Fun and games with ballot papers

[Richard Barrett]

But "we" are "the electorate": I think it's dangerous to think in terms of "them and us" in this way.

... irrespective of whether one happens to think one is representative or not.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

You are right, but I am certainly not representative of "the electorate".

I don't think any individual is. (Mind you, there's a bloke further up our street ... )

[MrGongGong]

The truth staring us all in the face is that the kind of green policies the world urgently needs (and that's surely the truth rather than just emotive words) are not compatible with the capitalist drive to profit and economic growth. Any serious green policy therefore needs also to address issues of inequality, public ownership and the rest of it. Which Labour's 2019 manifesto attempted, in however clumsy and scattershot a way, to do. This is much more important than one's opinion of Corbyn or Johnson as people or as "leaders", although I would say in passing that some people's seeming need (still!) for "strong leadership" is a problem rather than a solution.

To Vinteuil's claim that "the chances of [my] wish for a socialist victory at the next election are vanishingly small", I say: a lot can change in five years, particularly in these times of accelerating climate change, not to mention the unpredictability of exactly what kind of dog's breakfast the Johnson government will make of Brexit. Of course a lot also depends on who becomes the next Labour leader. Whoever it is needs to hold to and develop the kinds of policies that were presented in 2019, while not being hobbled by constant sniping from within the party (constant sniping from outside it being a fact of life). Let's not lose sight of the fact that a "socialist victory" is actually better characterised as a victory for the many, and in particular those least able to fend for themselves, against the callous and entitled few. Surely that's something worth making an effort to bring about rather than something to be dismissed as impractical.

Do you think (this is a serious question) that the Labour party really WILL abandon the idea of economic "growth" as something desirable?

[Maclintick]

Do you think (this is a serious question) that the Labour party really WILL abandon the idea of economic "growth" as something desirable?

No, but an even more interesting question is whether the unicorn-like apparition of genuinely carbon-neutral economic growth is forever doomed to remain thus. Within recent memory (well, OK, mine at least) we were being assured by the shamans of the techno-economical establishment that nuclear power was the dog's whatsits, and that offshore wind, solar, etc were ruinously expensive also-rans. A lot has changed recently -- & rapidly.

[Richard Barrett]

Do you think (this is a serious question) that the Labour party really WILL abandon the idea of economic "growth" as something desirable?

The Labour party (I mean in its present form) is of course not a revolutionary organisation but a social democratic party, however it might be portrayed by the rightwing media, which means it's by no means committed to the wholesale dismantling of the structures of capitalism, which would be necessary in order to dispose of the economic-growth fetish. Those of us who were attracted, from more radical positions, to the party under Corbyn, saw in it the possibility of taking a parliamentary route towards a decisive step in the direction of the kind of green socialism that is probably going to be needed at some point in this century. This may turn out to have been illusory, but I think it was worth trying, and I still think it is.

[Bella Kemp]

Perhaps one thing we (some ... ) might learn is that the electorate doesn't care about truth, reason, or any other rational basis for making judgements. We should have realised that months ago - maybe even years ahead of time.

I think they displayed remarkably clear judgement in the last election when one might have expected many to believe the extraordinary and desperate lies of the socialists. The irrational were those who fell for the Corbyn cult and lost their reason thereby. We desperately need a Labour government (I am a former member who did not renew when the cultists took over). I have now rejoined in order to vote for a rational candidate who can lead us to victory next time around. The times are too serious to continue to indulge the Utopian fantasies of the hard left - fantasies that so cruelly gave false hope to the most vulnerable in our society. I have sympathy for Momentum, but they need to form a separate party now and leave Labour so that we can govern - quite possibly in coalition with Momentum in five years time.

[Richard Barrett]

The irrational were those who fell for the Corbyn cult and lost their reason thereby.

Who exactly are you talking about there? You are flinging accusations around without any supporting arguments.

[eighthobstruction]

Who exactly are you talking about there? You are flinging accusations around without any supporting arguments.

....I think Bella was talking about 'the irrational'....they really do know who they are even though it might be counter-intuitive....the accusation wasn't flung - it was placed....

[ucanseetheend]

The Labour party (I mean in its present form) is of course not a revolutionary organisation but a social democratic party, however it might be portrayed by the rightwing media, which means it's by no means committed to the wholesale dismantling of the structures of capitalism, which would be necessary in order to dispose of the economic-growth fetish. Those of us who were attracted, from more radical positions, to the party under Corbyn, saw in it the possibility of taking a parliamentary route towards a decisive step in the direction of the kind of green socialism that is probably going to be needed at some point in this century. This may turn out to have been illusory, but I think it was worth trying, and I still think it is.

"In its present form" it's not a Social democratic party, if that means it occupies centre left of political views. It will die if it continues to espouse the marxist, state controlled, spending policies which it does. Fact is the 500,000 members its has are completely unrepresentative of the majority of the country.The attitude of telling the voters what they "must do" after the voters told the party what "it must do" with regard to leaving the EU. A mass party basically means nothing!

[muzzer]

The Labour Party in its current incarnation won’t be telling anyone what to do for the foreseeable future. It’s finished. It lost. All those young commentators who came of age during an era of hung parliaments and knife edge votes, and who’ve been infesting the news shows this year, will need to wake up and smell the village fete tea. The hipster lattes are off the menu. The country clearly has had enough, it can’t cope with the struggle. The Tories under Cameron started this mess, Corbyn as a leaver was never going to lead a united opposition, and the whole slo mo car crash has just resulted in a Nu Right government. Johnson of course could have plumped for Remain in 2015. But he chose to back the side most likely to end up oppressing the country and boring it into submission. No surprise there.

[LMcD]

"In its present form" it's not a Social democratic party, if that means it occupies centre left of political views. It will die if it continues to espouse the marxist, state controlled, spending policies which it does. Fact is the 500,000 members its has are completely unrepresentative of the majority of the country.The attitude of telling the voters what they "must do" after the voters told the party what "it must do" with regard to leaving the EU. A mass party basically means nothing!

Boris Johnson is more ambitious than Jeremy Corbyn. The former wants to head a party and government moulded in his own image (or that of his backers and advisors) whereas the latter wants to head a political movement moulded in his own image (or that of his backers and advisors) even if it remains permanently unelectable as a government.

[Richard Tarleton]

Interesting opinion piece by David Aaronovich in The Times on Thursday, link here,

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-...land-j26lxmtbn, from which the following are quotes:

Anyone on the centre and centre left of politics could do much worse than read a new book-length essay, written before the election and to be published in January. Warring Fictions: Left populism and its defining myths is the work of a former Labour employee and social researcher Chris Clarke.....

What Clarke does is lay out the reasons why the belief system of the populist far left makes them not so much unelectable as unsupportable. And the problem, says Clarke, does not lie in their desire for social equality, an end to poverty, to arrest climate change or for there to be peace in the world. All or any of us can share those ideals. Rather it’s the mythology that the hard left clings to that makes them unable to understand the world in which decisions have to be made, to persuade others of their vision for change or to be persuaded themselves by others.....

Clarke identifies three core myths, which he calls the Dark Knight, the Puppet Master and the Golden Age. He makes the point that all three find a corresponding version in right-wing populism....

The Dark Knight is the underlying belief that the struggle for the future is between light and dark, that all virtue is on one side and all vice on another. So those who oppose you are not wrong, they are immoral.......

The second myth is the Puppet Master. If what you want to do is noble and in the People’s Interest, how can you explain why the People may fail to support you? The answer is that powerful forces are “rigging” the game against you. The Puppet Masters may be the “MSM” (the mainstream media, including, according to the shadow transport minister, Andy McDonald, the BBC), may be Zionists “weaponising” antisemitism against Corbyn, or may just be infernally clever advisers who, in the words of The Guardian’s George Monbiot “instinctively or explicitly understand the irrational ways in which we react to threat, and know that, to win, they must stop us from thinking”....

The third myth is the Golden Age. This is the belief that there was once a better place from which we have been expelled. The Corbynite Left believes the current lapsarian disaster to have been the fault of “neoliberalism”, an ideology binding Margaret Thatcher with Tony Blair and which is leading to people on trolleys in A&E and wars in the Middle East.....

Choice examples of all three myths have been surfacing in this thread and its predecessors. Of course for anyone in the grip of these myths - you know who you are - the above is right-wing nonsense, and will cut no ice whatsoever with you. The very fact of the article appearing in The Times says it all for you. But the purpose of the article and the forthcoming essay is to help the rest of us understand the myths.

As to Corbyn being a social democrat, the leaders and regimes which he has befriended and admired over the years - Castro, Chavez, Maduro to name but three - suggest not. Of course they are united by one thing, their position vis-a-vis the USA. But luckily none of this matters any more

[greenilex]

It really does not make sense to call Jeremy Corbyn a populist.

Not now, not then, not ever.

[Joseph K]

Interesting opinion piece by David Aaronovich in The Times on Thursday, link here,

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-...land-j26lxmtbn, from which the following are quotes:



Choice examples of all three myths have been surfacing in this thread and its predecessors. Of course for anyone in the grip of these myths - you know who you are - the above is right-wing nonsense, and will cut no ice whatsoever with you. The very fact of the article appearing in The Times says it all for you. But the purpose of the article and the forthcoming essay is to help the rest of us understand the myths.

As to Corbyn being a social democrat, the leaders and regimes which he has befriended and admired over the years - Castro, Chavez, Maduro to name but three - suggest not. Of course they are united by one thing, their position vis-a-vis the USA. But luckily none of this matters any more

As for the first so-called myth - the Tories are indeed immoral. Austerity, with its thousands upon thousands of deaths, and the Tories' incredible malice towards disabled people (spending more money on trying to take away their benefits than they would have done simply by giving them their benefits!) just to name two examples, are indeed immoral.

The second so-called myth, like the first, is no myth. May I suggest you read this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-labour-mainstream-press-lse-study-misrepresentation-we-cant-ignore-bias-a7144381.html

But this is hardly surprising. Most of our media is owned by billionaires, so we can hardly expect them to be unbiased.

As for the third, I'd say that, rather than harking back to some Golden Age, Labour were the only ones with a credible plan for the problems of the near-future and climate catastrophe.

[Joseph K]

I think they displayed remarkably clear judgement in the last election when one might have expected many to believe the extraordinary and desperate lies of the socialists. The irrational were those who fell for the Corbyn cult and lost their reason thereby. We desperately need a Labour government (I am a former member who did not renew when the cultists took over). I have now rejoined in order to vote for a rational candidate who can lead us to victory next time around. The times are too serious to continue to indulge the Utopian fantasies of the hard left - fantasies that so cruelly gave false hope to the most vulnerable in our society. I have sympathy for Momentum, but they need to form a separate party now and leave Labour so that we can govern - quite possibly in coalition with Momentum in five years time.

We got 12 million votes in 2017. That's an awful big cult! What are the lies of which you speak?