Jeremy Corbyn

527 posts / 0 new
Last post
SeekingAPolitic...

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 is a nice short video on QE, the authors have there own agenda though. 

https://youtu.be/4l06RhFoLE4

For the effectives of traditional QE is rather poor but nature is tried 3 times in the US and still the US economy barely hanging out to life.  I believe Carney came with term of "escape velocity" in regards of the economy.  The economy has not escaped the economic gravity it needs constant monterary infusion.

1.- 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;

That more a political question rather than economic question.  Depending on your political agenda if there this a need for pqe.

2-  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. 

The idea that central banks are independent of governments of influence is overplayed.  The political class gave "independence" to the central bank it can take it away just as easly. Politically independence means that politicans have an excuse to keep populist ideas at bay.  I would compare this to how trade agreement as used deflect nationalist and populist ideas.  A government will say sorry but we can not regulate certain environmental laws or safety issues becasue gave away those rights.  Or this legislation is not consistent with our international trade laws.  Its a convientant way to say no to progressive ideas. 

The irony(blowback)(not really an issue in Canada but in europe and the US yes.  Here people are not quite desperate enough econimcally) the political class wonders why people are turning to protectionism and against globalization.  Telling people that can we can not effectively pass laws to address pressing needs because we given that right to corporations to adjudiate these issue is creating blowblack as it should. Is to bad prople have accepted that can no longer rely on the usual political actors.  So they seeking other actors to get control of there lives, trump, bernie, le pen, in europe and what the media calls the extreme left and extreme right parties in europe.  Brexit was a reaction to the dispowerment they feel in theirs lives. I went off topic but does provide needed context.

3 - 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.) 

When torys engage it QE is sound policy if the left wants try QE than is bood-doogle.

4 - The only agruement in general agaisnt QE and and more focused PQE that makes any potential sense to me is that maybe inflationary.  The reason that QE is not effective because purchasing power is not reaching the average person.  The rich get a benefit do to rising assets in the fininancial realm, the middle class get a much less effect but is there for their primarly asset they hold with is the housing bubble.  This is not infaltionary  when use the common ways to measure inflation becasue the money is trapped and cannot be spent.  The are rich are getting richer but they can only spent so much.  As for the middle class they have to sell there houses to actually have free spending power.  Although the can refi their mortages to free up some purchasing power and lines of credit transform equity to cash in the homes.  As I am dirt poor QE has down nothing for me aside raises my living costs in rent and food prices.  I welcome PQE getting check to spend or goverment spending on social and health care is a boon for me.  This where I have "limited" respect for the right says agaisnt PQE.  Actually making spending power availalbe to the masses means they will spend it and actually raise inflationary pressure.  I would ackownlegde inflation my go up for me and other person that is poor and middle class the actual check will pay the rise of inflation and still there will a hansom rise in my purchasing power.

I will close by saying that QE, Negative interest rates, PQE, plus other unheard montary schemes are a reflection of our deseperate economic times.  I am 41 I became economically literate in my early 20's. I read capitialism business press and watched the capitlalism news and channels that were focused on the economy.  For those that in there 20's you may think that QE, NI, PQE are just a rational reponse to the economic times but let me provide some context.  In my 20's the of QE was taboo subject and PQE was a communist plot.  For negative interest rates i maybe seen a economic journal that talked about in a abstract way rather than a real policy answer.  Today the captialist that support these ideas were dead set agaisnt these ideas 20 years ago.  We are on the ship in 1492 and just landed in north america. We not idea what lies in the future but we just reacting to what to we see as our reality.  If our leaders came and told the public this truth.  Confidence would collaspe and quite frankly confidence in our economic leaders is the only thing stands between us and very ugly times.  Persoanly I am try to look at happy side of life and since I live on economic edge of other society things may get marginally worst.  For those of the middle class I would say you better not lose confidence in our economic leaders because you big way to fall.  Thats my to cents QE.

 

 

 

 

 

Rev Pesky

mark_alfred wrote:

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.

