THERE MAY YET BE HOPE....

[Lat-Literal]

Nor do Corbyn or McDonnell. No one in this discussion has pointed out that Labour's election manifesto was pretty minimal when it came to socialist radicalism. It retained HS2, the third Heathrow runway - both of which many voters on all sides of the divides would be well to the left of. It retained Trident - and only considered renationalisation once existing franchises ran out. In other words the sort of programme the Attlee government put into operation post WW2. It is not beyond realms of possibility that the ruling classes will do all it can to undermine and ultimately block even so innocuous a programme, starting with the law courts, progressing with the use of the police and secret services, and ending with tanks in Downing Street, cheered on by the right wing press while the pundits at the BBC meekly go along with it all.

If anything is problematic aboout the Corbyn programme, it is not the interest rates incurred from the borrowing necessary to implement it, though they could be a problem - is today's isolationist USA, in contrast to post 1945, prepared to support its once-vaulted nearest ally? - but, as I said many moons ago here, the question of agency. The lessons of history teach us you can't implement democratic socialism (or whatever term you prefer) top-down. It's as true as when Lenin called for "all power to the soviets" and Allende left calling out the masses till it was too late. The Soviet Bloc was the debt the capitalist west paid for the Red Army's "success" in its part in defeating fascism. Where are the occupying skills based workers to be found in robotised modern manufacturing or anything else today, who will come up with the plants of alternative socially necessary ecologically sustainable products, and how to share thie implementation across presenntly inter-competing sectors? THIS is where the weaknesses will be shown to lie.

The other thing is this singular focus on Corbyn as "the wrong person" to bring in socialism, for reasons of supposed incompetence on his part. This of course brushes aside the idea of socialism as a collectively reached set of propositions shaped in accordance with the needs of the time and its implementation by a team, rather than a solitary Blair, Trump or May-type figurehead, which was the main point of building up a large membership to provide a wider choice of talent.

Indeed, I was astonished to read of Gurnemanz's experience of what IMV he rather glibly described as a genuine socialist republic, (the GDR), especially given his idealistic interest in politics 50 years ago as a student. He obviously walked out on the discussion about what socialism really consisted in (Benn: the communists took the democracy out of socialism, and the social democrats took the socialism out of democracy) leaving only the hardline Stalinists' belief in the Soviet Union/E Bloc/China as representing the socialist utopia.

If the otherwise broadminded and knowledgeably-based viewpoints expressed by the likes of Gurney on this forum are representative of the way people one would respect and learn from think about politics today, then God help us all.

Well, I said that I could accept their policies are closer than Blair's to Social Democracy and Diane Abbott is on occasion now describing them as Social Democracy. I am not sure if I would see HS2, which I oppose, or Heathrow Expansion, which I can just about support, as left or right. I could accept that the latter isn't green left which is a different version of left.

Trident is trickier. Party policy is currently to retain it but Mr Corbyn won't be drawn. It is quite significant that the tone in him on this matter is similar to that in him on the EU and anti-semitism. Trust is an issue. Somehow he survived the debacle which occurred as it happens on a train when he told us with great fanfare that there was no seat available and was then proven by photographic evidence to have lied. Since then, the key questions have been asked. His penchant for wiggle room sits very uneasily with his long history as adamant rebel.

Nevertheless, it could be weathered with a belief in the party holding him to account. The problem is that even in Opposition that appears to be lacking. Plus those of us with memories can recall the GLC coup. The one in which Mr McIntosh's manifesto as agreed was voted on by we the humble voters in the election then overturned overnight by Mr Livingstone who launched a coup and booted him out so that he would be leader. My assumption is Mr Corbyn would not be booted out but the manifesto would be in the week after the election. By him.

(It is worth adding that post coup the person who Livingstone put in charge of London's finances - and he was so low profile hardly anyone would know : I didn't then or for many years afterwards - was one John McDonnell. As it happens, I met John formally circa '02. I was with Tony McNulty and we were listening to all his reasons for opposing Heathrow Expansion!!!)

[french frank]

Nor do Corbyn or McDonnell ['see the major political issues nowadays as the class struggle and the overthrow of capitalism'].

My comment was more directed at any denizens of these boards to whom it might apply …

The source which RB quoted definitely said that the Independents would be "pro-privatisation" when they merely were cautious on renationalisation (including, I presume, of the railways which was a Labour commitment); there was the total abolition of tuition fees so that university education was completely free. No one in their right mind would be against that as a principle - the question is how universities can be adequately funded (okay, cut VC's salaries, add a top tax rate of 50%, problem solved … possibly).

No one in this discussion has pointed out that Labour's election manifesto was pretty minimal when it came to socialist radicalism.

I will now then, but as I suggested, it reads like motherhood and apple pie - though mother would find it easier to produce an apple pie than Corbyn could achieve all his commitments

If anything is problematic aboout the Corbyn programme, it is not the interest rates incurred from the borrowing necessary to implement it, though they could be a problem …

Could be - and aren't very desirable at the moment.

The other thing is this singular focus on Corbyn as "the wrong person" to bring in socialism, for reasons of supposed incompetence on his part. This of course brushes aside the idea of socialism as a collectively reached set of propositions shaped in accordance with the needs of the time and its implementation by a team

Probably quite wrong, but he comes over as a rather weak autocrat, hence the impression given. One can only judge from a distance, but the 'team' doesn't seem very united under his leadership.

[Serial_Apologist]

Probably quite wrong, but he comes over as a rather weak autocrat, hence the impression given. One can only judge from a distance, but the 'team' doesn't seem very united under his leadership.

