How UK politics may change with Corbyn

Infinite Chaos · Sep 24, 2016

If there is one lesson from the last 12 months of politics, in Britain, in Europe and the US, it is that the established order is fragile, more fragile than it has been in a generation and maybe more. Some of the iron laws of politics, economics and society in the industrialised west have proved to be surprisingly flexible. Britain couldn’t leave the EU, and now it is. Donald Trump couldn’t run for president, and now he is. Things have changed, and are continuing to change. Link.

Very interesting article which looks at how anger has driven a lot of the political developments in the last 12 months (and probably more) anger at political establishments, anger at the status quo and anger that despite change in political parties, the underlying causes of anger seem not to be addressed.

~ Nor can the Corbynites be reasoned with in thetraditional way. Never mind the statistics that show we've neverbeen richer or healthier. Or that inequality has actually fallen overthe last decade. The rage of the Corbynites, like that of theTrump mob, defies and derides statistics in favour of emotion. In this new politics, feelings matter far more than facts ~

That much is true, critiques of Corbyn's views and associations are unchanged over the past 4 decades, the decisions he made and makes are still very much of the same vein. This part of the article focuses on Corbyn who despite his unlikely chance of becoming PM stands in a similar way to represent a section of the populace that want change in the same way Nigel Farage brought about change without ever holding major political office. This new political age has echoes in the US on the other side of the political spectrum but the main difference is personal competence, Trump has proven himself ruthlessly in the business world whereas the parliamentary members of the Labour party have had personal experience of the day to day leadership of Corbyn.

The article then raises the question of what happens after Corbyn, when a competent leader in Corbyn's wing takes power - what shape and how will politics develop in the country.

PeteEU · Sep 24, 2016

I think that the UK politics will change with the boundary changes.. It will become a one party state. Labour or anyone else need an unrealistic massive swing across England to be able to get a majority... or work even work in a coalition. The Tories are set for a long reign regardless if it is Corbyn or a monkey running the opposition.

Of course there is a chance that the Tory party also splits in two, once they finally get into the whole Brit exit discussion.. one they have pushed out and out so far.

gunner · Sep 24, 2016

PeteEU said:
I think that the UK politics will change with the boundary changes.. It will become a one party state. Labour or anyone else need an unrealistic massive swing across England to be able to get a majority... or work even work in a coalition. The Tories are set for a long reign regardless if it is Corbyn or a monkey running the opposition.

Of course there is a chance that the Tory party also splits in two, once they finally get into the whole Brit exit discussion.. one they have pushed out and out so far.

The Tory party will not split in two. Labour will revive after the disaster that is Corbyn.

PeteEU · Sep 24, 2016

gunner said:
The Tory party will not split in two. Labour will revive after the disaster that is Corbyn.

Labour might.. but they wont win an election any time soon with the boundary changes coming up. They lost Scotland and are loosing out in Wales. That leaves England, where Labour is heavily handicapped with the boundary changes and in general. You are going to need 301 seats in Parliament after the boundary changes.. labour has 209 at the moment and will loose 20-30 seats...

joG · Sep 24, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
Very interesting article which looks at how anger has driven a lot of the political developments in the last 12 months (and probably more) anger at political establishments, anger at the status quo and anger that despite change in political parties, the underlying causes of anger seem not to be addressed.

That much is true, critiques of Corbyn's views and associations are unchanged over the past 4 decades, the decisions he made and makes are still very much of the same vein. This part of the article focuses on Corbyn who despite his unlikely chance of becoming PM stands in a similar way to represent a section of the populace that want change in the same way Nigel Farage brought about change without ever holding major political office. This new political age has echoes in the US on the other side of the political spectrum but the main difference is personal competence, Trump has proven himself ruthlessly in the business world whereas the parliamentary members of the Labour party have had personal experience of the day to day leadership of Corbyn.

The article then raises the question of what happens after Corbyn, when a competent leader in Corbyn's wing takes power - what shape and how will politics develop in the country.

You believe Corbyn or a follower could win? That would certainly change the dynamics of the game.