Which only shows what happens when you try to make something simple. This thread is about Jeremy Corbyn, and I'd like to continue the discussion of QE, but obviously this in not the thread for it. However, I'll just add this. You can add it up any way you wish, you can call the loan an asset or a liability, or a debit or a credit, but if you loan yourself money, you still only have the amount you started with. If I started with twenty bucks, after all the QE machinations, I still have only twenty bucks. If I go shopping, I'll  be able to buy twenty dollars worth of goods. If I want to spend that other twenty dollars, I'll have to go and borrow it from someone, or sell the debt to someone for real money. Somehow I will have to turn that ephemeral 'asset' into real money. The minute I do that it becomes real debt, that must be repaid.

That is why I ask the question of QE, if there is a limiting factor on the amount of money that can be QE'd, what is it? This is the question that strikes to the heart of QE. And if there is no limit, why can't we just QE a few hundred trillion and hand it out to everyone?

Now I'm going to look for a finance thread where we can carry this topic on. I'll return with a link.

Rev Pesky

OK, here is a link to

Quantative Easing: Threat or Menace?

 

mark_alfred

Thanks for the invite.  But, I know nothing of quantitative easing.  In post # 247 I was just referring to a simple accounting 101 premise that your example reminded me of, but beyond that my knowledge of economics and banking is nil.  I'll check out the thread from time to time though to learn stuff.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

British lawmakers vote to renew Trident nuclear program

quote:

“What is the threat we are facing that a million people’s deaths would actually deter?” Corbyn said adding that he “would not take a decision that kills millions of innocent people.” May, however, said that putting aside the deterrent would be a “dereliction of duty” for Britain.

However, the Labour party was rather divided on the issue. Around 60 percent of its MPs did not support leader Jeremy Corbyn’s opinion and voted in favor of the nuclear program.

Meanwhile 58 of the Parliament’s 59 Scottish MPs opposed Trident renewal, calling nuclear weapons “immoral”. The government “must respect Scotland's clear decision against Trident renewal and remove these nuclear weapons of mass destruction from the Clyde,” SNP said after the vote.

Rev Pesky

epaulo13 wrote:

British lawmakers vote to renew Trident nuclear program

...However, the Labour party was rather divided on the issue. Around 60 percent of its MPs did not support leader Jeremy Corbyn’s opinion and voted in favor of the nuclear program...

Every one of those Labour MPs who voted to retain Trident should be summarily dismissed from the party. That is the most disgusting betrayal of socialist principles one could imagine.

i wonder if there's some way the Corbyn led Labour party could turf those clowns, and perhaps try to make common cause with the Scottish National Party?

Aristotleded24

Rev Pesky wrote:

epaulo13 wrote:

British lawmakers vote to renew Trident nuclear program

...However, the Labour party was rather divided on the issue. Around 60 percent of its MPs did not support leader Jeremy Corbyn’s opinion and voted in favor of the nuclear program...

Every one of those Labour MPs who voted to retain Trident should be summarily dismissed from the party. That is the most disgusting betrayal of socialist principles one could imagine.

i wonder if there's some way the Corbyn led Labour party could turf those clowns, and perhaps try to make common cause with the Scottish National Party?

Yeah, I mean what's the point of even voting for Labour if they're only going to continue the Conservative policies anyways?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Would I be right to expect a rather large overlap of the pro-nuke Labour MP's and the "Ditch Jerry" Labour MP's? I guess this proves once again he cannot build consensus and must be removed because his MP's don't agree with his radical policies. It makes me wonder who those Labour MP's think they are representing.

Quote:

Following the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour party leader in September 2015, a Labour List pollshowed 53% of the party's members want to get rid of Trident. Only 19% supported a new nuclear weapons system.

http://cnduk.org/campaigns/no-to-trident/opinion-polls

Rev Pesky

Aristotleded24 wrote:
...Yeah, I mean what's the point of even voting for Labour if they're only going to continue the Conservative policies anyways?

Of course I agree with your statement, but my position is that nuclear weapons aren't just a 'Conservative' policy, like austerity, or lower business tax, or whatever. One could debate those measures and perhaps even find common ground.

Nuclear weapons are at a whole different level. They violate every principle of left wing politics, and indeed probably violate international law. The vote on Trident should have been whipped, and those who voted against the Labour position expelled from the party caucus.  

contrarianna

As well as other dirty tricks (see story), the Blairite Labour executive (NEC) has attempted to target Corbyn supporters and has, with new rules, disenfrancised 120,000 members who joined since Jan 2016--but newer members who paid 25 pounds between July 18-20 can vote for the leadership.

