Well of course, if his Brexit view doesn't exactly match yours, it is a disgrace. Corbyn is a pragmatic remainer - a Brexiter by instinct who appreciated that it was better to remain economically. Now, after the vote, he wants to remain on the best terms possible whilst respecting the vote. Personally, I would like him to be more forthright in relation to fighting Brexit, but I respect his views and why he holds them. And we did have a referendum!
No point getting into an argument with me about it - it is what it is.
Yes, typical old style labour would be doing better, but people are missing the point there. It is lazy to assume Corbyn's Labour is about old style politics, there is a new type of capitalism behind it that people just don't get. There are some similarities with Thatcher, except her new capitalism was about individuals taking responsibility for themselves whereas the labour capitalism is based around collectiveism.
The clues were in the manifesto, the caring capitalism tag and Robin Hood Energy. That would be a good starting point if you want to understand an alternative movement which owes far more to 20th century economists, some famous, some not so famous, than Marx! Anyway, this isn't the thread to go into details, but I have made an effort to understand what is behind Labour policies and whilst it can't be guaranteed to work, I don't think we have too much to lose. All this blindly following crap is a bit boring and predicatble!
Well of course, if his Brexit view doesn't exactly match yours, it is a disgrace. Corbyn is a pragmatic remainer - a Brexiter by instinct who appreciated that it was better to remain economically. Now, after the vote, he wants to remain on the best terms possible whilst respecting the vote. Personally, I would like him to be more forthright in relation to fighting Brexit, but I respect his views and why he holds them. And we did have a referendum!
No point getting into an argument with me about it - it is what it is.
Yes, typical old style labour would be doing better, but people are missing the point there. It is lazy to assume Corbyn's Labour is about old style politics, there is a new type of capitalism behind it that people just don't get. There are some similarities with Thatcher, except her new capitalism was about individuals taking responsibility for themselves whereas the labour capitalism is based around collectiveism.
The clues were in the manifesto, the caring capitalism tag and Robin Hood Energy. That would be a good starting point if you want to understand an alternative movement which owes far more to 20th century economists, some famous, some not so famous, than Marx! Anyway, this isn't the thread to go into details, but I have made an effort to understand what is behind Labour policies and whilst it can't be guaranteed to work, I don't think we have too much to lose. All this blindly following crap is a bit boring and predicatble!
Sounds a bit like a brexiteer argument '...whilst it can't be guaranteed to work, I don't think we have much to lose.'
I just don't find the 'give it a whirl' argument that compelling but I do find it worrying.
The thought of a messy Brexit followed by McDonnell holding the purse strings fills me with horror tbh so much so that I have totally reorganised my financial position to protect my family as much as possible.
We do need a better political proposition but I would much prefer centrist situational almost apolitical policies rather than polarised right or left ideologies.
Well, what I said isn't really much to do with Brexit - it is more a retort to this cult of Corbyn nonsense. Those that accuse often haven't really tried to understand the underlying new ideas behind the current Labour party and the accusation of a cult of anti-Corbyn therefore more applies to them. Back to Brexit, Corbyn's position is to accept the vote, but to avoid a hard Brexit at all costs. Not saying people have to agree with him, but he is entitled to his view. It is a reason he didn't campaign actively during the referendum so he is at least consistent. His critical voice in relation to the EU would not have fitted the EU is the greatest institution ever v the EU is the worst institution ever. You can be highly critical of the EU but still appreciate the massive benefits of belonging to it!
My view is that we should be pushing for another referendum - an opportunity seems to be opening up thanks to the hard Brexiters. But that is my view - I don't have to agree with Corbyn on everything.
@seriously_red as usual ( on this topic) I agree with about 80% of your mega post. We will never agree on Corbyn, but never mind. Just on your final remark re the Lib Dems, they would of course argue that in fact their presence mitigated some of the worst austerity policies. And their choice was stark. As Clegg has often said, the objective of a party is to govern. Would you have had them stay in opposition on principle? They could not join with Labour, the public, worked up by the Mail and the Sun would never have worn such a coalition. Maybe the bigger problem is that neither our system nor our mindset supports coalition politics.
First thanks for reading - It was inspired by a piece in the FT a week or so back which resonated with views I have held for some time. A couple of top academics have joined the dots... try Blythe and Tooze for a more articulate explanation of 2008 And the last ten years. Four x 25 minute presentations on YouTube plus one has written a book.
Or try Martin Wolf's review of the book just released. The comments are a real eye opener.
Neither Tooze nor Wolf are pro Corbyn but they describe the whole decade along with the rise of the Alt-right. And the associated failure of the centre.
Your comment that "A party exists to govern" is an interesting statement - surely the same applies to Boris Johnson who exists to govern?! Let's get real here and accept that all politicians seek power but what about political philosophy and a broad agenda? Perhaps the electorate both deserve and require a more honest prospectus. One with some identifiable political philosophy behind it?
Macron fans might not yet have noticed that third way (as per Blair) is somewhat short on guiding philosophy - some would say it's simply another type of power grab?
Coments since your post show that some take their disdain for Corbyn to the nth degree but completely fail to understand the Labour manifesto and what it's offering. For example one might argue technical details about the desirability of ceasing train franchises and returning to the public sector. But the bigger picture is that this is simple to communicate. And that it is one strand of a much bigger agenda: that of trying to re-establish the public sector as a force for development and renewal instead of stating and restating that government is bad so austerity must be good.
At any time Clegg and Cable could have withdrawn support from Cameron, Osborne and May but they became far to used to the trappings of high state. And lost sight of the bigger picture. The other night Cable and Farron were at a planning meeting for a new centrist launch when they could / should have been at a crucial vote in the Commons.
Corbyn is unique within western democracies since he is uniting populist and centre left traditions. He is not young and will keep going until he fails. As in fails to win the next election or fails in power. At that point there is a window for a Macron style force either within or outside of Labour. Matters will inevitably evolve just as Brexit efforts will either crash or May will cut a deal.