Andalublue · Sep 24, 2016

Corbyn wins by an even wider margin. Now we'll see how committed the centrists and Blairites are to party unity now. Do they want a Labour government, or do they want a split like that which happened in 1983? They made their move, conducted the coup in the PLP and got their leadership election re-run. They've now lost that. Are they going to continue to undermine the leadership and the wishes of the vast majority of Labour members? Are they going to fight the hard-right that's now in control of the government, or do they see the left-wing leadership of Labour as the ideological enemy? It will be interesting to see who they believe the real enemies of ordinary, working British voters, Corbyn or May.

gunner · Sep 24, 2016

Andalublue said:
Corbyn wins by an even wider margin

Click to expand...

.

67% hardly overwhelming, as some suggest. In addition, he only won 37% of pre 2015 party members. That speaks of validity for claims of: Trotsky, entryist and other rag tag elements.

Now we'll see how committed the centrists and Blairites are to party unity now. Do they want a Labour government, or do they want a split like that which happened in 1983?

Click to expand...

Considering there is no chance of a Labour government whilst CORBYN is in charge, a split may be sensible.

They made their move, conducted the coup in the PLP and got their leadership election re-run. They've now lost that.

Click to expand...

As everyone could see, due to the voting set up is was always going to be a Corbyn victory.

Are they going to continue to undermine the leadership and the wishes of the vast majority of Labour members?

Click to expand...

Hopefully.

Are they going to fight the hard-right that's now in control of the government, or do they see the left-wing leadership of Labour as the ideological enemy? It will be interesting to see who they believe the real enemies of ordinary, working British voters, Corbyn or May.

Click to expand...

Corbyns inability to fight the Tory government is a large part of the problem. He couldn't have enjoyed a more fragmented government if you wrote script! What has he done? A big fat **** all...he does not have the ability, charisma, or know how to mount any sort of challenge. He is passed by the main issues, and constantly misses the bigger picture for: 'Mrs Jones and her Thursday night knitting club are constantly fearful of losing access to their community hall" What will the PM do about it? :rofl is what they'll do about it, because again he has failed to hold the government to account on substantive issues on the macro level. More worrying, with an adversarial system of politics a strong opposition is absolutely essential. We are a million miles from this with a Corbyn led Labour Party.

Aristaeus · Sep 25, 2016

gunner said:
67% hardly overwhelming, as some suggest. In addition, he only won 37% of pre 2015 party members. That speaks of validity for claims of: Trotsky, entryist and other rag tag elements.

If you're claiming that all, or most, of the 600,000 new members are all Trotskyists, then you really need to rethink. Lots of people like the idea of a down-to-earth politician after the years of corporate-slick Blair and Cameron. Lots of people also like the idea that Labour is more left wing. That doesn't make them Trotskyists.

gunner said:
Considering there is no chance of a Labour government whilst CORBYN is in charge, a split may be sensible.

There's no chance of a Labour government under anyone after the Tory's electoral changes have gone through. Under these changes, Blair would have lost the 2001 general election. That is the scale of the advantage the Tories will have after their boundary changes come into effect.

gunner said:
As everyone could see, due to the voting set up is was always going to be a Corbyn victory.

One member one vote. Corbyn won because he was more popular with the Labour membership than Owen Smith.

gunner said:
Corbyns inability to fight the Tory government is a large part of the problem. He couldn't have enjoyed a more fragmented government if you wrote script! What has he done? A big fat **** all...he does not have the ability, charisma, or know how to mount any sort of challenge. He is passed by the main issues, and constantly misses the bigger picture for: 'Mrs Jones and her Thursday night knitting club are constantly fearful of losing access to their community hall" What will the PM do about it? :rofl is what they'll do about it, because again he has failed to hold the government to account on substantive issues on the macro level. More worrying, with an adversarial system of politics a strong opposition is absolutely essential. We are a million miles from this with a Corbyn led Labour Party.

The reason Corbyn hasn't been fighting the Tories since the referendum is because he has had to fight a leadership election campaign instead, after the Blairites launched an inept coup attempt at the worst possible moment.

William Rea · Sep 25, 2016

Andalublue said:
Corbyn wins by an even wider margin. Now we'll see how committed the centrists and Blairites are to party unity now. Do they want a Labour government, or do they want a split like that which happened in 1983? They made their move, conducted the coup in the PLP and got their leadership election re-run. They've now lost that. Are they going to continue to undermine the leadership and the wishes of the vast majority of Labour members? Are they going to fight the hard-right that's now in control of the government, or do they see the left-wing leadership of Labour as the ideological enemy? It will be interesting to see who they believe the real enemies of ordinary, working British voters, Corbyn or May.

There appears to be a lot of received wisdom around at the moment regarding Corbyn, Entryists and Labour, rather like the received wisdom that Brexit would never happen. Anyway, I was waiting for an instance where someone would say 62% is hardly overwhelming, and yet we decided 'unequivocally' to leave the EU on 52%, I want my second referendum if 62% is NOT conclusive enough. The truth is, Corbyn IS the true anti-establishment leader and the problem is that a lot of politics is not keeping up with the Social media age and many still think that being a 'showman' or a 'good egg' at PMQs buys votes. When this is analysed in 30 years time it will be as a model for a grouping that understood the internet age and a grouping that died because it did not adapt.

William Rea · Sep 25, 2016

Aristaeus said:
If you're claiming that all, or most, of the 600,000 new members are all Trotskyists, then you really need to rethink. Lots of people like the idea of a down-to-earth politician after the years of corporate-slick Blair and Cameron. Lots of people also like the idea that Labour is more left wing. That doesn't make them Trotskyists...

This is the most absurd and frankly damning accusation coming from the center and centre right. They are writing off an awful lot of people that are not extreme, are not looking for a revolution but, are tired of sitting back and being condescended to by 'liberal democrats' who prefer the prospects of a career in a bigger party. I suggest that the new members of Labour are not too much bothered about establishment MPs because they are savvy about the way that extra-parliamentary activism can work. MPs dismiss them as having a 'protest group' mentality? Well MPs are not a special interest group interested in seeing their power maintained are they? People are reading this as a Labour left/right struggle but this could turn out to be more about how democracy is going to look in the internet age. I am hedging that Trump and Corbyn are not products of left and right but products of the 21st century way that things will happen. Back to more domestic concerns, the Labour centre have lost elections, the Conservatives have lunged to the right (ironically no one is calling out the 'far right May') and the only answer that the PLP has is to chase after them as we head to even more class warfare from the right.

Sweden · Sep 25, 2016

PeteEU said:
Labour might.. but they wont win an election any time soon with the boundary changes coming up. They lost Scotland and are loosing out in Wales. That leaves England, where Labour is heavily handicapped with the boundary changes and in general. You are going to need 301 seats in Parliament after the boundary changes.. labour has 209 at the moment and will loose 20-30 seats...

No, the boundary changes will not 'handicap' Labour, they will simply remove the unfair advantage that Labour enjoys at present. Making constituencies approximately the same size gives no advantage to anyone.

PeteEU · Sep 25, 2016

Sweden said:
No, the boundary changes will not 'handicap' Labour, they will simply remove the unfair advantage that Labour enjoys at present. Making constituencies approximately the same size gives no advantage to anyone.

Some advantage considering Labor cant win the election in England with the present system. Making constituencies the same size does not really matter if the constituencies themselves are gerryrigged to give one party or another an advantage.

Sweden · Sep 25, 2016

PeteEU said:
Some advantage considering Labor cant win the election in England with the present system. Making constituencies the same size does not really matter if the constituencies themselves are gerryrigged to give one party or another an advantage.

But they are not. The Boundary Commission is quite genuinely independent of any party.

Andalublue · Sep 25, 2016

William Rea said:
This is the most absurd and frankly damning accusation coming from the center and centre right. They are writing off an awful lot of people that are not extreme, are not looking for a revolution but, are tired of sitting back and being condescended to by 'liberal democrats' who prefer the prospects of a career in a bigger party. I suggest that the new members of Labour are not too much bothered about establishment MPs because they are savvy about the way that extra-parliamentary activism can work. MPs dismiss them as having a 'protest group' mentality? Well MPs are not a special interest group interested in seeing their power maintained are they? People are reading this as a Labour left/right struggle but this could turn out to be more about how democracy is going to look in the internet age. I am hedging that Trump and Corbyn are not products of left and right but products of the 21st century way that things will happen. Back to more domestic concerns, the Labour centre have lost elections, the Conservatives have lunged to the right (ironically no one is calling out the 'far right May') and the only answer that the PLP has is to chase after them as we head to even more class warfare from the right.

I find it funny to watch right-wingers (both those in the Labour party and elsewhere) trying to maintain two mutually exclusive ideas: one, that Labour has been taken over by Trotskyite entryists who have flooded into the party in the tens of thousands to ensure Labour shifts left, and two, that these far left entryists represent a tiny minority of political opinion.

So, which is it? A tiny minority, or numbering in the tens or hundreds of thousands?

William Rea · Sep 25, 2016

Sweden said:
No, the boundary changes will not 'handicap' Labour, they will simply remove the unfair advantage that Labour enjoys at present. Making constituencies approximately the same size gives no advantage to anyone.

OK, based upon popular vote and MPs returned, here is how the recent elections turned out.

Con MPs ** Con % Vote Lab MPs** Lab % Vote
1987 375 42.20% 229 30.80%
1992 336 41.90% 271 34.40%
1997 165 30.70% 418 43.20%
2001 166 31.70% 412 40.70%
2005 198 32.40% 355 35.20%
2010 306 36.10% 258 29.00%
2015 331 36.90% 232 30.40%

If, as has been suggested, Labour would not have won in 2001 with an almost exactly 10% winning margin in the popular vote then it is the voting system and the superficial boundaries themselves that are the problem. The only point upon which the BC is apparently independent is upon the effects that their changes will have upon voting patterns otherwise, they have arbitrary rules set by legislation that shape their activities so, their independence is relative.

For me, the boundaries are a side issue, we need real electoral reform not the creation of a one party state because of tradition.

William Rea · Sep 25, 2016

Andalublue said:
I find it funny to watch right-wingers (both those in the Labour party and elsewhere) trying to maintain two mutually exclusive ideas: one, that Labour has been taken over by Trotskyite entryists who have flooded into the party in the tens of thousands to ensure Labour shifts left, and two, that these far left entryists represent a tiny minority of political opinion.

So, which is it? A tiny minority, or numbering in the tens or hundreds of thousands?

Oh, and the latest meme is that these 'Entryists' represent a North London elite and not good honest working class people; it's like the battle of Cable Street never happened and the good old working class salt of the earth would never be even remotely socialist, it's all 'champagne socialist' now don't you now old chap and the working classes know what's good for them!

Like you, I find it funny and ironic given how it appears that Corbyn took the heat over Brexit and the conservatives kept May's inactivity under the radar. This is all going to blow up eventually.

Aristaeus · Sep 25, 2016

Sweden said:
No, the boundary changes will not 'handicap' Labour, they will simply remove the unfair advantage that Labour enjoys at present. Making constituencies approximately the same size gives no advantage to anyone.

What advantage would that be?

It's not making boundaries equal size which is the issue, it's reducing the number of seats from 650 to 600, which will be instrumental in making it almost impossible for Labour to win in the future.

The reduction of MPs to 600 by 2020 was a Tory policy which was opposed by the independent boundaries commission, and has nothing to do with boundary size: you can make any number of seats equal size, whether 600 or 650. The only 'argument' the Tory's made for reducing the number to 600 was that it would save a little bit of money (it would also conveniently give them a 20 seat boost in numbers compared to Labour).

Of course, this is one in a number of instances where Cameron/Osborne have played politics with democracy in order to gain some kind of political advantage for their party; like introducing laws which make it harder for Labour to receive Union funding, this is just another example of trying to legislate for one party rule.

Aristaeus · Sep 25, 2016

William Rea said:
Oh, and the latest meme is that these 'Entryists' represent a North London elite and not good honest working class people; it's like the battle of Cable Street never happened and the good old working class salt of the earth would never be even remotely socialist, it's all 'champagne socialist' now don't you now old chap and the working classes know what's good for them!

Like you, I find it funny and ironic given how it appears that Corbyn took the heat over Brexit and the conservatives kept May's inactivity under the radar. This is all going to blow up eventually.

It's quite clever in a way. If you're poor and a socialist, you're just jealous of the rich: if you're not poor and a socialist, you're a champagne socialist and hypocrite.

Aristaeus · Sep 25, 2016

Sweden said:
But they are not. The Boundary Commission is quite genuinely independent of any party.

They are bound by laws which are set by political parties though. And of course, the boundaries commission is opposed to the Tory policy of reducing the number of seats to 600 by 2020.

Auvergnat · Sep 25, 2016

Aristaeus said:
It's quite clever in a way. If you're poor and a socialist, you're just jealous of the rich: if you're not poor and a socialist, you're a champagne socialist and hypocrite.

Nowadays, if you are working class, you are not socialist: you vote far-right.

More than half of factory workers vote FN in France. Almost equal share among retail employees. Similar scores among non-Muslim white collars in cities with strong Muslim concentration (minimum around 10%, increases below and above that).

However 90% of French Muslims voted socialist in the last presidential race. For real.

Andalublue · Sep 25, 2016

Auvergnat said:
Nowadays, if you are working class, you are not socialist: you vote far-right.

More than half of factory workers vote FN in France. Almost equal share among retail employees. Similar scores among non-Muslim white collars in cities with strong Muslim concentration (minimum around 10%, increases below and above that).

However 90% of French Muslims voted socialist in the last presidential race. For real.

We're not discussing France. British and French politics are very different. No far-right party has ever won an election in the UK, unless you count Thatcher's victory in 1983.

Lafayette · Sep 25, 2016

Infinite Chaos said:
That much is true, critiques of Corbyn's views and associations are unchanged over the past 4 decades, the decisions he made and makes are still very much of the same vein.

Corbyn is the worst choice that Labor could have made. Labor still does not understand a market-economy, and its opposing forces.

He has been "divisive" all his career despite his views in favor of a Social Democracy. What he does not understand - like so many on the Left in Europe - is that he lives in a market-economy that functions fundamentally on competitiveness. And whatever "social" goals a party might have, a government must be very clever indeed not to destroy a country's ability to compete in the world. (Which was accentuated by China's entry in 1991 onto the global market with very cheap product-prices. China's Communist Party had left its "social imperatives" in the dust-bin.)

The two goals - Competitiveness but in an Equitable Economy - are very difficult to achieve because they are diametric opposites in terms of policy-making. Which is why Centrists are better at achieving them - if they govern correctly, they never kneejerk to either the Far Right or the Far Left as regards policy-making.

Which means either the Right has to make concessions (with taxation of higher-incomes, for instance) or the Left (in terms of minimal-deficit Debt Management) ...
_____________

Rogue Valley · Sep 25, 2016

I think Labour is further from power than at any time in its history. I don't believe a split will transpire, but I wouldn't be all that amazed if it did come about.

Andalublue · Sep 25, 2016

Lafayette said:
Corbyn is the worst choice that Labor could have made. Labor still does not understand a market-economy, and its opposing forces.

It understands it fine, it just isn't in favour of it. It never was really, apart from a blip in the 1950s, and again between 1997 and 2007. Modern democratic socialism is about creating a mixed economy with elements of free market economics and a degree of state-run enterprise.

And it's the Labour Party btw, the Labor Party is an Australian political entity.

Lafayette · Sep 25, 2016

Andalublue said:
It understands it fine, it just isn't in favour of it. It never was really, apart from a blip in the 1950s, and again between 1997 and 2007. Modern democratic socialism is about creating a mixed economy with elements of free market economics and a degree of state-run enterprise.

Agreed, for instance the National Health Service is a state-run enterprise. Why? Because despite the Supply and Demand for services, the Demand for them will always outstrip supply. But this is not true of all said services.

It is not clear whether state-run secondary- or tertiary-schools will graduate better students, so let both exist. In that manner, both the poor and the upper-middle to upper-class will be satisfied.

What's important in the end is simply that more students pass from secondary to tertiary education, regardless of how that fact is achieved.

Andalublue said:
And it's the Labour Party btw, the Labor Party is an Australian political entity.

Machs nixt ...

How UK politics may change with Corbyn

Infinite Chaos

PeteEU

gunner

PeteEU

joG

Andalublue

Hello again!

gunner

Aristaeus

Preferred 2nd person pronoun: thou

William Rea

William Rea

Sweden

PeteEU

Sweden

Andalublue

Hello again!

William Rea

William Rea

Aristaeus

Preferred 2nd person pronoun: thou

Aristaeus

Preferred 2nd person pronoun: thou

Aristaeus

Preferred 2nd person pronoun: thou

Auvergnat

Andalublue

Hello again!

Lafayette

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way

Andalublue

Hello again!

Lafayette