|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On December 24 2018 01:04 Sermokala wrote:
Hes a politician that does things when its politically expedient for him to do them and does what he believes in when it actually matters.
Taking a voting record as the gospel is really dishonest if you're trying to claim that it means concrete things especially if you're ignoring half or more of the data set that disagrees with you.
The other half doesn't disagree, actually. It has no bearing on the conclusion. Every time any vote has come up that has anything to do with Britain being in the EU he has voted no. If he did vote to Remain that would be the first time.
And no he really isn't politically expedient. Unless you can explain how going against his own core supporters (the only ones who backed him for a very long time) and pretty much the entire left wing spectrum of the UK - you know, the one he's representing? - is expedient.
Moving away from the EU specifically, Corbyn is absolutely a terrible politician in the classic sense, because he's stubborn and won't move from his principles. It was - politically speaking - stupid to take the stance on the EU that he's taken. It's destabilised Labour again (bearing in mind they've barely recovered from the last time) and this time it isn't just him vs the backbenches, this time there's supporters pissed off. The EU vote is the one uniting issue of our time and Corbyn's been incredibly divisive over it. The Tories may have fucked everything up, but they're at least all pulling in the same direction (albeit at different speeds). Labour's pulling in one direction along with the majority of the voters, and their leader - who the MPs hate but the voters love - is pulling in the exact opposite direction.
If there is a dictionary definition of bad politics, this has to be close to fitting it. Of course, the very qualities bringing this about are the ones that make me hopeful that when he is PM he'll actually act to try and make everyone's lives better, which is neat, and I'll happily vote for him.
It doesn't really matter of course, because he's still very likely to be the next Prime Minister, the Tories have shot themselves enough times that I don't think they can come out of this with enough good will to win another election, but if there's one chance they have, it's Labour falling in on itself a second time.
|
I feel Longshanks is being misunderstood here. In my eyes he is saing "Yes Corbyn doesn't support the EU in its current format and doesn't fight Britain leaving the Union" but "He is not opposed to a EU in itself and would support a EU that was made of a different fabric and maybe if he saw a good way of reforming the EU he would be pro-remain".
|
United States43991 Posts
No, Old Labour has always opposed the EU on the grounds that free movement of goods and the prevention of government intervention to subsidize domestic industry has crippled the socialist government's ability to provide full employment. Old Labour has been absolutely consistent in their opposition to the EU and their reasons for it. They don't believe in free trade zones, they think they're a neo-liberal project that sets the workers in competition with each other for the benefit of the capitalist class.
You can't come at this without a background in British politics and who Old Labour/New Labour are and what they stand for. The EU is a Thatcherite project, and Old Labour want zero part of it. If the British government can't create employment by subsidizing an industry to make it more competitive, or protect an industry by imposing tariffs on foreign imports, Old Labour oppose it. It's not about racism, or movement of people, or globalism vs nationalism. It's about the commitment of the party of the trade unions to full employment. It's about the government controlling the markets for the benefit of the people.
The EU cannot coexist with the economic policies of Old Labour. It's why they opposed it under Thatcher. It's why they opposed it under Major. It's why they oppose it now. Old Labour and the EU cannot be reconciled in any form.