However, Macron is of the same tradition as Blair aka third way. And one wonders if that will fly. It's very popular with middle class people but will it win an election or simply split the opposition? My belief is that the latter holds true.
Where we might agree is that the challenge is with leftist philosophers, economists and politicians to come up with something a tad more convincing than austerity lite. Once again, try Zizek, Chomsky and Mazzucato. Nobody has a monopoly of truth but from taking a deep dive into this stuff, my conclusion is that Corbyn and Labour on 40% is our best route through this challenge.
That's to say that supporting other choices at this time is actually divisive and represents a vote for May and the status quo. What we can be sure of is that economists and philosopers will take a view on the questions being asked across western democracies.
Whatever people's views on Corbyn, he is but one person who has put together a new policy agenda and a mass membership Labour Party. He has repaired the damage caused by Blair and Campbell as they centralized power and emasculated the people who did the work on the doorstep while they had dinner with the bankers and financiers who led us into the crash.
People either want nationalised railways and big rises in NHS expenditure or they want the Alt-right and hard Brexit. Blaming Corbyn for Brexit is like blaming Obama for Trump! People are looking in the wrong direction instead of following the money. And the philosophies of the right and left.
We probably won't agree but the time for centrist solutions is past for they simply won't achieve traction with the voters. The Lib Dems show this - still at 9% and soon to be overtaken by UKIP if May tries to drift to a soft Brexit.
Once again Brexit is done and is not the real issue. For Brexit and Trump are simply a pivot into a very different politics. One which hasn't seen the light of day since the 1930s! We leave the EU in 35 weeks - what happens after that defines the next decade. And that starts with either a Norway style deal, Canada or no deal. Hat Brexiteers are driving for the latter and will simultaneously blame Barnier AND May.
@seriously_red as usual ( on this topic) I agree with about 80% of your mega post. We will never agree on Corbyn, but never mind. Just on your final remark re the Lib Dems, they would of course argue that in fact their presence mitigated some of the worst austerity policies. And their choice was stark. As Clegg has often said, the objective of a party is to govern. Would you have had them stay in opposition on principle? They could not join with Labour, the public, worked up by the Mail and the Sun would never have worn such a coalition. Maybe the bigger problem is that neither our system nor our mindset supports coalition politics.
First thanks for reading - It was inspired by a piece in the FT a week or so back which resonated with views I have held for some time. A couple of top academics have joined the dots... try Blythe and Tooze for a more articulate explanation of 2008 And the last ten years. Four x 25 minute presentations on YouTube plus one has written a book.
Or try Martin Wolf's review of the book just released. The comments are a real eye opener.
Neither Tooze nor Wolf are pro Corbyn but they describe the whole decade along with the rise of the Alt-right. And the associated failure of the centre.
Your comment that "A party exists to govern" is an interesting statement - surely the same applies to Boris Johnson who exists to govern?! Let's get real hear and accept that all politicians seek power but what about political philosophy and a broad agenda? Perhaps the electorate both deserve and require a more honest prospectus. One with some identifiable political philosophy behind it?
Macron fans might not yet have noticed that third way (as per Blair) is somewhat short on guiding philosophy - some would say it's simply another type of power grab?
Coments since your post show that some take their disdain for Corbyn to the nth degree but completely fail to understand the Labour manifesto and what it's offering. For example one might argue technical details about the desirability of ceasing train franchises and returning to the public sector. But the bigger picture is that this is simple to communicate. And that it is one strand of a much bigger agenda: that of trying to re-establish the public sector as a force for development and renewal instead of stating and restating that government is bad so austerity must be good.
At any time Clegg and Cable could have withdrawn support from Cameron, Osborne and May but they became far to used to the trappings of high state. And lost sight of the bigger picture. The other night Cable and Farron were at a planning meeting for a new centrist launch when they could / should have been at a crucial vote in the Commons.
Corbyn is unique within western democracies since he is uniting populist and centre left traditions. He is not young and will keep going until he fails. As in fails to win the next election or fails in power. At that point there is a window for a Macron style force either within or outside of Labour. Matters will inevitably evolve just as Brexit efforts will either crash or May will cut a deal.
However, Macron is of the same tradition as Blair aka third way. And one wonders if that will fly. It's very popular with middle class people but will it win an election or simply split the opposition? My belief is that the latter holds true.
Where we might agree is that the challenge is with leftist philosophers, economists and politicians to come up with something a tad more convincing than austerity lite. Once again, try Zizek, Chomsky and Mazzucato. Nobody has a monopoly of truth but from taking a deep dive into this stuff, my conclusion is that Corbyn and Labour on 40% is our best route through this challenge.
That's to say that supporting other choices at this time is actually divisive and represents a vote for May and the status quo. What we can be sure of is that economists and philosopers will take a view on the questions being asked across western democracies.
Whatever people's views on Corbyn, he is but one person who has put together a new policy agenda and a mass membership Labour Party. He has repaired the damage caused by Blair and Campbell as they centralized power and emasculated the people who did the work on the doorstep while they had dinner with the bankers and financiers who led us into the crash.
People either want nationalised railways and big rises in NHS expenditure or they want the Alt-right and hard Brexit. Blaming Corbyn for Brexit is like blaming Obama for Trump! People are looking in the wrong direction instead of following the money. And the philosophies of the right and left.
We probably won't agree but the time for centrist solutions is past for they simply won't achieve traction with the voters. The Lib Dems show this - still at 9% and soon to be overtaken by UKIP if May tries to drift to a soft Brexit.
Once again Brexit is done and is not the real issue. For Brexit and Trump are simply a pivot into a very different politics. One which hasn't seen the light of day since the 1930s!
What “damage” has Corbyn repaired in the Labour Party?
All he has done is deliver the party to the hard left, in the process driving out the moderates and demonising the most successful Labour leader in history.
