Forum menu
Is the idiotic policy the one about printing money to fund infrastructure? Cos people think that will turn us into Zimbabwe overnight?
Ahem.
Whilst clearing your throat you appear to have missed a couple of important points Woppit. Firstly your article is over a year old. The article I linked to and to which this quote is attributed is more recent than that :
[i] The International Monetary Fund ignored its own research and pushed too early for richer countries to trim budgets after the global financial crisis, the IMF's internal auditor has said.
The Washington-based multilateral lender, concerned about high debt levels and large fiscal deficits, urged countries such as Germany, the US and Japan to pursue austerity in 2010-11 before their economies had fully recovered from the crisis. [/i]
The claim that Corbyn's anti-austerity policies falls broadly in line with the IMF's growing opposition to austerity is backed by a multitude of economists who only last week said :
[i]"The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But this is not supported by the candidate’s statements or policies.
His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF".[/i]
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/23/jeremy-corbyns-opposition-to-austerity-is-actually-mainstream-economics ]Jeremy Corbyn's opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics[/url]
And secondly you miss the point than while there was much talk of "austerity" at the beginning of the last government's term it soon became apparent that attempting to clear the deficit in 5 years was having a disastrous effect on the economy, so Osborne quietly dropped the policy half way through the last government's term and ditched austerity. He completely missed his much trumpeted deficit reduction targets.
The unsurprising result was that there was a slight improvement in the economy and things picked sufficiently enough for the Tories to claim credit for an over-delayed recovery ....... the Tories had of course as we all know inherited a growing economy.
However having won the election and secured another 5 years the script is now changing again with talk of a staggering 40% non-protected departmental budgetary cuts, so the fight against austerity continues.
And pointing out the IMF's growing skepticism to austerity is an important tool in that struggle quite simply because of what it signifies.
The IMF has always historically been a champion of neo-liberalism and synonymous with cuts in government spending no - matter what the social costs and consequences.
For decades the IMF has supported, insisted, and imposed, brutal and devastating cuts on poor and economically weak countries. Often it needed murderous and ruthless military dictatorships to implement their neo-liberal policies such as Latin America in the 1980s.
It is therefore hugely significant that the IMF is now beginning to sing from the same hymn sheet as people such as Corbyn.
Why then the apparent change of heart by the IMF after decades of commitment to neo-liberalism and austerity? Well I think the answer might lie in "economic reality", something which has been so excellently highlighted as a result of the Greek economic disaster.
So they thought it was a mistake, then decided it was OK, then went back to it's a mistake.
They need a crystal ball, perhaps they could borrow Osbourne's.
Some fantastic stuff written in this article by Owen Jones.
Really thought it was thought through superbly.
Particularly enjoyed some of the ways he advised reframing/defending/managing attacks.
One example:
[b]Because he will be caricatured as a dinosaur, Jeremy will have to emphasise modernisation and a forward-looking vision.[/b] Emphasis on, say, an industrial strategy that nurtures the hi-tech jobs of the future, and renewable energy industries, so that Britain can move on from its failed old economic model and properly compete in the world.
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/corbyn-would-make-a-terrible-bond-says-pierce-brosnan-20150827101519 ]Most sensible article on Corbyn yet![/url]
Lots of sensible stuff in the Owen Jones piece but I can't help but think it reads like a job application to be Corbyn's chief advisor. As he suggests, I suspect the NATO stuff, and probably Trident, will be watered down drastically if he wins.
One thing that concerns me though...
Democracy should not mean chaos, though. In our world of rolling news and rampant social media, having public conferences with huge bust-ups over every other issue would not look good at all, and would project an image of unfitness to government, as well as leaving the public unsure what Labour stands for on each given issue. So, there needs to be a balanced approach to democratic involvement.
The left in Britain, as in many other countries, has an authoritarian and patrician streak running through it. They always think they know best, and the above paragraph looks like the luminaries on the left are already thinking along those old traditional lines. It does make me wonder whether the leopard will ever change it's spots.
So they thought it was a mistake, then decided it was OK, then went back to it's a mistake.
If there's one thing the detailed coverage of the Greek crisis has taught us it's that the IMF change their minds three times before breakfast, but whatever they "believe" at any given moment in time, they lack the integrity to confront powerful vested interests.
