Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[emanymton]

When it comes to understanding the Labour party I rather like the following quote from Andrew Thorpe's A history of the British Labour Party regarding Ramsey Macdonld.

For Macdonld socialism would come about gradually, organically, from the existing social and economic structures. It would emerge from the growing success of capitalism. It was thus the job of socalists to promote this success.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

I need to do a proper reply when I'm not just checking in at work but just to quickly reply to the last question, yes, I mentioned UK Uncut, the actions UK Uncut took worked on a hegemonic level, it totally undercut two of the tories main planks for austerity - there is no alternative and there is no money. Didn't achieve anything practical as obviously austerity continued unabated and tax avoidance hasn't been dealt with at all. (unlike boycott workfare whose work very nearly got £120m returned to claimants, got some schemes chaged from mandatory to voluntary and made some workfare schemes unworkable and ultimately got them scrapped, hence the practical outcomes of the campaign).

e2a: more broadly speaking, the fact that Corbyn became labour party leader, that Sanders came so close to being the democratic candidate, the election of syriza in greeace and the rise of podemos (?) in spain or portugal (?) are all indications of how a hegemonic/ideological move is happening - no we aren't there yet but can you imagine a social democrat nearly getting the candidacy for the USA president before last year? I Can't and if we look at previous labour leader elections, social democrats have not made it onto the ticket - we've pushed things over, we're not there yet but it's moving that way.

I admire and support UK Uncut and Occupy, although I don’t quite see how their protests ‘hegemonic’, (unless you mean that they challenge hegemony?). But obviously such action isn’t going to displace the tory government, only an electable Labour Party can do that.

You mention Bernie Sanders and Syriza, but omit to mention Trump, UKIP, le Pen, Widers etc. Unfortunately, if established politics has been pushed over as you put it then it’s clearly benefitting the right, not the left.

And although you claim that we’re moving there, don’t forget that there are people living their lives now in 2017, bringing up children, getting sick and becoming old who can’t afford to wait another 10, 20, 30, 50 or however many years.

But you clearly know what the terms mean, is it too much to ask for a straight answer? If ideological distinctions have become meaningless to you then why are you so anti-tory? I didn't ask about other people, I asked about you. If you want a neo-liberal labour party in power (or if you don't care what a parties policies are, jsut whether they are called conservative or labour) then there's no point in us having a discussion since we are not looking for the same thing [we're not really looking for the same thing anyway - I see the election of a social democratic labour party as a by-product of social movements/change rather than as something to be chased directly iyswim - but we could be close enough if you were interested in social democracy])

I'm anti tory because I'm against racism, sexism, xenophobia, the corrosion of public services, upholding privilege and the power of wealth etc etc...

Call me a 'Neo Liberal' if it makes you happy, but it's meaningless.

The NHS is going to be fucked by Labour's PFI projects - defend that.

Is it?

No, I’m not going to defend PFI, which by the way was started by the tories. Are you trying to imply that the NHS will be as much at risk under a future Labour government as it would a tory one?

How long do you expect people to wait? You are arguing for neo-liberal policies, don't be surprised when what you get is neo-liberalism. Don't be surprised that that neo-liberalism spreads itself through both the conservative and labour parties. You want actual change you need to argue for social democratic policies and parties.

I do want 'actual' change, I want a left wing Labour government, but that can only come when the electorate votes for it and that clearly isn’t going to happen with Corbyn as leader.

So I’ll ask again: How long will we have to wait to see the back of the tories doing it your or Corbyn’s way?

Do you understand what the overton window is?

No I don't. You're clearly far more knowledgeable than me when it comes to political phraseology. Well done.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Someone as nasty as you is destined to sit on the sidelines forever. At least people who are arguing for an electable left wing party have a chance of getting into power. And you have to be in power to make a difference in this world.

There’s always been a handful of people like red squirrel on the periphery. All they want to do is get angry jump up and down. They’re irrelevant.