Also the idea that it'd be really bad politics for Labour to be Remain while having a Brexit leader doesn't make it any less likely, this is just what Labour do. It's what they did all through the 80s and 90s. It's why the Tories won in 87 and 92. Labour just like to go to war with themselves, have weird public fights, and allow the Tories to govern through displays of public incompetence. This is just a return to the baseline for British politics, an incompetent Conservative government watching as Labour once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Conservatives are just as split, although not as publicly, between "One-nation conservatism" and "liberal conservatism". One-nation focuses on traditionalism, paternalism, and protections to benefit the common man. God and family stuff. Protects traditional industries, tries to preserve "British" culture at the expense of others. Liberal conservatism is more interested in classical liberalism, deregulation of markets and people, non interference in peoples' lives, trickle down economics, and so forth. Rees-Mogg is a One-nation conservative. Cameron is a Liberal conservative. The liberal conservatives were the dominant faction through the 70s-00s and brought the UK into the EU as a free trade liberalization project. Then New Labour seized all their political ground when Blair decided to agree with them on all the main issues, go further than them on privatization, and basically fuck up the country so the Tories repositioned themselves to focus on their traditionalist base. This is most obvious with the 2001 William Hague campaign to keep the pound, which the Tories chose to define themselves around. Cameron took the party back to Thatcherism, but tried to be nice about it, basically trying to outblair Blair, and we were back to having two pro-EU parties, each of which had significant anti-EU sentiment within them. In an attempt to rally the anti-EU faction to his flag Cameron promised them a referendum for their votes, planning to double cross them and campaign to remain (just as he had done with the Lib Dems on FPTP and the Scots on their referendum). That backfired so he noped out.
If you're reading this and thinking "but that doesn't make any sense, how can you even run a country like that" then congratulations, you understand the situation. Tories were the pro-EU party while Labour were the anti-EU party because they opposed free trade. Then Labour decided they were going to be the pro-EU party and so the Tories decided that they had to be the anti-EU party because someone had to, and also that they opposed free movement of people. Then both parties decided to be the pro-EU party for a bit which left all these anti-EU voters up for grabs as they felt neither party represented them. Then both parties decided to compete for the anti-EU voters, while still trying to be pro-EU parties, and everything went to shit.
There is no party in the UK that can pass a Brexit bill. There is no party in the UK for the EU to negotiate with. The system has broken down entirely.
|
On December 24 2018 03:32 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +No, Old Labour has always opposed the EU on the grounds that free movement of goods and the prevention of government intervention to subsidize domestic industry has crippled the socialist government's ability to provide full employment. Old Labour has been absolutely consistent in their opposition to the EU and their reasons for it. They don't believe in free trade zones, they think they're a neo-liberal project that sets the workers in competition with each other for the benefit of the capitalist class.
You can't come at this without a background in British politics and who Old Labour/New Labour are and what they stand for. The EU is a Thatcherite project, and Old Labour want zero part of it. If the British government can't create employment by subsidizing an industry to make it more competitive, or protect an industry by imposing tariffs on foreign imports, Old Labour oppose it. It's not about racism, or movement of people, or globalism vs nationalism. It's about the commitment of the party of the trade unions to full employment. It's about the government controlling the markets for the benefit of the people.
The EU cannot coexist with the economic policies of Old Labour. It's why they opposed it under Thatcher. It's why they opposed it under Major. It's why they oppose it now. Old Labour and the EU cannot be reconciled in any form.
Also the idea that it'd be really bad politics for Labour to be Remain while having a Brexit leader doesn't make it any less likely, this is just what Labour do. It's what they did all through the 80s and 90s. It's why the Tories won in 87 and 92. Labour just like to go to war with themselves, have weird public fights, and allow the Tories to govern through displays of public incompetence. This is just a return to the baseline for British politics, an incompetent Conservative government watching as Labour once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Conservatives are just as split, although not as publicly, between "One-nation conservatism" and "liberal conservatism". One-nation focuses on traditionalism, paternalism, and protections to benefit the common man. God and family stuff. Protects traditional industries, tries to preserve "British" culture at the expense of others. Liberal conservatism is more interested in classical liberalism, deregulation of markets and people, non interference in peoples' lives, trickle down economics, and so forth. Rees-Mogg is a One-nation conservative. Cameron is a Liberal conservative. The liberal conservatives were the dominant faction through the 70s-00s and brought the UK into the EU as a free trade liberalization project. Then New Labour seized all their political ground when Blair decided to agree with them on all the main issues, go further than them on privatization, and basically fuck up the country so the Tories repositioned themselves to focus on their traditionalist base. This is most obvious with the 2001 William Hague campaign to keep the pound, which the Tories chose to define themselves around. Cameron took the party back to Thatcherism, but tried to be nice about it, basically trying to outblair Blair, and we were back to having two pro-EU parties, each of which had significant anti-EU sentiment within them. In an attempt to rally the anti-EU faction to his flag Cameron promised them a referendum for their votes, planning to double cross them and campaign to remain (just as he had done with the Lib Dems on FPTP and the Scots on their referendum). That backfired so he noped out.
