Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[ska invita]

Don't know if it was a fabricated quote. But I remember my father telling me years ago that when Thatcher was interviewed and asked what she considered her greatest achievement. Her response was apparently "new labour"

avepx

2 points·3 years ago·edited 3 years ago

It seems to be from one Conor Burns, later MP for Bournemouth West - Margaret Thatcher's greatest achievement: New Labour :

"Late in 2002 Lady Thatcher came to Hampshire to speak at a dinner for me. Taking her round at the reception one of the guests asked her what was her greatest achievement. She replied, 'Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds'."

That was April 2008 (the post, that is): it took a mere half a decade after that for the quote to go viral among our media, such is the sentinel-like attentiveness of Her Majesty's press.

I've no reason to imagine Mr Burns would misreport the words of The Leaderene, so I assume they are a fair representation.

 

[Pickman's model]

avepx

2 points·3 years ago·edited 3 years ago

It seems to be from one Conor Burns, later MP for Bournemouth West - Margaret Thatcher's greatest achievement: New Labour :

"Late in 2002 Lady Thatcher came to Hampshire to speak at a dinner for me. Taking her round at the reception one of the guests asked her what was her greatest achievement. She replied, 'Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds'."

That was April 2008 (the post, that is): it took a mere half a decade after that for the quote to go viral among our media, such is the sentinel-like attentiveness of Her Majesty's press.

I've no reason to imagine Mr Burns would misreport the words of The Leaderene, so I assume they are a fair representation.

post 25286

 

[ska invita]

post 25286

fuck post 25286

 

[Pickman's model]

fuck post 25286

 

[danny la rouge]

fuck post 25286

I’ve only got one fuck post.

 

[two sheds]

Look up the top earner tax rate through the 50s and 60s - it was around 90%. That’s Churchill, Eden, MacMillan, Douglas-Home, Wilson. So Corbyn’s tax policies are “less left wing” than 4 Tory PMs. In 1970, Heath reduced it to 75%. So Corbyn is “as left wing as Heath”. In 1974 it was put back up to 83% under Wilson II.

Yes indeed - and unearned income was taxed at 98%. But I'd say that increasing tax to 75% is more left wing than reducing it to 75% : . As I'm repeatedly being told: "conditions have changed". If Corbyn said he was going to increase tax to 90% there'd be zero percent chance of him getting elected.

If you want to compare Corbynism with Butskellism, you’re going to find many measures that put Corbyn to the right of Butskellism. And the question you’ve got to ask yourself is why? Why is Corbyn now portrayed as “way out radical”, when Churchill of all people precided over a 90% top rate of income tax? And that’s what butchersapron and redsquirrel have been trying to explain.

Discussions of how left wing he is are a bit meaningless, though. I think he's about as left wing (probably more so) as would be allowed to win an election. What has meaning are what chance is what effect his policies would make on peoples' lives. Ending austerity and introducing rent controls (depending at what level of course) would on their own make things a lot easier for a lot of people.

I'm not trying to get back to the great days of capitalism and I'm not saying we'll get the same benefits as the PWSC. To be honest I think we're fucked anyway with the environmental problems that are coming, but I do however think the policy is worth trying in the meantime.

The recent conversation between you and me was along the lines of:
you: "I think people are wasting their time trying to get labour elected"
me: "yes fair enough but that's up to them and shouldn't be dissuaded from that"
you: "yes I wouldn't try to dissuade them".

Jobsagoodun, agreed, end of that conversation.

That's not what I'm hearing though. It seems the discussion is that it's no use anybody trying to get labour elected because they're crap anyway and conditions have changed so it won't work. Well yes I despair at a lot of Labour MPs but conditions weren't that fucking great after WW2 either and I think the policies should at least be given a go.

Again - what else should a government be doing other than investing in infrastructure and people? And I think it's perfectly valid to ask if we don't do that, what alternative is being proposed?

 

[redsquirrel]

So not on health and safety or training and development or even company/organisational strategy?

Definitely not on company/organisational strategy, that's a route for having unions become part of the management. Besides if management want me (as a branch committee member) to help develop strategy they should be paying me a managers salary, I'm not donating even more of my time to them.

On health and safety the aim of the union should be ensure the employer provides the best OHS possible the workers. That might include sitting on H&S committees but it doesn't mean working with management (again doing for free the job the employer should be paying someone to do).

 

[redsquirrel]

<snipped>

No offence but you've missed the key of the point that danny, myself and others are trying to get at - why?

And the question you’ve got to ask yourself is why? Why is Corbyn now portrayed as “way out radical”, when Churchill of all people precided over a 90% top rate of income tax?

(my emphasis)
Yes many of us are skeptical of, or even hostile to, the LP. But that's by the by. You started this hare about a return to policies from the post-war consensus, we're asking you to think about how and why that post-war consensus was brought about. And from that question think about what that means in the current political climate.

What might social democracy look like in the 2020s? If the material conditions that existed in 1945 don't exist today what does that tell us about modern capitalism? Are there other periods that provide a better parallel with today, and if so what how can they inform our understanding and politics?

EDIT:And specifically we are trying place these questions on the basis of the material conditions, the interaction of labour and capital, rather than on the actions of the Labour Party.

 

[danny la rouge]

No offence but you've missed the key of the point that danny, myself and others are trying to get at - why?
(my emphasis)
Yes many of us are skeptical of, or even hostile to, the LP. But that's by the by. You started this hare about a return to policies from the post-war consensus, we're asking you to think about how and why that post-war consensus was brought about. And from that question think about what that means in the current political climate.

What might social democracy look like in the 2020s? If the material conditions that existed in 1945 don't exist today what does that tell us about modern capitalism? Are there other periods that provide a better parallel with today, and if so what how can they inform our understanding and politics?

EDIT:And specifically we are trying place these questions on the basis of the material conditions, the interaction of labour and capital, rather than on the actions of the Labour Party.

Exactly.

 

[Mr Moose]

Definitely not on company/organisational strategy, that's a route for having unions become part of the management. Besides if management want me (as a branch committee member) to help develop strategy they should be paying me a managers salary, I'm not donating even more of my time to them.

On health and safety the aim of the union should be ensure the employer provides the best OHS possible the workers. That might include sitting on H&S committees but it doesn't mean working with management (again doing for free the job the employer should be paying someone to do).

People work for money and their need for it is diametrically opposed to their bosses desire to restrict it.

Aside from this, people work to create and develop their potential or should do. It’s mind numbingly infantilising for your opinion, your views on what can be done to make things better, to be ignored. That’s how things have been for most of capitalism and it cements class division, a grammar/secondary modern view. They do this, we do that.

Maybe for a revolutionary that brings everything into sharper focus, but I’ve certainly worked in places where people wouldn’t do stuff because it might not be their place to do so. It didn’t appear to make them any more resistant. Every job a McJob.

And it’s particularly unhelpful in public services when many of the staff are doing their best with passion, but others are not motivated to help the public.

 

[Rob Ray]

I think he's about as left wing (probably more so) as would be allowed to win an election.

Well yes, that's essentially the problem isn't it. Politicians can only take advantage of and work within the known status quo of what's "respectable economics" and "common sense" (and most of the time not even then — all Corbyn's promises presuppose him actually being elected which is far from certain). So how does that status quo change? If it's not through the actions of politicians, where does momentum come from?

 

[redsquirrel]

People work for money and their need for it is diametrically opposed to their bosses desire to restrict it.

Aside from this, people work to create and develop their potential or should do. It’s mind numbingly infantilising for your opinion, your views on what can be done to make things better, to be ignored. That’s how things have been for most of capitalism and it cements class division, a grammar/secondary modern view. They do this, we do that.

Maybe for a revolutionary that brings everything into sharper focus, but I’ve certainly worked in places where people wouldn’t do stuff because it might not be their place to do so. It didn’t appear to make them any more resistant. Every job a McJob.

And it’s particularly unhelpful in public services when many of the staff are doing their best with passion, but others are not motivated to help the public.

I'm sorry but what relevance does that have to do with unions working with management? Should their be greater workplace democracy, absolutely! But how does unions becoming managerial instruments grow workplace democracy? It does the opposite.

 

[Rob Ray]

how does unions becoming managerial instruments grow workplace democracy?

Funnily enough bosses absolutely love works councils, which are now widespread as mandatory bodies across Europe. People who actually care about grassroots worker power less so.

 

[redsquirrel]

Funnily enough bosses absolutely love works councils, which are now widespread as mandatory bodies across Europe. People who actually care about grassroots worker power less so.

Exactly.

 

[Mr Moose]

I'm sorry but what relevance does that have to do with unions working with management? Should their be greater workplace democracy, absolutely! But how does unions becoming managerial instruments grow workplace democracy? It does the opposite.

I haven’t argued they should be ‘instruments’. Maybe you need to be more precise when you say things like ‘work with’.

 

[redsquirrel]

That's what happens when unions work with management, they become part of the management (see the link RR posted above).

In fact there is an analogy to Labour councils here, by engaging in the framework that is designed by and for capital you end up attacking workers/implementing cuts.

 

[Pickman's model]

That's what happens when unions work with management, they become part of the management (see the link RR posted above).

In fact there is an analogy to Labour councils here, by engaging in the framework that is designed by and for capital you end up attacking workers/implementing cuts.

No, a lot of labour councillors have no compunction about being anti-working class, if they did Haringey, hackney, Camden, Islington etc etc wouldn't have pursued non-payment of poll tax with such vigour

 

[two sheds]

No I'm done with this hare. Like I say I've learned a lot from butchers and pickers and dannyers and peoples but I'm not interested in who's more left wing than whom, nor in political posturing or point scoring.

I was assuming the discussion would take a practical turn, like how capital would react to a Corbyn led government - a run on the pound for example and what that would mean and how it could be addressed. And starting off by looking at the conditions at the end of WW2 and how they compare to now and what that means. I'm only really interested in politics as to what effects it has on peoples' lives.

I wouldn't have thought of just deleting the other person's side of the discussion as unimportant though, so I have learned something:

<snip>

 

[redsquirrel]

If you're not interested in the discussion anymore fine. But don't pretend that the questions being asked of you aren't practical. They are, the asking of these questions informs our politics.

EDIT: If you are going to link your politics to a return to the post-war consensus, you can't argue that it's impractical or political posturing for people to interrogate that link.

 

[SpackleFrog]

An incoming Corbyn govt would need to nationalise everything immediately, starting with banks and communications. Discuss.

 

[two sheds]

Well yes but I've been discussing those points ever since my reply to butchers: graph of GDP growth, effect of bearer bonds, flight of capital overseas where it's not taxed and the like. Every point has just been ignored.

I find this sort of political discussion quite stressful with the accusations of wanting a return to the glorious age of capitalism and people who should know better and the don't pretends.

 

[two sheds]

An incoming Corbyn govt would need to nationalise everything immediately, starting with banks and communications. Discuss.

Yes fair topic, see my reply to redsquirrel though. I'll perhaps come back to it in a week

 

[Smokeandsteam]

An incoming Corbyn govt would need to nationalise everything immediately, starting with banks and communications. Discuss.

How do you nationalise banks and comms companies that are not wholly based (or not domiciled here at all) or 'owned' in the UK?

You could waste 5 years trying I suppose or you could move much more quickly a) have a planned approach to capital controls; b) repurpose and relocate the Bank of England and c) set up a National Investment Bank and design it so that it becomes a bank of choice and a key tool to oversee economic planning and investment. Ironically McDonnell has floated all of this but now seems to be creeping away from a in particular.

The 'transitional' demand of 'nationalising the commanding heights' is frankly for the birds.

 

[Pickman's model]

How do you nationalise banks and comms companies that are not wholly based (or not domiciled here at all) or 'owned' in the UK?

expropriation would be my choice

 

[SpackleFrog]

expropriation would be my choice

Fair quite happy with that.

How do you nationalise banks and comms companies that are not wholly based (or not domiciled here at all) or 'owned' in the UK?

You could waste 5 years trying I suppose or you could move much more quickly a) have a planned approach to capital controls; b) repurpose and relocate the Bank of England and c) set up a National Investment Bank and design it so that it becomes a bank of choice and a key tool to oversee economic planning and investment. Ironically McDonnell has floated all of this but now seems to be creeping away from a in particular.

The 'transitional' demand of 'nationalising the commanding heights' is frankly for the birds.

You take control of everything that you can take control of, and communications key in this day and age to stop transfers of capital overseas. This would be necessary for capital controls to actually work IMO. I don't see how you do anything to the Bank of England without democratic control of it. As for your people's bank, sure, take the banks into public ownership and there's your people's bank.

 

[two sheds]

Sorry about before I was feeling somewhat delicate because I was on the rum last night

I'm not sure you *can* just nationalize the banks. Do that to an American bank and we'd be Cuba Mk II. I thought one of their most profitable scams was the fractional reserve. As I understand it they are the only organizations that can create money. I'll swear that was what Richard Murphy said needs tackling in the Joy of Tax (which is a really good read but I never actually finished). I think it would be possible to take that and the resulting profits into the BoE.

 

[Pickman's model]

As I understand it they are the only organizations that can create money.

have you never heard of governments, who for many centuries have been creating money?

 

[two sheds]

Yes fair point, although I thought there were rules against it now. Quantitative easing is one form although I think that's buyback of bonds (or something) rather than electronically printing money. I need to read Richard Murphy again. And we could still take the profit away from the banks doing it though.

 

[two sheds]

How is money created?

Would make more sense for the BoE to create it and lend it to the private banks at interest for them to lend on.

 

[belboid]

Do that to an American bank and we'd be Cuba Mk II.

Obama nationalised more banks than Lenin