Jeremy Corbyn

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.

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?

Owen Smith will run.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36780715 

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.

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.

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/13/shock-announcement-shows-scared-labou...

All membership meetings banned.

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

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.

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 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.

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.)

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?

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

This is funny: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/see-scruffy-jeremy-corbyn-ditch-816...

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.

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...

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."

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.

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.

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.

Here is a working link: 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/19/owen-smith-jeremy-corbyn...

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.

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. 

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?" 

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.