The Politics Thread

[freeindeed]

so now you're suggesting people SHOULD vote Corbyn because it needs to move leftwards???

Burnham was on telly last night on about re-nationalising the trains. Now, is this a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that Corbyn's clearly doing very well with his left wing agenda and that Burnham's felt the need to come out with something along those lines, or is it something that he's believed in for a while?

That's exactly what he's doing. Trying to tap into the left wing swing. He also copied Corbyns student fee policy and even circulated a picture of himself on the tube

[bobo the clown]

^^ one thing these past few weeks have proven is that Burnham is a chance. His only policy being to get elected.

I've never noticed someone flip-flopabout like he's doing.

I saw a remark from the pencil biter on fb calling him "an accent searching for a policy".

[thebish]

^^ one thing these past few weeks have proven is that Burnham is a chance. His only policy being to get elected.

I've never noticed someone flip-flopabout like he's doing.

I saw a remark from the pencil biter on fb calling him "an accent searching for a policy".

slightly more deeply harsh than that...

"an accent searching for something to believe in" (mummy)

which is pretty bob-on.

[freeindeed]

Here Prufrock, I'll give you a hand. A nice summary from a poster on JC's Facebook group:

So finally today we got Andy Burnham’s ‘leadership manifesto’. After weeks of having nothing to really talk about (with only Corbyn willing to publish his manifesto), we can now start to discuss a bit about what Burnham and Corbyn propose. Cooper and Kendall still haven’t bothered so for me they’re out of the race.
For me, i was going to vote Burnham until Corbyn entered the race. Andy has some serious ground to claw back i suspect. I wonder if this manifesto will do it?
So what’s Andy’s ‘grand vision’? I think it boils down to:
1. Reestablishing comprehensive schools and ditching free schools/academies, replacing tuition fees with a new graduate tax
These seem like good ideas. I still think a graduate tax is a disincentive to many. Isn’t this just a student debt but called a tax? I want to see free education for all of us, paid for by all of us, so that the undeniable individual and society good of education is encouraged.
2. Allowing councils to borrow to build houses, local rent regulation and rent controls, together with a ‘rent to own’ mortgage.
This looks like a minefield of unintended consequences to me. I’m struggling to see how councils run by landlords are going to implement effective local rental regulations. This also doesn’t address the social housing problem.
3. A living wage and banning ZHCs.
No detail here unfortunately.
4. Allowing ‘publically owned operators’ to bid for the railway contracts as they come up for renewal, some vague assertions about regulating buses a local level.
This seems somewhat far away from his headline of ‘nationalising the railways’ to me.
5. Labour’s ambition for 21st century care should be to create a National Health and Care Service.
Well. OK. What does that mean? No detail again.
I’m really pleased Andy has published this as I have been able to take a look at what he’s planning. For me, its sort of OK, with what look like some possible good ideas, but there’s really very little substance here. Very few commitments, nothing set out as a unified vision of a new society. Very little about anti-austerity.
There’s lots of ‘we must’, and ‘we should’, sort of analysis without much actual statement of intent. There’s a really good idea about reforming the House of Lords (PR from votes cast), but Andy himself says that’s Billy Bragg’s idea. Uh.
Overall, fairly uninspiring and underwhelming. I think i’m still where i was. If Jeremy isn’t in the race i’ll vote Burnham, but only because at the moment, he’s the least worse of the remaining three..

[KeyserSoze]

Out of interest, where is JC's manifesto published? I cannot find it.

[KeyserSoze]

Full Andy Burnham manifesto

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/th ... 1438791117" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[freeindeed]

Out of interest, where is JC's manifesto published? I cannot find it.

Housing: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/j ... 1438782182" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Northern Future (Yes that's THe North!) https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/j ... 1438626641" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Economy: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/j ... 1437556345" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

National Education Service:
http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/jeremy_c ... on_service" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Womens Equality: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/j ... 1438076296" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Defence: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/j ... 1438855210

Robin Hood Tax: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 29501.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[freeindeed]

https://markfiddaman.wordpress.com/2015 ... und-to-me/

This is spectacular!

The Anti-Jeremy Corbyn People: How They Sound to Me

I may not have read any of Corbyn’s policies. But I have imagined what he might think, on the basis of an unorthodox hat he once wore. And let me tell you— never have I heard such barmy, bleeding-heart, loony-left, pie-in-the-sky, stuck-in-the-past, socks-and-sandals, mouth-frothing, terrorist-licking, weirdo-beardo Islington pinko codswallop in all my life.

I’m told Corbyn has some fanciful, Trotskyite notions about not treating the poor like vermin and avoiding imbecilic economic policy. Pfft. Go back to Russia, mate. I think I also read somewhere that he wants to reduce the deficit with a growth strategy, the like of which has never worked ever, apart from all the times it has.

Well, Corbyn can’t trick me with that old ‘saying things that are true’ routine. He can’t pull the wool over my eyes with his manifest skill at harnessing grassroots momentum and his ability to articulate a message of hope with clarity and conviction. Because I know that Corbyn is unelectable. He’s simply too left wing. I mean, for God’s sake, the man was friends with Tony Benn. And apparently he was a Bennite.

What the Corbyn Camp fail to realise is that, to stand a chance at the next election, we have to appease all the aspirational-small-business-owners-who-want-to-get-on. And those guys hate growth. They’re none too keen on schools or hospitals either. That’s why they, along with the rest of the country, love Osbornomics. This was proven at the general election. The public were able to voice clear-minded approval for the right-wing economic narrative, without being distracted by any ‘meaningful critiques’ or ‘credible alternatives’.

Moreover, I’ve just sacrificed a chicken and, according to its spleen, public opinion will stay exactly the same for the next five years, whatever events occur. So why would we elect a leader who’d only waste time and energy defying the chicken-spleen, trying to present a meaningful counter-narrative? Do you have any idea how much principled argument and competent political communication that would involve? No thanks, loonies.

There’s a much easier, much more sensible route back to power in 2020. We simply trail along in the Tory slipstream, frowning a bit should a pauper keel over from hunger or whatever, but basically drifting further and further to the right. Come election time, we’ll need a way to distinguish ourselves from the actual, historical party of the right. Easy. We simply sacrifice more chickens, petitioning the poultry gods to intervene in the campaign on our behalf. A nice scandal should do the trick: perhaps ‘Boris Johnson’ is outed as three Eton Sixth Formers sharing a suit; or perhaps George Osborne is filmed patrolling the treasury on a giant mechanical spider. We don’t know yet— it’ll depend on the breed of chicken.

The point is, in focusing near-exclusively on the centre-right, we have a tried and tested victory strategy.

It’ll be just like the Glorious Spring of ’97! Every schoolboy knows the story— Tony Blair hides inside a giant wooden Margaret Thatcher, tricking the Middle Englanders into letting him through their gates, only to leap out in the night and introduce the minimum wage at them. The moral? Labour only wins elections by pretending to be a different political party. (It also helps to have a preternaturally charismatic leader, a brilliant and ruthless media strategist and a divided and weakly-led opposition; but that’s all optional probably.)

Sadly, many Corbyn supporters are simply too stupid to appreciate water-tight arguments like the above. But there are others who know he’ll never get anywhere near Number 10. They see their support for Corbyn as a means of expressing their anger at a post-New Labour party too afraid to distance itself from the Tories, or want to try to shock it out of its complicity in a morally and intellectually bankrupt economic narrative.

What these idiots need to realise is that an important part of political maturity is accepting that your democratic preferences don’t matter. If you care about politics, it’s your duty to suppress what you believe to be right and true. You have to pander to the second-guessed preferences of everyone else. You have to examine your nearest set of chicken-guts, predicting where public opinion will be five years hence, shirking from any responsibility for shaping or changing the prevailing consensus.

If you don’t accept that, then you’re a petulant, naive, wet-behind-the-ears child, in need of a heart transplant, with a death wish for Labour. You should take your medicine and listen to your betters, like illegal war-enthusiast, Tony Blair, or scowling Apprentice semi-finalist, Chuka Umunna. They’ll tell you that, in the upcoming leadership vote, there’s only one way Labour members can save democratic socialism: sit down, shut up, and vote the way you’ve fecking well been told to.

[Hoboh]

https://markfiddaman.wordpress.com/2015 ... und-to-me/

This is spectacular!

The Anti-Jeremy Corbyn People: How They Sound to Me

I may not have read any of Corbyn’s policies. But I have imagined what he might think, on the basis of an unorthodox hat he once wore. And let me tell you— never have I heard such barmy, bleeding-heart, loony-left, pie-in-the-sky, stuck-in-the-past, socks-and-sandals, mouth-frothing, terrorist-licking, weirdo-beardo Islington pinko codswallop in all my life.