When did you ever see the Tories do to Thatcher what Labour have done to Blair? Complete madness to disown 13 years of successful Labour government.
Where has all this taken Jeremy and Labour? To opposition, natch, and actually only four seats better off than when they lost power in 2010.
Corbyn has taken Labour from being a truly national party of government under Blair to now being an urban dominated left wing party that has very little chance of winning outside it’s metropolitan strongholds.
There is a reason Britain has never elected a far left government, that is because, for all its faults, it remains a broadly prosperous country and you can’t win a General Election unless you can win middle England.
Yes, I have been working back too - trying to understand what Corbyn's movement is about. I was a critic before the election, as my posting history on here will testify. I have been studying the same names you have quoted, eminent, intelligent people, economists, politicians and thinkers that deserve to be listened to. When you are looking for a new way, you have to look at the ideas of many - These are not the ideas of a young Corbyn, but a recent Corbyn and Labour party trying to find solutions for something better, learning from lessons dealt to both the right and left. Those that say Corbyn wants to return us to the 70s, can't be further from the truth!
I'll add a name. Somebody who was far more intellectual and thoughtful of a better system than Corbyn was many years ago. Tony Benn. Benn died in 2014, but his vision has outlived Tony Blair’s New Labour politics —because it was more practical and less utopian. It is finding its time! Focused on popular rather than parliamentary sovereignty, Benn championed new models of nationalisation that would set up non-bureaucratic enterprises accountable both to consumers and workers. And it isn't about nationalising everything. The input from economists past and current, rings through the policies and the Labour manifesto was fresh and if you think, like I do, that the free market is a dying idea that has had its day, surely you have to look for the alternatives rather than take it in turns to get centralist politicians from left and right trying to make the unworkable work!
Anyway - whilst it is relevant to Brexit in many ways, it feels I may be taking it off tack - sorry! Just wish people would stop this cult of Corbyn crap! I just wish people would really make the effort to understand what is behind the current Labour party. Then agree or disagree with it! Corbyn is the captain holding it together, but it is an amalgamation of ideas - he is just acting as the catalyst.
@seriously_red as usual ( on this topic) I agree with about 80% of your mega post. We will never agree on Corbyn, but never mind. Just on your final remark re the Lib Dems, they would of course argue that in fact their presence mitigated some of the worst austerity policies. And their choice was stark. As Clegg has often said, the objective of a party is to govern. Would you have had them stay in opposition on principle? They could not join with Labour, the public, worked up by the Mail and the Sun would never have worn such a coalition. Maybe the bigger problem is that neither our system nor our mindset supports coalition politics.
First thanks for reading - It was inspired by a piece in the FT a week or so back which resonated with views I have held for some time. A couple of top academics have joined the dots... try Blythe and Tooze for a more articulate explanation of 2008 And the last ten years. Four x 25 minute presentations on YouTube plus one has written a book.
Or try Martin Wolf's review of the book just released. The comments are a real eye opener.
Neither Tooze nor Wolf are pro Corbyn but they describe the whole decade along with the rise of the Alt-right. And the associated failure of the centre.
Your comment that "A party exists to govern" is an interesting statement - surely the same applies to Boris Johnson who exists to govern?! Let's get real here and accept that all politicians seek power but what about political philosophy and a broad agenda? Perhaps the electorate both deserve and require a more honest prospectus. One with some identifiable political philosophy behind it?
Macron fans might not yet have noticed that third way (as per Blair) is somewhat short on guiding philosophy - some would say it's simply another type of power grab?
Coments since your post show that some take their disdain for Corbyn to the nth degree but completely fail to understand the Labour manifesto and what it's offering. For example one might argue technical details about the desirability of ceasing train franchises and returning to the public sector. But the bigger picture is that this is simple to communicate. And that it is one strand of a much bigger agenda: that of trying to re-establish the public sector as a force for development and renewal instead of stating and restating that government is bad so austerity must be good.
At any time Clegg and Cable could have withdrawn support from Cameron, Osborne and May but they became far to used to the trappings of high state. And lost sight of the bigger picture. The other night Cable and Farron were at a planning meeting for a new centrist launch when they could / should have been at a crucial vote in the Commons.
Corbyn is unique within western democracies since he is uniting populist and centre left traditions. He is not young and will keep going until he fails. As in fails to win the next election or fails in power. At that point there is a window for a Macron style force either within or outside of Labour. Matters will inevitably evolve just as Brexit efforts will either crash or May will cut a deal.
However, Macron is of the same tradition as Blair aka third way. And one wonders if that will fly. It's very popular with middle class people but will it win an election or simply split the opposition? My belief is that the latter holds true.
Where we might agree is that the challenge is with leftist philosophers, economists and politicians to come up with something a tad more convincing than austerity lite. Once again, try Zizek, Chomsky and Mazzucato. Nobody has a monopoly of truth but from taking a deep dive into this stuff, my conclusion is that Corbyn and Labour on 40% is our best route through this challenge.
That's to say that supporting other choices at this time is actually divisive and represents a vote for May and the status quo. What we can be sure of is that economists and philosopers will take a view on the questions being asked across western democracies.
Whatever people's views on Corbyn, he is but one person who has put together a new policy agenda and a mass membership Labour Party. He has repaired the damage caused by Blair and Campbell as they centralized power and emasculated the people who did the work on the doorstep while they had dinner with the bankers and financiers who led us into the crash.
People either want nationalised railways and big rises in NHS expenditure or they want the Alt-right and hard Brexit. Blaming Corbyn for Brexit is like blaming Obama for Trump! People are looking in the wrong direction instead of following the money. And the philosophies of the right and left.
We probably won't agree but the time for centrist solutions is past for they simply won't achieve traction with the voters. The Lib Dems show this - still at 9% and soon to be overtaken by UKIP if May tries to drift to a soft Brexit.
Once again Brexit is done and is not the real issue. For Brexit and Trump are simply a pivot into a very different politics. One which hasn't seen the light of day since the 1930s! We leave the EU in 35 weeks - what happens after that defines the next decade. And that starts with either a Norway style deal, Canada or no deal. Hat Brexiteers are driving for the latter and will simultaneously blame Barnier AND May.
Now let us ask ourselves why.
We should turn @seriously_red ‘a posts into an export industry by the word after Brexit and save our economy!
@seriously_red as usual ( on this topic) I agree with about 80% of your mega post. We will never agree on Corbyn, but never mind. Just on your final remark re the Lib Dems, they would of course argue that in fact their presence mitigated some of the worst austerity policies. And their choice was stark. As Clegg has often said, the objective of a party is to govern. Would you have had them stay in opposition on principle? They could not join with Labour, the public, worked up by the Mail and the Sun would never have worn such a coalition. Maybe the bigger problem is that neither our system nor our mindset supports coalition politics.
First thanks for reading - It was inspired by a piece in the FT a week or so back which resonated with views I have held for some time. A couple of top academics have joined the dots... try Blythe and Tooze for a more articulate explanation of 2008 And the last ten years. Four x 25 minute presentations on YouTube plus one has written a book.
Or try Martin Wolf's review of the book just released. The comments are a real eye opener.
Neither Tooze nor Wolf are pro Corbyn but they describe the whole decade along with the rise of the Alt-right. And the associated failure of the centre.
Your comment that "A party exists to govern" is an interesting statement - surely the same applies to Boris Johnson who exists to govern?! Let's get real hear and accept that all politicians seek power but what about political philosophy and a broad agenda? Perhaps the electorate both deserve and require a more honest prospectus. One with some identifiable political philosophy behind it?
Macron fans might not yet have noticed that third way (as per Blair) is somewhat short on guiding philosophy - some would say it's simply another type of power grab?
Coments since your post show that some take their disdain for Corbyn to the nth degree but completely fail to understand the Labour manifesto and what it's offering. For example one might argue technical details about the desirability of ceasing train franchises and returning to the public sector. But the bigger picture is that this is simple to communicate. And that it is one strand of a much bigger agenda: that of trying to re-establish the public sector as a force for development and renewal instead of stating and restating that government is bad so austerity must be good.
At any time Clegg and Cable could have withdrawn support from Cameron, Osborne and May but they became far to used to the trappings of high state. And lost sight of the bigger picture. The other night Cable and Farron were at a planning meeting for a new centrist launch when they could / should have been at a crucial vote in the Commons.
Corbyn is unique within western democracies since he is uniting populist and centre left traditions. He is not young and will keep going until he fails. As in fails to win the next election or fails in power. At that point there is a window for a Macron style force either within or outside of Labour. Matters will inevitably evolve just as Brexit efforts will either crash or May will cut a deal.
However, Macron is of the same tradition as Blair aka third way. And one wonders if that will fly. It's very popular with middle class people but will it win an election or simply split the opposition? My belief is that the latter holds true.
Where we might agree is that the challenge is with leftist philosophers, economists and politicians to come up with something a tad more convincing than austerity lite. Once again, try Zizek, Chomsky and Mazzucato. Nobody has a monopoly of truth but from taking a deep dive into this stuff, my conclusion is that Corbyn and Labour on 40% is our best route through this challenge.
That's to say that supporting other choices at this time is actually divisive and represents a vote for May and the status quo. What we can be sure of is that economists and philosopers will take a view on the questions being asked across western democracies.
Whatever people's views on Corbyn, he is but one person who has put together a new policy agenda and a mass membership Labour Party. He has repaired the damage caused by Blair and Campbell as they centralized power and emasculated the people who did the work on the doorstep while they had dinner with the bankers and financiers who led us into the crash.
People either want nationalised railways and big rises in NHS expenditure or they want the Alt-right and hard Brexit. Blaming Corbyn for Brexit is like blaming Obama for Trump! People are looking in the wrong direction instead of following the money. And the philosophies of the right and left.
We probably won't agree but the time for centrist solutions is past for they simply won't achieve traction with the voters. The Lib Dems show this - still at 9% and soon to be overtaken by UKIP if May tries to drift to a soft Brexit.
Once again Brexit is done and is not the real issue. For Brexit and Trump are simply a pivot into a very different politics. One which hasn't seen the light of day since the 1930s!
What “damage” has Corbyn repaired in the Labour Party?
All he has done is deliver the party to the hard left, in the process driving out the moderates and demonising the most successful Labour leader in history.
When did you ever see the Tories do to Thatcher what Labour have done to Blair? Complete madness to disown 13 years of successful Labour government.
Where has all this taken Jeremy and Labour? To opposition, natch, and actually only four seats better off than when they lost power in 2010.
Corbyn has taken Labour from being a truly national party of government under Blair to now being an urban dominated left wing party that has very little chance of winning outside it’s metropolitan strongholds.
There is a reason Britain has never elected a far left government, that is because, for all its faults, it remains a broadly prosperous country and you can’t win a General Election unless you can win middle England.
When his party needed him, Chukka did a runner. Don't need people who talk a good game then disappear when it really matters.
Chukka was in a new relationship and his mother in law who he hadn’t even met yet was being hounded by the Daily Mail and The Sun all day every day so he pulled out of the race to be leader. Then there was unsubstantiated rumours he was gay doing the rounds and it was affecting his new relationship massively.
That relationship is now firmly solidified and I think he’s either married or engaged to be. I don’t think he’d “do a runner” again.
The problem however remains with the Labour membership being very much to the left which would mean Chukka would struggle to win as the membership stands.
@seriously_red as usual ( on this topic) I agree with about 80% of your mega post. We will never agree on Corbyn, but never mind. Just on your final remark re the Lib Dems, they would of course argue that in fact their presence mitigated some of the worst austerity policies. And their choice was stark. As Clegg has often said, the objective of a party is to govern. Would you have had them stay in opposition on principle? They could not join with Labour, the public, worked up by the Mail and the Sun would never have worn such a coalition. Maybe the bigger problem is that neither our system nor our mindset supports coalition politics.
First thanks for reading - It was inspired by a piece in the FT a week or so back which resonated with views I have held for some time. A couple of top academics have joined the dots... try Blythe and Tooze for a more articulate explanation of 2008 And the last ten years. Four x 25 minute presentations on YouTube plus one has written a book.
Or try Martin Wolf's review of the book just released. The comments are a real eye opener.
Neither Tooze nor Wolf are pro Corbyn but they describe the whole decade along with the rise of the Alt-right. And the associated failure of the centre.
Your comment that "A party exists to govern" is an interesting statement - surely the same applies to Boris Johnson who exists to govern?! Let's get real hear and accept that all politicians seek power but what about political philosophy and a broad agenda? Perhaps the electorate both deserve and require a more honest prospectus. One with some identifiable political philosophy behind it?
Macron fans might not yet have noticed that third way (as per Blair) is somewhat short on guiding philosophy - some would say it's simply another type of power grab?
Coments since your post show that some take their disdain for Corbyn to the nth degree but completely fail to understand the Labour manifesto and what it's offering. For example one might argue technical details about the desirability of ceasing train franchises and returning to the public sector. But the bigger picture is that this is simple to communicate. And that it is one strand of a much bigger agenda: that of trying to re-establish the public sector as a force for development and renewal instead of stating and restating that government is bad so austerity must be good.
At any time Clegg and Cable could have withdrawn support from Cameron, Osborne and May but they became far to used to the trappings of high state. And lost sight of the bigger picture. The other night Cable and Farron were at a planning meeting for a new centrist launch when they could / should have been at a crucial vote in the Commons.
Corbyn is unique within western democracies since he is uniting populist and centre left traditions. He is not young and will keep going until he fails. As in fails to win the next election or fails in power. At that point there is a window for a Macron style force either within or outside of Labour. Matters will inevitably evolve just as Brexit efforts will either crash or May will cut a deal.
However, Macron is of the same tradition as Blair aka third way. And one wonders if that will fly. It's very popular with middle class people but will it win an election or simply split the opposition? My belief is that the latter holds true.
Where we might agree is that the challenge is with leftist philosophers, economists and politicians to come up with something a tad more convincing than austerity lite. Once again, try Zizek, Chomsky and Mazzucato. Nobody has a monopoly of truth but from taking a deep dive into this stuff, my conclusion is that Corbyn and Labour on 40% is our best route through this challenge.
That's to say that supporting other choices at this time is actually divisive and represents a vote for May and the status quo. What we can be sure of is that economists and philosopers will take a view on the questions being asked across western democracies.
Whatever people's views on Corbyn, he is but one person who has put together a new policy agenda and a mass membership Labour Party. He has repaired the damage caused by Blair and Campbell as they centralized power and emasculated the people who did the work on the doorstep while they had dinner with the bankers and financiers who led us into the crash.
People either want nationalised railways and big rises in NHS expenditure or they want the Alt-right and hard Brexit. Blaming Corbyn for Brexit is like blaming Obama for Trump! People are looking in the wrong direction instead of following the money. And the philosophies of the right and left.
We probably won't agree but the time for centrist solutions is past for they simply won't achieve traction with the voters. The Lib Dems show this - still at 9% and soon to be overtaken by UKIP if May tries to drift to a soft Brexit.
Once again Brexit is done and is not the real issue. For Brexit and Trump are simply a pivot into a very different politics. One which hasn't seen the light of day since the 1930s!
What “damage” has Corbyn repaired in the Labour Party?
All he has done is deliver the party to the hard left, in the process driving out the moderates and demonising the most successful Labour leader in history.
When did you ever see the Tories do to Thatcher what Labour have done to Blair? Complete madness to disown 13 years of successful Labour government.
Where has all this taken Jeremy and Labour? To opposition, natch, and actually only four seats better off than when they lost power in 2010.
Corbyn has taken Labour from being a truly national party of government under Blair to now being an urban dominated left wing party that has very little chance of winning outside it’s metropolitan strongholds.
There is a reason Britain has never elected a far left government, that is because, for all its faults, it remains a broadly prosperous country and you can’t win a General Election unless you can win middle England.
I'm not convinced Gordon Brown was that good anyway.
When his party needed him, Chukka did a runner. Don't need people who talk a good game then disappear when it really matters.
Chukka was in a new relationship and his mother in law who he hadn’t even met yet was being hounded by the Daily Mail and The Sun all day every day so he pulled out of the race to be leader. Then there was unsubstantiated rumours he was gay doing the rounds and it was affecting his new relationship massively.
That relationship is now firmly solidified and I think he’s either married or engaged to be. I don’t think he’d “do a runner” again.
The problem however remains with the Labour membership being very much to the left which would mean Chukka would struggle to win as the membership stands.
If he will only become Labour leader provided the Sun & Daily Mail will be nice to him then he’ll be waiting a long time.
When his party needed him, Chukka did a runner. Don't need people who talk a good game then disappear when it really matters.
Chukka was in a new relationship and his mother in law who he hadn’t even met yet was being hounded by the Daily Mail and The Sun all day every day so he pulled out of the race to be leader. Then there was unsubstantiated rumours he was gay doing the rounds and it was affecting his new relationship massively.
That relationship is now firmly solidified and I think he’s either married or engaged to be. I don’t think he’d “do a runner” again.
The problem however remains with the Labour membership being very much to the left which would mean Chukka would struggle to win as the membership stands.
If he will only become Labour leader provided the Sun & Daily Mail will be nice to him then he’ll be waiting a long time.
I think he’s prepared for that, he just didn’t want to jeopardise his new relationship is all. My point is that it would be different next time.
When his party needed him, Chukka did a runner. Don't need people who talk a good game then disappear when it really matters.
Chukka was in a new relationship and his mother in law who he hadn’t even met yet was being hounded by the Daily Mail and The Sun all day every day so he pulled out of the race to be leader. Then there was unsubstantiated rumours he was gay doing the rounds and it was affecting his new relationship massively.
That relationship is now firmly solidified and I think he’s either married or engaged to be. I don’t think he’d “do a runner” again.
The problem however remains with the Labour membership being very much to the left which would mean Chukka would struggle to win as the membership stands.
Too late for him now. If he's going to buckle when the newspapers write mean things about him he's not up to the job anyway.
2 - Corbyn’s speech today was a disgrace, one of the lowest points in recent Labour history, nativist, shallow, stuck in the past
Jeremy Trump. Who'd have thought it?
Must leave some in a bit of a quandary as they hate Donald but kinda like Jeremy, even though, it would seem, they hold similar views on those pesky foreigners undercutting everyone else.
Of course trump and corbyn are similar, they're both self admitted and self branded populists. They both have a cult like following from online echo chambers and claim media manipulation and conspiracy all the time.
The sooner both are removed from their office the better.
Corbyn is only there because of Momentum. When Corbyn does step down for whatever reason although I think he will cling on regardless of election results like the old Soviet leaders staying until they keeled over. He will be replaced by the next left ideologue.
People like Ummuna and those of the centre left will have no chance of being elected.
It’s why the sooner a new centre left party gets up and running the better.
I could never vote Tory but increasingly am alienated by what Labour has become.
Corbyn is only there because of Momentum. When Corbyn does step down for whatever reason although I think he will cling on regardless of election results like the old Soviet leaders staying until they keeled over. He will be replaced by the next left ideologue.
People like Ummuna and those of the centre left will have no chance of being elected.
It’s why the sooner a new centre left party gets up and running the better.
I could never vote Tory but increasingly am alienated by what Labour has become.
once corbyn goes the hard left back momentum will split to support different members of the corbyn inner circle and the whole movement will collapse.
Corbyn is only there because of Momentum. When Corbyn does step down for whatever reason although I think he will cling on regardless of election results like the old Soviet leaders staying until they keeled over. He will be replaced by the next left ideologue.
People like Ummuna and those of the centre left will have no chance of being elected.
It’s why the sooner a new centre left party gets up and running the better.
I could never vote Tory but increasingly am alienated by what Labour has become.
I think a lot of people are alienated by politics in general - a depressing lack of trust. The level of debate is sinking fast....
Corbyn is only there because of Momentum. When Corbyn does step down for whatever reason although I think he will cling on regardless of election results like the old Soviet leaders staying until they keeled over. He will be replaced by the next left ideologue.
People like Ummuna and those of the centre left will have no chance of being elected.
It’s why the sooner a new centre left party gets up and running the better.
I could never vote Tory but increasingly am alienated by what Labour has become.
once corbyn goes the hard left back momentum will split to support different members of the corbyn inner circle and the whole movement will collapse.
But still the only candidates even a fragmented Momentum would elect would be extreme left. The old style Labour constituency parties are a thing of the past. Momentum have a Vice like grip on Labour coupled with McClusky of Unite. A centre left Labour Party is dead in the water.
Corbyn is only there because of Momentum. When Corbyn does step down for whatever reason although I think he will cling on regardless of election results like the old Soviet leaders staying until they keeled over. He will be replaced by the next left ideologue.
People like Ummuna and those of the centre left will have no chance of being elected.
It’s why the sooner a new centre left party gets up and running the better.
I could never vote Tory but increasingly am alienated by what Labour has become.
A centre-left party would only split the leftist vote, any new party looking for actual power will need to be attractive to people on both sides of the divide.
As someone said earlier in the thread, first past the post is going to make it very hard for any new party to emerge.
Momentum are guilty of entryism and have been more successful than Militant were in the 1980s. If Labour does come to power then it will be interesting to see how far left policies go.
Corbyn is only there because of Momentum. When Corbyn does step down for whatever reason although I think he will cling on regardless of election results like the old Soviet leaders staying until they keeled over. He will be replaced by the next left ideologue.
People like Ummuna and those of the centre left will have no chance of being elected.
It’s why the sooner a new centre left party gets up and running the better.
I could never vote Tory but increasingly am alienated by what Labour has become.
A centre-left party would only split the leftist vote, any new party looking for actual power will need to be attractive to people on both sides of the divide.
As someone said earlier in the thread, first past the post is going to make it very hard for any new party to emerge.
I think you are underestimating the appeal of a centrist party to not only traditional labour voters but also the moderate section of the Conservative party. The emerging leading lights of the Tories are the likes of Rees-Mogg and Johnson. They are leading the country to the right and oblivion.
Corbyn is only there because of Momentum. When Corbyn does step down for whatever reason although I think he will cling on regardless of election results like the old Soviet leaders staying until they keeled over. He will be replaced by the next left ideologue.
People like Ummuna and those of the centre left will have no chance of being elected.
It’s why the sooner a new centre left party gets up and running the better.
I could never vote Tory but increasingly am alienated by what Labour has become.
A centre-left party would only split the leftist vote, any new party looking for actual power will need to be attractive to people on both sides of the divide.
As someone said earlier in the thread, first past the post is going to make it very hard for any new party to emerge.
I think you are underestimating the appeal of a centrist party to not only traditional labour voters but also the moderate section of the Conservative party. The emerging leading lights of the Tories are the likes of Rees-Mogg and Johnson. They are leading the country to the right and oblivion.
We've been down this route with the SDP and they didn't last.
Corbyn is only there because of Momentum. When Corbyn does step down for whatever reason although I think he will cling on regardless of election results like the old Soviet leaders staying until they keeled over. He will be replaced by the next left ideologue.
People like Ummuna and those of the centre left will have no chance of being elected.
It’s why the sooner a new centre left party gets up and running the better.
I could never vote Tory but increasingly am alienated by what Labour has become.
A centre-left party would only split the leftist vote, any new party looking for actual power will need to be attractive to people on both sides of the divide.
