Is he her leg masseuse?
Jeremy Corbyn's time is up
- Thread starter hash tag
- Start date
Is he her leg masseuse?
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
He's moved from bending spoons to reanimating corpses
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
hmm, this is probably why her website makes no mentions at all, on it's front page, of whuch party she was elected to represent.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Important analysis from the IWCA on labour’s putitive surrender to neo liberal economic nostrums. If Labour go into the election promising no capital controls, for a customs union and continued EU single market orthodoxy then voters will have a choice or two versions of neoliberalism. Even social democracy recognises that the state must have some element of control over capital flows. Anyway, the article is pasted below:
The endgame of neo-liberalism is globalisation or democracy – and John McDonnell is not on the side of democracy. The consequence is that ‘if liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals will not do’
The City of London’s hedge funds and investment managers heaved sighs of relief in late January as Red John McDonnell, former Marxist firebrand and Labour’s putative Chancellor in waiting, assured the investment class via the Financial Times that “capital controls would not happen under a Labour government. We don’t see any necessity for them … I want to make it explicit that we will not introduce capital controls.” Grown men were reportedly seen weeping in the environs of Liverpool Street, while Canary Wharf wine bars put out urgent SOS’s for fresh jeroboams of the finest Krug (Subscribe to read | Financial Times).
McDonnell’s interview with the FT comes as he and his staff conduct a series of meetings with influential figures in the City to assuage any fears finance capital may have should Labour come to power. If this sounds familiar, it’s because New Labour did the same thing prior to 1997.
Capital controls are limits placed on the amount of money and financial assets that can move in or out of a country. Free movement of capital seems such a feature of life that it may seem strange that McDonnell should feel the need to make any reassurance at all. But there is nothing pre-ordained about it, and it is a relatively recent phenomenon in its current form. During the post-war period up until the early seventies the main capitalist economies ran regimes of capital controls and fixed exchange rates pegged to the dollar (itself tied to gold), known as the Bretton Woods system. Necessary to stabilise and rebuild international capitalism after 1945, this formally came to an end when Richard Nixon took the dollar off gold in 1971, bringing in our regime of floating currencies and the freedom of capital to flow across national borders without hindrance.
This was the start of the neo-liberal era, and freedom for capital is its defining feature. One of the many profound effects of this has been to increase the incidence of financial crises: the relationship between capital mobility and financial fragility is one of the few dependable laws of economic history. The FT noted in its article that ‘some left-wing thinkers have started to talk about the benefits of bringing back such measures [capital controls]’, which is not the full story: the IMF began making the case for them on a ‘prudential’ basis as far back as 2012. McDonnell, it seems, shows greater faith in neo-liberalism than the IMF does.
There is a hypothesis in economics called the ‘impossibility trilemma’, whereby it is impossible for a state to have all three of fixed exchange rates, free movement of capital and monetary policy independence: one must be sacrificed. In ending the Bretton Woods system the US and UK swapped fixed exchange rates for capital liberalisation. Currency unions like the Eurozone sacrificed sovereign monetary policy for capital liberalisation: Eurozone monetary policy is essentially conducted on the terms of the hegemon (Germany), and the periphery has to suck it up. However, Hélène Rey of the London Business School argues that global financial flows are now such that the economic trilemma is in reality a dilemma, where ‘independent monetary policies are possible if and only if the capital account is managed’ (www.nber.org/papers/w21162.pdf).
But more fundamentally, the Harvard economist Dani Rodrik points to a political trilemma, where it is impossible to have all three of global economic integration, democracy, and national sovereignty. If one unequivocally chooses global economic integration, then either the nation state or democracy must be sacrificed. This, whether consciously or not, is the true endgame of neo-liberalism.
In an economically integrated world, capital can only be tempered and democracy only effectively administered at the supra-national level, where in Rodrik’s words ‘we align the scope of (democratic) politics with the scope of global markets’. But as Rodrik himself acknowledges ‘this is something that cannot realistically be done at a global scale’, and even if it could there is no democratic mandate for such global federalism, or even European federalism.
So in the final analysis Rodrik’s trilemma is also a dilemma: one can have untrammelled economic globalisation or effective democracy, not both. And McDonnell’s remarks indicate that, in this battle, he is yet to take the side of democracy.
Might this be simple pragmatism on the bold McDonnell’s part, of picking your fights carefully and not showing your hand? Perhaps, if his stance on this wasn’t entirely of a piece with Labour’s other suite of proposed economic solutions, all of which fit comfortably within neo-liberalism: universal basic income, shareholder capitalism, and Labour’s declared preference for ‘retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union’, meaning its four cross-border freedoms for capital, labour, goods and services (McDonnell came out in favour of a second referendum before Christmas).
Like the Blairites a generation ago, globalisation is accepted as inevitable and irresistible. The difference is that a generation ago globalisation wasn’t showing any cracks. Do we put this down to a lack of intellectual nous, a shortfall in political courage? Or more prosaically, does Labour’s declared lack of interest in laying a glove on capital reflect the interests of their urban liberal constituency, who prioritise global economic integration above democracy or national sovereignty?
