Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Smokeandsteam]

Whatever mechanisms come into play, come into play they will. The precedent is, of course, Mitterand in France, who for whatever combination of reasons - and the reasons are debated, but are no doubt subtle and various - chose austerity and “responsibility” over his initial programme: a decision which led to forty years of economic liberalization and trade union decline in France.

Whether ousting, pressure, financial flight, or whatever, Corbyn’s route would not have been smooth.

Spot on about the precedent of the Mitterand Government. Not only did he (and his supporters in France and across Europe) chose austerity over the programme that he was elected to deliver but he also concluded that democratic national economies were no longer able to decide or control their own futures and that the EU (which he had previously written off as an empty vessel) would be the vehicle for 'resisting capital'. We know how that played out.

Mitterand was elected at a historically high point of industrial militancy and struggle too, food for thought for those who think Jeremy and co would have been up to the task of facing down internal and external pressures without support from an organised and confident movement.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is a key point. The Lettuce didn’t wilt because she wasn’t elected, but because she no longer had the support of a parliamentary majority. Corbyn would not have had unconditional support from all his parliamentary party, making his a minority government at best.

Sure. He would have faced a battle from within. All those MPs would have stood on his manifesto, though. They would have had little choice but to vote for a lot of what he was proposing if it was in the manifesto. I don't think the Truss comparison is particularly relevant.

At the very least, it would have taken time for any rebellion to have come to a head, particularly if they had been in any kind of coalition government, which realistically they would have been.

A Corbyn govt could easily have turned into a crushing disappointment. I didn't deny that. But a leader who's just won an election has proved that they are a popular leader. Even r/w labour MPs would have recognised that at least at first.

 

[danny la rouge]

Mitterand was elected at a historically high point of industrial militancy and struggle too, food for thought for those who think Jeremy and co would have been up to the task of facing internal and external pressures without support from an organised and confident movement.

Exactly. A critical point.

A not so critical point, but worth noting: Truss becoming Prime Minister without first winning a general election as leader of her party is not uncommon. This was done by Churchill, Callaghan, Major, Brown, May and others in the last 100 years alone. Legitimacy is seen as coming from commanding the support of a majority in the Commons, not from having been the leader of a party during a general election. (It’s even possible to become prime minister without leading the party with the largest number of seats, so long as one has support of a majority in the Commons).

 

[danny la rouge]

Truss never won an election - no MPs owed their positions to her. MPs hadn't stood for election on her manifesto. Very different scenario.

don't think the Truss comparison is particularly relevant.

I referred to Truss because you did. I know you weren’t first to mention her, but I’m a bit confused as to what it is about her that you don’t think relevant when you were using her to make an earlier point.

The relevant point is a Commons majority.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I referred to Truss because you did. I know you weren’t first to mention her, but I’m a bit confused as to what it is about her that you don’t think relevant when you were using her to make an earlier point.

The relevant point is a Commons majority.

My earlier point was a reply to one that mentioned truss. I don't think it's a good comparison and explained why.

 

[hitmouse]

And, just to beat that point into the ground, I think it's also a relevant point to ask whether we're any closer to having that organised and confident movement that could support a socialist government/cripple a reactionary one now than we were back in 2015 or so. Cos if not, then people putting their time and effort into the Labour Party... well, they may or may not be the enemy, but I certainly don't have to think they're using their time and energy particularly wisely.

 

[Pickman's model]

And, just to beat that point into the ground, I think it's also a relevant point to ask whether we're any closer to having that organised and confident movement that could support a socialist government/cripple a reactionary one now than we were back in 2015 or so. Cos if not, then people putting their time and effort into the Labour Party... well, they may or may not be the enemy, but I certainly don't have to think they're using their time and energy particularly wisely.

Not when the best they have to offer is significantly to the right of 'red' jim callaghan

 

[Smokeandsteam]

And, just to beat that point into the ground, I think it's also a relevant point to ask whether we're any closer to having that organised and confident movement that could support a socialist government/cripple a reactionary one now than we were back in 2015 or so. Cos if not, then people putting their time and effort into the Labour Party... well, they may or may not be the enemy, but I certainly don't have to think they're using their time and energy particularly wisely.

At this point anyone who’s putting time and energy into ‘changing’ the Labour Party or ‘staying and fighting’ needs to give their head a wobble. If the hundred plus years of history plus Corbyn to Starmer doesn’t convince them to put the shovel down nothing will.

But on your question, it’s unquestionably worse now than in 2015 because Corbynism sucked an entire generation into the labourist orbit and into the endless deadending morass of CLP politics, conference motion battles, electoralism and the impossible task of changing the spots of a leopard.

That generation seems overwhelmingly lost to left politics now - inside and outside of Labour - demoralised, burnt out, disorientated, collapsed into identity politics, whatever. What’s left is a few podcasts, some residual lefty rhetoric in some unions and already a sad nostalgia for their momentum heydays but little else.

One of the most remarkable features of Corbynism is just how quickly it evaporated as quickly as it emerged.

 

[Dogsauce]

If Corbyn isn’t allowed to stand as the Labour candidate in his seat, maybe he should threaten to run as an independent in Holborn & St Pancras? That’d fuck shit up, reckon he would have a chance.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

maybe he should threaten to run as an independent in Holborn & St Pancras?

or stand as candidate for the alpaca liberation front?

 

[GroovySunday]

this Groovy Sunday character turning up here to shout at other posters for not being revolutionary enough, while telling us he's not interested in organisations and doesn't really know what they're for, is a fucking joke... and probably best ignored.

Proves what you know

 

[brogdale]

But mostly, let's talk about me...

 

[krtek a houby]

Proves what you know

Haven't yet gone yet?

 

[GroovySunday]

this Groovy Sunday character turning up here to shout at other posters for not being revolutionary enough, while telling us he's not interested in organisations and doesn't really know what they're for, is a fucking joke... and probably best ignored.

I haven't shouted at or berated anyone, certainly not without being on the receiving end of hostility myself. As for formal organisations, I agree with the legitimate criticisms of them and I much prefer the affinity group model.

 

[andysays]

I haven't shouted at or berated anyone, certainly not without being on the receiving end of hostility myself. As for formal organisations, I agree with the legitimate criticisms of them and I much prefer the affinity group model.

I'm struggling to imagine any group, formal or otherwise, which would welcome you as a member

 

[Pickman's model]

I haven't shouted at or berated anyone, certainly not without being on the receiving end of hostility myself. As for formal organisations, I agree with the legitimate criticisms of them and I much prefer the affinity group model.

do many people show affinity with you?

 

[ska invita]

As for formal organisations, I agree with the legitimate criticisms of them and I much prefer the affinity group model.

the problem is if you want to utterly transform society you're up against hundreds of thousands of people who are very powerful, very well organised, very well resourced to the tune of billions, and deeply embedded and in the driving seat of the system with the tools of the state at their disposal.... meanwhile the climate breakdown clock is ticking fast......

tiny affinity groups absolutely have their place and role to play but we need organisations that have some serious scale, reach, and a strong degree of broad public support to match what we're up against....even if you shun all parliamentary organising the scale-up required needs to be significant...i cant see how that is possible without "formal" organising

 

[GroovySunday]

the problem is if you want to utterly transform society you're up against hundreds of thousands of people who are very powerful, very well organised, very well resourced to the tune of billions, and deeply embedded and in the driving seat of the system with the tools of the state at their disposal.... meanwhile the climate breakdown clock is ticking fast......

tiny affinity groups absolutely have their place and role to play but we need organisations that have some serious scale, reach, and a strong degree of broad public support to match what we're up against....even if you shun all parliamentary organising the scale-up required needs to be significant...i cant see how that is possible without "formal" organising

We could still have organisation with affinity groups (or just with informal organisation) and with a decent affinity group alot of organisation goes into it. I don't see why we couldn't have loads of clusters of them, doing different things to fight back (aswell as practicing solidarity). With formal organisations you always get a ruling clique and those members who just go along with them and follow, so I don't see it as compatible with anarchism (and it very quickly becomes all about the organisation, rather than it's members). Plus, also despite what proponents of these formal orgs claim, the organisation really exists only to expand itself and if it ever get's anywhere in struggle it will just try to represent or replace the workers, rather than the workers actually having the collective, independent power and autonomy. That's how I see it. No doubt the proponents and members of formal orgs very much disagree.

Anyway, I guess this is more suited to a different thread.

 

[ska invita]

I don't see why we couldn't have loads of clusters of them, doing different things to fight back (as well as practicing solidarity).

Id like to see that too - I dont think its anywhere near enough on its own compared to the scale of the problem, but we need that also. Its great that you are into that and motivated to do it - all power to you. I'm involved in a project for a few years now that is trying to do something related with some limited success - I do get your perspective.

There is a question that follows though, why isn't that happening on the scale we would like. To bring it back to the thread topic I dont think a big reason is because of Corbyn or other parliamentary parties sucking too many peoples energy away...I think its a list of other reasons which need serious strategic consideration if anyone plans to spend their life trying to work towards building that network of clusters. As you say though its a topic for a different thread.

