AHA-Lambda
Member
Hardly, they'll just vote UKIP instead and make things even worse
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK Labour Leadership Crisis: Corbyn retained as leader by strong margin
- Thread starter Hazzuh
- Start date
- Status
Hardly, they'll just vote UKIP instead and make things even worse
what's it matter if they win elections?
I don't think that's fair. Corbyn obviously isn't the only issue but he is one of the main issues. The IRA, NATO, Hamas stuff is going to be uniquely awful for the Labour party come the next general election. Getting rid of Corbyn would have done something.
What the fuck did I just read.
As democratic as Russia, following a string of entirely democratic votes that regardless of how unhappy you are with the results underline that democracy is immensely prevalent in UK politics, almost (probably) to a flaw.
Are UK opposition leaders being arrested, executed and dismantled all while state media looks on in glee? I don't think so.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think the Hamas stuff will do much. If we're being blunt, most people in the UK give no shits about Israel-Palestine. There are worse problems for Corbyn.
Nonsense.
The Hamburglar
Banned
It's your classic anti Tory post basically.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
Well, it's like whatever at this point. Not even going to bother complain anymore. I'm making the best of a bad situation and working towards my immigration in the future.
Outside of that, the country pretty much can rip itself apart for all I care.
Outside of that, the country pretty much can rip itself apart for all I care.
You don't understand what I meant with that post. Right now there are no alternatives to the Tories, I wasn't talking about the past at all. I'm not an idiot, I know that what you said in the second paragraph isn't happening, but by constantly failing to do anything against an altogether United party the opposition is making themselves just as irrelevant.
People that don't understand econ are Corbyn's most reliable voting bloc.
The Venezuela stuff is probably more directly damaging as it's directly linked to economic competency. I've been told there are quotes an video for days of Corbyn and co praising Chavez et al's economic policy. such a simple juxtaposition to make.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I agree, that's much worse.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
In the short term this will definitely work in conservative favour.
But after the fallout of brexit and what conservatives will probably start implementing, I think Corbyn's staunch opposite views will actually help come next election. Corbyn might be stubborn, but sometimes you need someone who's just a bit out there.
The left is a bit too harsh on itself. Why does the right get to have all the stubborn leaders?
But after the fallout of brexit and what conservatives will probably start implementing, I think Corbyn's staunch opposite views will actually help come next election. Corbyn might be stubborn, but sometimes you need someone who's just a bit out there.
The left is a bit too harsh on itself. Why does the right get to have all the stubborn leaders?
uncleniccius
Member
Because regardless of his views he has proven himself time and time again to be a completely incompetent leader. His political views don't match my own, but the fact that he has been an awful leader is something that is so often overlooked.
We need a strong opposition. A Labour party led by Corbyn will never be that, or at least I cannot ever see it being a strong opposition.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
So:
Corbyn did better with women than men.
Corbyn did better with the working class than the middle class.
Corbyn did better in the North than London.
Corbyn did better with 40-59 than 18-24.
Pre-2015 members were marginally Corbynite and not Smithite.
Bunch of stereotypes blown up in the exit polling (technically not a proper exit poll, but more a poll conducted at exit). I think this is just another indicator of how out of touch lots of the Labour upper echelons were. I think if you'd asked them, almost all of them would have reckoned the reverse of these findings.
Quite a few people in here, too. I'd have got the fourth one wrong (although small sample size alert).
Corbyn did better with women than men.
Corbyn did better with the working class than the middle class.
Corbyn did better in the North than London.
Corbyn did better with 40-59 than 18-24.
Pre-2015 members were marginally Corbynite and not Smithite.
Bunch of stereotypes blown up in the exit polling (technically not a proper exit poll, but more a poll conducted at exit). I think this is just another indicator of how out of touch lots of the Labour upper echelons were. I think if you'd asked them, almost all of them would have reckoned the reverse of these findings.
Quite a few people in here, too. I'd have got the fourth one wrong (although small sample size alert).
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Aside from the women thing, I think all those other stats are about similar to the stats for those that mostly voted for Brexit.
If Labour wants to do well in those areas, it looks like Corbyn is the right choice.
If Labour wants to do well in those areas, it looks like Corbyn is the right choice.
AHA-Lambda
Member
I'd argue that's the same base that votes tory, but hey
I like what he stands for but it's an open secret he wanted out of the EU, and he's been a totally crap leader and left the Labour party as a laughing stock of an opposition in a time when we desperately need an effective opposition.
I'd argue that's the same base that votes tory, but hey
Compared to Corbynites the Tories are practically Ben Bernanke.
Opinion piece from Owen Jones about the best strategy to pursue to make the result work:
https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/a-s...leadership-to-succeed-9ffe4c27149b#.9sxd93lhc
Sadly, I don't see the Labour right cooperating on any level: we'll be back to leaked PLP meetings before you can say 'Blue Labour'. But hopefully Corbyn makes a proper effort to reach out to the moderates in the party who in turn make a proper effort to respond.
