Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Andrew Hertford]

So that's your position then - neo-liberalism is "inevitable" even under a government elected on a social democratic platform. Cutting services less than the tories = protecting/securing public services and we should just trust you that a future labour government will invest in services instead of cutting them, although you're clear labour will cut services if the private sector is not doing well. Logically there is no line past which Labour could go at which point you would no longer say to vote Labour, as long as the Tories were going further.

Since you don't think social democracy is achievable there's no point in continuing this conversation - we have totally different aims, so it's hardly surprising that we can't even comprehend each other's strategy as workable. I think neo-liberalism is the wrong direction, and that if we want to go in the right direction, there's no value in continuing to go in the wrong direction whether that's faster or slower. If you think neo-liberalism is the only direction we can go, it makes sense to try to go that way more slowly. Don't see it as protecting let alone securing public services though, if as you say Labour will cut them as soon as the private sector goes wrong. Personally I look at recent, living memory history and see things being done in a different way, meaning it's possible to go in a different direction, and that's where we should head.

I didn't say that social democracy isn't achievable, I'm saying that the 'real change' you want is by your own admission generations away and may possibly never happen.

from IFS study: https://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn43.pdf

TME = Total Managed Expenditure, which is all government spending.

Blue line is government spending in real terms, which you can see increases under the tory governments in the 50s and 60s, and decreases under the labour government around 77/78, before increasing again under Thatcher's tory govt, aside from the mid/late 80s, then increasing under Major's Tory govt, before decrease in the final year of that govt and no increase in the first few years under labour.

So let's deal in facts. Tory goverments have increased spending, labour governments have decreased spending. The Blair/Brown govt increased spending by less than the average increase over the whole of the previous 60 odd years but by a lot more than the tory govts of the 80s/90s did. Less than the tory govts of the 50s/60s did though.

If you’re seriously suggesting that essential services are better funded under the tories then you’re going to have to do a lot better than that. Look again at the caption beneath the graph you posted:

The average real rate of increase during the Conservative years of 1979 to 1997 was 1.5 per cent, and under the Labour government from April 1997 to March 2009 it has been 3.2 per cent. The plans from April 2009 to March 2011, if realised, imply growth averaging 4.7 per cent a year.

The survey was published in 2009 and therefore doesn't take into account tory cuts since 2010.

Plenty of graphs here UK Government spending – real and as % of GDP | Economics Help giving a more accurate and up to date picture

As for Corbyn being unable to win a general election that is not a fact, it is supposition. I may happen to agree with you that he's not going to win, but it's not fact and never can be, even when he loses in 2020 that doesn't mean he could never have won (although I know you think he couldn't). We can't know what would have happened if Labour had presented a united front rather than a split party following Corbyn's election in 2015 but it could have been very different. I know and speak to many more people who don't vote than people who do vote and initially largely very favourable of Corbyn - partly because of policy, partly because he is not the same scummy politician type as many other MPs, but by now they see him as unelectable, a split party is never attractive and so they won't vote at all. People I know who do vote mostly vote labour/green/tusc and they all like corbyn and his policies, many have gone back from green/tusc to labour as a result, people I know who vote tory/liberal would never vote labour anyway. The UKIP voters I know some like policies like social housing, railway nationalisation etc. and could be won back by a social democratic labour party, the others would never vote labour anyway.

Corbyn not being able to win a GE is about as near to 'fact' as it's possible to get. As I said at the beginning of this discussion, I largely support the Labour left but the reality is that Corbyn is unpopular, even among around half of those who claim to be Labour supporters. Your Overton window is moving the wrong way.

The party ‘uniting behind him’ wouldn’t have made any difference and would have resulted in most of the PLP being forced to disguise their opinions or just keep quiet. The public and media would have seen straight through it and thankfully that's not what Labour are about anyway… ask Jeremy.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

feeble

What’s feeble is bringing up "revolutions and military coups" as alternatives to democracy while not being able to explain how they are in any way relevant in this context.

 

[Pickman's model]

What’s feeble is bringing up "revolutions and military coups" as alternatives to democracy while not being able to explain how they are in any way relevant in this context.

They are relevant to and were raised in response to a comment by you about non-democratic ways of changing governments.

I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.

 

[BigTom]

I didn't say that social democracy isn't achievable, I'm saying that the 'real change' you want is by your own admission generations away and may possibly never happen.

Yes you did:

As you say, we don't know how as PM Corbyn would react in similar circumstances to those that Brown was responding to in 2008/9. If the revenue stops coming then he will inevitably look at cuts.

(My emphasis).
If you think that cuts are inevitable following a private sector crash then you think neo-liberalism is inevitable, which means you think social democracy is not achievable.