 

[DotCommunist]

I'm against racism, sexism, xenophobia, the corrosion of public services, upholding privilege and the power of wealth etc etc...

then you should also be against the labour party as it stands, surely

No I don't. You're clearly far more knowledgeable than me when it comes to political phraseology. Well done.

its a dead simple concept- chimes into the idea of manufactured consent and artificial limits of debate- what is practical in the so called 'art of the possible' given ruling electoral political direction. None of this is esoteric or unheard of phraseology so your 'well done' is simply a little sarcastic sign off isn't it?
You claim to be about realpolitik and yet its most commonly used bit of terminology is news to you?

 

[stethoscope]

No, I’m not going to defend PFI, which by the way was started by the tories. Are you trying to imply that the NHS will be as much at risk under a future Labour government as it would a tory one?

Whilst PFI might have been originally founded by the Tories in 92, the reality is that PFI expanded hugely as a core policy throughout the Labour years. Right now, Labour councils are using PFI schemes despite their dreadful failings still to 'regenerate' areas - resulting in the overall loss of social housing and publicly owned services.

Tory government and central cuts is part of that, but only part, and its become a convenient 'apportion of blame' by Labour now whilst its own councillors are as invested in privatisation as the Tories.

In short to your question, I don't actually feel the NHS is any safer any more in the hands of Labour as it stands than the Tories. Only when 'left' people start to accept what's happening with the NHS, with public services, with decimation of housing to private sell-offs to their developer mates, and actually stop colluding with this utter delusion that getting Labour back into power will actually change anything any different to the Tories, can a true pro-working class and left/socialist alternative ever be founded.

 

[stethoscope]

And if you think that removing Corbyn now (I'm not a Corbyn supporter, or Labour voter anymore), will end up with some sort of alternative model but broadly on the same 'democratic socialist' leftish wing of the party as him, then I think you've not been paying much attention to what's been happening in Labour PLP for a number of years now. Corbyn as far as I can see was the result of CLP/members last ditch to move the party leftwards. If/when Corbyn goes, it'll be shifted pretty rapidly towards the other way again. Even if it elects someone whom, on the face of it, is seen as being on the 'left', that won't last. And it'll still be implementing PFI deals and privatising services, and shafting the working class and sanctioning those not fit enough to work. It will just continue to hide them behind 'tough decisions' and 'new deal' rhetoric.

 

[BigTom]

No I don't. You're clearly far more knowledgeable than me when it comes to political phraseology. Well done.

This isn't a competition, I'm not trying to show I'm more knowledgeable than you are, I asked you because you didn't mention it in reply nor seek to address the point being made, and if you don't know what it means then I'll explain it to you, but I don't want to be patronising and generally this forum is pretty knowledgeable on political terms that we can use a shortcut to concepts to make conversation quicker and easier, not everyone does which is why I asked because it's so central to what I'm saying.

The wikipedia explanation is actually very good: Overton window - Wikipedia

The overton window describes the range of policies that it is likely politicians will seek to enact and will be able to, these are the range of policies that are popular. Not exactly a radical idea. The overton window is not static, it moves, and it moves because people move it. It's why the tories are so keen to present corbyn's ideas (which really aren't far off what we had post ww2) as radical, hard left etc. They are portrayed as being extreme because this puts them outside the overton window.
In that diagram, if you added another scale to the right which had say libertarianism at the top, then neo-liberalism and social democracy and at the bottom soviet communism then we can see how the way we do politics, what we argue for, moves the overton window around and changes the likely possibilities of policies that any government will enact.
By painting corbyn's social democratic policies as extreme, by placing them outside of the overton window, this pushes the overton window up. So where the bottom end of neo-liberalism was level with sensible, it becomes level with popular, meanwhile at the other end, what was acceptable becomes radical.
Historically, post ww2, social democracy was policy. Now it's radical, even unthinkable.
When the tories say there is no alternative to austerity, and labour accept that as being policy (by following that policy in their manifesto, implementing it at council level), they accept neo-liberal ideas as policy, then social democratic ideas are unthinkable. Meanwhile ideas further to the right become acceptable, sensible. The centre shifts. When you campaign for labour regardless of what policies they have, and those policies are neo-liberal then your actions shift the centre further right (up in the diagram), and make social democracy (down in the diagram) less likely to happen.