Quote:
Why Jeremy Corbyn's 'entryist' supporters are not the Labour Party's biggest threat:It is the Labour Party bureaucracy, along with a truculent parliamentary Labour Party, that persists in undermining democratic processes and actively disenfranchising the membership

by   Charlotte Gerada


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyns-labour-party-entryist...

The usual excuse given for this anti-democratic move is that Corbyn supporters are mostly "trotsky entryists". The claim, absurd on the face of it, is adressed by Craig Murray :
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/07/far-left-entryist-takeov...

The sleezy tactics appear to have backfired.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/23/labour-leadership-jeremy...

The likely outcome of this strife is an official Labour split.
http://labourlist.org/2016/07/mcdonnell-in-dramatic-tv-plea-to-warring-f...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Labour Party receives more than 183,000 membership applications in 48 hours

Jeremy Corbyn’s hopes of holding on to his job were boosted after more than 183,000  people paid £25 this week to become registered supporters in order to vote in the party’s leadership election.

Although the anti-Corbyn Saving Labour group has urged people to sign up and oppose him, allies of the Labour leader are confident that most of the recruits in the past 48 hours will vote for him. He will launch his re-election campaign on Thursday.

The Independent has learned that his challenger Owen Smith has asked to address campaign meetings staged by Momentum, the pro-Corbyn grassroots group. In a high-risk move, Mr Smith has offered to go head-to-head with Mr Corbyn in front of his most ardent supporters, or take questions from them on his own. 

Mr Smith wants “300 meetings” around the country rather than the three hustings planned by Labour. His spokesman said: “He believes he can win people round. He is not someone who is going to shy away from people who do not agree with him.”....

sherpa-finn

Rev Pesky wrote: Every one of those Labour MPs who voted to retain Trident should be summarily dismissed from the party. That is the most disgusting betrayal of socialist principles one could imagine.

i wonder if there's some way the Corbyn led Labour party could turf those clowns, and perhaps try to make common cause with the Scottish National Party?

Just so no one's emotions cloud their political judgement, - we should all understand that retaining Trident (for better or for worse) is an explicit, agreed and long-standing part of Labour Party defense policy. 

So what we had this past week was the leader of the Party (once again) making it up as he goes along, and voting against democratically agreed party policy. And some of his political hangers-on (like the good Rev, above) arguing that those MPs who actually voted in keeping with party policy be drummed out of the party.  When of course The Leader himself has made a career out of voting against party whips.

Bizarre, in the extreme.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Fun Corbyn fact:  Jeremy was born with TEN middle fingers.

Don't believe me?  Fuck you X 10.

Rev Pesky

sherpa-finn wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote: Every one of those Labour MPs who voted to retain Trident should be summarily dismissed from the party. That is the most disgusting betrayal of socialist principles one could imagine.

i wonder if there's some way the Corbyn led Labour party could turf those clowns, and perhaps try to make common cause with the Scottish National Party?

Just so no one's emotions cloud their political judgement, - we should all understand that retaining Trident (for better or for worse) is an explicit, agreed and long-standing part of Labour Party defense policy. 

So what we had this past week was the leader of the Party (once again) making it up as he goes along, and voting against democratically agreed party policy. And some of his political hangers-on (like the good Rev, above) arguing that those MPs who actually voted in keeping with party policy be drummed out of the party.  When of course The Leader himself has made a career out of voting against party whips.

Bizarre, in the extreme.

Bizarre is a good word for the Trident. Bizarre that any leftist would even consider spending a penny on nuclear weapons. Bizaree that other so-called leftists would encountenance that policy.  Bizarre that a absolutely progressive stand on nuclear weapons would elicit the idiotic drivel that one hears from the PLP.

I honestly can't believe that any leftist anywhere could support nuclear weapons for one second, or spend one penny on their creation and upkeep.

Well, maybe now the Labour party will destroy itself, and good riddance! Time for the Scottish National Party to start running candidates in England and Wales. Screw the Labour party. They've given up.

Aristotleded24

sherpa-finn wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote: Every one of those Labour MPs who voted to retain Trident should be summarily dismissed from the party. That is the most disgusting betrayal of socialist principles one could imagine.

i wonder if there's some way the Corbyn led Labour party could turf those clowns, and perhaps try to make common cause with the Scottish National Party?

Just so no one's emotions cloud their political judgement, - we should all understand that retaining Trident (for better or for worse) is an explicit, agreed and long-standing part of Labour Party defense policy. 

So what we had this past week was the leader of the Party (once again) making it up as he goes along, and voting against democratically agreed party policy. And some of his political hangers-on (like the good Rev, above) arguing that those MPs who actually voted in keeping with party policy be drummed out of the party.  When of course The Leader himself has made a career out of voting against party whips.

Bizarre, in the extreme.

What is defensible about nuclear weapons? And if Labour is going to support the same weapons policy as the Conservatives, why should anybody care whether or not Labour wins?

Rev Pesky

sherpa-finn wrote:
...So what we had this past week was the leader of the Party (once again) making it up as he goes along, and voting against democratically agreed party policy. And some of his political hangers-on (like the good Rev, above) arguing that those MPs who actually voted in keeping with party policy be drummed out of the party.  When of course The Leader himself has made a career out of voting against party whips.

Bizarre, in the extreme.

Not quite as you put it. Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the party while his opposition to nuclear weapons was well known to all and sundry. So, what democracy are you talking about?

mark_alfred

From Britain Can Be Better -- The Labour Party Manifesto 2015:

Quote:
Labour remains committed to a minimum, credible, independent nuclear capability, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent. We will actively work to increase momentum on global multilateral disarmament efforts and negotiations, and look at further reductions in global stockpiles and the numbers of weapons.

There was another document from Jan 2016 discussing a review of defence policy, but there was nothing definitive in that document.  I couldn't find anything else.

 

swallow swallow's picture

I'm totaly antinuclear, but I don't think it's a left-right issue - Labour has always been pro-nuclear with an ani-nuclear minority, hasn't it? A Labour government also was crucial in starting the Cold War, forming NATO, etc. That's the same governemnt that gave Britain the National Health Service, by the way. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

swallow wrote:

A Labour government also was crucial in starting the Cold War, forming NATO, etc. That's the same governemnt that gave Britain the National Health Service, by the way. 

..thank you swallow. this is an important point. that the deal was to enrich the bosses yet offer something for the citizens. but the scales were never in balance even at the best of times. and in fact as we moved on in years the span between increased to what we see today in obscene wealth and power while the 99% face austerity, climate disaster and permanent war..both internal and external.

Rev Pesky

swallow wrote:

I'm totaly antinuclear, but I don't think it's a left-right issue - Labour has always been pro-nuclear with an ani-nuclear minority, hasn't it? A Labour government also was crucial in starting the Cold War, forming NATO, etc. That's the same governemnt that gave Britain the National Health Service, by the way. 

In fact Labour has always been anti-nuclear. The excuse for their support of Trident was that it was a deterrent, and they didn't want the UK to be what they called 'unilaterlists', that is, unilaterally removing their nuclear 'deterrence'.

The policy is kind of a 'have your cake and eat it' thing. Here's a statement from their 2015 Policy Guide:

Quote:
‘Labour wishes to see a world free of nuclear weapons. Previous Labour governments delivered significant progress towards this. However, in a world where others still possess nuclear weapons, and the future security landscape remains uncertain, unilaterally abandoning the nuclear deterrent will not make Britain or the world more secure. Instead, Labour believes that Britain should be leading international efforts for multilateral nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, while maintaining a minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a Continuous-At-Sea Deterrent. It would require a clear body of evidence for us to change this belief.

As far as whether nuclear arms are a left/right issue, I agree. It's not a left/right issue, it is a human rights issue.

Here is a part of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty of which the UK is signatory:

Quote:
Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament,

So the government of the UK has already declared to world they will 'undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament'. Given this, removing the Trident nuclear weapons wouldn't even require a vote in Parliament.

contrarianna

swallow wrote:

I'm totaly antinuclear, but I don't think it's a left-right issue - Labour has always been pro-nuclear with an ani-nuclear minority, hasn't it? A Labour government also was crucial in starting the Cold War, forming NATO, etc. That's the same governemnt that gave Britain the National Health Service, by the way. 

There has been traditionally a division in the Labour party over nuclear disarmament, dispite the current media anti-Corbyn outrage over the current division and ongoing policy review.

Quote:
At a secret meeting in January 1947, Attlee and six cabinet ministers, including Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, decided to proceed with the development of Britain's nuclear weapons programme,[28] in opposition to the pacifist and anti-nuclear stances of a large element inside the Labour Party

..... 

At a hostile party conference in 1960 [Gaitskell] failed to prevent a vote adopting unilateral nuclear disarmament as a party policy.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Labour_Party_(UK)

Quote:
Labour leader Michael Foot, a founder member of CND, was a unilateralist, who also vowed to remove US nuclear weapons from British soil. His successor Neil Kinnock, was also a unilateralist, although he would drop the policy after losing the 1987 election, arguing that the best way to achieve a nuclear-free world was through negotiation between nuclear-armed nations.
....

Tony Blair banished unilateralism from New Labour's vocabulary, along with other policies thought to be harming its credibility with centre ground voters.But the nuclear issue still had the power to split the party - in 2006 he faced his biggest rebellion since the Iraq war over plans to push ahead with a replacement for Trident, when 88 Labour MPs voted against the government. The backing of the Conservatives ensured Blair won the vote convincingly.


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35371074

For me, whether Corbyn and his many supporters favour or reject unilateral British Nuclear disarmament in this permenantly nuclearized world would not be a deciding factor for me.

 More important are Corbyn's policies for a more independent, non-aggressive foreign policy and a decided move against the criminality of Blair.

sherpa-finn

The simple fact is that the Labour Party currently has a long standing policy platform that endorses Trident and the nuclear deterrent. And anyone who claims that Labour has "always been anti-nuclear" has a very faulty knowledge of history. As a generation or two of party activists, working through the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament can tell you. 

No, the simple policy issue is as I stated above. The democratically agreed party policy is clear and the current leader has voted against it. Repeatedly.

Yes, this is a terrifically exciting and liberating way to run a social movement. But it is no way to run a serious political party that intends to go to the electorate with a campaign platform that is worth the paper it is written on.  

In the progressive political parties I associate with, - you don't like the party policy? You get it changed using democratic processes at convention.  

Alternatively, there is always the good Rev's approach: THE LEADER GETS TO DICTATE POLICY!  GET OVER IT!!

NorthReport

The only question of consequence remaining now is what are Blairites going to do when Corbyn wins a resounding vote of support for his leadership.

swallow swallow's picture

So, in fact, the Labour policy is pro-nuclear, as sherpa-finn stated, covered with a self-serving fig-leaf of "multilateral disarmament" that could just as easily be US government policy. 

Corbyn's supporters may wish to try to change this policy, rather than concentrating solely on leadership issues. 

contrarianna

sherpa-finn wrote:

No, the simple policy issue is as I stated above. The democratically agreed party policy is clear and the current leader has voted against it. Repeatedly....

It was a free vote for defense policy still under review from January.

How dictatorial is that?

You would have a whipped vote on technically extant policy that he, other MPs, and sizable clutch of Labour members oppose on moral grounds--a policy that could easily change in the near future. 

Not everyone shares the mindset of someone who quotes Nick Cohen, neoconservative warmonger, as proof of Corbyn's perfidity.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/03/10-years-right-inv...

======

On the related issue of media treatment of Corbyn, there is an  extensive study from July 1, from the London School of Economics: Media and Communications:

Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Press: From "Watchdog" to "Attackdog".....

[quote] Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways:

1) through lack of or distortion of voice;

2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and

3) through association, mainly with terrorism.

All this raises, in our view, a number of pressing ethical questions regarding the role of the media in a democracy. Certainly, democracies need their media to challenge power and offer robust debate, but when this transgresses into an antagonism that undermines legitimate political voices that dare to contest the current status quo, then it is not democracy that is served....

Full report downloadable pdf on this page:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/Mainstream-Media-Representations...

mark_alfred

Does Labour have a policy book?  I searched their site and couldn't find one.  I did find what I believed to be their last election platform, that being the Britain Can Be Better -- The Labour Party Manifesto 2015.  That platform certainly speaks to having a "Continuous At-Sea [nuclear] Deterrent" as I posted previously.  Still, I don't know if Labour has a policy book stemming from conventions similar to the NDP or if it works differently.

sherpa-finn

I do not know if there is a consolidated Policy Manual available on-line. But for those interested in learning:

a) how the Labour Party actually determines policy, - here is a good overview provided by the BBC:  

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34357018

and

b) what the current policy review process looks like, here is the related website:  

http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/

 

Rev Pesky

sherpa-finn wrote:

The simple fact is that the Labour Party currently has a long standing policy platform that endorses Trident and the nuclear deterrent.