As someone said earlier in the thread, first past the post is going to make it very hard for any new party to emerge.
The system makes it hard going, but i think there is a huge voter bloc to take and i reckon enough donors to get it off the ground. What it requires, unfortunately is a charismatic figurehead - and that is sadly lacking from the political classes.
If true, the rumours that Cable and Farron were off courting this during the Brexit votes is an indicator of the reasons there is no chance of a credible centre party, talent.
Corbyn is only there because of Momentum. When Corbyn does step down for whatever reason although I think he will cling on regardless of election results like the old Soviet leaders staying until they keeled over. He will be replaced by the next left ideologue.
People like Ummuna and those of the centre left will have no chance of being elected.
It’s why the sooner a new centre left party gets up and running the better.
I could never vote Tory but increasingly am alienated by what Labour has become.
A centre-left party would only split the leftist vote, any new party looking for actual power will need to be attractive to people on both sides of the divide.
As someone said earlier in the thread, first past the post is going to make it very hard for any new party to emerge.
The system makes it hard going, but i think there is a huge voter bloc to take and i reckon enough donors to get it off the ground. What it requires, unfortunately is a charismatic figurehead - and that is sadly lacking from the political classes.
If true, the rumours that Cable and Farron were off courting this during the Brexit votes is an indicator of the reasons there is no chance of a credible centre party, talent.
The SDP had high profile leaders when founded but still struggled - hard to get any new party going given our voting system.
Corbyn is only there because of Momentum. When Corbyn does step down for whatever reason although I think he will cling on regardless of election results like the old Soviet leaders staying until they keeled over. He will be replaced by the next left ideologue.
People like Ummuna and those of the centre left will have no chance of being elected.
It’s why the sooner a new centre left party gets up and running the better.
I could never vote Tory but increasingly am alienated by what Labour has become.
A centre-left party would only split the leftist vote, any new party looking for actual power will need to be attractive to people on both sides of the divide.
As someone said earlier in the thread, first past the post is going to make it very hard for any new party to emerge.
The system makes it hard going, but i think there is a huge voter bloc to take and i reckon enough donors to get it off the ground. What it requires, unfortunately is a charismatic figurehead - and that is sadly lacking from the political classes.
If true, the rumours that Cable and Farron were off courting this during the Brexit votes is an indicator of the reasons there is no chance of a credible centre party, talent.
The SDP had high profile leaders when founded but still struggled - hard to get any new party going given our voting system.
It's not enough having individual MPs, etc. defecting to create a new party, you need constituency organisations to make the same move. Building a movement that can make an impact requires the rank and file, who do the bulk of the leg work in party politics, not just the elected representatives.
To bring this back to the EU. many people have rather thoughtlessly repeated the mantra that the EU is 'undemocratic'. yet in the EU elections we had proportional representation. Now on here people are pointing out that the first past the post system presents difficulties. The FPTP is a version of 'democracy', not the splendid sovereign 'better' democracy that brexiters would have you believe. In a context where there have been calls for cross party solutions to brexit, where indeed party members have been voting in defiance of their whips and becoming cross party anyway, we have extremist viewpoints tugging both left and right, and the lack of proportional representation, so decried in the EU by brexiters, isn't there to help the country climb out of this polarised political mess. Our present political crisis, thrown up by our current version of 'democracy' (skewed by the referendum don't forget) makes the EU version of democracy more and more attractive.
Our voting system means we're stuck with two party politics which is why the two main parties don't want change. If we had some type of PR we'd have less 'wasted' votes.
In 2015 the Conservatives won 331(of 650)seats with 36.9% of the vote which is not a fair representation. Any reference to a mandate for policies is unlikely to be accurate.
You can find many examples where the EU is undemocratic though.
Would you blanket say 'undemocratic' or rather different takes on what 'democracy' is, some perhaps more preferable than others, all with strengths and weaknesses?
Comments
No point getting into an argument with me about it - it is what it is.
Yes, typical old style labour would be doing better, but people are missing the point there. It is lazy to assume Corbyn's Labour is about old style politics, there is a new type of capitalism behind it that people just don't get. There are some similarities with Thatcher, except her new capitalism was about individuals taking responsibility for themselves whereas the labour capitalism is based around collectiveism.
The clues were in the manifesto, the caring capitalism tag and Robin Hood Energy. That would be a good starting point if you want to understand an alternative movement which owes far more to 20th century economists, some famous, some not so famous, than Marx! Anyway, this isn't the thread to go into details, but I have made an effort to understand what is behind Labour policies and whilst it can't be guaranteed to work, I don't think we have too much to lose. All this blindly following crap is a bit boring and predicatble!
I just don't find the 'give it a whirl' argument that compelling but I do find it worrying.
The thought of a messy Brexit followed by McDonnell holding the purse strings fills me with horror tbh so much so that I have totally reorganised my financial position to protect my family as much as possible.
We do need a better political proposition but I would much prefer centrist situational almost apolitical policies rather than polarised right or left ideologies.
My view is that we should be pushing for another referendum - an opportunity seems to be opening up thanks to the hard Brexiters. But that is my view - I don't have to agree with Corbyn on everything.
Or try Martin Wolf's review of the book just released. The comments are a real eye opener.
Neither Tooze nor Wolf are pro Corbyn but they describe the whole decade along with the rise of the Alt-right. And the associated failure of the centre.
Your comment that "A party exists to govern" is an interesting statement - surely the same applies to Boris Johnson who exists to govern?! Let's get real here and accept that all politicians seek power but what about political philosophy and a broad agenda? Perhaps the electorate both deserve and require a more honest prospectus. One with some identifiable political philosophy behind it?
Macron fans might not yet have noticed that third way (as per Blair) is somewhat short on guiding philosophy - some would say it's simply another type of power grab?
Coments since your post show that some take their disdain for Corbyn to the nth degree but completely fail to understand the Labour manifesto and what it's offering. For example one might argue technical details about the desirability of ceasing train franchises and returning to the public sector. But the bigger picture is that this is simple to communicate. And that it is one strand of a much bigger agenda: that of trying to re-establish the public sector as a force for development and renewal instead of stating and restating that government is bad so austerity must be good.
At any time Clegg and Cable could have withdrawn support from Cameron, Osborne and May but they became far to used to the trappings of high state. And lost sight of the bigger picture. The other night Cable and Farron were at a planning meeting for a new centrist launch when they could / should have been at a crucial vote in the Commons.
Corbyn is unique within western democracies since he is uniting populist and centre left traditions. He is not young and will keep going until he fails. As in fails to win the next election or fails in power. At that point there is a window for a Macron style force either within or outside of Labour. Matters will inevitably evolve just as Brexit efforts will either crash or May will cut a deal.
However, Macron is of the same tradition as Blair aka third way. And one wonders if that will fly. It's very popular with middle class people but will it win an election or simply split the opposition? My belief is that the latter holds true.
Where we might agree is that the challenge is with leftist philosophers, economists and politicians to come up with something a tad more convincing than austerity lite. Once again, try Zizek, Chomsky and Mazzucato. Nobody has a monopoly of truth but from taking a deep dive into this stuff, my conclusion is that Corbyn and Labour on 40% is our best route through this challenge.
That's to say that supporting other choices at this time is actually divisive and represents a vote for May and the status quo. What we can be sure of is that economists and philosopers will take a view on the questions being asked across western democracies.
Whatever people's views on Corbyn, he is but one person who has put together a new policy agenda and a mass membership Labour Party. He has repaired the damage caused by Blair and Campbell as they centralized power and emasculated the people who did the work on the doorstep while they had dinner with the bankers and financiers who led us into the crash.
People either want nationalised railways and big rises in NHS expenditure or they want the Alt-right and hard Brexit. Blaming Corbyn for Brexit is like blaming Obama for Trump! People are looking in the wrong direction instead of following the money. And the philosophies of the right and left.
We probably won't agree but the time for centrist solutions is past for they simply won't achieve traction with the voters. The Lib Dems show this - still at 9% and soon to be overtaken by UKIP if May tries to drift to a soft Brexit.
Once again Brexit is done and is not the real issue. For Brexit and Trump are simply a pivot into a very different politics. One which hasn't seen the light of day since the 1930s! We leave the EU in 35 weeks - what happens after that defines the next decade. And that starts with either a Norway style deal, Canada or no deal. Hat Brexiteers are driving for the latter and will simultaneously blame Barnier AND May.
Now let us ask ourselves why.
All he has done is deliver the party to the hard left, in the process driving out the moderates and demonising the most successful Labour leader in history.
When did you ever see the Tories do to Thatcher what Labour have done to Blair? Complete madness to disown 13 years of successful Labour government.
Where has all this taken Jeremy and Labour? To opposition, natch, and actually only four seats better off than when they lost power in 2010.
Corbyn has taken Labour from being a truly national party of government under Blair to now being an urban dominated left wing party that has very little chance of winning outside it’s metropolitan strongholds.
There is a reason Britain has never elected a far left government, that is because, for all its faults, it remains a broadly prosperous country and you can’t win a General Election unless you can win middle England.
I'll add a name. Somebody who was far more intellectual and thoughtful of a better system than Corbyn was many years ago. Tony Benn. Benn died in 2014, but his vision has outlived Tony Blair’s New Labour politics —because it was more practical and less utopian. It is finding its time! Focused on popular rather than parliamentary sovereignty, Benn championed new models of nationalisation that would set up non-bureaucratic enterprises accountable both to consumers and workers. And it isn't about nationalising everything. The input from economists past and current, rings through the policies and the Labour manifesto was fresh and if you think, like I do, that the free market is a dying idea that has had its day, surely you have to look for the alternatives rather than take it in turns to get centralist politicians from left and right trying to make the unworkable work!
Anyway - whilst it is relevant to Brexit in many ways, it feels I may be taking it off tack - sorry! Just wish people would stop this cult of Corbyn crap! I just wish people would really make the effort to understand what is behind the current Labour party. Then agree or disagree with it! Corbyn is the captain holding it together, but it is an amalgamation of ideas - he is just acting as the catalyst.
Even his many wars weren't successful.
That relationship is now firmly solidified and I think he’s either married or engaged to be. I don’t think he’d “do a runner” again.
The problem however remains with the Labour membership being very much to the left which would mean Chukka would struggle to win as the membership stands.
Must leave some in a bit of a quandary as they hate Donald but kinda like Jeremy, even though, it would seem, they hold similar views on those pesky foreigners undercutting everyone else.
Mental times.
The sooner both are removed from their office the better.
People like Ummuna and those of the centre left will have no chance of being elected.
It’s why the sooner a new centre left party gets up and running the better.
I could never vote Tory but increasingly am alienated by what Labour has become.
As someone said earlier in the thread, first past the post is going to make it very hard for any new party to emerge.
If true, the rumours that Cable and Farron were off courting this during the Brexit votes is an indicator of the reasons there is no chance of a credible centre party, talent.
Now on here people are pointing out that the first past the post system presents difficulties.
The FPTP is a version of 'democracy', not the splendid sovereign 'better' democracy that brexiters would have you believe.
In a context where there have been calls for cross party solutions to brexit, where indeed party members have been voting in defiance of their whips and becoming cross party anyway, we have extremist viewpoints tugging both left and right, and the lack of proportional representation, so decried in the EU by brexiters, isn't there to help the country climb out of this polarised political mess.
Our present political crisis, thrown up by our current version of 'democracy' (skewed by the referendum don't forget) makes the EU version of democracy more and more attractive.
In 2015 the Conservatives won 331(of 650)seats with 36.9% of the vote which is not a fair representation. Any reference to a mandate for policies is unlikely to be accurate.