If you’re seriously suggesting that essential services are better funded under the tories then you’re going to have to do a lot better than that. Look again at the caption beneath the graph you posted:

The average real rate of increase during the Conservative years of 1979 to 1997 was 1.5 per cent, and under the Labour government from April 1997 to March 2009 it has been 3.2 per cent. The plans from April 2009 to March 2011, if realised, imply growth averaging 4.7 per cent a year.

The survey was published in 2009 and therefore doesn't take into account tory cuts since 2010.

That caption which I intentionally included and referenced in my post? Yes, I did look at that. You've conveniently cut off the first sentence there which clearly shows that the labour and tory governments of the 50s/60s and early 70s increased spending by more (3.4%) than the Blair/Brown governments (3.2%).
A reminder of the "FACT" you stated:

So let's deal in facts instead: 1. Public service spending goes up under Labour governments and down under tory ones.

As the other graphs you so helpfully provide show clearly that spending went up under Tory Govts in the 50s/60s/70s and down under Labour govts in the 70s and as your graph makes clear also in the first year or two of blair/brown.
So do you accept then that your "fact" was actually nothing of the sort?

Corbyn not being able to win a GE is about as near to 'fact' as it's possible to get.

so not a fact then.

 

[redsquirrel]

You're a sucker for punishment BigTom. Like trying to nail mould.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes you did:



(My emphasis).
If you think that cuts are inevitable following a private sector crash then you think neo-liberalism is inevitable, which means you think social democracy is not achievable.




That caption which I intentionally included and referenced in my post? Yes, I did look at that. You've conveniently cut off the first sentence there which clearly shows that the labour and tory governments of the 50s/60s and early 70s increased spending by more (3.4%) than the Blair/Brown governments (3.2%).
A reminder of the "FACT" you stated:



As the other graphs you so helpfully provide show clearly that spending went up under Tory Govts in the 50s/60s/70s and down under Labour govts in the 70s and as your graph makes clear also in the first year or two of blair/brown.
So do you accept then that your "fact" was actually nothing of the sort?




so not a fact then.

Andrew Hertford is, in lenin's immortal phrase, as thick as pigshit. you are wasting your precious life on a load of pigshit. step away from the thick wanker.

 

[killer b]

I had a chat with my dad over the weekend - he's a long-standing moderate left Labour activist, who voted for Corbyn in both leadership elections. He reckons Corbyn has been a disaster, but also doesn't see any reasonable replacement, a view which he thinks is shared across most of the party - at least among those who've been on the doorstep campaigning recently.

Last May, all anyone wanted to talk about (if they wanted to talk about anything) was the EU referendum, no-one had anything to say about Labour or it's leadership: this May, all they want to talk about is how shit Corbyn is.

 

[killer b]

(my own conversations with Labour activists suggest a similar view (or worse) is fairly widespread among those who were previously sympathetic, except among the most messianic of the momentum lot)

 

[agricola]

I had a chat with my dad over the weekend - he's a long-standing moderate left Labour activist, who voted for Corbyn in both leadership elections. He reckons Corbyn has been a disaster, but also doesn't see any reasonable replacement, a view which he thinks is shared across most of the party - at least among those who've been on the doorstep campaigning recently.

Last May, all anyone wanted to talk about (if they wanted to talk about anything) was the EU referendum, no-one had anything to say about Labour or it's leadership: this May, all they want to talk about is how shit Corbyn is.

I think "disaster" is too strong a word, its just that the scale of what he has to do (appeal to the country, win the next election, reform the party, deal with the malcontents) is beyond him - though it would probably be beyond anyone. Things like Danczuk still not being dealt with (for that texting or his expenses claims) by the party is a terrible sign.

 

[killer b]

I am only relaying his words - I made a similar point to yours to him, which he agreed with. He had just come back from a dispiriting afternoon's canvassing, so I'll allow his hyperbole...

 

[kebabking]

(my own conversations with Labour activists suggest a similar view (or worse) is fairly widespread among those who were previously sympathetic, except among the most messianic of the momentum lot)

my experience in our CLP with Corbyn supporters cuts four ways - the longstanding members who supported Corbyn almost universally think he's a dead loss, both within and without the party, though there are as many ideas and about what should be done about it as there are days in a year. the 'new entrants' who Corbyn brought into the party are then split three ways: a) they are deranged and think he'll win the 2020 GE with a 100+ majority despite the response we get on the doorstep, b) those who see him as the means to an end, get the rules changed, dump him and get someone else to fight the 2020 GE, and c) don't care what happens, all that matters in the world is that Corbyn isn't Blair. or Ramsey McDonanld.

i knocked doors recently in a D/E ward in a previously held const in the south midlands. i'd reckon about 1 in 3 had something nice to say about Corbyn, but only about 1 in 5 would consider voting to have him as PM, and a good proportion of that was 'might'. UKIP support had dropped through the floor, and Theresa May appears to have taken on a God-like form, transending party politics - as a rough guess i'd say that a good half of those who voted Labour in 2015 would prefer TM as PM than JC.