I’m told Corbyn has some fanciful, Trotskyite notions about not treating the poor like vermin and avoiding imbecilic economic policy. Pfft. Go back to Russia, mate. I think I also read somewhere that he wants to reduce the deficit with a growth strategy, the like of which has never worked ever, apart from all the times it has.

Well, Corbyn can’t trick me with that old ‘saying things that are true’ routine. He can’t pull the wool over my eyes with his manifest skill at harnessing grassroots momentum and his ability to articulate a message of hope with clarity and conviction. Because I know that Corbyn is unelectable. He’s simply too left wing. I mean, for God’s sake, the man was friends with Tony Benn. And apparently he was a Bennite.

What the Corbyn Camp fail to realise is that, to stand a chance at the next election, we have to appease all the aspirational-small-business-owners-who-want-to-get-on. And those guys hate growth. They’re none too keen on schools or hospitals either. That’s why they, along with the rest of the country, love Osbornomics. This was proven at the general election. The public were able to voice clear-minded approval for the right-wing economic narrative, without being distracted by any ‘meaningful critiques’ or ‘credible alternatives’.

Moreover, I’ve just sacrificed a chicken and, according to its spleen, public opinion will stay exactly the same for the next five years, whatever events occur. So why would we elect a leader who’d only waste time and energy defying the chicken-spleen, trying to present a meaningful counter-narrative? Do you have any idea how much principled argument and competent political communication that would involve? No thanks, loonies.

There’s a much easier, much more sensible route back to power in 2020. We simply trail along in the Tory slipstream, frowning a bit should a pauper keel over from hunger or whatever, but basically drifting further and further to the right. Come election time, we’ll need a way to distinguish ourselves from the actual, historical party of the right. Easy. We simply sacrifice more chickens, petitioning the poultry gods to intervene in the campaign on our behalf. A nice scandal should do the trick: perhaps ‘Boris Johnson’ is outed as three Eton Sixth Formers sharing a suit; or perhaps George Osborne is filmed patrolling the treasury on a giant mechanical spider. We don’t know yet— it’ll depend on the breed of chicken.

The point is, in focusing near-exclusively on the centre-right, we have a tried and tested victory strategy.

It’ll be just like the Glorious Spring of ’97! Every schoolboy knows the story— Tony Blair hides inside a giant wooden Margaret Thatcher, tricking the Middle Englanders into letting him through their gates, only to leap out in the night and introduce the minimum wage at them. The moral? Labour only wins elections by pretending to be a different political party. (It also helps to have a preternaturally charismatic leader, a brilliant and ruthless media strategist and a divided and weakly-led opposition; but that’s all optional probably.)

Sadly, many Corbyn supporters are simply too stupid to appreciate water-tight arguments like the above. But there are others who know he’ll never get anywhere near Number 10. They see their support for Corbyn as a means of expressing their anger at a post-New Labour party too afraid to distance itself from the Tories, or want to try to shock it out of its complicity in a morally and intellectually bankrupt economic narrative.

What these idiots need to realise is that an important part of political maturity is accepting that your democratic preferences don’t matter. If you care about politics, it’s your duty to suppress what you believe to be right and true. You have to pander to the second-guessed preferences of everyone else. You have to examine your nearest set of chicken-guts, predicting where public opinion will be five years hence, shirking from any responsibility for shaping or changing the prevailing consensus.

If you don’t accept that, then you’re a petulant, naive, wet-behind-the-ears child, in need of a heart transplant, with a death wish for Labour. You should take your medicine and listen to your betters, like illegal war-enthusiast, Tony Blair, or scowling Apprentice semi-finalist, Chuka Umunna. They’ll tell you that, in the upcoming leadership vote, there’s only one way Labour members can save democratic socialism: sit down, shut up, and vote the way you’ve fecking well been told to.

You must be bored!
I have never in my entire life read so much drivel spouted by a shallow minded prick.
Burnham, Kendal, Balls, if you want to be Tories, fcuk off and join them, just stop pretending you are an opposition party, if any of you win there will be no proper opposition in this country.

[freeindeed]

Its satirical.

[Prufrock]

That's generous.

It reads like something rejected by Durham's version of footlights.

[Bijou Bob]

I've followed this for a month or so now and I have to say Corbyn impresses me. I suspect some of the Tories planning to vote him in may well rue the day. He's mobilising the younger voters in a way that hasn't been seen before. This could get very interesting.

[Hoboh]

Its satirical.

'fraid I and no doubt others are hardly bothering the front of our trousers.

Milliband was totally the wrong choice and don't forget he sucked up half the Tory policies, so no wonder he lost. Substance wise you felt like passing him a hanky and patting him on the head when he was supposed to be defending what both he (and as it turns out his two faced shadow cabinet colleagues) stood for, failing to stand up early doors and defend the best bits of the last labour time in power, all were huge mistakes.
Blair is slowly being shown up for what he was, conman, cheat and liar, Brown was all those and a self centred snob with a false sense of his own importance yet the right of labour believed this would get them elected if they hauled Ed in a bit, deluded.

[Prufrock]

Having a conversation with a mate in the pub last night.

If I were Keir Starmer I'd be having a word with Corbs. "I'll back you now, you go and have two years of smashing into the Tories; you'll take some personal hits, but I think you're used to that by now, bring the debate leftwards, then stand down and I'll come in as the candidate that can take those left arguments and sell them to middle england. Boom. Labour win."

so now you're suggesting people SHOULD vote Corbyn because it needs to move leftwards???

In a world where I'm the ex-DPP and a Labour MP, yes. We don't live in that world (some might say fortunately so!).

[Prufrock]

"This is spectacular!"

The case against, limbs 1 and 2. Can't win, and bad even if he could.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/05/co ... more-20103" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Corbyn at the Adelphi: Vintage 80s nostalgia that would deliver a vintage 80s Labour result

by Richard Scorer

Liverpool, Saturday evening: 1100 people cram into the Adelphi ballroom to hear Jeremy Corbyn. My political identification is old Labour right, and I’m probably voting for Liz Kendall, but my Scouse in-laws are Corbyn supporters and invited me along. It was a good opportunity to see what a Labour party led by Corbyn might look like.

First, the warm up acts, starting with the Liverpool Socialist Singers. The compere jokingly asked if anyone present wanted to sing the national anthem. This having elicited the intended booing, we were all invited to join in singing the Internationale. An interesting choice, I thought. The Internationale, not The Red Flag; at this rally, even traditional English socialism is seen as too tame . Then we moved on to the speakers. The quality of oratory was high, the content unrepentedly hard left. The leader of the Bakers Union called for a general strike: wild applause. Paula from Unison quoted Blair’s “heart transplant” comment. Her answer to Blair: “my arse”. It was amusing, and Paula was a powerful speaker.

Then Jeremy himself. He comes across as palpably decent, but with a touch of naivety, just like Tony Benn (who, you’ll remember, got through an entire interview with Ali G without realising that he was a fictional character). His themes were anti-austerity, anti-welfare bill and anti-war.

Austerity was never quite defined. I think in Corbyn’s mind it means any cut in public expenditure, unless it’s cutting spending on something he sees as bad, like defence. Corbyn sort of implied his economic programme has been costed: subject to bit more work by the guys in his policy team, the abolition of tuition fees would be fully paid for by an 0.2% increase in corporation tax. But really, he doesn’t think that costing a programme is necessary, because you can borrow more: “debt is now only 80% of GDP. Under the Attlee government it was 250% of GDP. And they still increased public spending, and so can we”.

We finished with questions from the audience. One speaker wanted to know whether Corbyn, in abolishing tuition fees, would also write off the debts of all past students who had had to pay them. Corbyn was happy to confirm that he would.

My wife wanted to ask Corbyn whether abolishing tuition fees , a policy which targets resources on the 40% most successful members of society, is actually the best expenditure priority compared to , say, spending on early intervention or better apprenticeships for those who don’t go to university. But there seemed little point , because the answer was predictable: in Corbynland you don’t have to make difficult policy choices, you can have everything.

Then Tony Mulhearn, leading member of Militant and president of Liverpool District Labour Party in the early 1980s, but expelled by Kinnock 30 years ago , addressed the meeting . He felt he was getting his party back. It was time to revive the old clause 4.

There wasn’t much discussion about the electoral strategy of a Corbyn led Labour party, but talking to his supporters, on this subject they seem to divide into 3 camps. A sizeable number seem to acknowledge that Corbyn has no hope of ever winning a general election , but “Labour is going to lose anyway, so we might as well go down fighting for our principles”. You can’t persuade this group that the severity of any defeat might affect how long it takes us to return to government.

A second group believe that Corbyn’s policies are so obviously right, and so manifestly appealing to the electorate , that it is inconceivable that he could ever lose. This group pray in aid the success of Syriza and Podemos. When you point out that Greece and Spain have 25% unemployment – the equivalent of 7 million unemployed in the UK- and thus might be rather more fertile ground for Marxism than here – they tend to get tetchy. One told me that as a middle class lawyer, I clearly didn’t understand the depth of poverty and despair in the UK.

Many of Corbyn’s supporters argue that it would be “suicidal” to chase Tory votes; the answer is to win the votes of people who didn’t bother to vote last time- starvelings who just need to be roused from their slumbers. It’s impossible to persuade this group that they might have a rather romantic view of non voters . They aren’t interested in knowing how many non-voters live in seats already held by Labour. They aren’t interested in hearing that Australia , where voting is compulsory, has a Tory government. They aren’t interested in the fact that non-voters don’t, on the whole, actually vote.

But my strongest impression? To coin Yvette Cooper’s phrase, the atmosphere of the Corbyn campaign is “strikingly retro”. Corbyn is no Yanis Varoufakis or Paul Mason, conjuring up a novel economic theory or fascinated by the social potential of new technology. Corbyn’s is the leftism of the 1970s and 1980s. A long section of his speech was a paen to Eric Heffer, and it’s clear that Corbyn is most comfortable refighting the battles of those decades, and the ideas associated with them, like Benn’s siege economy. It simply hasn’t occurred to him that the ability of governments to run up debt might now be more compromised by capital flows in a globalised economy.

Seeing the turnout in Liverpool , and the energy of his campaign , I have no difficulty believing that Corbyn may well win the leadership. We’ll then have a leader and a coterie around him who believe in unrepentant fiscal profligacy and want to sing the Internationale in public. Jeremy Corbyn is probably a lovely man, but if this happens, as a party that hopes to govern, and needs to win votes in Nuneaton, we’re going to be in a really , really bad place.

Richard Scorer is a former Labour PPC

[Hoboh]

Corbyn’s is the leftism of the 1970s and 1980s. A long section of his speech was a paen to Eric Heffer, and it’s clear that Corbyn is most comfortable refighting the battles of those decades, and the ideas associated with them, like Benn’s siege economy. It simply hasn’t occurred to him that the ability of governments to run up debt might now be more compromised by capital flows in a globalised economy.

You see this is what really gets my goat, that statement only works because wankers appointed to important posts by 'bought' corrupt politicians create the scenario for this to happen!
Is Amazon bigger than the UK government? Is it fcuk!
Is Walmart bigger than the UK government? Is it fcuk!
Is Apple bigger than the UK government? Is it fcuk!
This bunch and a whole lot more make wads out of the UK markets or they wouldn't be here yet we tolerate the tail wagging the dog.
Corbyn is soft on some major issues but has the right head on others, much more so than the limp wristed contenders he faces. Btw where's Liz hiding?

[Prufrock]

That's not what that means...

[Hoboh]

That's not what that means...

I'm not thick, it means the likes of the ECB and IMF alongside a bunch of other wankers, sorry bankers can effectively put the stops on the size of government borrowing.
It only needs a few to topple the house of cards though, watch the EU

[Prufrock]

Or, in other words, if you want to borrow money, you need someone to lend it to you, and at a rate you can afford.

Bankers as a group of people have a lot to answer for, but lending us 2.5 times GDP for free might be a little optimistic.

It's interesting that Corbyn refers to Atlee's govt having debt of 250% of GDP. That will include the Anglo-American loan which we did, in fairness, pay back. In 2006.

Taking out mega-loans that don't get paid back for 60 years makes sense when you need them to rebuild after a World War and can get the loan at 2% off the friendly Americans (and Canadians). Not so much for the sake of it.

"Debt is now *only* 80% of GDP". That should go down well in Nuneaton.

[freeindeed]

Clement Atlee inherited debt as a percentage of GDP of 250% and via a programme of high taxation and unprecedented investment in infrastructure he reduced it by 44%.

As contradictory as it sounds, the best way to get out of debt is to borrow, and make the money work.
If money is borrowed on low long-term interest rates (as we have in the Uk) then the faster growth and returns on public investment yield higher tax revenues and a 5-6% return is more than enough to offset a temporary increase to the national debt. Not to mention the crucial social-cost benefits.
National debt is measured as a percentage of GDP; so long as the GDP is growing, the same amount of debt loses value over time.

The best time to borrow (and invest to stimulate economy) is when interest rates are low. The best time to pay of debt is when the economy is booming. Austerity is largely discredited by leading economists. It is a political and ideological strategy (to reduce "government") rather than an economical one.

Paul Krugman: The austerity delusion:

http://gu.com/p/47yj6?CMP