The left in Britain, as in many other countries, has an authoritarian and patrician streak running through it. They always think they know best, and the above paragraph looks like the luminaries on the left are already thinking along those old traditional lines. It does make me wonder whether the leopard will ever change it's spots.
I know what you mean, but I read this as more that to be electable, labour have to have clear messages and 'we'll take a vote on it' doesn't necessarily give voters confidence.
I think there's a balance to be had here.
The left in Britain, as in many other countries, has an authoritarian and patrician streak running through it.
Really? Current Tories seem far more patrician if you ask me. They seem to like telling us all what to do with all these social ideas they had, and they also like telling disabled people to stop being so lazy.
dazh: the democracy he is talking about is not democracy among the voters but within the Parliamentary Labour Party. it is a message to the loser and Danczuks of the PLP that once the leader has been decided, they had better not sabotage Labour's chances by backstabbing the leader.
I think the NATO following party consultation it would be a policy similar to the old French one where we are still part of it but we remove ourselves from NATO Command.
The Tories are going to push forward with Trident it will be too late by 2020 so a sensible policy there is just convert them from SSBNs to SSGNs which makes sense.
Really? Current Tories seem far more patrician if you ask me. They seem to like telling us all what to do with all these social ideas they had, and they also like telling disabled people to stop being so lazy.
I don't disagree, this current tory lot are far from libertarians. What I mean though is that for all the talk of involving the people in a new democratic system of setting policy, some like Jones are already talking in terms of limiting that influence. That's how I read it anyway, and if it's the case then it'll be a huge mistake as I think the surge in support is based mostly on this new open and inclusive approach, rather than any 'march to the left' stuff.
" for all the talk of involving the people in a new democratic system of setting policy, some like Jones are already talking in terms of limiting that influence. "
the article is fundamentally about splits and unity in the Labour Party, and the sentence you refer to is part of that discussion
in any case, you might be overreading a single sentence from a guy that's not an advisor to a guy that hasn't won an election!
Quite liked this on Twitter... 🙂
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
The left in Britain, as in many other countries, has an authoritarian and patrician streak running through it. They always think they know best, and the above paragraph looks like the luminaries on the left are already thinking along those old traditional lines
Inner-party democracy becomes totally meaningless if there lacks the discipline to enforce democratically arrived decisions.
Democracy's greatest failing is that the majority triumph at the expense of the minority. But that's how it works.
The time to express opinions is when issues are being discussed and debated, once those issues have been fully debated and put to a vote the debate is closed until the issues come up for discussion and debate again. Until then it becomes a requirement for all party members to fully support democratically arrived decisions, whatever their previous position was. That's how inner-party democracy works.
Far from being anti-democratic the left has a long history of commitment to democracy, it was the Blairite right-wing which purged the Labour Party of its democratic structures. It was them that changed for example the Party Conference into a staged-managed meaningless exercise which at the height of the Iraq War banned all debates on the war. It was them who banned all criticism of the Labour leadership. It was them who created the situation where one man and one man alone decides Party policy.
It was the Blairite right-wing who made the Labour Party leadership not just disconnected with ordinary working people, which they purport to represent, but so disconnected with Labour Party members that they were utterly unaware there would be significant support for Jeremy Corbyn in a leadership contest. It is a symptom of the complete lack of democracy that the right-wing leadership had no idea of the views of their fellow party members.
For me the single greatest benefit of Corbyn becoming Labour leader isn't that the Labour Party will become more "left-wing" but that it will provide the opportunity to reestablish it as a democratic party.
If I thought there was a right-wing candidate who had more commitment to reestablish democracy in the Labour Party than Corbyn then he or she would have my support, without question.
British politics cannot imo move forward until we have a mass democratic party. Everything develops from that starting point.
For me the single greatest benefit of Corbyn becoming Labour leader isn't that the Labour Party will become more "left-wing" but that it will provide the opportunity to reestablish it as a democratic party.If I thought there was a right-wing candidate who had more commitment to reestablish democracy in the Labour Party than Corbyn then he or she would have my support, without question.
Totally agree, which is why I raise an eyebrow when I hear the likes of Jones talk about a 'balanced' approach to democracy. We need to be moving towards a system of democracy where MPs, councillors, mayors etc are delegates who carry out the wishes of their electorates, rather than representatives who decide what's best for them. I'm not convinced many on the left or in the labour party share this view though.