 

[killer b]

That sounds about right.

 

[killer b]

b) those who see him as the means to an end, get the rules changed, dump him and get someone else to fight the 2020 GE,

Do any of these members give you any idea how they hope this is going to happen? For all their apparent numbers, their organisation is woeful - I can't see them getting the delegates required to get anything moved at conference. The fuckers couldn't even organise enough to get a left-wing candidate selected at any of the recent by-elections...

 

[kebabking]

Do any of these members give you any idea how they hope this is going to happen? For all their apparent numbers, their organisation is woeful - I can't see them getting the delegates required to get anything moved at conference. The fuckers couldn't even organise enough to get a left-wing candidate selected at any of the recent by-elections...

probably evenly split between those who think that either Corbyn will see which way the wind is blowing and pull the handle of his own accord and those who think it was all part of the plan, and another group (smaller) who seem to be trusting in hope rather than any actual plan...

 

[Old Spark]

Why do voters think May is wonderful.? Do they think she is Thatcher reincarnate.?

If pmqs is anything to go by she will be badly exposed in a general election campaign -presumably she will refuse to do any debates.

 

[treelover]

my experience in our CLP with Corbyn supporters cuts four ways - the longstanding members who supported Corbyn almost universally think he's a dead loss, both within and without the party, though there are as many ideas and about what should be done about it as there are days in a year. the 'new entrants' who Corbyn brought into the party are then split three ways: a) they are deranged and think he'll win the 2020 GE with a 100+ majority despite the response we get on the doorstep, b) those who see him as the means to an end, get the rules changed, dump him and get someone else to fight the 2020 GE, and c) don't care what happens, all that matters in the world is that Corbyn isn't Blair. or Ramsey McDonanld.

i knocked doors recently in a D/E ward in a previously held const in the south midlands. i'd reckon about 1 in 3 had something nice to say about Corbyn, but only about 1 in 5 would consider voting to have him as PM, and a good proportion of that was 'might'. UKIP support had dropped through the floor, and Theresa May appears to have taken on a God-like form, transending party politics - as a rough guess i'd say that a good half of those who voted Labour in 2015 would prefer TM as PM than JC.

A good summary, but in terms of TM, will it last?

 

[kebabking]

A good summary, but in terms of TM, will it last?

she doesn't appear to have been damaged by the problems within the NHS - which have been very serious around here with the minor injuries units closed to get staff into the A&E, and lots of bad news from the A&E which features regularly in the local media - the national polling suggests that Labour simply isn't trusted to do any better, and from the doorstep i'd agree with the polling.

my personal suspicion is that the friction of events will wear down the tory lead, and that fewer voters will say they like her, but i don't see Corbyns ratings improving much even if Labour starts grazing the 30/33% mark. my view that that almost regardless of what happens between now and 2020 and who peple say they will vote for, voters will walk into the polling booth and decide on than Corbyn or May - and i know who they'll choose...

 

[free spirit]

Why do voters think May is wonderful.? Do they think she is Thatcher reincarnate.?

If pmqs is anything to go by she will be badly exposed in a general election campaign -presumably she will refuse to do any debates.

8 months of the press repeatedly referring to her as a safe pair of hands despite all evidence to the contrary vs 21 months of the press and most of the PLP repeatedly referring to Corbyn as incompetent, not fit to lead etc.

Google news search results for "Theresa May" "safe pair of hands" 1280 results
Google news search results for "Corbyn" "Not a leader" 3600 results

With that level of repeat messaging from the media it's no wonder this is what the perception is of both of them.

Not that corbyn's in any way shown himself to be a great leader who's on the way to turning the party into an election winning machine, but the contrast in the way the press report on the 2 of them is pretty stark and must be a major factor in how the public perception is formed about them.

The majority of those press reports though are quotes from prominent party figures, so the press is largely the echo chamber that amplifies the whispering campaign against corbyn from much of the PLP, and a similar campaign of support for May from the Tories. So ultimately it's probably a reflection of the grim reality of it, as had corbyn been a 'real leader' he'd have silenced his critics by booting a few high profile critics out of the party as an example to force the rest of them to STFU and tow the party line. By not doing that and attempting to be the peacemaker all he's done is given his critics the space to weaken him to such an extent that he now stands little chance of ever recovering in the public eye, and demonstrably has been a weak leader by the standards expected in Westminster politics.