Indeed, thinking about his second in command - probably a team decided upon to make what is in fact a very strong point about the lessons implicit in the much-lauded principle of maintaining a "broad church", versus unaccountable autocracy.

[french frank]

Indeed, thinking about his second in command

Who even has been pushed into saying the party is not always one that he recognises ('there are aspects of it that I don't recognise any more'). Leadership crucially involves keeping your team together. It can seem that for Corbyn leading means simply "Follow me."

[MrGongGong]

It is interesting that it is seen as a positive sign for folks in politics to stick to their views regardless of circumstances.
I would think it's a sign of intelligence for someone to change their opinion based on evidence rather than carry on playing the "strong" leader character.

[french frank]

It is interesting that it is seen as a positive sign for folks in politics to stick to their views regardless of circumstances.
I would think it's a sign of intelligence for someone to change their opinion based on evidence rather than carry on playing the "strong" leader character.

Or, circumstances alter cases - never more so than in politics, Gongers. My principle may be A, but in unusual circumstances I may find myself choosing to do Z. It doesn't alter the fact that under normal circumstances my principle remains A. That should not be written off as being "untrustworthy"

[Serial_Apologist]

It is interesting that it is seen as a positive sign for folks in politics to stick to their views regardless of circumstances.
I would think it's a sign of intelligence for someone to change their opinion based on evidence rather than carry on playing the "strong" leader character.

I would think it's the circumstances and the evidence that determine how flexible one should be in one's views, rather than one's views dictating the flexibility. I certainly disagree with mandation, which, in this particular case of Brexit - though the principle stands generally - dictates that as an MP, if a majority of ones constituents have voted differently from oneself, one has to be "flexible" and go with that majority or be deemed a traitor to their interests. Such a position is almost Stalinist in the way it hamstrings the MP, who should have been chosen by his or her constituency party and then voted in on an implicit basis of trust by party members and then constituents. Even in the majority of cases in the Soviets, leading up to October 1917, delegates to the Duma were not mandated by their voters; if they voted in the higher body against the majority resolution, they were then expected to account for themselves on reporting back. There are all sorts of reasons a delegate might vote contrary to majority recommendation - changed circumstances, for instance, making an original decision redundant. If I remember rightly (though I would stand corrected) the only occasion a mandate was demanded during the Russian Revolution was for a majority decision of all the soviets (which were then pre-revolutionary neighbourhood/workplace councils) to storm the Winter Palace, since the consequences of said action, from the perspective of the time, would of themselves in all probability effect an irreversible change of circumstances.

[Serial_Apologist]

Or, circumstances alter cases - never more so than in politics, Gongers. My principle may be A, but in unusual circumstances I may find myself choosing to do Z. It doesn't alter the fact that under normal circumstances my principle remains A. That should not be written off as being "untrustworthy"

Yes, sorry ff - I've just repeated in agreement what you've written here.

[eighthobstruction]

Or, circumstances alter cases - never more so than in politics, Gongers. My principle may be A, but in unusual circumstances I may find myself choosing to do Z. It doesn't alter the fact that under normal circumstances my principle remains A. That should not be written off as being "untrustworthy"

....you devil ff....this is a new side and I like it....

[french frank]

....you devil ff....this is a new side and I like it....

I think most elected MPs are no more than lobby fodder; they may, additionally, be good or bad constituency MPs. But steering the ship of state isn't easy - as Harold Macmillan didn't say when asked what politicians most feared: Circumstances which keep changing, dear boy. Plotting the course and writing the manifesto is the easy bit: sticking to it is well nigh impossible. And even if you manage to do it, you probably should have changed course. Wouldn't catch me being a politician But I'm probably more tolerant of bad decisons than others! (Have to be … )

[eighthobstruction]

....I wouldn't have time to be a politician....I'd be too busy being a sexy dalai lama with judge dread type characteristics....THERE MAY YET BE HOPE....

[Padraig]

....I wouldn't have time to be a politician....I'd be too busy being a sexy dalai lama with judge dread type characteristics....THERE MAY YET BE HOPE....

Well, here's a hopeful story from a fellow EU neighbouring country. Aren't we great together - they do the hard bit and we swell with pride.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47330924

[Dave2002]

Depends on whether you work in Europe or not
to many people they will be happy that they can still go on holiday to Spain (unless they work for Honda or even down the road from me at the whoopie cushion factory)

(https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/n...smiffys-103657)

Then again, who needs experts and/or scientists? https://eandt.theiet.org/content/art...-paul-nurse%2F

[Lat-Literal]

I was right about Ian Austin.

He's now left Labour but has not joined the anti Brexit group because he's a pro Brexit Blairite.

It could almost look like we are witnessing the end of the phenomenon that is the political party.

But I doubt that we are.

[french frank]

Then again, who needs experts and/or scientists? https://eandt.theiet.org/content/art...-paul-nurse%2F

"The government has proposed that a minimum salary of £30,000 will be required to grant a ‘skilled worker’ visa. This salary threshold would exclude many technicians, particularly those working outside London; Russell Group data indicates that approximately 27 per cent of skilled technicians at UK universities earn £25,000 or less."

There seems to be a tendency among a lot of people, at whatever grade, to feel that whatever they earn they are paid either 'averagely' or not very well for what they do. So £30,000 is a 'modest to low income' - which it may be if you are 50 with a lot of experience. There is no real understanding of how many others fall below the income that they earn, no matter how skilled they are.