Problem with that is that electorates frequently don't know what's good for them. For many reasons.
could he mess things up as badly as the last lot of bellends we have had screwing things up? I very much doubt it! for once im going to vote and its for Corbyn plain and simple that all the 'Established' guard see him as a threat, and that can only be a Good thing IMO
Problem with that is that electorates frequently don't know what's good for them. For many reasons.
At the moment that's probably true, but I think that's more a symptom than a cause. Give people the proper education and information they need to make their own informed decisions, and marry that with complete transparency, accountability and direct involvement in democracy then I think they would soon show that they're not as stupid as there supposed superiors think they are.
Problem with that is that electorates frequently don't know what's good for them. For many reasons.
Hi ......
[img] 
[/img]
Give people the proper education and information they need to make their own informed decisions, and marry that with complete transparency, accountability and direct involvement in democracy then I think they would soon show that they're not as stupid as there supposed superiors think they are.
Aside from the moon on a stick content in that post - you'd also have to somehow prevent people with a vested interest from manipulating them too. How're you going to control the media as well as implement political education?
[img] 
[/img]
Ok so I'm being silly, but the reason we are where we are is that the things you ask are damn near impossible even for me to imagine, and I'm pretty optimistic. You really expect everyone over the age of 18 to be able to understand what the EU does for them and why, and to weigh up the pros and cons? Even economists can't decide. Ok so they can read the papers, but they have an agenda, and without controlling them you can't stop that.
Ok so I'm being silly, but the reason we are where we are is that the things you ask are damn near impossible even for me to imagine, and I'm pretty optimistic.
I'm not claiming it's something that's easy or quick, but it should be something we aim for, and the first step is giving people a voice and real influence over policy, rather than just telling them to do what they're told is best and vote for x or y. Maybe I'm being hopelessly idealistic but I see this Corbyn insurgency as potentially the first step in this process.
but it should be something we aim for
A population full of well informed conscientious dilligent voters who pay the required amount of attention to all areas of current affairs so they can be informed? Er, yeah, sure.
the first step is giving people a voice and real influence over policy
Over policy details? Seriously? The modern world is waaay too complicated for the common voter to have an influence on that. We (as voters) should be informed enough to pick an ideology, and let the technocrats sort out the details. Which is basically what we have now.
"technocrat" is a label people give to themselves when they want to pretend their ideology isn't an ideology
We (as voters) should be informed enough to pick an ideology
And that's the very problem, ideologies tend to be polar opposites, or in the current case, have no differences at all. They inherently limit choice and promote apathy and abuse of power. The divisions in ideologies and parties are silly and make no sense. I don't see why we couldn't have a system where policy issues are decided on their own merits rather than grouped together under arbitrary banners. Do you really think people are too stupid to hold opinions on different issues which don't adhere to traditional party/idelogical divisions?
The divisions in ideologies and parties are silly and make no sense.
Presumably you believe that we live in a classless society ?
They make perfect sense to me.
And also to the Bullingdon Boys, even though they like to claim that we're all together in Greggs or something.
[img] 
[/img]
ideologies tend to be polar opposites
I don't agree. You can be hard left, centre left, centre, centre right etc.
I don't see why we couldn't have a system where policy issues are decided on their own merits
Because you can't determine the 'merits' of something without a set of values against which to evaluate it. Which is what an ideology is.
Ideology is a bad word these days because ideological politics is a bad thing BECAUSE it's become a term for ploughing on regardless for your own ideal and ignoring the pragmatic considerations of the status quo.
However ideology is not a bad thing - everyone (who cares) has to have one by definition. And even the left and right ideologies work *in theory*, and a poor politician ignores what happens in practice.
grouped together under arbitrary banners
They aren't arbitrary! There's more than one way to run a country, to grow an economy. The question is, which way is best? That's ideology.
Check the gap between so-called ideology and what parties do in practice. That quickly puts this idea to bed!
So will JC get rid of the whip?
delegates who carry out the wishes of their electorates
Check the gap between so-called ideology and what parties do in practice.
It is rare for a major UK political party to claim to have an ideology or an ideological commitment.
You can be hard left, centre left, centre, centre right etc.
But you don't get to vote for one of those, you have to vote for labour or the tories, which is a hopeless compromise of all of them. I have no problem with ideology, just silly attempts to pigeon-hole these into two (or three if we're being generous) groups which people then have to vote for. Everyone has their own personal ideology, and the system of government and the democracy used to choose it should reflect that.