I don't know about that. I think a lot of 'Corbynites' are probably something resembling Keynesians, which makes a lot more economic sense than the absolute garbage tier economic policies the Tories have served up for the past half-decade.
https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/a-s...leadership-to-succeed-9ffe4c27149b#.9sxd93lhc
Sadly, I don't see the Labour right cooperating on any level: we'll be back to leaked PLP meetings before you can say 'Blue Labour'. But hopefully Corbyn makes a proper effort to reach out to the moderates in the party who in turn make a proper effort to respond.
I don't know about that. I think a lot of 'Corbynites' are probably something resembling Keynesians, which makes a lot more economic sense than the absolute garbage tier economic policies the Tories have served up for the past half-decade.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think Corbyn did want out of the EU. I don't think there's many who could make Corbyn reverse his opinions; he's that stubborn. I do think he surrounded himself with some who did want out of the EU (Milne), and they had too much control over key parts of his campaign, and Corbyn was too lukewarm in his approval of the EU to bother pushing back.
Every single mainstream political party is Keynesian.
yeah that's why the Tories cut spending
Right, which is why the Tories' rose to power with their promise of cutting spending during a recession?
They (quietly) reversed course when it became obvious how bad the effect of their policies was, but their media blitz was as resolutely anti-Keynesian as it could have been. We now have a general populace who believe that lowering a current account deficit during is both common sense and what gave us 'such a good recovery' (lol) from the Great Recession.
travisbickle
Member
Been hearing the phrase "money tree" a lot recently on TV. No way any government's getting into power with Keynesian ideas of spending.
UKIPs nothing, there two policies were leaving Europe and reintroducing Grammar schools. We've left Europe and Theresa May tested the waters with the Grammar idea.
UKIPs nothing, there two policies were leaving Europe and reintroducing Grammar schools. We've left Europe and Theresa May tested the waters with the Grammar idea.
FYI Keynesian policy is using the BOE to fight recessions and manage aggregate demand. Using large-scale spending is some bastardised 1940's notion. Practically nobody advocates using fiscal policy to fight recession outside automatic stabilisers and spending on long-term productive infrastructure.
If you think Keynesianism doesn't advocate any spending cuts I'm not sure what to say.
...the automatic stabilisers (incl. welfare spending) that the Tories cut?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You can't use the BoE to fight recessions when they've hit the zero lower bound and banks refuse to provide credit because they're worried about risk, making QE (outside of direct helicoptering) unviable - that is, exactly the sort of situation we've been in. Under these circumstances, Keynes advocated large scale fiscal expansion, precisely because monetary policy can't deal with whoppers like 2008.
Not to mention the Conservatives have been hacking back the automatic stabilizers and barely making infrastructure investments.
Huw_Dawson
Member
I'll be standing outside Labour conference tomorrow recruiting for the Lib Dems. From the sounds of it, I think we might get a few people.
The BOE never hit the ZLB. Also I don't think we really understood monetary policy until Friedman 68.
Don't get me wrong, the Tories aren't perfect. Far from it, although May has been signalling well, especially with regards to infrastructure spending (although lets see if she can back up her words), but they're hardly the bastion of ignorance you see from the far left.
I like redistribution and central government investment in infrastructure. I just don't want to see things we know don't work like government pushing up wages, using fiscal policy outside the ZLB, using redistribution as a means to growth etc.
Blair and his ilk is where the future of the Labour party lies (outside the war stuff). Spending in infrastructure, healthcare, education while reducing unnecessary spending, reducing government red tape and freeing up markets. We should be heading towards that, not fighting battles that were lost in the 70's.
Also I think governments should implement separate unemployment benefit schemes for recessions, because as is they're problematic during boom years and helpful during the busts.
Snarfington
Member
Best of luck! I've been on the fence about signing up with them ever since the referendum. This is pushing me a bit closer to doing it. We'll see.
I don't think the Tories' poor economic record is ignorance; it's a concerted effort to restructure the economy no matter the costs. Tory governments want to rig the economy to reward the best-off minority disproportionately while keeping the majority well-enough off that they don't stop voting for it.
There are other interpretations ('they genuinely think what they're doing is best for everyone!') but since a glance at economic data is enough to dispel that notion, I don't think it can be maintained as a plausible explanation of their actions.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, it really did. Where do you go from 0.5? 0.25? So small as to not make a difference, as other CBs have discovered to their dismay. Given frictional costs, 0 is effectively already below the ZLB and isn't really viable: see Japan.
Redistribution as a means to growth is exactly what the automatic stabilizers are - money goes from people with a low propensity to spend to a high propensity to spend. Pushing up wages is also fine unless the problem is a supply-side one. We are at the ZLB, so fiscal policy is exactly what you need to be doing.
With respect, I think you have are bright, but have an ideological opposition to those policies, and are finding any way to turn them down, even if it doesn't quite fit the picture. You can't talk about how good automatic stabilizers are and then talk down redistribution as a means to growth during recession/flatlining economy; they're... the same thing.
The Tories look at ways of creating wealth. The PLP look at ways of dividing it more fairly. They're both necessary imo, but they're both normative (i.e. you can push for lower growth in favour of 'fairer' growth, or higher growth at all costs, but neither of those are axiomatically correct). Econ is always suffering from the is-ought problem, an inability to turn descriptive models into prescriptive policy.
Hurting the bottom 20% to make the top 60% better off is anathema to the mainstream PLP, but the Tories would definitely implement policy to do this. But those are both normative positions, as one seeks to grow the pie, while the the other seeks to protect those at the bottom from the excesses of adding to that pie.
But what we shouldn't do is implement policy that we not only feel is wrong normatively, but from a positive perspective as well. You cannot make the country rich by constantly raising the minimum wage. Large-scale redistributive schemes hurt wealth creation and don't cause growth in countries with functioning central banks. Etc. That's my problem with Corbyn. Even if I agree with what he's attempting to do, we know his policies are terrible ways of doing it.
Eh, fair enough. I personally disagree with austerity during recession FWIW. I also think that the problems most CB's are facing are more to do with German and East Asian fiscal policy than domestic government policy.
Yea I tried to clarify that with my edit. The impact of automatic stabilisers during recession and during boom years is wildly different.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That's an optimistic view of the Conservatives. I think, like essentially any political party, they're concerned with the well-being of their internal blocs or social cleavages. I don't think they seek growth at any cost, I think they seek growth for farmers, pensioners, investors, people in the South of England, and so on - the same way Labour seeks growth for manual labourers, people in retail, the poor, migrants, people in the North of England. Neither is really concerned with growth in the abstract, other than insofar as it affects their perception amongst their blocs. There are, of course, both Conservatives and Labour politicians who have altruistic concerns, but I think that largely gets ground out of our political outcomes because of the incentives provided by our voting system.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
On a different note, Corbyn still hasn't quite got the hang of reshuffles. Announcing another one is imminent, despite the fact it will take weeks to sort out. Should only really announce one once you've already finished all the details, otherwise it drags on for weeks and you end up making a scene in public.
It's not like these are either/or propositions. In very rough generality the Tory's economic playbook (at least the public-facing side) is that focusing on the people at the top of the pile is good for everyone because if they have more money they can create more jobs or whatever, while the Labour playbook is that by concentrating on the bottom there are more people spending money and so more money working its way up through the system.
But we know how this works by now; we have a century of evidence pointing to the fact that the former doesn't really work and the latter often does; and we also now have some evidence that a yawning inequality gap is bad for more reasons than social justice and sense of fair play.
Except we know that giving more money to the bottom does nothing above the ZLB while improving incentives works for long-term growth by increasing labour supply. There is literally no evidence for the first. What's the mechanism by which it creates wealth? Ignore the social justice side completely.
CyclopsRock
Member
Ooh, ooh, me, me!!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Depending on the form of redistribution, quite a lot. People don't just spend their welfare - it allows them, for example, to go to night classes, or save up to do a qualifications course, or make long-term investments; all things which improve human capital and productivity and so push out the supply side. It only has "no effect" if you suppose people are just consumption machines.
Frankly this is a load of bollocks. How much of your viewpoint comes from what the media is telling you? Because it has been wall to wall coverage of how incompetent and unelectable he is even before he got elected the first time. Its been a non stop shitshow of stories to undermine him every second of the day. He never even had a chance to really lead as half his MPs decided to spit the dummy from day one.
The people are behind him in the Labour party. HUGE numbers of people. In fact I heard this morning from the BBC presenter that labour now has the highest membership of any left wing party in Europe. The presenter didn't go on to say "when will PLP members sit up and take notice and accept the will of the members", nope the presenter immediately went on to imply that this is an anomaly and assumed the rest of the country don't want Corbyn. I'm pretty sure if he wasn't lambasted (erroneously) at every stage, in every newspaper, on every news report, that he might actually have a chance.
He represents the kind of change in our politics many, many of us want. In Scotland we have moved on from the barely differentiated Tories/New Labour. Now England and the rest have a chance to show they want that change too, but those in power across the entire political and media spectrum are desperate to paint him as a crazy extreme nut job and prevent the people from getting a chance to be represented by someone like Corbyn and a party more attuned to true Labour values. Trotsky this, anti Semitic (fairly criticising the state of Israel for its numerous offences) and so on..
The only reason he lost Scotland is because every Labour member who would've voted Corbyn have now joined the massively more popular SNP. Labour hardcore left in Scotland are all the Blairite supporting hardcore, everyone else has left.
Anyone dismissing Corbyn now is seriously deluded as far as I'm concerned. He might not be your cup of tea, he might bring doom in your eyes (when Tories are competently bringing much of that themselves - disastrous Brexit, dismantling of the NHS to sell of to their buddies, surveillance state that makes 1984 look tame and so on..) but you can't deny that he is popular. Just because political pundits don't get it doesn't mean they're right. Remember they failed miserably over the last election, and Brexit, and they didn't expect the Scottish referendum to be anywhere near as close as it was and so on.. Political pundits in the media seem very good at pushing established party lines of thinking and completely ignoring everything else.
Surely Labour's huge membership, and that membership overwhelmingly supportive of Corbyn across most demographics, supports that there's more support there than people want to admit.
IdreamofHIME
Member
Turn on a news channel, wait for them to interview some Labour MPs and take a shot every time they say "come together".
Drunk in minutes.
Drunk in minutes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked