Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

I think this all silliness, even a bit pathetic tbh. Whatever you think about Corbyn's personal morals and politics, he has shown himself to be (a) not capable of exercising leadership in the way our political systems demand and (b) very bad at real world politics in which you are exposed to constant media games in which you either set the narrative or are killed by it. I think it would be a big waste of a lot of people's time for him to run for mayor. I don't think he'd win, but even if he did he would be incapacitated by hostile media and central government and would not be able to get much done. Can we really not find better left candidates for leadership positions? I refer you all to the title of this thread, which is now definitely and finally true.
 
Whether or not Corbyn choses to stand, although it seems unlikely; the fact that there are two rounds of voting means that the left and right votes in the second round tend to coalesce around the the left and right candidate who get most votes in the first round. I don't really understand why after more than 20 years posters here don't understand how the system works.
Because we:

1. Don't live in London
2. Don't give a fuck what happens there
 
I think this all silliness, even a bit pathetic tbh. Whatever you think about Corbyn's personal morals and politics, he has shown himself to be (a) not capable of exercising leadership in the way our political systems demand and (b) very bad at real world politics in which you are exposed to constant media games in which you either set the narrative or are killed by it. I think it would be a big waste of a lot of people's time for him to run for mayor. I don't think he'd win, but even if he did he would be incapacitated by hostile media and central government and would not be able to get much done. Can we really not find better left candidates for leadership positions? I refer you all to the title of this thread, which is now definitely and finally true.
I think you'll look back at this post and cringe
 
For a mayoral run in the near future? Pretty clearly not tbh. I don't expect it to happen but he's the only even vaguely viable left of Labour candidate isn't he, for all his faults.
Yep. Hard to think of another person who could challenge labour from the left with much hope of saving their deposit, let alone a realistic hope of winning (which I think Corbyn would have).

When talking politics with non-political friends/colleagues, my usual line atm is a variant on the idea that I liked Corbyn but I'm clearly not allowed nice things and I'm now back to feeling disenfranchised. I'm often surprised by the lack of hostility that line gets.
 
Last edited:
Whether or not Corbyn choses to stand, although it seems unlikely; the fact that there are two rounds of voting means that the left and right votes in the second round tend to coalesce around the the left and right candidate who get most votes in the first round. I don't really understand why after more than 20 years posters here don't understand how the system works.

However, given his antisemitic associates, I can't see him doing too well first time round.
in fact, there sadly won't be 2 rounds of voting in the next mayoral election.
they've all been changed to use FPTP. along with voter ID in this Elections Act 2022 - Wikipedia
 
  • Angry
Reactions: tim
I think this all silliness, even a bit pathetic tbh. Whatever you think about Corbyn's personal morals and politics, he has shown himself to be (a) not capable of exercising leadership in the way our political systems demand and (b) very bad at real world politics in which you are exposed to constant media games in which you either set the narrative or are killed by it. I think it would be a big waste of a lot of people's time for him to run for mayor. I don't think he'd win, but even if he did he would be incapacitated by hostile media and central government and would not be able to get much done. Can we really not find better left candidates for leadership positions? I refer you all to the title of this thread, which is now definitely and finally true.

I think this is probably true of most politicians though. Including most London mayors. I also think that the whole being a good respectable sensible stateman like figure is overrated in terms of election winning* and that there's no chance that any leftish candidate will get any media plaudits regardlessly. And I also think that conditions are much more favourable now than they were when Ken Livingstone defied the party machine and went on to become mayor. Corbyn has proven himself to be a good campaigner and is well regarded at least in his own little corner of London.

*The Tories are at present probably choosing the correct candidate for their continued survival in choosing Truss over Sunak. People (leftwingers and even more so rightwingers) don't give a shit about the things they're supposed to give a shit about.
 
Confiscating housles
I think this all silliness, even a bit pathetic tbh. Whatever you think about Corbyn's personal morals and politics, he has shown himself to be (a) not capable of exercising leadership in the way our political systems demand and (b) very bad at real world politics in which you are exposed to constant media games in which you either set the narrative or are killed by it. I think it would be a big waste of a lot of people's time for him to run for mayor. I don't think he'd win, but even if he did he would be incapacitated by hostile media and central government and would not be able to get much done. Can we really not find better left candidates for leadership positions? I refer you all to the title of this thread, which is now definitely and finally true.
That does ignore the fact that a lot of Labour MPs and party employees were actively working against him, diverting funds away from left wing candidates, and failing to deal with antisemites in the party while blaming him for it. And I think you'll find any left wing candidate will be incapacitated by hostile media and central government.

Who would you prefer?
 