Presumably you believe that we live in a classless society ?
No, but I do think the stratified and unequal society we have is in part a result of a system which denies people real choice and disempowers them.
Who is denied real choice?
Politicians crave power and voters give them that
Majority of voters have moderate/centrist views
Politicians stand on the basis of what the majority want
Do you believe your views are centrist THM?
Majority of voters have moderate/centrist views
Politicians stand on the basis of what the majority want
Thatcher was neither a moderate nor a centrist, and despite the majority of voters not voting for her she remained Prime Minister for 11 years until her own party sacked her.
Thatcher was neither a moderate nor a centrist
She was both. A liberal (especially economically). Deffo not a Stalin or a Hitler. The fact she maintained a National Health Service and an Effective Welfare State & Free Tuition Fees means you could argue she was quite far to the left.
Or are we just proving how little some of these terms actually mean?
Deffo not a Stalin or a Hitler.
Yeah, we're talking in the context of UK politics, not Germany and Russia in the 1930s 😆
Thatcher was on the right of her party, she was not a moderate. Her economic policies were not centrist. And there was nothing moderate about more than doubling unemployment, being responsible for the highest tax burden in UK history, wholesale privatization and closure of entire industries, a poll tax so unpopular that it brought about her demise, 2 recessions, attacks on employment rights, attacks on council house building, Section 28, .......the list is endless.
Yeah, we're talking in the context of UK politics, not Germany and Russia in the 1930sThatcher was on the right of her party
Ok, so if you eliminate people in every other country, people at other times and people in other uk parties, you think she was not a centrist.
Defining your parameters to make your hypothesis true! (And even then I'm not sure I agree she wasn't reasonably centerist & moderate - but as we've shown the terms are vague and you can pick your boundaries to make it true or false according to your whim.)
Yes, compared to Vlad the Impaler she was a pinko Liberal.
In the context of her party and the era in which she lived. She wasn't.
Thatcher was neither a moderate nor a centrist, and despite the majority of voters not voting for her she remained Prime Minister for 11 years
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about Jeremy Corbyn's views on electoral reform.Have I missed it?
have you considered looking at google, or perhaps Corbyn's website? I doubt he's keeping it a secret if he has a policy on it
Yes, compared to Vlad the Impaler she was a pinko Liberal.
In the context of her party and the era in which she lived. She wasn't.
As I say, you can draw your boundaries wherever you want and thus put any politician you want at any extreme you want.
I would still argue that: NHS, liberal Economics, State Paid Tuition Fees, Privatisation all add up to a centerist, moderate politician. (Obama couldn't provide two of those!)
Certainly in the battle for the centre ground that's been going on since the early 90's none of our politicans have reversed anything substantial from the Thatcher Era so are they not centerists? (Although Lamont claimed in his 'Refelctions' interview that Brown undid/loosed Lamont's regulation of banks. I've no idea if that's true or not.)
as we've shown the terms are vague and you can pick your boundaries to make it true or false according to your whim.)
no. cobblers. the words have a perfectly clear meaning. you're just wrong. HTH
The point is you can only judge people in context. 100 years ago supporting the idea of votes for women was dangerously subversive. Thatcher moved politics to the Right, forcing the centre to move across accordingly. She was a creature of the Right, judged by the political norms of 30-40 years ago. This is why Corbyn is seen as Left Wing now, whereas in the Labour Party of the 1970's very little of what he is suggesting would be seen as radical.
Who is denied real choice?
Funny cos you've spent most of this thread saying that left v right is an illusion (which I mostly agree with BTW), and that in the face of the cold reality of economics party politics is largely irrelevant, so it would seem rather self evident that there is a lack of choice in how we organise and govern society.
Politicians crave power and voters give them that
As above, you've spent most of this thread saying politicians are irrelevant but now they have power?
Majority of voters have moderate/centrist views
Like the nationalisation, or part thereof, of failing privatised industries, the closing of tax loopholes for the super-rich, free/affordable higher education, and non-privatisation of the NHS, which are routinely portrayed as crazy leftwing utopian ideals by the media and tories.
Politicians stand on the basis of what the majority want
Based on your previous posts on this thread and others I don't for a second think you actually believe that.