It is safe to say that this ordering of priorities is not shared universally, not least by the working class. The consequences of adopting it have been bluntly summed up by former Bush II speechwriter David Frum: ‘If liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals will not do’.
Where the barbarians of the populist right have positioned themselves as the guardians of national sovereignty, the liberal left has responded not by aligning themselves with democracy but by doubling down on global economic integration, or ‘no borders’. This is what it means to be a ‘socialist’ now, this is the hill the left has chosen to die on.
Should the left continue on this trajectory then further disaster, and further alienation from the class, is assured. But this catastrophic failure of analysis and strategy also throws the alternative into sharp relief. Standing on the ground of democracy, and aligning with working class priorities and instincts, may yet hold the prospect of renewal, of negating the populist right, and of bringing the class in from the cold.
The endgame of neo-liberalism is globalisation or democracy – and John McDonnell is not on the side of democracy. The consequence is that ‘if liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals will not do’
The City of London’s hedge funds and investment managers heaved sighs of relief in late January as Red John McDonnell, former Marxist firebrand and Labour’s putative Chancellor in waiting, assured the investment class via the Financial Times that “capital controls would not happen under a Labour government. We don’t see any necessity for them … I want to make it explicit that we will not introduce capital controls.” Grown men were reportedly seen weeping in the environs of Liverpool Street, while Canary Wharf wine bars put out urgent SOS’s for fresh jeroboams of the finest Krug (Subscribe to read | Financial Times).
McDonnell’s interview with the FT comes as he and his staff conduct a series of meetings with influential figures in the City to assuage any fears finance capital may have should Labour come to power. If this sounds familiar, it’s because New Labour did the same thing prior to 1997.
Capital controls are limits placed on the amount of money and financial assets that can move in or out of a country. Free movement of capital seems such a feature of life that it may seem strange that McDonnell should feel the need to make any reassurance at all. But there is nothing pre-ordained about it, and it is a relatively recent phenomenon in its current form. During the post-war period up until the early seventies the main capitalist economies ran regimes of capital controls and fixed exchange rates pegged to the dollar (itself tied to gold), known as the Bretton Woods system. Necessary to stabilise and rebuild international capitalism after 1945, this formally came to an end when Richard Nixon took the dollar off gold in 1971, bringing in our regime of floating currencies and the freedom of capital to flow across national borders without hindrance.
This was the start of the neo-liberal era, and freedom for capital is its defining feature. One of the many profound effects of this has been to increase the incidence of financial crises: the relationship between capital mobility and financial fragility is one of the few dependable laws of economic history. The FT noted in its article that ‘some left-wing thinkers have started to talk about the benefits of bringing back such measures [capital controls]’, which is not the full story: the IMF began making the case for them on a ‘prudential’ basis as far back as 2012. McDonnell, it seems, shows greater faith in neo-liberalism than the IMF does.
There is a hypothesis in economics called the ‘impossibility trilemma’, whereby it is impossible for a state to have all three of fixed exchange rates, free movement of capital and monetary policy independence: one must be sacrificed. In ending the Bretton Woods system the US and UK swapped fixed exchange rates for capital liberalisation. Currency unions like the Eurozone sacrificed sovereign monetary policy for capital liberalisation: Eurozone monetary policy is essentially conducted on the terms of the hegemon (Germany), and the periphery has to suck it up. However, Hélène Rey of the London Business School argues that global financial flows are now such that the economic trilemma is in reality a dilemma, where ‘independent monetary policies are possible if and only if the capital account is managed’ (www.nber.org/papers/w21162.pdf).
But more fundamentally, the Harvard economist Dani Rodrik points to a political trilemma, where it is impossible to have all three of global economic integration, democracy, and national sovereignty. If one unequivocally chooses global economic integration, then either the nation state or democracy must be sacrificed. This, whether consciously or not, is the true endgame of neo-liberalism.
In an economically integrated world, capital can only be tempered and democracy only effectively administered at the supra-national level, where in Rodrik’s words ‘we align the scope of (democratic) politics with the scope of global markets’. But as Rodrik himself acknowledges ‘this is something that cannot realistically be done at a global scale’, and even if it could there is no democratic mandate for such global federalism, or even European federalism.
So in the final analysis Rodrik’s trilemma is also a dilemma: one can have untrammelled economic globalisation or effective democracy, not both. And McDonnell’s remarks indicate that, in this battle, he is yet to take the side of democracy.
Might this be simple pragmatism on the bold McDonnell’s part, of picking your fights carefully and not showing your hand? Perhaps, if his stance on this wasn’t entirely of a piece with Labour’s other suite of proposed economic solutions, all of which fit comfortably within neo-liberalism: universal basic income, shareholder capitalism, and Labour’s declared preference for ‘retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union’, meaning its four cross-border freedoms for capital, labour, goods and services (McDonnell came out in favour of a second referendum before Christmas).