 

[J Ed]

Do any of these members give you any idea how they hope this is going to happen? For all their apparent numbers, their organisation is woeful - I can't see them getting the delegates required to get anything moved at conference. The fuckers couldn't even organise enough to get a left-wing candidate selected at any of the recent by-elections...

The polling is fake, Trump and Brexit showed that.. something something The Canary

 

[kebabking]

The polling is fake, Trump and Brexit showed that.. something something The Canary

I've been told, to my face, that I'm not knocking on the doors of 'real' voters.

In what way they aren't 'real' was never spelt out, but i think that the fact that didn't give the correct answers disqualified them from 'realness'.

 

[killer b]

The polling is fake, Trump and Brexit showed that.. something something The Canary

Maybe... I don't think there's many of those ones left tbh.

 

[Brainaddict]

A lot of the criticisms rely on rather short term thinking I think. Like 'all the new entrants to the party seem to be crap at organising'. Well of course they are. They've never done it before, and come from a whole generation of people to whom this type of organisation is utterly alien. But if only a fraction of them stay on board (and I expect it will only be a fraction of them over the long term) they will eventually get better at it.

Think how much of a fucking disaster of a party it has to be that neither the left nor the right can put forward a better leader than Corbyn. You want some newbie activists to change that clusterfuck within a year? While the central party machine tries to suppress them? Change will take time. I don't know if it will work, and it's not my project so I've little personal investment, but let's try to think a bit beyond next year, beyond the next election even. It took decades (centuries really) to build a labour movement, decades to take it apart, and now it's all fucked. There isn't a short term solution. There isn't even a medium term solution.

 

[killer b]

No, I'm not expecting that at all. I know why the new members haven't got involved - it isn't them I'm saying are crap at organising. The labour left isn't all fresh-faced children ffs.

 

[Brainaddict]

No, I'm not expecting that at all. I know why the new members haven't got involved - it isn't them I'm saying are crap at organising. The labour left isn't all fresh-faced children ffs.

Fair enough, but they've been very outnumbered until recently I guess.

 

[killer b]

Sure. Tbh I've not expected anything of them: the monolith has done what I expected, but I suppose I did have a few moments of hope that there might be a bit of fight in them. Not now though.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

A lot of the criticisms rely on rather short term thinking I think. Like 'all the new entrants to the party seem to be crap at organising'. Well of course they are. They've never done it before, and come from a whole generation of people to whom this type of organisation is utterly alien. But if only a fraction of them stay on board (and I expect it will only be a fraction of them over the long term) they will eventually get better at it.

Why would they, though? In terms of staying with Labour and fighting with all of the bureaucracy and existing power structures, when they can see that even if the leader of the damn party wants to do stuff, he won't be allowed to. I wouldn't, and I know people who've joined Labour recently after Corbyn in the hope that they could do something who've now just given up.

 

[Brainaddict]

Why would they, though?

For the same reason some of them joined I guess: because there doesn't seem to be a sniff anywhere in the air of large-scale left wing organising in any other form. You could be right and it could all come to nothing, but it's still a bit early to tell. And interesting factors like most Momentum members have no particular allegiance to Momentum itself, so that organisation could fall apart but the constituent people might still stick in the Labour Party.

 

[killer b]

Stephen Bush's analysis re: the left's struggles with shortlisting candidates is good (and points to a number of things I've been missing, namely the unions) Why isn't Labour putting forward Corbynite candidates?

 

[agricola]

Stephen Bush's analysis re: the left's struggles with shortlisting candidates is good (and points to a number of things I've been missing, namely the unions) Why isn't Labour putting forward Corbynite candidates?

Half the problem there is selecting "Corbynite" candidates, who as you and Bush state go on to get shot down and who come from a small talent pool anyway.

They should really be looking to get in people who have considerable experience / achievements outside of politics, which would present much more of a danger to the current PLP (and by extension, to a Tory Party that is increasingly dominated by the same sort of political obsessive), be less of a threat to the current leadership (at least in terms of not making every selection contest a war that they lose), have a better chance of winning by-elections and gradually improve the quality of debate in the Commons (and further down the line the quality of minister).

 

[rutabowa]

They should really be looking to get in people who have considerable experience / achievements outside of politics, which would present much more of a danger to the current PLP (and by extension, to a Tory Party that is increasingly dominated by the same sort of political obsessive), be less of a threat to the current leadership (at least in terms of not making every selection contest a war that they lose), have a better chance of winning by-elections and gradually improve the quality of debate in the Commons (and further down the line the quality of minister).

Sorry I'm busy this year.