Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

butchersapron said:
So you are now saying that support for national-populism extended right back into the 70s then? And their vote at it's absolute height was half that of the BNP. So this meaningful vote you point to to (at a time when they were pretty much openly fascist) was doubled (and given much more geographic/cultural depth - was normalised for a time) by a group more in the modern national-populist mould, but that doubling of the vote and the winning of elections was meaningless? Didn't show anything about the direction of travel and the motor?
Click to expand...

I agree with what has been said about how the message changed. The UK shuns Hitlerites. Elements of the right have been popular with a section of the working class for a long time, but it needed legitimising to mainstream it. Europe as a Trojan Horse for that.
 
Mr Moose said:
Elements of the right have been popular with a section of the working class for a long time, but it needed legitimising to mainstream it. Europe as a Trojan Horse for that.
Click to expand...
But you just argued that Europe was not an issue people cared about pre-2010, so how was the BNP (and in your view the NF) using it as a Trojan horse? No offence but you are all over the shop here.
 
redsquirrel said:
But you just argued that Europe was not an issue people cared about pre-2010, so how was the BNP (and in your view the NF) using it as a Trojan horse? No offence but you are all over the shop here.
Click to expand...

Ok, let’s agree populism rose. I would argue it was only an expression of what was there, expressed previously through ‘no dogs, no Irish’, mainstream cultural racism etc. Hardcore racism waxed and waned but wasn’t going to make big progress.

A softened message did make more progress as did, post Lawrence, equalities and anti racism. Populism, like through UKIP became a way to express much of that ‘I don’t recognise the place’ ‘it’s all gone too far’ sentiment with a least some legitimacy.

What I’m arguing is, if you can all stop playing tag team for a moment, is without the crash it would likely have remained fringe.
 
Mr Moose said:
You’ve said, unequivocally, that Leave was a win for the disaffected. That box ticked, all else flows from it.
Click to expand...
I said that those disaffected with the staus quo and who has been showing that in a long running series of euro-protest votes (allied with things like withdrawal shown in falling turnout figures if we're insisting on looking at this solely electorally), voted leave. And that this being mirrored in whole heap of different ways across europe and the US (and i might have added globally). the election results are there to see. I think you need to read a bit more carefully.
 
Mr Moose said:
Ok, let’s agree populism rose. I would argue it was only an expression of what was there, expressed previously through ‘no dogs, no Irish’, mainstream cultural racism etc. Hardcore racism waxed and waned but wasn’t going to make big progress.

A softened message did make more progress as did, post Lawrence, equalities and anti racism. Populism, like through UKIP became a way to express much of that ‘I don’t recognise the place’ ‘it’s all gone too far’ sentiment with a least some legitimacy.

What I’m arguing is, if you can all stop playing tag team for a moment, is without the crash it would likely have remained fringe.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are now trying to argue as the above contradicts your earlier claims, as well as being somewhat self-contradictory.

But the last paragraph, well what do you mean by fringe? Is a million people fringe? Is the FN getting to the 2nd round of the presidential election fringe? And of course that is looking solely at voters, many others if not willing to vote national populist held/hold ideas that are sympathetic to national populism.

The further attacks upon labour post-GFC certainly provided favourable conditions for the further growth of national populism but it is a mistake to see either the GFC as something necessary for the rise of national populism or to see 'austerity' as something fundamentally different from what had taken place in the 30 years previously.
 
Jeremy Corbyn, I no longer want to be a member of your Labour party by Alastair Campbell
Alastair_Campbell,_R.png

l

Jeremy Corbyn, I no longer want to be a member of your Labour party | Alastair Campbell

Bye bye then, off you fuck.
 
Smokeandsteam said:
Excellent piece by Paul O'Connell - a law lecturer at SOAS and NOT a stalinist - on the political straightjacket, and eventual defeat, that 'Remain and Reform' places on the transformative project envisaged by Corbyn and Labour:

Remain and Regret
Click to expand...
That's interesting but he doesn't cite any evidence to back up his position.

These treaties, and the myriad directives and regulations made under them, are virtually impossible to reform
Click to expand...

Why?

And what evidence is there to support the claim against Varoufakis? (Not saying he isn't inept, I would just like some evidence)?

In the end, 48% of people voted Remain, what are labour supposed to do? They are caught between two opposed ideas with no reconciliation offered on either side. Either way Labour loses
 
Smokeandsteam said:
Excellent piece by Paul O'Connell - a law lecturer at SOAS and NOT a stalinist - on the political straightjacket, and eventual defeat, that 'Remain and Reform' places on the transformative project envisaged by Corbyn and Labour:

Remain and Regret
Click to expand...

Except that Leave enforces the same neoliberal straitjacket, simply this time enshrined in capitulation to the US.

If there is sufficient force to make a difference it will make a difference whatever the arrangements are.
 
Rivendelboy

To answer:

1.The Treaties are impossible to reform for three reasons. First, it requires the buy in of all member countries, second, it requires the buy in of the EU, IMF and ECB and finally contained within the Treaties is the nexus of rules that facilitates the operation of the single market project. No deviation from these are possible (again unless you had all 27 countries under socialist leadership and demanding it).
2. The article poses a simple argument. That a unique space and opportunity for the transformative project of the type that Labour says it is committed to undertake in office was made more possible by the Brexit vote and that Labour could and should thought through and set out how it could maximise the opportunity and build support for it. It did not because Corbyn and pals viewed Brexit instead as a 'distraction' and handed the political management of the issue over to a Blairite (Starmer) and tried to straddle both sides of the debate. Given that neither sides position was fluid and not static and as positions on both sides have hardened Labour has been pushed by its middle class base to remain. Too little too late for the militant remainers, too far for brexit voters in its old heartlands and critically towards a continued membership of the EU which will, via its treaties and modus operandi will eventually defeat any radical policy platform Labour may attempt to enact.
 
Mr Moose said:
Except that Leave enforces the same neoliberal straitjacket, simply this time enshrined in capitulation to the US.

If there is sufficient force to make a difference it will make a difference whatever the arrangements are.
Click to expand...

Two sentences. Both wrong.

1. Leave could mean that under a Tory Government. This Government however can be voted out of office and replaced with a Labour one - and before Brexit too. However, Labour is now committed to using such a set of events to take us back into the political economy of the EU.
2. Nonsense. As well you know. Within EU structures any national government - like Greece - that attempts to step beyond the economic project is hammered
 
Smokeandsteam said:
Rivendelboy

To answer:

1.The Treaties are impossible to reform for three reasons. First, it requires the buy in of all member countries, second, it requires the buy in of the EU, IMF and ECB and finally contained within the Treaties is the nexus of rules that facilitates the operation of the single market project. No deviation from these are possible (again unless you had all 27 countries under socialist leadership and demanding it).
2. The article poses a simple argument. That a unique space and opportunity for the transformative project of the type that Labour says it is committed to undertake in office was made more possible by the Brexit vote and that Labour could and should thought through and set out how it could maximise the opportunity and build support for it. It did not because Corbyn and pals viewed Brexit instead as a 'distraction' and handed the political management of the issue over to a Blairite (Starmer) and tried to straddle both sides of the debate. Given that neither sides position was fluid and not static and as positions on both sides have hardened Labour has been pushed by its middle class base to remain. Too little too late for the militant remainers, too far for brexit voters in its old heartlands and critically towards a continued membership of the EU which will, via its treaties and modus operandi will eventually defeat any radical policy platform Labour may attempt to enact.
Click to expand...

Thanks for responding

1. Yes that makes sense.
2. Are you referring to the claims about laws prohibiting nationalisation etc?
 
Smokeandsteam said:
Two sentences. Both wrong.

1. Leave could mean that under a Tory Government. This Government however can be voted out of office and replaced with a Labour one - and before Brexit too. However, Labour is now committed to using such a set of events to take us back into the political economy of the EU.
2. Nonsense. As well you know. Within EU structures any national government - like Greece - that attempts to step beyond the economic project is hammered
Click to expand...

You keep on ploughing this narrow furrow. In the less than likely event of a Labour Govt having even the barest majority, the chances of it sneaking any transformation that it could not do now, are vanishingly small. Where is it you think our economic arrangements will be? Labour would insist on a customs union. If the Tories have taken us out on WTO rules that has its own restrictions. Bespoke trade deals bring them too. It’s a global system. If we simply thumb our nose to it capital will scarper, there won’t be a pot to piss in and a weak Labour Government would fall.

Much much more likely is we get Brexit and we get the whole US deal.

Within the EU there is politics. A powerful nation like the UK could oppose, gain concessions in return for agreement to others, build alliances within it. And it could still use its autonomy as a national Government to tax, spend, build and create. With sufficient political will the UK could oppose the EU, create trouble. It’s no less fanciful than the UK standing alone, socialist in one country.

The alternative, to take a Norway style distance from the EU still appeals, but the Brexit Party’s rise has for now put paid to compromise of this order, not that it ever had a Parliamentary majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Kemi Badenoch’s time is up!
2 3 4 5
Replies
143
Views
4K
Petcha
P
krtek a houby
King William’s time is up
Replies
7
Views
597
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
tim
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's time is up.
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
tim
tim
Kid_Eternity
David Lammy’s time is up
Replies
11
Views
688
Whagwan
Whagwan
Larry O'Hara
Chancellor Rachel Reeves: Her Time Is Up!
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
329
Views
12K
Spymaster
Spymaster
Back
Top Bottom