I think this all silliness, even a bit pathetic tbh. Whatever you think about Corbyn's personal morals and politics, he has shown himself to be (a) not capable of exercising leadership in the way our political systems demand and (b) very bad at real world politics in which you are exposed to constant media games in which you either set the narrative or are killed by it. I think it would be a big waste of a lot of people's time for him to run for mayor. I don't think he'd win, but even if he did he would be incapacitated by hostile media and central government and would not be able to get much done. Can we really not find better left candidates for leadership positions? I refer you all to the title of this thread, which is now definitely and finally true.
About the one thing going for him is not leading as the system demands.
 
Confiscating housles

That does ignore the fact that a lot of Labour MPs and party employees were actively working against him, diverting funds away from left wing candidates, and failing to deal with antisemites in the party while blaming him for it. And I think you'll find any left wing candidate will be incapacitated by hostile media and central government.

Who would you prefer?
A hostile media is a given. But compare Corbyn's ability to answer a hostile question to Mick Lynch's ability to do it. I don't like that politicians have to play these games, but I've just enough pragmatism to admit that they do, and it's better if they can play them well. Corbyn spent half his time walking into traps the media set for him that had 'Trap' in big flashing warning lights above them.

Look, I know that when Corbyn kind of tripped into the Labour Party leadership by accident he was the only game in town for the left and had to be defended at all costs. But now we're not in that situation any more and I think we should admit he's not very good at high level politics. Great constituency MP and campaigner. Not someone with the skills to be a political leader in this climate.

Do I even like the model of political leadership that is pushed on people? No, I hate it. But there's some middle path between being a Starmer-style top-down purger and being a doormat. Corbyn was the latter. He tried to open the door to social movements to write policy, which was admirable, but he had no defences against bad policy or bad media lines sent his way, no ability to draw a line and say 'No, this is not the right axe to grind right now.' How do you think he ended up with the fatal Brexit position?
 
I think this is probably true of most politicians though. Including most London mayors. I also think that the whole being a good respectable sensible stateman like figure is overrated in terms of election winning* and that there's no chance that any leftish candidate will get any media plaudits regardlessly. And I also think that conditions are much more favourable now than they were when Ken Livingstone defied the party machine and went on to become mayor. Corbyn has proven himself to be a good campaigner and is well regarded at least in his own little corner of London.

*The Tories are at present probably choosing the correct candidate for their continued survival in choosing Truss over Sunak. People (leftwingers and even more so rightwingers) don't give a shit about the things they're supposed to give a shit about.

The problem with Corbs is that to do something effective requires abilities that his political career to date suggests he doesn't possess.

Livingstone was a great Mayor for two reasons - firstly (and most importantly) he did significant things (like find a way to expand the supply of social/affordable housing relatively painlessly, improve public transport access, get the Olympics or start to implement the bike scheme). Secondly, he wasn't afraid to take central government or his own party on in a meaningful way and did his own thing (at least at the start, his defeat probably came because he went back to Labour rather than moving away from them). Corbs wouldn't do any of that, he'd probably take a stand early on and then allow City Hall to (once again) be filled by hangers-on and friendly hacks rather than competent people.

As for Truss, she is just a comfort blanket at this point. The only sane choice that shower can make is Sunak, who for all his faults will at least allow them to blame the previous regime. Truss on the other hand is the "but we always pick the leader" candidate.
 
A hostile media is a given. But compare Corbyn's ability to answer a hostile question to Mick Lynch's ability to do it. I don't like that politicians have to play these games, but I've just enough pragmatism to admit that they do, and it's better if they can play them well. Corbyn spent half his time walking into traps the media set for him that had 'Trap' in big flashing warning lights above them.

Look, I know that when Corbyn kind of tripped into the Labour Party leadership by accident he was the only game in town for the left and had to be defended at all costs. But now we're not in that situation any more and I think we should admit he's not very good at high level politics. Great constituency MP and campaigner. Not someone with the skills to be a political leader in this climate.

Do I even like the model of political leadership that is pushed on people? No, I hate it. But there's some middle path between being a Starmer-style top-down purger and being a doormat. Corbyn was the latter. He tried to open the door to social movements to write policy, which was admirable, but he had no defences against bad policy or bad media lines sent his way, no ability to draw a line and say 'No, this is not the right axe to grind right now.' How do you think he ended up with the fatal Brexit position?
Winning the mayor job is all about name recognition, and once in the job the limited amount of power you have can't be negated by media, best they can do is try and smear election or re-election.
Key thing is he won't have his own machine fighting against him.
 