Like the Blairites a generation ago, globalisation is accepted as inevitable and irresistible. The difference is that a generation ago globalisation wasn’t showing any cracks. Do we put this down to a lack of intellectual nous, a shortfall in political courage? Or more prosaically, does Labour’s declared lack of interest in laying a glove on capital reflect the interests of their urban liberal constituency, who prioritise global economic integration above democracy or national sovereignty?
It is safe to say that this ordering of priorities is not shared universally, not least by the working class. The consequences of adopting it have been bluntly summed up by former Bush II speechwriter David Frum: ‘If liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals will not do’.
Where the barbarians of the populist right have positioned themselves as the guardians of national sovereignty, the liberal left has responded not by aligning themselves with democracy but by doubling down on global economic integration, or ‘no borders’. This is what it means to be a ‘socialist’ now, this is the hill the left has chosen to die on.
Should the left continue on this trajectory then further disaster, and further alienation from the class, is assured. But this catastrophic failure of analysis and strategy also throws the alternative into sharp relief. Standing on the ground of democracy, and aligning with working class priorities and instincts, may yet hold the prospect of renewal, of negating the populist right, and of bringing the class in from the cold.
Mr Moose
What the hell are we supposed to tell the kids?
John McDonnell claiming this is to clear up concerns that Berger may be looking to quit for a breakaway party. It would be nice if he was correct as going after someone for merely exposing antisemitism or criticising the beloved leader isn't good nor will it play well. Anyone with an inside track?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
when she's driving into parliament she thinks the shouts from passers-by are 'we love luciana' whereas if she were to wind down her window she'd know it was 'we loathe luciana'
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
phew, thank the lord there is a ex-party pledging to defend our borders! That's what the working class need, stronger borders. Shame they offer no other solutions.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
McDonnell made a bit of a mess of it this morning - he was asked about the VONC in LB and said he knew very little about it 'only what i've seen on social media last night'. he said it was about this 'new party' which he thought LB hadn't been vocal enough about not being interested in, and that if she just made a simple statement that she wasn't going anywhere it would all just go away. Humphries (for it is he) then read out a tweet from the bloke organising the VONC (i think, one of my children was protesting loudly about my choice of radio station at this point) which as all zionist this and zionist that. McDonnell was all 'thats bad' and then returned to being sure it was all about this breakaway party idea - despite, of course, only having skimmed the issue on social media last night...
same old, same old. move along now, nothing to see here.
Mr Moose
What the hell are we supposed to tell the kids?
More widely.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Any concern that ‘red’ John M seems to be positioning labour firmly in the camp of neo liberal economics belboid?
While you are having a think can you point me to the bit where there is a pledge to defend borders from the iwca?
Mr Moose
What the hell are we supposed to tell the kids?
Some are shouting much worse things and that’s a problem.
If she doesn’t like the merest tiny whiff of socialism simply let her walk.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I think it is wrong to say that, the article doesn't show it - not least because it misrepresents the labour policy re both a second referendum and on the 'four freedoms' Now, Labours policies on those issues may be hard to implement, but that is no excuse to misrepresent them.
cantsin
Well-Known Member
thought J McDonn handled it v well tbh : plainly, emphatically against anti semitism, but clearly supporting the right of local party members to democratically Vonc their MP on the grounds of lack of Party loyalty etc.
And as this is approx the 6th vonc in 6 months, and the first against a Jewish MP, I'd love to know how the weaponisers decide this one is different from the previous 5, when, as per below, it's so obviously driven by the same factors :
Jeremiah18.17
Well-Known Member
Yes, the rump IWCA accelerates through 20th Century socialism in one country and third period Stalinism (complete with attacks on the rest of the left as facilitators of fascism - physicians, heal thyselves) towards the heady uplands of Colbertism and 17th Century Mercantilism..... As you say, no alternatives offered, other than tailing Putinbot Nazbols.
Mr Moose
What the hell are we supposed to tell the kids?
Though there are not any real plans to ‘defend’ our borders from capital, just a slightly different set of masters, like Trump, to bend over for. Leave opinion formers have held protectionism up as an illusion, something you can have now we are leaving, (but over our dead bodies).
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Wow, third period Stalinists. Props for dusting that one off.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Sadly, it's an accurate description.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
if a Jewish Tory MP who had criticised their party for the way it dealt with anti-semitism had a constituancy VONC tabled against them by someone who went on about Zionists in their tweets, do you belive that JMcD would ever in a month of sundays believe that it was ever about anything other than anti-semitism?
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Labour is ruling out capital controls, it is for a customs union arrangement and therefore the adoption of the rules of the EU single market (unless you believe that Labour will negotiate access without the rules) - this isn't hard stuff to understand.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
If you are a political party, it's a bit pointless. You need to propose an alternative.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Well it's more accurate than your analysis of the article.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
When did it rule out capital controls? It hasn't.
Similar threads
