told the Guardian."

 

sherpa-finn

And here is one of the stronger critiques (indictment?) by a Labour supporter of the debacle that Corbyn has brought upon the Labour Party.  To my reading he holds the champagne socialists that surround Corbyn more responsble than Corbyn himself.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/16/corbynism-sounds-d...

"Empty leftism gave Corbyn control of the Labour party, but little else. He has the lowest popularity rating of any opposition leader in history. The public sees a political movement that doesn’t want to govern them and does not much like them either. Government necessarily involves the trade-offs the far left pretends need never trouble us. Labour’s founding constitution of 1918 said its first purpose was to establish and retain, in parliament and in the country, a political Labour party. The far left has to reject it because it can never win elections without losing its illusions."

lagatta

All this stuff sounds like smears. I'll ask comrades in the UK.

One wishes a full recovery and a long life to anyone who has cancer or another grave disease, but why should they grant a government post? I guess the only thing to do is a full investigation of that story -

josh

Amazing. Where was the outrage when the glorious PLP supported the illegal invasion of Iraq? And enabled a right-wing U.S. administration in conducting the invasion which, in addition to costing hundreds of thousands of lives, created an opportunity for the likes of ISIL. By all rights, the PLP should have gone out of business then and there. So spare me the outrage.

sherpa-finn

And today yet another MP explains to her constituents how she struggled as a member of the Shadow Cabinet with the vagaries of Corbyn's leadership. 

"Jeremy is right to set out an alternative to the economics of austerity, to focus on affordable housing, to defending a public NHS and to tackling poverty and inequality.  

But through my own personal direct experience I know that Jeremy operates in a way that means progress towards these goals is impossible. He is not a team player let alone a team leader.  Jeremy has a new Shadow Cabinet but it’s clear to me that he doesn’t understand collective responsibility and that he can't lead a team, so I'm afraid the same problems will eventually emerge in the new front bench.

This is not about policy or ideology, it is about competence."   [My emphasis added.]

http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/lilian_s_speech_to_nottingham_south_lab...

sherpa-finn

And one last closing salvo for this evening: this one comes via Richard Murphy, a progressive UK economist and advisor to the Trade Union Congress who was originally part of the Corbyn brain trust.

But Murphy left after multiple and repeated fiascos on the economic policy front, - reflecting Corbyn's propensity to make up policy on the go.  Most notable of these incidents course was John McDonnell's (Corbyn loyalist and still Finance critic) sudden decision to echo the Tories and embrace the notion of a balanced budget (Sound familiar to any NDPers here?!)  

"There was no idea what policy was for, no big ideas and so not many small ones either. The result was a mess and that’s because it seems like Corbynism is an empty shell that opposes capitalism for the sake of the oppressed but has no clue as to what to yet in its place. And that’s not responsible, it’s not electable and it’s not going to work."

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/07/17/the-rise-and-fall-of-corby...

Sorry to say, folks - the verdict in from just about everyone who has worked directly with Jeremy Corbyn: the man is simply and completely an incompetent.  That's why he lost the non-confidence vote so overwhelmingly.  And that is why he will never become PM.

But yes, he was right on Iraq.  So all else is forgiven.

NorthReport

How many seats does Labour now have? I would fathom a guess if they turf Corbyn, they won't get 50% of those seats in the next election. So we will have these brilliant Blairites to thank for the Tories getting re-elected with a larger majority next time. 

Rev Pesky

sherpa-finn wrote:
...And one last closing salvo for this evening: this one comes via Richard Murphy, a progressive UK economist and advisor to the Trade Union Congress who was originally part of the Corbyn brain trust...

Having read the article by Richard Murphy, it's difficult to understand how he's considered an authority on anything. He seems to be particularly in favour of quantative easing. He does put the word 'Peoples' in front of it, but quantative easing is quantative easing, and that's a pig that looks no better with lipstick.

sherpa-finn

"Quantitative easing is quantitative easing, and that's a pig that looks no better with lipstick."

Not sure what your issue is here with QE. Its an accepted anti-austerity strategy that pumps more money into a stagnant / failing economy through the Central Bank rather than the usual running up of deficits.  The "People's" qualifier underlines that in this version the new cash injections will be invested in infrastructure and public services, - not bailing out of the banks as has been done in recent memory.

I have seen three regular criticisms of the PQE approach:

- its not needed at the moment: with interest rates low, the Gov't would do better to just borrow money on teh market than print it;

-  its unwise for Gov't to direct the Central Bank to any specific courses of action  (arms length, and all that). This is the "Mr Carney would not be pleased" argument.

 - People's QE is a socialist boon-doggle to fund gov't expenditures that would not otherwise be possible through conventional fiscal approaches. ( A Tory favourite.)

From afar, I would have had you pegged as a PQE enthusiast, Rev. But maybe you are more concerned about Mr Carney's sensibilities than I. 

sherpa-finn
mark_alfred

Smith is described as being on the left side of Labour.

Quote:
His and Jeremy Corbyn’s politics largely overlap when it comes to policy and the party’s sharp and witty former Work and Pensions Shadow is a potentially more credible, competent candidate to be Prime Minister.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/owen-smith-would-make-great-8410032

sherpa-finn

Actually, many MPs who voted against Corbyn are from the 'soft-left' of the party, and agree broadly on most policy positions with him.

But they have found his leadership on so many hot political files as well as operational issues totally inept, and a discredit to the party. One just has to read through the assorted letters from rebel MPs that explain their votes to their constituents.

From where I sit, the rebellion has always been more about leadership and competence than about major policy differences. But the radical left seems doomed to embrace Corbyn: "He may be an incompetent, but he is OUR incompetent!"  And their silly name-calling of all his critics (80% of caucus!) as Blairites....

Well, good for Angela Eagle for seeing the writing on the wall. And for acknowledging "Its not all about me!"  Pity that Jeremy Corbyn and his colleagues did not have the same level of commitment to the traditions and values of the Labour Party as a parliamentary party. 

We shall see what we shall see.

josh
Rev Pesky

sherpa-finn wrote:

"Quantitative easing is quantitative easing, and that's a pig that looks no better with lipstick."

Not sure what your issue is here with QE. Its an accepted anti-austerity strategy that pumps more money into a stagnant / failing economy through the Central Bank rather than the usual running up of deficits.  The "People's" qualifier underlines that in this version the new cash injections will be invested in infrastructure and public services, - not bailing out of the banks as has been done in recent memory.

I have seen three regular criticisms of the PQE approach:

- its not needed at the moment: with interest rates low, the Gov't would do better to just borrow money on teh market than print it;

-  its unwise for Gov't to direct the Central Bank to any specific courses of action  (arms length, and all that). This is the "Mr Carney would not be pleased" argument.

 - People's QE is a socialist boon-doggle to fund gov't expenditures that would not otherwise be possible through conventional fiscal approaches. ( A Tory favourite.)

From afar, I would have had you pegged as a PQE enthusiast, Rev. But maybe you are more concerned about Mr Carney's sensibilities than I. 

Here's s simple explanation of quantative easing that illustrates the problem with it.

I have twenty dollars in my right-hand pants pocket. I loan that twenty dollars to my left-hand pants pocket. How much money do I have now? Forty dollars, according to quantative easers. The twenty dollars that is now in my left-hand pants pocket, plus the twenty dollars owed to my right-hand pants pocket.

Whether that quantitavely eased money is given over the the banks to shore up their capital requirements, or whether it's used to build a railway, at some point it has to be turned into real money that is able to buy products.

Here's a question for quantative easers. Is there a limit on the amount of money you can create this way? If not, why not just create several hundred trillion dollars and pass it out to the world's population. If there is a limit, what is the limiting factor?

And by the way, I could care less about Mark Carney. In any case, he's not the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz is. Now, there's a good job; for the last several years it has consisted of announcing increases in interest rates, then reversing direction when the US Fed announced therre wouldn't be any increases. He's getting paid good money for this. 

mark_alfred

I have twenty dollars in my right-hand pants pocket. I loan that twenty dollars to my left-hand pants pocket. How much money do I have now? Forty dollars, according to quantative easers. The twenty dollars that is now in my left-hand pants pocket, plus the twenty dollars owed to my right-hand pants pocket.

Your assets equal $40, since your equity ($20 cash) plus your liability ($20 debt) equals $40.  That would be the case whether or not the loan came from the Central Bank or a private bank, wouldn't it?  Conversely, assets minus equity (40 - 20) equals liability (which is 20), or vice versa (assets minus liability equals equity).  So, there's a balance ($20 on each side in your example), as there always is in accounting (or at least as ideally there always should be).  Anyway, regardless of where the loan came from, the end result is the same.

Rev Pesky

sherpa-finn wrote:
...From where I sit, the rebellion has always been more about leadership and competence than about major policy differences. But the radical left seems doomed to embrace Corbyn: "He may be an incompetent, but he is OUR incompetent!"  And their silly name-calling of all his critics (80% of caucus!) as Blairites....

Name calling? That's a bit humourous given the names Corbyn has been called. Didn't you yourself refer to 'Trotskyites'?

sherpa-finn wrote:
...Well, good for Angela Eagle for seeing the writing on the wall. And for acknowledging "Its not all about me!"  Pity that Jeremy Corbyn and his colleagues did not have the same level of commitment to the traditions and values of the Labour Party as a parliamentary party...

Well, one of the differences between Angela Eagle and Jeremy Corbyn is that Angela Eagle was not elected as leader of the party by the membership.

In any case, Labour will probably get crushed in the next election, but those with 'safe' seats will continue on. I suspect that is what most of their problem with Corbyn is. He was going to make them work for their money, and like many people with sinecure, they felt threatened. "Don't rock the boat, Jeremy, old man. Tea?" 

swallow swallow's picture

[url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/19/angela-eagle-labou... Eagle drops out of Labour race[/url]

Quote:

The point should be that it is not because she’s a woman; rather, it is and she’s a woman. Her gender should have been the killer fact, the proof that Labour really is open and modern. Instead, once again, Labour has swatted aside a strong female contender, and the party members will get to choose between an old white man and a younger white man.

There have now been hundreds of female Labour MPs and hundreds of thousands of women members. Yet none of them have ever had a real shot at the Labour leadership. What a record for a party that prides itself on its progressive attitudes and diverse membership. What a terrible record.

 

Aristotleded24

So the British Conservatives have just elected their version of Sarah Palin as PM, and the Labour Party is destryoing itself like this?

Get your act together guys. There are bigger enemies.

Pages

Topic locked