You can allow superficial class characteristics to fuel your prejudice in favour of particular faction of the ruling political class, yet the reality is that the specific role of the Labour Party in maintaining the dominance of capital is to divert and smother working class anger and potential to act. And they have ALWAYS done it while carrying out heinous anti-working class policies. They did under Atlee, they did it under Callaghan, they did under Wilson, they did it under Blair, they did under Corbyn and they continue in the same vein under Starmer. This is why they are a particular enemy of the working class and why I reserve so much hatred for them. Very real reasons.
 
Can you provide some analysis? In what way did the Attlee govt act to maintain the dominance of capital?
Off the top of my head - They managed capitalism under Atlee for one thing. They replaced one lot of bosses with state bosses, it wasn't any kind of genuine socialism. Workers continued to be exploited very much as wage slaves. And Atlee also sent troops up against striking dockers.
 
Btw I find the accusations of 'puritanism' against me very interesting because acknowledging that the Labour Party is not on your side as a working class person is actually very pragmatic.
 
Nationalising industries also increased the profits of capitalist which is why it was done. In return for their ownership of particular firms, the ruling class were given lavish compensation which could then be invested in other, more profitable industries. A good example of this was the nationalisation of the Bank of England.

Workers on the other hand, according to Herbert Morrison , could only get the benefits of social insurance, ‘by increasing the total national income ... it could only be done by work, thought, drive and initiative.’ (Times, September 6th 1945) . What this meant of course was increased productivity, greater exploitation to screw more surplus value out of the working class - in return for which a few crumbs would be thrown off the bosses table.

And I'm afraid The Labour Party and the Unions were hand in hand with the bosses, aiming to screw more out of the working class by conning them that the promised land had arrived.
 
Notable features of the Atlee government were the building of the British atomic bomb and Hydrogen bomb, the rising of the cost of living by 30% and the demand that workers exercise ‘restraint’ and not ask for pay rises. Wartime rationing was kept in place, which ensured that money was spent not on consumption but on investment. This meant not only less for workers, but a drabber, more monotonous existence. In fact between 1947 and 1951 working class people suffered a drop in their real wages.

The Atlee government gave little to the working class. In this it revealed once again just whose side it was on. This time its membership began more closely to reveal this fact too. In 1945 more than 40 of the Labour MPs were lawyers...... ‘ between 20 and 30 were business men, and a good sprinkling of farmers, accountants, consulting engineers and other professions’ were among the rest. Arthur Greenwood, the Labour Lord Privy Seal, said at the time, ‘I look around among my colleagues, and I see landlords, capitalists and lawyers. We are a cross-section of the national life, and this is something that has never happened before.’ A party originally set up to protect the unions had acquired a constitution written by middle class intellectuals and was now being run by a coalition of union bureaucrats and traditional members of the ruling class.

Nationalisation is not socialism. Socialism means the common ownership of the means of production and distribution. It means getting rid of the bosses, getting rid of working for a wage or salary, getting rid of the whole rotten buying and selling system. It means that people will freely come together to produce what is needed and will freely take from the abundant products of their labour. It will involve the abolition not only of the ruling class, but also their state. It will not mean that state being replaced by a new state. Nationalisation is just one form of state capitalism.


It is hardly surprising that the Labour Party and the unions ended up as the firmest supporters of state capitalism. Trade unions do not exist to change society, they are to get a larger slice of the capitalist cake, not take over the bakery. Indeed, without the buying and selling economy, based on wage labour, there is no role for a trade union. With no role for a trade union, there is no job for a union official. However, the power, privileges and status of the union bureaucrats are very much determined by how much their status is recognised by the capitalist class. To protect their position, it is natural for unions to look for a more regulated capitalism, a capitalism based on partnership between employers and labour organisations. It was to achieve this that the Labour Party was set up in the first place.

Their position was recognised and they were welcomed as junior partners in the state machine during the First World War. It was a logical step for them to go beyond mere regulation and favour full blown state ownership, with the state as the major employer working in partnership with the unions. Thus Clause Four was adopted as a means of selling this to the working class at the same time as the Unions’ control over the party was established. Their function as part of the state machine was re-emphasised during the Second World War, and continued afterwards with the various tripartite commissions, quangos like the National Economic Development Corporation, and the routine appointment of Trade Union General Secretaries to the House of Lords.

As part of the state wanting more state control the party attracted to itself those sections of the ruling class who would benefit from it. This helps explain the number of lawyers and other professionals in the Attlee governing party. By the 1940s even the leaders of the party came from this social group.

In 1951 there was another General Election. This time Labour lost. It was followed by 13 years of Tory government.

So that answers your question about the Atlee government.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom