The Politics Thread

[The Railway Man]

Simon Danchuz can't stop stirring

 

[Captain...]

I agree, he does seem very London centric though and weirdly that was something Labour admitted just a few months back they needed to get away from, I get the feeling he's barely ever been anywhere outside of Islington or ever really spoken to people who hold anything other than a hard-left position. If his description of things like immigration in Rochdale is "wonderful" he can't have been there, he does seem a decent bloke though, it's a shame about those around him and his supporters who clearly aren't decent people.

 

He's got a massive uphill task,,,he is even seen as incapable of running the country by a large part of his own party members.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyns-labour-party-perceived-as-increasingly-incompetent-says-poll-a6709641.html

 

 

 

 

The thing is he hasn't been groomed for leadership, I think it was probably as much  surprise to him as any one and he and the party has to find a solution which addresses the reasons why he was elected labour, a swing to the left, a change from Tory lite and political dick swinging, whilst also still maintaining the core support of the Labour party. More of the same, ie another Miliband would have been another moderate failure for Labour, whereas Corbyn has the chance to make a real positive change on how Labour are perceived, or be an unmitigated disaster and set the Labour party back decades, the bizarre thing is a lot of the Labour party seem to be determined to make it option B.

[Dr The Singh]

Interesting read that, and it think it probably highlights why I want Jeremy to succeed, he is a decent man and not deserving of the shite he has received, but also why he probably won't, he is politically naïve and he hasn't made the best decisions in appointing his shadow cabinet. The thing is he has 4 years to sort it all out and if he has the full backing of the labour party then he can mount a serious challenge, but with the constant undermining of him then they stand no chance.

As per my question posted before, where was Corbyn, why hasn't he responded????  Because like every other politician he is a fraud, he will pick and choose the bandwagon that suits him, it's nothing about doing what's right, Corbynites are mugs!!!

[Guest MattP]

To be fair those polls make Corbyn look like he's doing ok compared to his personal approval ratings. Looks like the undecideds have already started to make up their minds.

 

 

-20 is pretty shambolic for a leader starting out.

 

Only Gordon Brown suffered even greater unpopularity, with a rating of minus 42 in June 2008 just before the bank bailout. YouGov’s record for voter disapproval is held by Nick Clegg, who registered minus 65 in May last year.

 

Labour will move swiftly to find its candidate for the previously safe seat of Oldham West and Royton, where a by-election will be held after the death of Michael Meacher. Candidates will be interviewed on Monday, with selection taking place on Thursday.

It could be the first test of strength between the pro-Corbyn and moderate wings of the party, with a self-proclaimed Corbynista and a centrist council chief among the contenders. The frontrunner is the Oldham council leader, Jim McMahon, 35, an influential figure in the party who serves on its ruling national executive committee.

 

Julie Reid, 56, a leftwing champion of Mr Corbyn, is also set to apply. The Manchester councillor, no to austerity campaigner, pro-Palestine activist, anti fracking protestor and part-time teacher said: “I’m going to go for it . . . I’m a Corbynista and I’m very working class.”

 

The date of the by-election has not yet been decided but Labour insiders say it is likely to be before Christmas.

 

Labour will win Oldham and Royton comfortably but the vote share will be midly interesting in a very solid and safe Labour seat.

 

What will be very interesting is the candidate they pick, I'm sure they'll go with the "no to austerity campaigner, pro-Palestine activist, anti fracking protestor and part-time teacher" who is a Corbynista and "very working class"

[Rincewind]

If people are so anti Corbyn why would they pick a pro Corbyn candidate?

The part time teacher is a good one. I wonder how many teachers will consider themselves part time?

If he is very working class then he will have empathy with the 'very working class' who are affected by austerity.

[Voll Blau]

Chris Grayling's made a tit of himself with his comments on FoI in the Commons today. Basically waving a massive red rag to every journalist in the country.

[Guest MattP]

If people are so anti Corbyn why would they pick a pro Corbyn candidate?

The part time teacher is a good one. I wonder how many teachers will consider themselves part time?

If he is very working class then he will have empathy with the 'very working class' who are affected by austerity.

 

Because the "people" Yougiv speak of aren't all members of the Labour party, it's not an open primary to the whole constituency. I have no idea how many teachers consider themselves part time or what that has to do with anything.

 

I'd also imagine Julie Read is a woman.

[Guest MattP]

Chris Grayling's made a tit of himself with his comments on FoI in the Commons today. Basically waving a massive red rag to every journalist in the country.