If you're reading this and thinking "but that doesn't make any sense, how can you even run a country like that" then congratulations, you understand the situation. Tories were the pro-EU party while Labour were the anti-EU party because they opposed free trade. Then Labour decided they were going to be the pro-EU party and so the Tories decided that they had to be the anti-EU party because someone had to, and also that they opposed free movement of people. Then both parties decided to be the pro-EU party for a bit which left all these anti-EU voters up for grabs as they felt neither party represented them. Then both parties decided to compete for the anti-EU voters, while still trying to be pro-EU parties, and everything went to shit.
There is no party in the UK that can pass a Brexit bill. There is no party in the UK for the EU to negotiate with. The system has broken down entirely.
I'm far too ignorant about UK politics to respond, but I enjoyed the lesson! It's very possible I'm just a naive optimist in all this but I'd like to keep it that way for a little longer. At least we won't have to wait much longer before we know just exactly how irreconcilable Corbyn and the EU really are.
|
I currently live in the UK, Kwarks breakdown of UK politics should run on TV here. 24 hours, 7 days a week.
Maybe then finally some competence can be sprinkled in, once people realise that no, Corbyn isn't the second coming and the best thing since sliced bread (he's as "dangerous" as the tories people love to flak at), and no, there isn't a good option either.
And no, Corbyn also isn't the lesser evil between him and May/Johnson. Out of Corbyn, Johnson and May, as sad as it is to say it, only May is at least somewhat of a politician (even though i disagree with everything she does) - whereas Johnson and Corbyn are populists. And if you see how Corbyn is discussing ("but what about the starving children?" - "but what about homeless people?" in discussions about the current political situation), he's barely better than Farage.
He just lies less.
That he's an antisemite doesn't really help either.
|
United States43991 Posts
“The Tories are absolutely awful, are ruining the country, and are somehow still the best choice” could be the title for a book explaining British politics. The situation with May is no different than it was with Major. Everyone hated Major, he was weak, incompetent, and couldn’t even get his own party in line. But the alternative was Labour.
|
These discussions are why I never have a problem with the two party system in the US. It doesn’t matter what configuration the dysfunctional system is in, government is still going to have to purge itself of dysfunction every couple decades.
|
On December 24 2018 06:32 m4ini wrote:
I currently live in the UK, Kwarks breakdown of UK politics should run on TV here. 24 hours, 7 days a week.
Maybe then finally some competence can be sprinkled in, once people realise that no, Corbyn isn't the second coming and the best thing since sliced bread (he's as "dangerous" as the tories people love to flak at), and no, there isn't a good option either.
And no, Corbyn also isn't the lesser evil between him and May/Johnson. Out of Corbyn, Johnson and May, as sad as it is to say it, only May is at least somewhat of a politician (even though i disagree with everything she does) - whereas Johnson and Corbyn are populists. And if you see how Corbyn is discussing ("but what about the starving children?" - "but what about homeless people?" in discussions about the current political situation), he's barely better than Farage.
He just lies less.
That he's an antisemite doesn't really help either.
Corbyn is a populist only in the fact that he's currently popular. It's absurd to describe a man whose politics have been consistent for about 30 years as a populist. It's just that the political climate has shifted enough that the honest man in the room looks very appealing.
As I've said repeatedly, Corbyn's disadvantage is that he isn't a populist. He's anti-EU because he doesn't like the EU, and that's that. Doesn't matter that his own voters disagree. As far as he's concerned the Labour members have given him a mandate to attempt to bring about his particular political vision, and so he's going to try and do that.
