Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[BigTom]

Where did I say that we should vote for 'right-leaning Labour which basically imposes austerity, and privatisation'? That's merely your own interpretation of what Labour would be if it wasn’t led by Corbyn.

That's what the labour party stood on in 2010 & 2015, it's what kendall, harman and burnham stood on, I paid no attention to Owen Smith. Nobody has suggested who will come after Corbyn so there's every reason to believe that after Corbyn will once again be to the right and support austerity.

The only question being avoided is what is the point of the Labour party if it can’t get elected?

None, political parties exist to be elected. But if what you want is social democracy, there's only value in electing a social democratic party, anything else takes you away from social democracy. This is the point you refuse to engage with and I can't see myself replying to you again because you won't engage with it.

I respect Tom’s point of view and it may not be what Tom thinks or has said, but favouring an unelectable Labour Party because that might hasten ‘real change’, does indeed amount to sacrificing several generations of poor and vulnerable people to tory cuts. Even then, real change is by no means guaranteed.

It's not what I think, I favour making a social democratic labour party electable (sort of, I want to make the conditions in which a social democratic party will be elected, which will almost certainly be labour).

I don't favour electing a party standing on a platform of cutting essential services, as I'm sure you did in 2015, as that would be sacrificing poor and vulnerable people to cuts. The name of the party does not matter, the policies and beliefs they have does.

You don't respect my point of view enough to engage with it though, to explain why you think voting in a labour party that would cut services nationally, that is doing so at local levels, would protect services rather than just slowing their demise. You are abandoning vulnerable people, not me. I've explained why I believe that to be the case but you won't even try to say why it's not. That's not respect.

 

[Pickman's model]

I respect Tom’s point of view and it may not be what Tom thinks or has said, but favouring an unelectable Labour Party because that might hasten ‘real change’, does indeed amount to sacrificing several generations of poor and vulnerable people to tory cuts. Even then, real change is by no means guaranteed.

Yeh, the past seven years have not been real enough for you I see.

 

[oryx]

That's what the labour party stood on in 2010 & 2015, it's what kendall, harman and burnham stood on, I paid no attention to Owen Smith. Nobody has suggested who will come after Corbyn so there's every reason to believe that after Corbyn will once again be to the right and support austerity..

I agree with most of your post but can't see a pro-austerity leader being elected any time soon - the right of the party think they have some good potential candidates, but look what happens when they try to change the leadership!

I can't see anything other than another Smith/ Eagle type debacle if the party right try to take control again.

Members voted for Corbyn because of his anti- austerity stance and I can't see this changing, so I would guess if the party changes leader in the next few years it will be another relatively left wing candidate.

 

[emanymton]

I agree with most of your post but can't see a pro-austerity leader being elected any time soon - the right of the party think they have some good potential candidates, but look what happens when they try to change the leadership!

I can't see anything other than another Smith/ Eagle type debacle if the party right try to take control again.

Members voted for Corbyn because of his anti- austerity stance and I can't see this changing, so I would guess if the party changes leader in the next few years it will be another relatively left wing candidate.

Any challange to Coryban from the right will likely fail. If he resigns it is a whole different ball game, and whoever replaces him will invariably be more right wing and 'moderate'. They will be essentially pro-austerity in action even if not in words.

 

[redsquirrel]

I can't see anything other than another Smith/ Eagle type debacle if the party right try to take control again.

That would be Smith and Eagle who both abstained on the Welfare bill? Great fighters against austerity.

No doubt that during the next leadership contest there'll be candidates that stress their opposition to austerity and the 'Tory' cuts but that meaningless, it's what they do that counts.

 

[oryx]

That would be Smith and Eagle who both abstained on the Welfare bill? Great fighters against austerity.

You've misunderstood - I'm saying that the likes of Smith and Eagle are not anti-austerity.

 

[redsquirrel]

You've misunderstood - I'm saying that the likes of Smith and Eagle are not anti-austerity.

Yes sorry, I misread your post. The point still stands though, Smith was as far left (and neither Smith nor Eagle are on the right of the party, as depressing as that is) as the PLP was willing to go to try and knock out Corbyn.

If he hadn't been on the ballot because he was already leader Corbyn would not have got the nominations needed. So already you're looking at any 'left' candidate being to the right of Corbyn/McDonnell. But even when this supposed anti-austerity candidate is elected what then? Corbyn hasn't been able to stop the party from implementing cuts to services and privatisations at the local level, indeed there's been very little attempt to do so.

 

[Raheem]

But even when this supposed anti-austerity candidate is elected what then? Corbyn hasn't been able to stop the party from implementing cuts to services and privatisations at the local level, indeed there's been very little attempt to do so.

A lot of Labour councillors up and down the land might be indecently phlegmatic or even enthusiastic about cuts. But there's a limit to what can be done at Local Authority level anyway. 'What then?' is you have to get a government in power that isn't about austerity.

