Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[agricola]

oh a Roman Empire reference to look good. Problem is they have been stabbing him with rubber dagger long since march and finding to their extreme frustration that corbyn is made out of iron and cannot be slain by rubber daggers. Loving this tbf, nearly the entire plp despises what he stands for (got questions meself tbh but he's at least onside) yet nearly the entire rest of the party think C-Byn is a god. Going to court over wether your members can vote, fuck me. I'll say gold plated Corbz of iron cannot lose a leadership battle. But a house divided is never a good look and these cunts will tank a GE result rather than give ground. 60k a year before you touch expenses

 

[killer b]

Someone linked me to this collection of writing by Jeremy Gilbert (I think some of it has been posted here before, but there's lots that hasnt). There's some good stuff in there - particular liked this passage in the response to Paul mason:

We should stop talking about ‘austerity’. Many commentators (including me) have always thought that ‘austerity’ was too abstract a concept to make the basis for a political critique and also has a particular problem in the English context, where the long legacy of puritanism means that for many people ‘austerity’ sounds like desirable self-discipline rather than something to be opposed.

But there is a far more important reason to shut the fuck up about ‘austerity’. ‘Austerity’ is used as a shorthand for the failed economic response to the post-2008 crisis which focussed on cuts and reducing government spending and real wages. The trouble with attacking this particular programme is that doing so completely ignores the plight of people who have ben suffering continually since the 1970s. The fact is that ‘austerity’ is mainly a problem for the metropolitan left who, before 2008, were mainly having a pretty good time of it, although those of us working in the public sector resented New Labour’s imposition of neoliberal norms on schools, the NHS, etc. The post-industrial working classes, the people who just swung the vote in favour of Brexit and are the prime targets for UKIP, have not seen their prospects drastically reduced since 2008 – they are suffering the effects of a continual undermining of their communities and their economic infrastructure since the late 1970s.

Corbynism: Several Articles on Jeremy Corbyn and the Politics of the Labour Party

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Strikes a chord with me straight away ...

One of the key problems here, which very few people on either side of the debate want to admit, is that the existing Parliamentary Labour Party is made up mostly of people who are just not suited in any way to the task of representing even a mildly left-wing political party in the early 21st century.

This means that however bad a leader Corbyn may be, he will at least not be as obstructive to the renewal of the party and the labour movement as almost any of his colleagues would be, even if some of them would perform better in TV interviews.

source above

 

[killer b]

This in the openlabour interview is nailed on:

"the results of elections are actually pretty incidental to actual political outcomes. Elections are important, but they’re not usually as important as people think they are. Broadly speaking governments in Britain from 1940 – when the war cabinet was formed – through to the 70s pursued a pretty consistent agenda and set of policies. That began to fall apart in the mid-1970s when the Callaghan government started to cut back on the public sector, weaken the unions, and so on. And since then – since the 1970s – that agenda has remained in place pretty consistently up until the present. On the basis of these examples you can say that what happens in elections is a symptom of underlying social forces, rather than being the absolute and determining factor in terms of outcomes. Elections determine who gets to be in government, but they don’t determine what those in power actually do.

I would say that actual political outcomes are, to use a Gramscian phrase, an expression of the balance of forces – they are an effect of the relative strength of different groups in society to influence outcomes and shape the agenda. Generally speaking, from the 40s to the 70s, the two strongest social constituents were manufacturers and the trade unions. Between them they more or less shaped most of the direction of social and economic policy. Since the 80s, the most powerful force in Britain and globally has been financial capital. So unless you can build up some social coalition which means you can organise things differently, then things aren’t going to fundamentally change, regardless of the results of the election. You’ve got to think about how the balance of forces can be shifted."

 

[two sheds]

"the results of elections are actually pretty incidental to actual political outcomes. Elections are important, but they’re not usually as important as people think they are. Broadly speaking governments in Britain from 1940 – when the war cabinet was formed – through to the 70s pursued a pretty consistent agenda and set of policies. That began to fall apart in the mid-1970s when the Callaghan government started to cut back on the public sector, weaken the unions, and so on.

Interesting post killer b - is this the beginning of the falling apart though? I'd thought it was the Barber budget in 72 that led to the 'Barber boom' which became inflationary, and led to the industrial unrest with unions trying to recover some of what they'd lost. I hadn't realized about Callaghan though - I presume he was doing that in response to media pressure.

 

[brogdale]

Interesting post killer b - is this the beginning of the falling apart though? I'd thought it was the Barber budget in 72 that led to the 'Barber boom' which became inflationary, and led to the industrial unrest with unions trying to recover some of what they'd lost. I hadn't realized about Callaghan though - I presume he was doing that in response to media pressure.

No.
It was presented to the public as the inevitable consequence of Healy's IMF bail-out; a structural adjustment programme, if you like.