Compare Corbyn to Trump to see what a populist is and is not.
|
United States43991 Posts
On December 24 2018 07:42 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2018 06:32 m4ini wrote:
I currently live in the UK, Kwarks breakdown of UK politics should run on TV here. 24 hours, 7 days a week.
Maybe then finally some competence can be sprinkled in, once people realise that no, Corbyn isn't the second coming and the best thing since sliced bread (he's as "dangerous" as the tories people love to flak at), and no, there isn't a good option either.
And no, Corbyn also isn't the lesser evil between him and May/Johnson. Out of Corbyn, Johnson and May, as sad as it is to say it, only May is at least somewhat of a politician (even though i disagree with everything she does) - whereas Johnson and Corbyn are populists. And if you see how Corbyn is discussing ("but what about the starving children?" - "but what about homeless people?" in discussions about the current political situation), he's barely better than Farage.
He just lies less.
That he's an antisemite doesn't really help either. Corbyn is a populist only in the fact that he's currently popular. It's absurd to describe a man whose politics have been consistent for about 30 years as a populist. It's just that the political climate has shifted enough that the honest man in the room looks very appealing. As I've said repeatedly, Corbyn's disadvantage is that he isn't a populist. He's anti-EU because he doesn't like the EU, and that's that. Doesn't matter that his own voters disagree. As far as he's concerned the Labour members have given him a mandate to attempt to bring about his particular political vision, and so he's going to try and do that. Compare Corbyn to Trump to see what a populist is and is not.
Agree 110%. Corbyn is a man of commendable political integrity. I think in many ways he’s a backlash against Blair, and everything Blair stood for. Corbyn isn't smooth, isn’t trying to sell you anything, and isn’t interested in being popular. People trust his convictions and believe what he says, even if they disagree with him. He’d make a great town counselor, and probably should have stopped there.
I like him far more than I’ll ever like May. I can’t vote for him, but I will certainly admire him, even while he fucks everything up by refusing to pander to the people.
|
United States43991 Posts
On December 24 2018 07:40 Plansix wrote:
These discussions are why I never have a problem with the two party system in the US. It doesn’t matter what configuration the dysfunctional system is in, government is still going to have to purge itself of dysfunction every couple decades.
We use constituency simple plurality too. Same system.
|
On December 24 2018 07:40 Plansix wrote:
These discussions are why I never have a problem with the two party system in the US. It doesn’t matter what configuration the dysfunctional system is in, government is still going to have to purge itself of dysfunction every couple decades. The UK is practically a two party system.
A quick wiki check shows they had a multi party government from 2010-2015, the second world war, and first world war.
|
United States43991 Posts
On December 24 2018 08:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2018 07:40 Plansix wrote:
These discussions are why I never have a problem with the two party system in the US. It doesn’t matter what configuration the dysfunctional system is in, government is still going to have to purge itself of dysfunction every couple decades. The UK is practically a two party system. A quick wiki check shows they had a multi party government from 2010-2015, the second world war, and first world war.
WW2 was a coalition of the big 2 parties so it doesn’t really count as an exception to 2 party. They just suspended democracy for the war and therefore needed to include everyone within the government.
If you’re referring to coalitions that include third parties then we have one right now, the DUP are voting with May to prop her government up. But those don’t really make it any less of a 2 party system, they’re more just regional variations to respond to regional differences in voter priorities that are not well served by national parties.
Simple plurality tends to lead to 2 parties due to game theory. Better to vote for your 2nd favourite and win than vote for your favourite and split the vote.
|
I think it's fair to call Corbyn a populist. The unifying feature of populism is the narrative of the people, the popular body, against a conspiring elite. Whether this view itself is literally popular is irrelevant. Plenty of populists are not well liked, and also how long you push this view doesn't really matter. You can pursue a populist agenda for a week or three decades, doesn't really change a thing.
Almost all populists are convicted of their cause, it's usually the opposite the technocrats and bureaucrats, who are accused of lacking any form of conviction. As Kwark pointed out it is also consistent with the old labour stance.