*ETA: One last thing, I think a tide of left electoral success can raise grassroots boats with it....the GLC era seems to be a good example of that in London

 

[Wilf]

"This catalysed a series of discussions amongst the struggle-orientated part of the new Labour left. Our slogan became ‘Corbynism from Below,’ and we attempted to build a base that could support our counter attacking ambitions.4 This took the form of a kind of absurd reverse Jenga: we had a left wing leader of the Labour party, now we need to reinvigorate the rank and file of the trade union movement; to organise tenants; to build fundamental community infrastructure.5

I must have missed this vertical attempt to 'build a base' and 'reinvogorate the rank and file'. What form did this take and who exactly are this rank and file? Labour Party members?

I did laugh at this though

"To achieve this, these two leading intellectuals of the Corbyn period propose forming an alliance with the elements of tech capital against carbon-intensive industries and neoliberal finance". Who knew a partnership between Apple and Momentum would be the legacy of Jezza and co.

Just got around to reading it and well, this ^. The author diagnoses a failure in the Corbyn Project to build a base while simultaneously having no obvious sense themselves what that base might look like. 'Turtles Parliamentary Cretinism all the way down'.

The piece does serve as a reminder of how awful Momentum were. Failed to conceive what extra-Parliamentary organising might look like, failed to do anything with the hundreds of thousands of new members (as did Corbyn), always preferred manoeuvres to working class organisation, just another shitty faction that was as much part of the machine as any other.

 

[The39thStep]

The non-professional kind?

I just had a sudden ear worm of Amateur Hour by Sparks

 

[hitmouse]

Just got around to reading it and well, this ^. The author diagnoses a failure in the Corbyn Project to build a base while simultaneously having no obvious sense themselves what that base might look like. 'Turtles Parliamentary Cretinism all the way down'.

The piece does serve as a reminder of how awful Momentum were. Failed to conceive what extra-Parliamentary organising might look like, failed to do anything with the hundreds of thousands of new members (as did Corbyn), always preferred manoeuvres to working class organisation, just another shitty faction that was as much part of the machine as any other.

Does this mean you're not up for being part of the Gilbert/Williams counter-hegemonic progressive bloc with Elon Musk?

 

[Wilf]

Does this mean you're not up for being part of the Gilbert/Williams counter-hegemonic progressive bloc with Elon Musk?

'But, but, they are like, dudes and don't wear suits.. and at the cutting edge of, erm, something... and y'know, like, Neo in the Matrix...'.

 

[ska invita]

The piece does serve as a reminder of how awful Momentum were. Failed to conceive what extra-Parliamentary organising might look like, failed to do anything with the hundreds of thousands of new members (as did Corbyn), always preferred manoeuvres to working class organisation, just another shitty faction that was as much part of the machine as any other.

Someone I knew who was involved in Momentum (now deceased ) said it started great with real potential and strong degrees of horizontalism running through it but there was some kind of coup , IIRC John Lansman's name came up, and he said its potential was squashed at that point and central committee dictatorship took over.... thats my recollection of it, Ive never gotten anywhere close to any of that.

 

[PTK]

Someone I knew who was involved in Momentum (now deceased ) said it started great with real potential and strong degrees of horizontalism running through it but there was some kind of coup , IIRC John Lansman's name came up, and he said its potential was squashed at that point and central committee dictatorship took over.... thats my recollection of it, Ive never gotten anywhere close to any of that.

I wish that there had been a central committee!

 

[PTK]

'But, but, they are like, dudes and don't wear suits.. and at the cutting edge of, erm, something... and y'know, like, Neo in the Matrix...'.

When I was young I used to think that any male who had long hair must be all right.

 

[Wilf]

When I was young I used to think that any male who had long hair must be all right.

Sounds like you were young about the same time I was.

 

[Wilf]

Someone I knew who was involved in Momentum (now deceased ) said it started great with real potential and strong degrees of horizontalism running through it but there was some kind of coup , IIRC John Lansman's name came up, and he said its potential was squashed at that point and central committee dictatorship took over.... thats my recollection of it, Ive never gotten anywhere close to any of that.

Does anyone remember something about Lansman running Momentum out of the offices of one of his family's property companies? I have a vague recollection, but can't find anything.
Edit, it was actually Left Futures.

 

[two sheds]

Sounds like you were young about the same time I was.

Mate with long hair said in the 60s when he met someone with long hair in the street they'd stop and talk.

 

[two sheds]

He also had a luxuriant David Crosby moustache which he periodically used to shave off for profit.