 

[killer b]

Interesting post killer b - is this the beginning of the falling apart though? I'd thought it was the Barber budget in 72 that led to the 'Barber boom' which became inflationary, and led to the industrial unrest with unions trying to recover some of what they'd lost. I hadn't realized about Callaghan though - I presume he was doing that in response to media pressure.

I'm sure you're right - although the precise timeline of these kinds of things is always going to be arguable, as there's rarely a single identifiable tipping point: the thrust of his argument is undeniable though, IMO.

 

[mauvais]

Yesterday I forgot the blindingly obvious - never mind the London mayoral elections where the freeze was apparently prospective; the Manchester one appears to be six months retrospective. Announced in Jan this year that you have to have been in the area since July 2015. Up for challenge now I suppose? But noone will anyway as Burnham is probably the most left leaning choice (ho ho ho) and he's going to win. West Mids is the same I think but I don't know anything about it.

 

[killer b]

Is Burnham looking like he's going to win now? I thought Tony lloyd had better local support? Be glad if he isn't, I was deeply unconvinced when I heard him speak last month...

 

[mauvais]

Is Burnham looking like he's going to win now? I thought Tony lloyd had better local support? Be glad if he isn't, I was deeply unconvinced when I heard him speak last month...

Supposedly Burnham, then Lloyd, then Lewis. If Lewis wins I'll get a new MP but he'll also be mayor

Haven't read much good about Lloyd. Lots of people annoyed about various things like traffic and transport and AFAICS he's not doing much to address them.

 

[two sheds]

No.
It was presented to the public as the inevitable consequence of Healy's IMF bail-out; a structural adjustment programme, if you like.

Ok ta -

Healey later claimed that the Treasury had grossly overestimated the public sector borrowing requirement, the key figure used during the IMF crisis, and that if he had been given accurate figures, he would not have had to ask for the loan. He also said that accepting the IMF’s strictures was a “Pyrrhic defeat”, forcing him into the proto-Thatcherite fiscal stringency he wanted to practise anyway.

Defining Moment: Denis Healey agrees to the demands of the IMF - FT.com

The IMF loan was to stop a run on the pound because speculators sold pounds because they thought the government was overvalued. I don't know what the treasury had predicted the PSBR to be but looking at the national debt (a graph ) there wasn't anything around that time. The peak just before 1950 was to fund the post-war social contract? (Which itself seemed to do a remarkable job in reducing the national debt over the years, leveling out around the early 70s).

And back to the point about different governments not making much difference - certainly true of the post-war social contract up to the early 70s. It took an ideology and an aim to change it: full employment (etc) to start it off, and Thatcher's aim of selling it all off again.

 

[brogdale]

Ok ta -



Defining Moment: Denis Healey agrees to the demands of the IMF - FT.com

The IMF loan was to stop a run on the pound because speculators sold pounds because they thought the government was overvalued. I don't know what the treasury had predicted the PSBR to be but looking at the national debt (a graph ) there wasn't anything around that time. The peak just before 1950 was to fund the post-war social contract? (Which itself seemed to do a remarkable job in reducing the national debt over the years, leveling out around the early 70s).

And back to the point about different governments not making much difference - certainly true of the post-war social contract up to the early 70s. It took an ideology and an aim to change it: full employment (etc) to start it off, and Thatcher's aim of selling it all off again.

Might be worth your while having a nose in here?

 

[two sheds]

bookmarked, ta

 

[butchersapron]

About 2000 people on college green last night. Didn't see debboinaire.

 

[butchersapron]

The NEC results then?

 

[redsquirrel]

Someone linked me to this collection of writing by Jeremy Gilbert (I think some of it has been posted here before, but there's lots that hasnt). There's some good stuff in there - particular liked this passage in the response to Paul mason:


Corbynism: Several Articles on Jeremy Corbyn and the Politics of the Labour Party

Those paragraphs you quoted are bang on.

 

[butchersapron]

This in the openlabour interview is nailed on:

"the results of elections are actually pretty incidental to actual political outcomes. Elections are important, but they’re not usually as important as people think they are. Broadly speaking governments in Britain from 1940 – when the war cabinet was formed – through to the 70s pursued a pretty consistent agenda and set of policies. That began to fall apart in the mid-1970s when the Callaghan government started to cut back on the public sector, weaken the unions, and so on. And since then – since the 1970s – that agenda has remained in place pretty consistently up until the present. On the basis of these examples you can say that what happens in elections is a symptom of underlying social forces, rather than being the absolute and determining factor in terms of outcomes. Elections determine who gets to be in government, but they don’t determine what those in power actually do.

I would say that actual political outcomes are, to use a Gramscian phrase, an expression of the balance of forces – they are an effect of the relative strength of different groups in society to influence outcomes and shape the agenda. Generally speaking, from the 40s to the 70s, the two strongest social constituents were manufacturers and the trade unions. Between them they more or less shaped most of the direction of social and economic policy. Since the 80s, the most powerful force in Britain and globally has been financial capital. So unless you can build up some social coalition which means you can organise things differently, then things aren’t going to fundamentally change, regardless of the results of the election. You’ve got to think about how the balance of forces can be shifted."