From the Labour Party's policy guide 2015

"Labour wishes to see a world free of nuclear weapons."

I'm not sure how one interprets that as being in favour of nuclear weapons,

sherpa-finn wrote:
...And anyone who claims that Labour has "always been anti-nuclear" has a very faulty knowledge of history. As a generation or two of party activists, working through the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament can tell you. 

As above, the Labour party does not favour nuclear weapons. What sherpa-finn is trying to say is that Labour does not favour unilateral disarmement. That is quite different.

sherpa-finn wrote:
...No, the simple policy issue is as I stated above. The democratically agreed party policy is clear and the current leader has voted against it. Repeatedly.

And won the recent leadership election with almost 60% of the votes on the first ballot. His anti-nuclear stance was well known to all those who voted.

shaerpa-finn wrote:
...Alternatively, there is always the good Rev's approach: THE LEADER GETS TO DICTATE POLICY!  GET OVER IT!!

Here's a little history for you

Quote:
Immediately after World War II, on 29 August 1945, the new Labor government headed by Prime Minister Clement Attlee convened a organized a secret Cabinet committee on atomic energy to establish nuclear policy. This committee, called GEN.75, was a subset of the full Cabinet and was termed the "Atom Bomb Committee" by Attlee. Later on an even smaller secret group of ministers known as GEN.163, which was a subset of GEN.75, made key decisions relating to the atomic bomb program.

What I did say was that the UK, as signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreement is already commited to reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons. I suggest it wouldn't require a vote in Parliament to dismantle their nuclear weapons. Here is the specific part of the NNPT:

Quote:
Article VI

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Having signed that treaty, it is my opinion that any nuclear state government could dismantle their nuclear weapons without 'going to the peoople'.

 

 

josh

But the truth is that the party establishment had been planning this putsch from the moment he was elected. Its members were no more likely to accept Corbyn as their leader than the Democratic National Committee would have accepted Bernie Sanders as the party's nominee. They felt this was their best shot at getting rid of him, and they took it like vegans on safari: They set out to wound their prey but had neither the stomach nor the capacity to actually finish it off. 

https://www.thenation.com/article/labours-witch-dunk/ 

 

Rev Pesky

josh wrote:

But the truth is that the party establishment had been planning this putsch from the moment he was elected. Its members were no more likely to accept Corbyn as their leader than the Democratic National Committee would have accepted Bernie Sanders as the party's nominee. They felt this was their best shot at getting rid of him, and they took it like vegans on safari: They set out to wound their prey but had neither the stomach nor the capacity to actually finish it off. 

">https://www.thenation.com/article/labours-witch-dunk/ 

While I agree the Labour Party bureaucrats never wanted Corbyn, it's a mistake to compare the situtation with Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders was not a long serving member of the Democratic Party. He was very clearly an outsider. An outsider who identified as Democrat for the purpose of pursuing the presidential nomination. For the largest part of his political career he identified himself as 'independent'. That is not to say anything bad about Sanders. USA politics is different than the rest of the world, and Sanders had a perfect right to do as he did. At the same time you can't blame the Democrats for looking at him slightly askance.

Corbyn is a life-long member of the Labour Party. He has been in the Labour Party since he was in school. While his beliefs may put him at odds with the party establishment, Corbyn has always been 'Labour'.

The problem of the Labour Party is that over the years, the Paliamentary Labour Party (PLP) has gradually taken over control of the party, becoming the tail that wags the dog. That tail was very upset when the dog turned on it. They have expressed their displeasure by trying to unseat the leader chosen by the party, in favour of one more acceptable to them.

Should the PLP win this battle, I predict it will be a Pyrrhic victory. The most likely outcome will be a dismembered Labour party which will take many years to heal. Should Corbyn and his supporters win, I think they may make common cause with the Scottish National Party, and could even form a government that way. After all, the Conservatives formed a government with the aid of the Liberal Democrats. In any case, anything is possible.