The EU is perceived as a technocratic and bureaucratic project outside of the immediate control of local, democratic institutions. Old labour is all about advancing the interests of mass organised labour through national government, so obviously they don't like Brussels a lot.
|
Zurich15365 Posts
I am reading The Rise and Fall of the British Nation. Kwark, where do you place Old Labor historically? The 50s and 60s? I am not halfway through the book and so far (first half of the 20th century) labor is portrayed as being a staunchly free trade party back in the day.
|
On December 24 2018 09:05 Nyxisto wrote:
I think it's fair to call Corbyn a populist. The unifying feature of populism is the narrative of the people, the popular body, against a conspiring elite. Whether this view itself is literally popular is irrelevant. Plenty of populists are not well liked, and also how long you push this view doesn't really matter. You can pursue a populist agenda for a week or three decades, doesn't really change a thing.
Almost all populists are convicted of their cause, it's usually the opposite the technocrats and bureaucrats, who are accused of lacking any form of conviction. As Kwark pointed out it is also consistent with the old labour stance.
The EU is perceived as a technocratic and bureaucratic project outside of the immediate control of local, democratic institutions. Old labour is all about advancing the interests of mass organised labour through national government, so obviously they don't like Brussels a lot.
That's the dictionary definition of the word, yes, but in politics a populist is a different animal. They might have that narrative, but most populists will push whatever is popular as their agenda and lack coherence. It has specific ramifications, and the people who wanted to brand Corbyn with the Populist tag did so with those negative associations in mind.
Corbyn doesn't have that very important quality. He sticks by his guns no matter what, save in the case of an issue he's genuinely changed his mind on over time. In which case he's still sticking by his guns, he just has different guns to stick to.
It's fairer to call Corbyn a socialist than a populist.
|
On December 24 2018 09:05 Nyxisto wrote:
I think it's fair to call Corbyn a populist. The unifying feature of populism is the narrative of the people, the popular body, against a conspiring elite.
To be honest I don't see Corbyn as embodying any of those features. So by that measure, he would not be a populist.
|
Pushing popular policy doesn't make one a populist. Pushing unrealistic fairy tails does, Corbyn arguably might be some kind of misguided left wing dreamer but he is no populist.
|
On December 25 2018 12:29 Velr wrote:
Pushing popular policy doesn't make one a populist. Pushing unrealistic fairy tails does, Corbyn arguably might be some kind of misguided left wing dreamer but he is no populist.
I always thought populist meant something to the effect of
member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.
and that the whole unrealistic fairy tale aspect was something pushed by the bourgeois
|
I think there's a misconception here. The common consensus was:
A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology which presents "the people" as a morally good force against "the elite", who are perceived as corrupt and self-serving. Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as foreign countries or immigrants—above the interests of "the people". According to this approach, populism is a thin-ideology which is combined with other, more substantial thick ideologies such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum and there is both left-wing populism and right-wing populism.
Yes, i'm quoting wikipedia here since it's a bit more in depth than the oxford definition, which basically states "ordinary people vs elite".
Corbyn fits this description more any other politician i know of. I suggest watching or reading his campaign speech in may 2017 which is basically textbook populism if you chose to use above (btw, valid) definition of populism. Multiple instances of "the working people", "the rich elite", "the rigged system for the rich against the people" etc. And of course the slogan, "for the many, not the few".
In fairness:
Other scholars active in the social sciences have defined the term populism in different ways. According to the popular agency definition used by some historians of United States history, populism refers to popular engagement of the population in political decision making. An approach associated with the scholar Ernesto Laclau presents populism as an emancipatory social force through which marginalised groups challenge dominant power structures. Some economists have used the term in reference to governments which engage in substantial public spending financed by foreign loans, resulting in hyperinflation and emergency measures. In popular discourse, the term has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with opportunism, to characterise politicians who seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action.
Corbyn does not fit that definition. I don't think this discussion goes anywhere, since it depends on what you decide for yourself is a good description of populism - while i think both are valid, Corbynists will clearly say that the one that fits Corbyn isn't actually the one we should use. The discussion will not advance without consensus of what is populism in the first place.
Ergo, i'd suggest we continue, and stick to the point that Corbyn will not "rescue" the UK.
edit: one more thing though
On December 24 2018 21:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2018 09:05 Nyxisto wrote:
I think it's fair to call Corbyn a populist. The unifying feature of populism is the narrative of the people, the popular body, against a conspiring elite.
To be honest I don't see Corbyn as embodying any of those features. So by that measure, he would not be a populist.
These are direct and literal quotes from his speech in may 2017.
+ Show Spoiler +We caught a glimpse of that wealth only two days ago when Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times published its Rich List.
In the last year, Britain’s 1,000 richest people have seen their wealth rise by 14 per cent to £658 billion – that’s nearly six times the budget of our NHS. That’s what we mean when we say the system is rigged for the rich.
In fact, we expect hostility. Our challenge to a rigged system is bound to meet hostility. Our Westminster system is broken and our economy is rigged. Both are run in the interests of the few.
Labour is under attack because we are standing up to the elites who are determined to hijack Brexit to pay even less tax and take even more of the wealth we all create.
But does she think people will forget how the Tories have actually treated working people?
Labour will not allow the Tories to put their party interests ahead of the real national interest; the interests of the British people. We won’t be paying lip-service to working people.
When we win, the British people win. The nurse, the teacher, the small trader, the carer, the builder, the office worker win.
Labour is offering a real choice, a real alternative to the rigged system holding us back and to the Conservatives who are running our country down.
The economy is still rigged in favour of the rich and powerful.
When Labour wins there will be a reckoning for those who thought they could get away with asset stripping our industry, crashing our economy through their greed and ripping off workers and consumers.
Just a small spoiler as to why he'd fit the first definition like a glove. And that's just from one speech.
|
There are two definitions of 'populist'. One is a politician who really wants to serve their constituency and believes the voters know better what the problems of the community is than the politicians themselves. This is the anti-elitist type. The opposite is the person who believes they have to force very unpopular policy on the people because they know what is best for the country. Or, that the problem of the people isn't the same thing as the problem of the country.
The other is the 'populist' that thinks he can exploit promising the people what they want but what he cannot give them to gain an edge over his competitors. This is the demagogue type. The opposite is the politician who tells the voter beforehand he will have to compromise and he cannot give them what they want.
Obviously Corbyn is the first type, and Trump is the second.
It is amusing how Corbyn gets totally misunderstood by the Tories, They think Corbyn is a secret remainer and is playing a political game. They cannot imagine Corbyn isn't changing his plan to the quickly changing political landscape. Or they cannot imagine that there can be left wing politicians who think the EU is a neoliberal project and who have given up on changing it from the inside.
It just makes the Tory delusion more obvious. The seeming Brexit irrationality becomes obvious when you ask yourself this question: Why did the English vote to leave the EU but not the UK? If the UK was the most powerful member of the EU, they wouldn't be leaving. It is all about the British Empire. The English want it back. And they are going to lose Northern Ireland and maybe Scotland as a result.
The rational Brexiters hoped that the EU would shatter after they voted 'leave'. Only in that way they could have cherry picked what they wanted. But the EU remained united because all it's members actually believe in the EU ideals and aren't just in it for the economic growth. The EU will be the biggest single market in the world and it will be on the doorstep of the UK. So whether the UK is in or out of the single market, they will need to conform because no way the EU single market is going to conform to UK regulations
There are only two options for the UK. Go from a rule maker to a rule taker. EU will dictate most regulations for the UK and the UK has no say in it, as they are not a member.
Become a totally deregulated tax haven where the effects of globalization will be magnified. The UK will be industrialized, will stop producing it's own food. The only thing that can survive is offering services that EU countries cannot offer: Money launder the blood money of the biggest crooks, drugs dealers, oligarchs, and dictators of the world. Just like their British Crown territories like Cayman and Bermuda are already doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