 

[redsquirrel]

How does that work when much your parties mid (and top) level membership isn't opposed to austerity. This is just going round in circles.

EDIT: And how does this compare with past behaviour of the Labour Party? Has it been at it's most left wing when the top was dictating to the rest of the party?

 

[emanymton]

A lot of Labour councillors up and down the land might be indecently phlegmatic or even enthusiastic about cuts. But there's a limit to what can be done at Local Authority level anyway. 'What then?' is you have to get a government in power that isn't about austerity.

There is absolutely no other way to oppose austerity than to elect a party opposed to it? None?

 

[nuffsaid]

There is absolutely no other way to oppose austerity than to elect a party opposed to it? None?

But you need to have a viable alternative to austerity. Shouting 'No Austerity' just won't do. This is the problem with the left, recently, it's just been anti-austerity rather than pro something. Have a plan.....the right did and look where it is.

And lets not forget why we have austerity, to balance the books after needing to bail out the banks after years of Blair and Brown living off the banking system.
Brown: "No more boom and bust"...oh really. I saw it coming in 2007 when people were queuing of the East Croydon branch of Northern Rock to close their accounts. Gordon Brown couldn't see that! Idiot!

 

[nuffsaid]

.

 

[Pickman's model]

But you need to have a viable alternative to austerity. Shouting 'No Austerity' just won't do. This is the problem with the left, recently, it's just been anti-austerity rather than pro something. Have a plan.....the right did and look where it is.

Yeh. Like you had to have a viable alternative to the poll tax to oppose it. Like you had to have a viable alternative to fascism to oppose it. Like you had to have a viable alternative to globalisation to oppose it.

 

[nuffsaid]

Yeh. Like you had to have a viable alternative to the poll tax to oppose it. Like you had to have a viable alternative to fascism to oppose it. Like you had to have a viable alternative to globalisation to oppose it.

go on then, organise a mass demo against austerity and throw scaffold poles trough police car windows and see what happens.

The books HAVE to balance, you need to provide an alternative way of doing it.

 

[nuffsaid]

Yeh. Like you had to have a viable alternative to the poll tax to oppose it. Like you had to have a viable alternative to fascism to oppose it. Like you had to have a viable alternative to globalisation to oppose it.

Brexit is a result of an alternative to globalisation, and Bannon definitely has a plan against globalisation. Even Trump said at one rally, "...there will be no global currency." Wow....that must have pissed the globalists off.

 

[mikey mikey]

But you need to have a viable alternative to austerity.

McDonnell has laid out a viable alternative.
Subscribe to read

And lets not forget why we have austerity, to balance the books

Austerity does not balance the books. Even the IMF admits that.
Austerity policies do more harm than good, IMF study concludes

Blair and Brown living off the banking system.

More "Labour sunk the economy" misinformation. The fact that the banking crash was global debunks it fairly clearly. The deregulation of the financial sector was the main cause.
Financial crisis of 2007–2008 - Wikipedia

 

[DotCommunist]

And lets not forget why we have austerity, to balance the books after needing to bail out the banks after years of Blair and Brown living off the banking system.

we have austerity because of the tories ideological commitment to saller state and lower taxes. Its been known, and proven again that you can't cut your way out of a reccesion. All this 'balance the books' nonsense is ideological cover, it completely renders how nation state finances work down into simple home economics metaphors. 'the nations credit card' ya right

 

[nuffsaid]

McDonnell has laid out a viable alternative.
Subscribe to read

Then don't go round with "No to austerity" on placards and work at transmitting the message, coz it isn't in the public consciousness that's for sure.

Austerity does not balance the books. Even the IMF admits that.
Austerity policies do more harm than good, IMF study concludes

I'm NOT saying austerity is necessary, I'm saying the books need balancing. Try and run a countries economy without it.

More "Labour sunk the economy" misinformation. The fact that the banking crash was global debunks it fairly clearly. The deregulation of the financial sector was the main cause.
Financial crisis of 2007–2008 - Wikipedia

And who aided the deregulation over here, and if it was so defunct how come Gordon Brown couldn't see it and kept on pandering to the banks?

 

[nuffsaid]

we have austerity because of the tories ideological commitment to saller state and lower taxes. Its been known, and proven again that you can't cut your way out of a reccesion. All this 'balance the books' nonsense is ideological cover, it completely renders how nation state finances work down into simple home economics metaphors. 'the nations credit card' ya right

Well quite, so shout that from the rooftops rather than..."No to austerity!" Don't be an anti party, be a pro party. Otherwise Labour is just a protest movement.

 

[Pickman's model]

go on then, organise a mass demo against austerity and throw scaffold poles trough police car windows and see what happens.

The books HAVE to balance, you need to provide an alternative way of doing it.

you mistake one lovely day very much like today for the years of campaigning against the poll tax, which started in at least 1988 - certainly, from seeing the haringey aptu minute books, work was going on there from '88 on, years which didn't finish until at least 1994, and people were still going through the courts for years.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well quite, so shout that from the rooftops rather than..."No to austerity!" Don't be an anti party, be a pro party. Otherwise Labour is just a protest movement.

it's not even that

 

[brogdale]

go on then, organise a mass demo against austerity and throw scaffold poles trough police car windows and see what happens.

The books HAVE to balance, you need to provide an alternative way of doing it.

"The books" have never balanced; that's not how the state functions. There's little to be gained by peddling simplistic tory homilies.

 

[nuffsaid]

"The books" have never balanced; that's not how the state functions. There's little to be gained by peddling simplistic tory homilies.

View attachment 102140

True - but you can't keep building debt, debt goes up, debt goes down, but it only goes down because of the need to keep it under control, if you are really advocating ignoring that fact where do you think that will end up?

It's not simplistic Tory homilies, it's called mathematics.

 

[mikey mikey]

And who aided the deregulation over here,

It began with the so-called "Big Bang" in 1983 under Thatcher/Lawson. Lawson admitted that this contributed to the crash.
BBC - Radio 4 Analysis - Glass-Steagall: A Price Worth Paying?

Likewise Gordon Brown admitted that deregulation of the banking sector by the incoming Labour Government of 1997 had exasperated the impact on the UK economy of the global crash.
Gordon Brown admits 'big mistake' over banking crisis - BBC News

You won't find me apologising for Thatcher, Lawson, Blair or Brown.

 

[Pickman's model]

You won't find me apologising for Thatcher, Lawson, Blair or Brown.

who do you apologise for?

 

[brogdale]

True - but you can't keep building debt, debt goes up, debt goes down, but it only goes down because of the need to keep it under control, if you are really advocating ignoring that fact where do you think that will end up?

Public debt is, historically, fairly low and has only risen in the last decade as a result of two main drivers. One, the specific instance of the state using our £ to bail the failed financial capitalists. And two, the secular increasing fiscal divergence between revenue and expenditure created by lowering the tax burden on corporations and the rich. Both of these processes suit the City and afford fincap even more scope to accumulate at the expense of workers paying tax. If this situation didn't suit capital it would not persist; the bond markets would worsen to a point where the administrators of the state would be compelled to change it.

 

[inva]

we have austerity because of the tories ideological commitment to saller state and lower taxes. Its been known, and proven again that you can't cut your way out of a reccesion. All this 'balance the books' nonsense is ideological cover, it completely renders how nation state finances work down into simple home economics metaphors. 'the nations credit card' ya right

the attack on Tory policy as 'ideological' is an interesting one and I'm not sure it's effective. I can see the logic that it's meant to say that there are alternatives to cuts etc, but at the same time it implies that there is or might be a non-ideological or 'true' economics that could be enforced by the state instead (I'm assuming for most who come out with this line it is Keynesianism). It seems to be a road that leads back to leftists arguing they're better for capitalism than the right. Pick us to exploit the working class! It works so much better

 

[DotCommunist]

the attack on Tory policy as 'ideological' is an interesting one and I'm not sure it's effective. I can see the logic that it's meant to say that there are alternatives to cuts etc, but at the same time it implies that there is or might be a non-ideological or 'true' economics that could be enforced by the state instead (I'm assuming for most who come out with this line it is Keynesianism). It seems to be a road that leads back to leftists arguing they're better for capitalism than the right. Pick us to exploit the working class! It works so much better

I suppose the idea to point out that it is an ideology, a long held tory commitment to small state low taxes no matter what they say and this 'nations credit card' stuff is a sham. As you say, the so called non ideological position (even 'centrist') is itself ideological.

 

[brogdale]

the attack on Tory policy as 'ideological' is an interesting one and I'm not sure it's effective. I can see the logic that it's meant to say that there are alternatives to cuts etc, but at the same time it implies that there is or might be a non-ideological or 'true' economics that could be enforced by the state instead (I'm assuming for most who come out with this line it is Keynesianism). It seems to be a road that leads back to leftists arguing they're better for capitalism than the right. Pick us to exploit the working class! It works so much better

Using the term ideological to describe tory austerian policy does demonstrate that it is their policy choice, and that other policy directions are available. It also challenges the long-standing tory mythologising that their's is a party of pragmatism, only doing what is 'natural' and innate to the proper functioning of the capitalist state.

 

[inva]

Using the term ideological to describe tory austerian policy does demonstrate that it is their policy choice, and that other policy directions are available. It also challenges the long-standing tory mythologising that their's is a party of pragmatism, only doing what is 'natural' and innate to the proper functioning of the capitalist state.

I don't know that it challenges that in a useful way though, and it seems instead to mythologise a different kind of deeply ideological and anti working class set of policies (leaving aside their viability).