Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[existentialist]

Do you think a shift like that on the Falklands is not important?. How do you think it would go down with people?.

It's not nearly as important, to most people, in their daily lives, as most of the other things he's laid out.

It is, however, very useful as a convenient canary for spotting people who like to ignore the broad thrust and focus only on the less consequential issues

All nice stuff, but it needs figures, costings etc before it can turn into an actual policy.

That's an artefact of how we do politics. Most people aren't interested in figures or costings other than as a way of arguing against something they disagree with in their gut. And, in a lot of cases, it's very difficult to project costings - a lot of the time, the costings that governments do give are no more than a sop to people who get moist in the nether portions about such things, and rarely bear out in reality. Just as an example, look at George Osborne's (he was the chancellor, remember) costings and projections for the entire British economy for the last six years, and how accurate they've turned out to be. (That being probably the only way that "George Osborne's costings" and "accurate" can appear in the same sentence.)

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

And, in a lot of cases, it's very difficult to project costings - a lot of the time, the costings that governments do give are no more than a sop to people who get moist in the nether portions about such things, and rarely bear out in reality. Just as an example, look at George Osborne's (he was the chancellor, remember) costings and projections for the entire British economy for the last six years, and how accurate they've turned out to be. (That being probably the only way that "George Osborne's costings" and "accurate" can appear in the same sentence.)

Yes. In the whole history of economics as an academic discipline the whole lot of them have pretty much failed to come up with a reliable method for predicting anything, ever. Stuff like economic growth projections is always an educated guess at best or a convenient fiction at worst - that's not just about Osborne although he was particularly shameless about it.

 

[billy_bob]

Two Bikes Corbyn could be a terrible thing to hang on him. Nearly as bad as Two Jags Prescott. That was a false accusation really. One of those jags was his original fairly ancient one that he had owned for years and the second one was his official car provided for his Government job.

At last, we've identified the true victim of New Labour.

 

[two sheds]

Do you think a shift like that on the Falklands is not important?. How do you think it would go down with people?.

I dunno, I'd not seen the idea of a joint administration before. Sounds a fair solution to a number of rocks a couple of thousand miles away.

All nice stuff, but it needs figures, costings etc before it can turn into an actual policy.

Indeed and (bearing in mind what existentialist just said) it's what I'd like to see, too. But they still show direction and policies, which you claimed he didn't have. Redefining what you accept as a policy is a bit slippery. I have a policy of going for a walk every day. I've never costed that but it's worked out well so far.

 

[existentialist]

I dunno, I'd not seen the idea of a joint administration before. Sounds a fair solution to a number of rocks a couple of thousand miles away.



Indeed and (bearing in mind what existentialist just said) it's what I'd like to see, too. But they still show direction and policies, which you claimed he didn't have. Redefining what you accept as a policy is a bit slippery. I have a policy of going for a walk every day. I've never costed that but it's worked out well so far.

And - this is something we've forgotten in the last 30 yers of politics, in my view - sometimes things have to be done because they're the Right Thing To Do, not because the amortised rate of return on the yield, projected over 25 years, demonstrates a 0.013% upshift.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

I'm pretty sure Corbyn has said somewhere he's going to open policymaking to the party membership, so more people can have a say on it. Plenty of time (4 years) until the next election to sort it.

 

[sleaterkinney]

It's not nearly as important, to most people, in their daily lives, as most of the other things he's laid out.

It is, however, very useful as a convenient canary for spotting people who like to ignore the broad thrust and focus only on the less consequential issues

We are talking about electability so stuff like that is important and you are right, it is convenient for spotting people who dismiss this.

Have a little passive aggressive smiley yourself. .

That's an artefact of how we do politics. Most people aren't interested in figures or costings other than as a way of arguing against something they disagree with in their gut. And, in a lot of cases, it's very difficult to project costings - a lot of the time, the costings that governments do give are no more than a sop to people who get moist in the nether portions about such things, and rarely bear out in reality. Just as an example, look at George Osborne's (he was the chancellor, remember) costings and projections for the entire British economy for the last six years, and how accurate they've turned out to be. (That being probably the only way that "George Osborne's costings" and "accurate" can appear in the same sentence.)

it's important because labour have a bad record on the economy and all the things he mentioned cost money.

 

[two sheds]

I'd have thought that rent controls are the policy that would have single most significant effect on peoples' lives and that would affect peoples' finances much more than it would on *national* finances. Has to be beneficial, though: increasing the money available to people, along with (presumably) a drop in house prices.

 

[two sheds]

it's important because labour have a bad record on the economy and all the things he mentioned cost money.

How does taxing the rich and tackling tax avoidance and evasion cost money? And quantitative easing? How does that cost money?

(Admittedly it used to be called 'printing money' when I was young and frowned on but we know it's a *good thing*.)

 

[DotCommunist]

whats cost a huge amount is nationalising bad debt and allowing PFI to take the piss. Got to stop, its just going to turn the entire populace into debt slaves for shit we never agreed to

 

[Orang Utan]

We are talking about electability so stuff like that is important and you are right, it is convenient for spotting people who dismiss this.

Have a little passive aggressive smiley yourself. .

it's important because labour have a bad record on the economy and all the things he mentioned cost money.

Do they?
What about the Tory record?

 

[J Ed]

whats cost a huge amount is nationalising bad debt and allowing PFI to take the piss. Got to stop, its just going to turn the entire populace into debt slaves for shit we never agreed to

Yes, the repudiation of PFI as odious debt should be a priority.

 

[agricola]

I'd have thought that rent controls are the policy that would have single most significant effect on peoples' lives and that would affect peoples' finances much more than it would on *national* finances. Has to be beneficial, though: increasing the money available to people, along with (presumably) a drop in house prices.

Rent controls would be a bad idea, building a lot of new council / social housing would be a lot better one - you would achieve the same result as rent controls (lowering rental costs, and possibly lowering house prices) whilst also creating jobs and creating assets that could be sold (perhaps as some kind of right to buy for long-term tenants, ie: pay slightly more over 30 years and they give you the house at the end) further down the line.

 

[inva]

Yes, the repudiation of PFI as odious debt should be a priority.

does the idea of odious debt have any legal standing?

 

[agricola]

whats cost a huge amount is nationalising bad debt and allowing PFI to take the piss. Got to stop, its just going to turn the entire populace into debt slaves for shit we never agreed to

PFI needs to be got rid of, but there is a good case for nationalizing "bad" debt - at least in terms of home ownership. If (when) the banks go to the wall again, the state really should look to have their mortgage books off them in exchange for a bailout; you could probably prevent a lot of harm to people as well as reduce government costs (in terms of having to pay the costs associated with people who have been foreclosed on), whilst also bringing cash in. It would also (in terms of the buy-to-let crowd, who might be at risk when things go wrong) be quite a good way of getting housing stock quickly.

 

[existentialist]

We are talking about electability so stuff like that is important and you are right, it is convenient for spotting people who dismiss this.

Have a little passive aggressive smiley yourself. .

it's important because labour have a bad record on the economy and all the things he mentioned cost money.

It's funny, you know, because for most of my adult life I simply swallowed this notion that Labour == tax'n'spend. And it was only, during the life of the last Parliament, when I started wondering how bad a Government would have to be to be worse than Osborne's chancellorship, and did a bit of digging around, that I discovered that, while Tories are very good at telling the fiscal responsibility story, they're actually pretty fucking awful at making the books balance, quite apart from the horrors they inflict on the most vulnerable in society. Not that I'd necessarily excuse those horrors if they WERE balancing the books, but at the moment we seem to be having very much the worst of both worlds.

 

[J Ed]

does the idea of odious debt have any legal standing?

Yes, in the context of PFI I have no idea but I imagine no.

 

[billy_bob]

It's funny, you know, because for most of my adult life I simply swallowed this notion that Labour == tax'n'spend. And it was only, during the life of the last Parliament, when I started wondering how bad a Government would have to be to be worse than Osborne's chancellorship, and did a bit of digging around, that I discovered that, while Tories are very good at telling the fiscal responsibility story, they're actually pretty fucking awful at making the books balance ...

Which is slightly scary when you realise it means that neither of the parties that have held power for the last 100 years, whatever it is they seek to do with that power, are actually any good at all at controlling what happens in the economy. As I get older and especially obviously since 2007/8, the whole idea of 'the economy' as a thing which exists and has any coherent rules or patterns seems more and more like smoke and mirrors. The whole thing's an illusion. I'm hope I'm not going to be full-on unabomber survivalist material by the time I'm in my 50s

 

[inva]

Yes, in the context of PFI I have no idea but I imagine no.

can't see him going down that road anyway frankly. although it's interesting Corbyn's said if I remember rightly that he would as a policy make the entire NHS state owned again. Does anyone know would that extend to the actual buildings and things, and if so what would happen with PFI and so on? The buildings in those cases are privately owned is that right?

 

[ViolentPanda]

30,691,680 people voted in 2015.

Arguing with me on a forum full of people who think revolutionary Marxism is the way forward is not going to change much.

Warwick and Leamington (UK Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Conservative Christopher Mark Francis White 24,249 47.9 +5.4
Labour Lynnette Kelly 17,643 34.9 -0.5
UKIP Alastair MacBrayne[6] 4,183 8.3 +6.4
Liberal Democrat Haseeb Arif 2,512 5.0 -13.3
Green Azzees Minott 1,994 3.9 +2.1

Labour lost Warwick and Leamington by about 6606 votes. So they need something like 3303 people who voted Tory in '15 to change their mind or a combination of some of those 3303 people to switch plus an larger number to vote Labour than any prompted to move to the Tories. Warwick and Leamington was one of the most marginal seats in 2005, its the kind of seat Labour need to be winning to be in government.

Either people want Labour to be in government or they just want someone who can get onto the national press to validate their personal beliefs by repeating them from a stage that has national attention.

May 2020 is coming. The millions of people needed are not reading Urban 75, they are not reading your social media updates, they are not thinking the neoliberal consensus has inhibited the road to socialist nirvana.

And then their is boundary changes.
And the SNP\Lab coalition barrier, (you have to look like you will beat the Cons by more than the SNPs number of seats for people not to hesitate over an SNP\Lab government)

People want to play the grown up version of politics in which you actually try to form a big enough coalition of voters you get to form a government, then its time to ditch the conspiracies and hostility and work on a program for government that 11 million people will find acceptable.

Or you can all just entertain yourself for the next (just short of 4 years) and hurl abuse at everyone who disagrees with you.

Politics eh. Its all fun and games until suddenly you have to win an election.

Corbyn isn't a revolutionary Marxist, he's a Parliamentarian and a proponent of reformist social-democratic parliamentary politics. The vast majority of his supporters are not revolutionary Marxists, they're proponents of reformist social-democratic parliamentary politics. The vast majority of posters on Urban75 are not revolutionary Marxists, they are similarly proponents of reformist social-democratic parliamentary politics.

Try to contain your hysteria a little better, please.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Mason makes a fool of himself yet again. I still wonder why this idiot gets so much time from the political left for his half-baked 'ideas'?

Because he's saying stuff that people want to hear, regardless of whether or not what he's saying has any political utility.

 

[nino_savatte]

it's important because labour have a bad record on the economy

That's an old Tory narrative. If anything, history shows us that the Tories have an exceedingly poor record on managing the nation's economy. For example: each time they've left office, they've left incoming Labour governments with massive balance of trade deficits.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I doubt there are many 'revolutionary Marxists' on here. I'm not a Corbyn supporter or a Labour supporter at all, but I am a bit puzzled that you seem to think you're talking to the people responsible for Labour Party policy (revolutionary Marxists?) and that we ought to be working on a 'programme of government' . I reckon we could get one sorted on this thread though if you like, then maybe we'll email it to Jeremy.

You pompous arse.

He doesn't seem to get that if you favour the Parliamentary system of politics - as the vast majority of Urbanites do - then you can't possibly be a revolutionary Marxist!

 

[mauvais]

Which is slightly scary when you realise it means that neither of the parties that have held power for the last 100 years, whatever it is they seek to do with that power, are actually any good at all at controlling what happens in the economy. As I get older and especially obviously since 2007/8, the whole idea of 'the economy' as a thing which exists and has any coherent rules or patterns seems more and more like smoke and mirrors. The whole thing's an illusion. I'm hope I'm not going to be full-on unabomber survivalist material by the time I'm in my 50s

If you go out in the rain without a raincoat, you'll get wet. There's a rule. And it rains more in winter than summer, probably. There's a pattern. Now, go control the weather.

The specific failure of a century of politicians, within the system's parameters anyway, isn't failure to control the economy per se. It's a failure to roll with the punches because it doesn't suit their narrative or ideology. Failure to extract the most advantage or greatest shelter from the inevitable but partly-predictable chaos. So for example not preventing the European debt crisis per se, but the lack of regulation and economic diversification that made its domestic effects worse. Or trying to apply austerity, as befits the Tory ideology, in a time when that was counterproductive to growth.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm pretty sure Corbyn has said somewhere he's going to open policymaking to the party membership, so more people can have a say on it. Plenty of time (4 years) until the next election to sort it.

That would be "re-open policy-making to the party membership", as until about '99, the wider membership could introduce ideas and data at Conference - before the Lord of the Flies started neutering the party as an effective policy forum.

 

[ViolentPanda]

it's important because labour have a bad record on the economy and all the things he mentioned cost money.

Not quite.

Go have a look at the data for the last 50 years or so. Over half the stuff Labour are traditionally blamed for - several devaluations, the IMF loans, etc - had their roots either in the failures of Previous Tory governments, or in international crises over which they had no control.

The problem isn't Labour, it's that lazy people accept Establishment economic narratives unquestioningly.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How does taxing the rich and tackling tax avoidance and evasion cost money? And quantitative easing? How does that cost money?

(Admittedly it used to be called 'printing money' when I was young and frowned on but we know it's a *good thing*.)

It's controlled printing of money though, which is slightly less awful.

 

[sleaterkinney]

That's an old Tory narrative. If anything, history shows us that the Tories have an exceedingly poor record on managing the nation's economy. For example: each time they've left office, they've left incoming Labour governments with massive balance of trade deficits.

Oh come on, the banks were bailed out under a Labour govt and it was under them they got into that situation in the first place. The Tories have got a better rep because there weren't people queueing around the block to get money out of a bust bank. Don't stick your head in the sand.

 

[DotCommunist]

the perception of tory economic competence is also linked to how wealthy the buggers are individually. Must know something about money right? Yep, how to inherit it and bank it offshore

 

[billy_bob]

If you go out in the rain without a raincoat, you'll get wet. There's a rule. And it rains more in winter than summer, probably. There's a pattern. Now, go control the weather.

The specific failure of a century of politicians, within the system's parameters anyway, isn't failure to control the economy per se. It's a failure to roll with the punches because it doesn't suit their narrative or ideology. Failure to extract the most advantage or greatest shelter from the inevitable but partly-predictable chaos. So for example not preventing the European debt crisis per se, but the lack of regulation and economic diversification that made its domestic effects worse. Or trying to apply austerity, as befits the Tory ideology, in a time when that was counterproductive to growth.

I guess it's whether or not the weather analogy holds that I'm increasingly unsure about. Is The Economy a thing independent of us, about which all we can do is try to predict appropriate responses based on past patterns? Because when I say 'controlling' maybe I don't mean any more/different than 'managing', which is what you'd need to do whether you're in control of the overall system or not. But then, have any ideologies resulted in an effective approach in practice to the economy, in which people prosper but not at the expense of others? I increasingly feel that the relative certainties I might have once had about how it should be approached might be as unreliable and ideology-based as the approaches of politicians which I've always condemned.

Maybe all this uncertainty is just part of the ageing process...