That contains a very damaging and rather naive understanding of the autonomy of the political - of the state. How would that analysis work in say...the miners strike? The state as simple outcome of the balance of forces is crazy - the state/politics is an active player in that balance. The only way it could possibly work after that statement is as a direct weapon of the winners of the balance of forces. So right now it's a simple tool of financial capital. That's the mirror of the comintern view of fascism being the direct tool of monopoly capital. That didn't work out very well. And to make it worse, it argues its grounds on the political - on what he says is the epiphenomenon of other real forces.

 

[killer b]

Hmm, I guess you're right that the state plays an active role, but how come the active role it plays has been so uniform across governments of all stripe, unless that active role is very limited?

 

[CNT36]

118 posts in the Force Awakens thread.

 

[butchersapron]

Hmm, I guess you're right that the state plays an active role, but how come the active role it plays has been so uniform across governments of all stripe, unless that active role is very limited?

His answer would be balance of forces which a) is a very localised almost nationalistic view - i was going to make that comment about his other pieces. What's been going on globally? Ironically he can only answer by re-instating the state/politics as key. Despite setting out to make the point that its derivative and secondary (which it is, but not in this simplistic way) B) would to be totally ignore intra-capital competition - which takes places on the political plane. The state is not a simple tool of capital, it's a place where capital fights capital (war of the brothers) to manage the fight against labour - see, again, the miners strike. It acts.

In that is my answer, the state is the political form of the class struggle. The class struggle always contains, is based on, attempts by capital to win it. That's the state. Sometimes there is benefit to total capital having a period of peace - the state manages that for them, and it manages it against the interests of single capital in the interest of wider capital.

 

[belboid]

Someone linked me to this collection of writing by Jeremy Gilbert (I think some of it has been posted here before, but there's lots that hasnt). There's some good stuff in there - particular liked this passage in the response to Paul mason:


Corbynism: Several Articles on Jeremy Corbyn and the Politics of the Labour Party

Gilbert is often very astute and interesting, but that bits rubbish. Was everyone working in the public sector part of the 'metropolitan left'? No. Did people who didn't work in the public sector feel affected by the cuts to the services they used? Yes. Sure, they didn't benefit as much from the Blairite investment as some others (not just the metropolitan left, millions of others too), but they have suffered the cuts just as badly. Just look at what austerity had meant for benefits.

 

[killer b]

Regardless, I think he's right in the thrust of his argument there.

 

[killer b]

Looks like Burnham got the nomination for Mayor btw.

 

[killer b]

(which means Corbyn needs a new shadow home sec sharpish, as much as anything else)

 

[agricola]

Tom! Tom!

He also condemned Ed Miliband’s decision to ditch the electoral college for choosing Labour leaders, which allowed trade unions, MPs and party members all to have a say. Watson said this was a “terrible error of judgment” by Corbyn’s predecessor and that he would like to see it reinstated.

 

[Rob Ray]

In fairness Watson was always dead against the Falkirk fallout, possibly in part because his aide was the one implicated. Silly thing to say now though, puts no pressure on Corbyn and reminds everyone about how undemocratic the process was before.

 

[belboid]

Regardless, I think he's right in the thrust of his argument there.

Sorry, the bit you quoted wasn't the thrust of his argument? What the hell was then?

 

[belboid]

(which means Corbyn needs a new shadow home sec sharpish, as much as anything else)

He's got nine months. Arguably.

 

[Wilf]

Tom! Tom!

There's a massive irony in all this in that it was the right who always wanted OMOV.

Lovely little Section this:

“Many members of the grassroots Momentum movement, set up to support Corbyn’s leadership, are “deeply interested in political change, in building a more equal society, and are just on a journey in politics that they’re new to”, Watson said. But he suggested some are being manipulated by seasoned hard-left operators.

There are some old hands twisting young arms in this process, and I’m under no illusions about what’s going on. They are caucusing and factionalising and putting pressure where they can, and that’s how Trotsky entryists operate. Sooner or later, that always ends up in disaster. It always ends up destroying the institutions that are vulnerable, unless you deal with it.”

Manages to be absurdly and offensively patronising to supposedly naïve new members, whilst reinforcing the accusation of violence and menace with the 'arm twisting' bit - and then layering in the entryism/Trotskyist theme. Good work Thomas, but it would have been a 10 is you'd squeezed 'brick' in there as well.

 

[killer b]

Sorry, the bit you quoted wasn't the thrust of his argument? What the hell was then?

The thrust of his argument is that going on about austerity is meaningless to loads of people who've been fucked over for decades. That he's been a bit sloppy about exactly who those people are or aren't isn't that important (I think you've also misread it a bit, but can't really be arsed arguing the toss)