This is the problem I have with simply calling for "labour whatever the policies". I agree that in electoral terms labour are the only possible alternative to the conservative party, but If you call for austerity (which you will do with anyone right of corbyn), not only will you get it, but you'll make the alternative less likely to happen in the future. As soon as you accept that narrative, you make social democracy unthinkable. You can't spend your way out of a debt crisis. You want an alternative to tories you need to be focusing on policy, not party. If you see a neo-liberal labour party as a better alternative to a neo-liberal conservative party, well that's a position you can take. But it's not going to get you social democracy at any time, not in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years. What it will do is make it less likely to happen, by changing what set of ideas are seen as sensible, doable and are therefore popular, and making the ideas you say you want to see put into policy be seen as radical, unworkable and therefore unpopular.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think the concept Tom is describing above is also absolutely key to any discussion of 'electable' and what it's supposed to mean.

 

[BigTom]

I admire and support UK Uncut and Occupy, although I don’t quite see how their protests ‘hegemonic’, (unless you mean that they challenge hegemony?). But obviously such action isn’t going to displace the tory government, only an electable Labour Party can do that.

You mention Bernie Sanders and Syriza, but omit to mention Trump, UKIP, le Pen, Widers etc. Unfortunately, if established politics has been pushed over as you put it then it’s clearly benefitting the right, not the left.

And although you claim that we’re moving there, don’t forget that there are people living their lives now in 2017, bringing up children, getting sick and becoming old who can’t afford to wait another 10, 20, 30, 50 or however many years.

Really the substance of our conversation is in my other post but I will just reply to this.
Yes, when I was talking about ideological/hegemonic successes I was meaning that they challenged hegemony - uk uncut achieved approximately zero practical outcomes, there's been no crackdown on tax avoidance, no investment of that money into infrastructure. But I have been involved in tax avoidance campaigns before and they've gone absolutely nowhere. uk uncut challenged the hegemonic ideas of austerity, the key ones being there is no alternative and that there is money available.

I didn't mention the right because we are talking about the left. Yes, they are taking advantage of the same things, they are taking far better advantage of it than the left, because the left's base has been systematically attacked over the past 40 or so years and networks/organisations barely exist anymore to take advantage. What is happening is that the overton window is widening, as is normal during times of economic crisis and extended problems. Things are moving both ways.

I'm anti tory because I'm against racism, sexism, xenophobia, the corrosion of public services, upholding privilege and the power of wealth etc etc...

Call me a 'Neo Liberal' if it makes you happy, but it's meaningless.

It's really not meaningless. Neo-liberalism describes a set of ideas which lead to a desired set of policies. Neo-liberal policies tend to be against racism, sexism and xenophobia, and in favour of the destruction of public services, upholding privilege and the power of wealth.
So unless you think that politicians and politics is entirely uninformed by ideas and that policies are picked arbitrarily it really matters.

Is it?

No, I’m not going to defend PFI, which by the way was started by the tories. Are you trying to imply that the NHS will be as much at risk under a future Labour government as it would a tory one?

Labour has duty to resolve 'mess' of hospital PFI deals, says Jeremy Corbyn

2/3rds NHS trusts have PFI debts, it's an expensive mess to get out of and yes it threatens to destroy the NHS.
What I am saying is that under past labour governments - ones which you must have argued for to keep out the tories - the NHS has been systematically attacked, gradually privatised via outsourcing and I'm really not sure that the tories would have been able to do much worse.
A future labour government depends on what kind of labour party it is. Under Corbyn I would be very confident that the NHS would not be at risk like it would under a tory one. Under someone like milliband or burnham, I really don't know. Under someone like blair or kendall probably not.

I do want 'actual' change, I want a left wing Labour government, but that can only come when the electorate votes for it and that clearly isn’t going to happen with Corbyn as leader.

So I’ll ask again: How long will we have to wait to see the back of the tories doing it your or Corbyn’s way?



No I don't. You're clearly far more knowledgeable than me when it comes to political phraseology. Well done.

How long? We've been 40+ years getting here. It's not going to change overnight and to think it is is just foolish. I'm looking for the quickest way of getting there, and I agree with redsquirrel - if you want a left wing labour govt, you need a left wing labour party, and corbyn is (or was) your best chance at this point in time. When he is replaced it will be with someone further to the right and the opportunity will close, and social democratic ideas will get pushed further away. I think what is happening is a demonstration both of how far we've come in the past 7-9 years and how much further we have to go.

 

[stethoscope]

Good post BigTom. From PLP to Labour supporters on social media, from commentators in the New Stateman to Guardian, they all place (or at least allow the narrative to be perpetuated) as Corbyn being some sort of 'hard left' or 'radical', despite his politics being just about democratic socialist. It shows just how much the 'centre ground' has been able to shift to the right in the last thirty or so years, when some of Corbyn's policies/opinions are derided as 'too left' even by supporters of and colleagues inside the party. That's why the problems are bigger than Corbyn or who leads it

And its New Labour and its time in office especially (through Blair, Brown and Miliband) that allowed, but also drove this shift of the 'centre ground' rightwards - the 'new centre ground'.

 

[stethoscope]

I mean, FFS, Miliband was still much very much pursuing austerity as a core policy and defending Labour PFI into 2015. Corbyn's challengers in two leadership elections have also been cut from the same 'progress'/'New Labour' mold of the 'centre-right' of Labour which just means more Tory-lite. So, to those who think replacing Corbyn will help, who's this magical fresh faced new left-winger ready to step in? They don't exist in the PLP.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

... and if they did exist, they wouldn't be 'electable' anyhow, because the neo-liberal political / media class would immediately start monstering them the way they have Corbyn

 

[BigTom]

I mean, FFS, Miliband was still much very much pursuing austerity as a core policy and defending Labour PFI into 2015. Corbyn's challengers in two leadership elections have also been cut from the same 'progress'/'New Labour' mold of the 'centre-right' of Labour which just means more Tory-lite. So, who's this magical fresh faced new left-winger ready to step in and stick to the left?

and if there is someone, then when they do step in, and " PLP to Labour supporters on social media, from commentators in the New Stateman to Guardian" all call them unelectable, radical, hard left; will they be in any different position to Corbyn?

edit: snap! too slow

 

[J Ed]

I mean, FFS, Miliband was still much very much pursuing austerity as a core policy and defending Labour PFI into 2015. Corbyn's challengers in two leadership elections have also been cut from the same 'progress'/'New Labour' mold of the 'centre-right' of Labour which just means more Tory-lite. So, to those who think replacing Corbyn will help, who's this magical fresh faced new left-winger ready to step in? They don't exist in the PLP.

The idea that the LP was 'social democratic' under Ed Miliband makes no sense whatsoever unless the definition of 'social democratic' means 'whatever the Labour Party does'.

 

[butchersapron]

The idea that the LP was 'social democratic' under Ed Miliband makes no sense whatsoever unless the definition of 'social democratic' means 'whatever the Labour Party does'.

Socialism means what the labour party does in govt.

 

[Pickman's model]

Voters had had enough of Labour by 2010 and clearly weren’t ready for them again in 2015, especially under a leader who they perceived to be weak.

By the time voters are sick of the tories, not enough of them regardless of ‘class’ are going to vote for a Labour Party which they consider to be too left wing and the tories will simply win again by default.

The idea that Labour lost Copeland or that they are so far behind in the polls because of ‘a permanent war by the right’ is just plain daft. Hearing John O’Donnell blame Owen Smith for Copeland on Any Questions was excruciating.

Corbyn and his followers need to recognise that the electorate don’t want them. I know it’s become a cliché, but Labour really do need to start listening. Unity and standing by Corbyn isn’t going to win the any election.

Who is john o'donnell?

 

[agricola]

Who is john o'donnell?

A record of 31 wins (11 by KO), 2 losses, and six articles in the Spectator bemoaning the sundry treacheries of the Blairite mob.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Really the substance of our conversation is in my other post but I will just reply to this.

Yes, when I was talking about ideological/hegemonic successes I was meaning that they challenged hegemony - uk uncut achieved approximately zero practical outcomes, there's been no crackdown on tax avoidance, no investment of that money into infrastructure. But I have been involved in tax avoidance campaigns before and they've gone absolutely nowhere. uk uncut challenged the hegemonic ideas of austerity, the key ones being there is no alternative and that there is money available.

I didn't mention the right because we are talking about the left. Yes, they are taking advantage of the same things, they are taking far better advantage of it than the left, because the left's base has been systematically attacked over the past 40 or so years and networks/organisations barely exist anymore to take advantage. What is happening is that the overton window is widening, as is normal during times of economic crisis and extended problems. Things are moving both ways.

It's really not meaningless. Neo-liberalism describes a set of ideas which lead to a desired set of policies. Neo-liberal policies tend to be against racism, sexism and xenophobia, and in favour of the destruction of public services, upholding privilege and the power of wealth.

So unless you think that politicians and politics is entirely uninformed by ideas and that policies are picked arbitrarily it really matters.

Labour has duty to resolve 'mess' of hospital PFI deals, says Jeremy Corbyn

2/3rds NHS trusts have PFI debts, it's an expensive mess to get out of and yes it threatens to destroy the NHS.

What I am saying is that under past labour governments - ones which you must have argued for to keep out the tories - the NHS has been systematically attacked, gradually privatised via outsourcing and I'm really not sure that the tories would have been able to do much worse.

A future labour government depends on what kind of labour party it is. Under Corbyn I would be very confident that the NHS would not be at risk like it would under a tory one. Under someone like milliband or burnham, I really don't know. Under someone like blair or kendall probably not.

How long? We've been 40+ years getting here. It's not going to change overnight and to think it is is just foolish. I'm looking for the quickest way of getting there, and I agree with redsquirrel - if you want a left wing labour govt, you need a left wing labour party, and corbyn is (or was) your best chance at this point in time. When he is replaced it will be with someone further to the right and the opportunity will close, and social democratic ideas will get pushed further away. I think what is happening is a demonstration both of how far we've come in the past 7-9 years and how much further we have to go.

You’re still just skirting around the question. You seem to agree that Corbyn is unelectable, so how long will we have to wait for your ‘real change’ to happen?

I remember as a teenager being taken in by a group of Trots in 1975 spouting even back then that 'its coming.. something big is about to happen'. It didn't take long to realise it was all bullshit, especially when others like them were still saying the same thing 10, 20 and 30 years later.

As for NHS private funding, it isn’t just Corbyn who’s committed to reversing it. Owen Smith made it central to his bid last year, as I expect would any future leadership contender. I'm still certain that public services are going to fare much better under Labour than the tories just as they've always done.

Thanks for your post about the Overton Window, although all it really does is give a name to what most of us already know about manipulating political perceptions.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Whilst PFI might have been originally founded by the Tories in 92, the reality is that PFI expanded hugely as a core policy throughout the Labour years. Right now, Labour councils are using PFI schemes despite their dreadful failings still to 'regenerate' areas - resulting in the overall loss of social housing and publicly owned services.

Tory government and central cuts is part of that, but only part, and its become a convenient 'apportion of blame' by Labour now whilst its own councillors are as invested in privatisation as the Tories.

In short to your question, I don't actually feel the NHS is any safer any more in the hands of Labour as it stands than the Tories. Only when 'left' people start to accept what's happening with the NHS, with public services, with decimation of housing to private sell-offs to their developer mates, and actually stop colluding with this utter delusion that getting Labour back into power will actually change anything any different to the Tories, can a true pro-working class and left/socialist alternative ever be founded.

But as Corbyn's own figures and those from the King's Fund which I posted a few days ago show, public services including the NHS were far safer under the last Labour government than under the two tory governments either side.

Public services are literally in crisis now due to underfunding and only a Labour government can reverse it. We don't have time to wait and hope another 40 years for Tom's 'real change'.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

I want to destroy you and your ilk.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Sounds like the kind of dumb-ass sense of entitlement that resulted in the murder of Jo Cox.

 

[BigTom]

You’re still just skirting around the question. You seem to agree that Corbyn is unelectable, so how long will we have to wait for your ‘real change’ to happen?

I remember as a teenager being taken in by a group of Trots in 1975 spouting even back then that 'its coming.. something big is about to happen'. It didn't take long to realise it was all bullshit, especially when others like them were still saying the same thing 10, 20 and 30 years later.

As for NHS private funding, it isn’t just Corbyn who’s committed to reversing it. Owen Smith made it central to his bid last year, as I expect would any future leadership contender. I'm still certain that public services are going to fare much better under Labour than the tories just as they've always done.

Thanks for your post about the Overton Window, although all it really does is give a name to what most of us already know about manipulating political perceptions.

I'm not skirting around the question. I can't and won't put an exact timescale on it, except to say it's a long job and won't be achieved overnight. To try to put a date to it would be dishonest and foolish, I'm doing exactly the opposite of those trots in the 70s.

I don't think corbyn is unelectable. I don't think he is going to win in 2020 now. I think he could have done if everyone who wants to see labour elected had got full square behind him from the start, but instead his policies have been painted, and accepted by you, as unelectable. Social democratic policies are unelectable. How are you going to get a social Democrat elected when you say that social democrats are unelectable and presumably argue for a neo liberal in their place? Nobody has said specifically who would replace Corbyn, nor has anyone objected to the claim they would necessarily be to the right of Corbyn and therefore not a social Democrat.

Now go back to the Overton window and think about what I said, please address this point, it's extremely important, it's not just about manipulating political perceptions, it's also about manipulating politicians/policy.

Tell me, how will arguing and campaigning for neo liberal politicians/policies cause the Overton window to move to bring social democratic politicians/policies into the popular/sensible range?

 

[DotCommunist]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Sounds like the kind of dumb-ass sense of entitlement that resulted in the murder of Jo Cox.

yeah and aktion T4. clown.

 

[newbie]

I'm not skirting around the question. I can't and won't put an exact timescale on it, except to say it's a long job and won't be achieved overnight. To try to put a date to it would be dishonest and foolish, I'm doing exactly the opposite of those trots in the 70s.

I don't think corbyn is unelectable. I don't think he is going to win in 2020 now. I think he could have done if everyone who wants to see labour elected had got full square behind him from the start, but instead his policies have been painted, and accepted by you, as unelectable. Social democratic policies are unelectable. How are you going to get a social Democrat elected when you say that social democrats are unelectable and presumably argue for a neo liberal in their place? Nobody has said specifically who would replace Corbyn, nor has anyone objected to the claim they would necessarily be to the right of Corbyn and therefore not a social Democrat.

Now go back to the Overton window and think about what I said, please address this point, it's extremely important, it's not just about manipulating political perceptions, it's also about manipulating politicians/policy.

Tell me, how will arguing and campaigning for neo liberal politicians/policies cause the Overton window to move to bring social democratic politicians/policies into the popular/sensible range?

In this regard not much has changed since the 70s, has it? The 'left' is still split 3 ways, between those who look to the Labour Party for a principled position leading towards a social democratic golden age for the w/c, those who think the LP has to trim to win power and thus must reflect, accommodate and perhaps even celebrate capitalism and the third, fractured group who see the LP as a bigger part of the problem than of any worthwhile solution.

The balance of influence may wax and wane but the arguments are fundamentally unchanging, even if the beer and sandwiches power of union leaderships has declined a bit. The reality is also unchanging: neither of the pro LP strands has any chance of winning power without the other, and the tories win most elections anyway. The outside left, such as it is, remains as vociferous as ever.

 

[mikey mikey]

Former Labour cabinet minister insists Corbyn caused Copeland loss

Ben Bradshaw, member of Progress and Henry Jackson Society, decided to divert attention away from the NHS and put the boot in to Corbyn, again.

Have to love this bit of revisionism, tbh.

“The Chilcot inquiry completely exonerated Tony Blair of all of the mad allegations that were thrown at him,” he said. “I think that quite unfairly and without any evidence there is a section of the British public that don’t like Tony Blair.

“We’ve got to get over this nonsense about Iraq – just look at Syria where we didn’t intervene, it’s far worse, far more people died, far more refugees and no solution in sight. In Iraq you now have a functioning democracy and it is beating back Isis.”

That's nearly as good as when Benny 8 years ago said it was a good idea to have people pay for parking at hospitals.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I note that Nick Cohen manages to get to the fourth paragraph from the end before insulting Jeremy Corbyn in his Observer piece today. He does then call him a "wombat-thick ignoramus" though.

 

[Pickman's model]

I note that Nick Cohen manages to get to the fourth paragraph from the end before insulting Jeremy Corbyn in his Observer piece today. He does then call him a "wombat-thick ignoramus" though.

Not really on, to call wombats thick Steve

 

[emanymton]

I note that Nick Cohen manages to get to the fourth paragraph from the end before insulting Jeremy Corbyn in his Observer piece today. He does then call him a "wombat-thick ignoramus" though.

(((Wombats)))

 

[BigTom]

In this regard not much has changed since the 70s, has it? The 'left' is still split 3 ways, between those who look to the Labour Party for a principled position leading towards a social democratic golden age for the w/c, those who think the LP has to trim to win power and thus must reflect, accommodate and perhaps even celebrate capitalism and the third, fractured group who see the LP as a bigger part of the problem than of any worthwhile solution.

The balance of influence may wax and wane but the arguments are fundamentally unchanging, even if the beer and sandwiches power of union leaderships has declined a bit. The reality is also unchanging: neither of the pro LP strands has any chance of winning power without the other, and the tories win most elections anyway. The outside left, such as it is, remains as vociferous as ever.

Yes, I agree (though I wasn't around in the 70s), what I was saying to AH was in response to him comparing what I'm saying here to what the trots were saying in the 70s - then they were saying that revolution is just about to happen, I am saying social democracy (not even revolution) is a long way off.

 

[treelover]

I need to do a proper reply when I'm not just checking in at work but just to quickly reply to the last question, yes, I mentioned UK Uncut, the actions UK Uncut took worked on a hegemonic level, it totally undercut two of the tories main planks for austerity - there is no alternative and there is no money. Didn't achieve anything practical as obviously austerity continued unabated and tax avoidance hasn't been dealt with at all. (unlike boycott workfare whose work very nearly got £120m returned to claimants, got some schemes chaged from mandatory to voluntary and made some workfare schemes unworkable and ultimately got them scrapped, hence the practical outcomes of the campaign).

Imagine what they could have done if the left/liberal left had got behind them the way they have with their other cause celebres.

 

[Pickman's model]

Imagine what they could have done if the left/liberal left had got behind them the way they have with their other cause celebres.

Why not just say you hate the left and have done with it?