 

When does he not? He's absolutely hopeless.

[Guest MattP]

So, so far this week we've had anti-Corbyn pieces from the cvnt Amis, the cvnt Danczuk and the cvnt bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.

 

Sterling work, Jez.

 

Here's the piece from Amis from the Sunday Times if anyone is interested. It must be worrying when someone as left as Amis is saying Labour don't deserve a single vote.

 

MARTIN AMIS, the leading British novelist of his generation, has dismissed Jeremy Corbyn as “undereducated”, “slow-minded” and “humourless”, warning that he will leave the Labour party “undeserving of a single vote”.

In an article for The Sunday Times, Amis — a leading figure on the British left for three decades — condemns the Labour leader for lacking “the slightest grasp of the national character” and parroting “pallidly third-hand” views.

 

Amis says that “Corbyn is the fluky beneficiary of a drastic elevation” and is quite unsuited to lead the party after obtaining two Es at A-level before dropping out of a trade union studies course at North London Polytechnic. “He is undereducated,” Amis writes.

“In general his intellectual CV gives an impression of slow-minded rigidity; and he seems essentially incurious about anything beyond his immediate sphere.”

 

The writer criticises Corbyn for having no sense of humour, saying it is not a trivial matter but “an extremely grave accusation, imputing as it does a want of elementary nous. To put it crassly, the humourless man is a joke — and a joke he will never get.”

Amis attacks Corbyn’s views on terrorism, saying his comparisons between western troops and “the glitteringly murderous theists of Islamic State” are an example of the “dismally reflexive mental habit of seeking tinkertoy moral ‘equivalence’ at every opportunity”.

 

Dismissing Corbyn’s stated desire to scrap the army as “a veritable spear through the British soul”, Amis adds: “He is without the slightest grasp of the national character — an abysmal deficit for any politician.”

He warns that Labour under Corbyn would become “hopelessly retrograde, self- absorbed, self-pitying and self-righteous, quite unembarrassed by its (years-long) tantrum, necessarily and increasingly hostile to democracy and, in any sane view, undeserving of a single vote”.

 

Amis spoke out as Lord Warner, who resigned the Labour whip last week, revealed that he knows “four or five people” in the Lords “who are thinking seriously” about jumping ship as well.

 

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Warner said that by 2020 Corbyn’s leadership “may well take the Labour party to a point where it can never rebuild”. In that case, Warner predicted “an SDP moment” when Labour exiles would set up “a social democratic left-of-centre party rather like the SPD in Germany”.

 

Corbyn is facing anger over secret plans to let Scottish Labour set its own policies, which could contradict those of the party south of the border. There is also a growing rebellion from MPs about the appointment of hard-left aides Seumas Milne and Andrew Fisher.

 

(Edit: The actual piece)

 

WHEN I was 10, I used to crouch by the radio on Saturday mornings to hear the children’s songs, and I was always anxiously hoping for Carbon the Copy Cat. You can find an intriguing rendition of Carbon on YouTube by Tex Ritter, who could impart a touch of gravitas and woe to the simplest chant or lullaby. The version I thrilled to, in 1959, was much smoother and jollier; whereas Tex was a Texan, the “cover” was the work of an unnamed Midwesterner, who pronounced Carbon “Carbin” (cf “Wimbledin”). Is it any wonder, then, that I have been going around the place this summer singing Corbyn the Copy Cat?

 

The comparison is far from airtight, I admit, but the example of the Copy Cat still has much to teach us. Carbon is a bloody fool of a feline who wants to join, or at least to imitate, animals from other species.

 

Like a sheep he tried to baa (baa, baa)

Like a bird he tried to chirp (chirp, chirp)

Like a dog he tried to bark (bark, bark).

He tried and tried, the best he knew how.

It always came out meow, meow, meow.

Jeremy Corbyn learnt to say meow early on in life (coached, at several removes, by a certain German economist); and it has never even occurred to him to try saying anything else.

 

We are exact contemporaries (born 1949, along with Nato); and for the lion’s share of my twenties I found myself close to the epicentre of the Corbyn milieu. For I was on the staff of the New Statesman — attending party conferences, drinking with parliamentary correspondents and playing regular games of cricket and football against Tribune and other loose confederations of the left. There were identikit Corbyns everywhere — right down to the ginger beard, the plump fountain pen in the top pocket and the visible undervest, slightly discoloured in the family wash.

 

Weedy, nervy and thrifty (you often saw a little folded purse full of humid coins), with an awkward-squad look about them (as if nursing a well-informed grievance), the Corbyns were in fact honest and good-hearted. Politically, they were the salt of the earth — “those to whom”, at some stage and on some level, “the miseries of the world / Are misery, and will not let them rest” (John Keats). What the exponents of the old left were like humanly depended — with mathematical precision — on how doctrinaire they were. You sought the company of Alan Watkins and Mary Holland, among many others; you avoided the company of Corin Redgrave and Kika Markham (as well as the more driven Corbyns).

All this was during the later 1970s — the apogee and swansong of the old left. Harold Wilson’s short third term after the interregnum of Ted Heath; James Callaghan (1976-79), and work to rule, the miners’ strike (Arthur Scargill), the three-day week, plus a class war whose spasms you felt a dozen times a day; then came Margaret Thatcher (1979-90). Everyone was old left. It was generally felt at the Statesman that the proletariat deserved to win, this time: now there would at last be moral redress.

 

My closest office colleagues were old left too, with variations. I agreed with James Fenton, pretty much, when he calmly stated: “I want a government that is weak against the trade unions.” Julian Barnes clashed with a certain Staggers hardliner when he revealed that he had once voted Liberal. That hardliner was Christopher Hitchens. Throughout his polemical career Christopher maintained his peculiar blend of irony and steel. When he came up to the books and arts department, there would always be an exchange of taunts and teases. “You want rule by yobs,” I used to tell him: “Not just rule in their interests and in their name — but rule by yobs.” “That’s it,” he’d answer, with his equivocating smile: “I live for the day when the berks are finally in the saddle.”

 

It is one of the most saliently endearing facts about Christopher — that he never, ever, stopped loving Trotsky. Everyone else was old left too, though by then largely shorn of utopian romance. And everyone who looked in on the weekly editorial meetings, who dropped by with pieces entitled An End to Growth and Whither the Closed Shop?, was Jeremy Corbyn. Or were they? Corbyn himself wouldn’t have joined us, as all the others did, in the pub or in the Bung Hole wine bar (he’s TT), nor in the Italian cafe where we all had the full English breakfast for lunch (he’s vegetarian). Then, too, the bods who came to Great Turnstile were, once you got to know them, congenial types who, in addition, could put an argument together on paper, often with some panache. And Jeremy? After 30-odd years as a safe-seat backbencher (Islington North), Corbyn is the fluky beneficiary of a drastic elevation. So it is time to take a serious look at his flaws.

He is undereducated. Which is one way of putting it. His schooling dried up when he was 18, at which point he had two E-grade A-levels to his name; he started a course at North London Polytechnic, true, where he immersed himself in trade union studies, but dropped out after a year. And that was that. Corbyn says he enjoys “reading and writing” (listing them, I thought, as if they were hobbies, like potholing and trainspotting); to my eyes, he doesn’t have the eager aura of an autodidact. It is a fair guess that his briefcase, or his satchel, contains nothing but manifestos and position papers. In general, his intellectual CV gives an impression of slow-minded rigidity; and he seems essentially incurious about anything beyond his immediate sphere.

 

He is humourless. Many journalists have remarked on this, usually in a tone of wry indulgence. In fact it is an extremely grave accusation, imputing as it does a want of elementary nous.

To put it crassly, the humourless man is a joke — and a joke he will never get. When he was collared by a TV team and asked to say something about Tony Blair’s wearily witty attacks on him, Corbyn straightened up and said he would respond only to “substantive” questions. In his face there was not the slightest glint of amusement or defiance or spirit. And Blair’s criticisms contained plenty that was “substantive”, including the charge that everything Corbyn says, without exception, is pallidly third-hand — his championship, for instance, of clause 4 (on public ownership), which was first formulated in 1918. “I don’t do personal,” Corbyn has explained, shoring up one’s surmise that he is “modern” only in the vulgarity of his phrasing.

 

When he found himself arguing for a UK where every house has a garden, Corbyn elaborated as follows: “Anyone who wants to be a beekeeper should be a beekeeper.” Nobody with a sense of humour could possibly have said that.

He is without the slightest grasp of the national character — an abysmal deficit for any politician, let alone a torchbearer. The idea of dismantling Trident looks set to gain a clear plurality on practical grounds; but his proposal to leave Nato (“a Cold War organisation”), and so paralyse the special relationship, causes only exasperated tedium in London and suspicious puzzlement in Washington. As for his proposal to scrap the army (last articulated in 2012): this would be a veritable spear through the British soul. It shows an indifference to both the past and the future. Philip Larkin spoke for the country, as he often did, in Homage to a Government (1969):

 

Next year we shall be living in a country

That brought its soldiers home for lack of money.

The statues will be standing in the same

Tree-muffled squares, and look nearly the same.

Our children will not know it’s a different country.

 

The national character contains nationalism, naturally; and the British temper is above all gradualist. Enormous powers of suasion are needed to induce an electorate to waive what it values most, which is continuity.

Turning to Corbyn’s foreign policies — well, here I’ll deal only with the thing they call IT (international terrorism). When at last he managed to make himself clear about what he hoped would happen in the Middle East, Corbyn’s vaunted “friendship” with Hamas and Hezbollah became roughly intelligible. Far more damningly and tellingly, he often implied that July 7, 2005, was an act of revenge, a calibrated tit-for-tat, for the invasion of Iraq.

We see here the dismally reflexive mental habit of seeking tinkertoy moral “equivalence” at every opportunity; thus the glitteringly murderous theists of Isis are indistinguishable from the coalition troops in Falluja. And heed his Churchillian call for “political compromise” with Isis.

 

Generously equipped with the demerits — the encysted dogmas — of the old left, Corbyn nonetheless gawkily embodies one of its noblest themes: the search for something a bit better than what exists today: more equal, more gentle, more just.

 

If, as every commentator seems to agree, the current Corbyn is obviously unelectable, then in what direction will he be obliged to move? The recruitment of Seumas Milne as media manager changes nothing, though it does defer the prospect of a slicked-up, business-friendly Corbyn with a new suit and a new smile. That was always close to inconceivable. It is far easier to imagine a Labour party that devolves for now into a leftist equivalent of the American GOP: hopelessly retrograde, self-absorbed, self-pitying and self-righteous, quite unembarrassed by its (years-long) tantrum, necessarily and increasingly hostile to democracy, and in any sane view undeserving of a single vote.

For all his charming insecurities, Carbon the Copy Cat boldly roamed the rural farmsteads, and showed an ardent interest in the exotic, the other — the mooing cows, the clucking hens, the quacking ducks. In contrast to the coal-black Carbon, Corbyn is a marmalade cat, homebound, perched like a tea cosy on the kitchen radiator, and contentedly wedded to the things he already knows.

 

[Dr The Singh]

Corbyn got 2 E's at A level, so he must be able read, and type.......so why the fook hasn't he responded to people's plea's!!!

[Rincewind]

Matt you mentioned part time teachers in your post. I just wondered why it was part time as opposed to full time so I took it as a dig at teachers who are leftie.

[Carl the Llama]

I have to ask:  Since doing the right thing by the British public wasn't the intention here, what motivated the HOL to behave in such an arrogant fashion?

Still waiting for an answer to this, Matt, what power play are the HOL trying to pull off here in your esteemed opinion?

[Guest MattP]

Still waiting for an answer to this, Matt, what power play are the HOL trying to pull off here in your esteemed opinion?

 

Apologies, didn't intentionally miss it, given the votes and who voted you can only assume it was a politically motivated attack on the chancellor, they had the majority to do it and they did, I still think hey have looked at Labour now and in their own heads thought to themselves they now have to be the opposition as the current one in Westminster is incapable of doing it and then like anyone who finds new found power, didn't realise the extent to what they were taking liberties. I don't buy for a minute the House of Lords all of a sudden cares about the welfare of people given the policy they have allowed to sail by in the past.

 

What is really getting to me though is people are now thinking this is justified because it's popular, that's really not the way it works or should work.

 

An alliance of peers and bishops, all unelected, joined together to force policy on the government by the upper chamber, the tax credit cuts, as set out in the summer budget, have been approved three times by the House of Commons, the democratic centre of Britain. The toughest of two motions passed by the Lords here ostensibly requires the government to delay the cuts for three years pending a review of their impact. This would, in effect, kill the measure. The Lords rebellion is an egregious case of over-reach regardless of the merits of the arguments for and against the cuts.

 

The fact that the motions passed with the help of more than 90 Liberal Democrat peers when the party has eight MPs should disqualify them as a roadblock to government policy.

[Carl the Llama]

Apologies, didn't intentionally miss it, given the votes and who voted you can only assume it was a politically motivated attack on the chancellor, they had the majority to do it and they did, I still think hey have looked at Labour now and in their own heads thought to themselves they now have to be the opposition as the current one in Westminster is incapable of doing it and then like anyone who finds new found power, didn't realise the extent to what they were taking liberties. I don't buy for a minute the House of Lords all of a sudden cares about the welfare of people given the policy they have allowed to sail by in the past.

 

What is really getting to me though is people are now thinking this is justified because it's popular, that's really not the way it works or should work.

 

An alliance of peers and bishops, all unelected, joined together to force policy on the government by the upper chamber, the tax credit cuts, as set out in the summer budget, have been approved three times by the House of Commons, the democratic centre of Britain. The toughest of two motions passed by the Lords here ostensibly requires the government to delay the cuts for three years pending a review of their impact. This would, in effect, kill the measure. The Lords rebellion is an egregious case of over-reach regardless of the merits of the arguments for and against the cuts.

 

The fact that the motions passed with the help of more than 90 Liberal Democrat peers when the party has eight MPs should disqualify them as a roadblock to government policy.

The constitution of peers in the HOL is certainly something that needs looking at - I'm not for one second arguing that it's a perfect benevolent institution.  In fact that's kind of the reason I'm so pleased with their action in this regard because I find the whole idea of the HOL, an unelected group, having legislative clout rather uncomfortable but for once they've shown that they can actually serve a democratic purpose after all.  Secretly I imagine many Tories are grateful as well because they stood to lose a lot of popularity with the electorate if their proposal went through, now they can say they tried to fix the economy and the fascist Lords stopped them.

[Wymsey]

Please can someone tell me about this 'Kids Company' fiasco?

 

Seems to have been going on a while.

[Guest MattP]

No doubt whatsoever a lot of Tories will be secretly pleased; it was a toxic policy and could have been a killer in swing seats.

They wouldn't have dared come up with such a policy if Labour had a Jarvis/Umanna etc as leader.

[RedSoxUK]

Corbyn got 2 E's at A level, so he must be able read, and type.......so why the fook hasn't he responded to people's plea's!!!

 

Because he's so back-bench that he's actually ****ing fallen off.

 

Thanks Tucker.

[MooseBreath]

The constitution of peers in the HOL is certainly something that needs looking at - I'm not for one second arguing that it's a perfect benevolent institution. In fact that's kind of the reason I'm so pleased with their action in this regard because I find the whole idea of the HOL, an unelected group, having legislative clout rather uncomfortable but for once they've shown that they can actually serve a democratic purpose after all. Secretly I imagine many Tories are grateful as well because they stood to lose a lot of popularity with the electorate if their proposal went through, now they can say they tried to fix the economy and the fascist Lords stopped them.

How exactly have they served a democratic purpose in this case?

[theessexfox]

How exactly have they served a democratic purpose in this case?

Arguably the secondary, revising chamber have served a purpose in standing up to legislation passed by a government in the House of Commons, who were elected whilst concealing this specific policy. Yes you could argue that they pledged to cut welfare spending, however it's clear that they didn't include specifics like the tax credit cuts because they would be unpopular and render them less likely to get elected.

 

I agree that the make-up of the HoL is undemocratic and they have overstepped their conventional powers, but their function is to revise legislation and in my opinion they have acted as an effective block against a policy that wasn't voted for.

 

Good time to have started an A Level politics course - what with a shift in direction for Labour, and a key recent case study on the powers of the Upper Chamber and their constitutional, conventional rights, it's very interesting. 

[Rincewind]

Some good posts on this page. Repped. 

[RedSoxUK]

Arguably the secondary, revising chamber have served a purpose in standing up to legislation passed by a government in the House of Commons, who were elected whilst concealing this specific policy. Yes you could argue that they pledged to cut welfare spending, however it's clear that they didn't include specifics like the tax credit cuts because they would be unpopular and render them less likely to get elected.

 

I agree that the make-up of the HoL is undemocratic and they have overstepped their conventional powers, but their function is to revise legislation and in my opinion they have acted as an effective block against a policy that wasn't voted for.

 

Good time to have started an A Level politics course - what with a shift in direction for Labour, and a key recent case study on the powers of the Upper Chamber and their constitutional, conventional rights, it's very interesting. 

 

There are argument for and against the HoL, and it's only really when they react or stop the democratic process that they even become at all relevent. I'd like reform entirely, they need to be representative of the people, and mirror the House of Commons, it needs to be a safety net, a safety check. 1) bishops should have a little place in the HoL, 25/26 is just too much - seperation of church and state please, 1 is enough representative. 2) the rest are mostly failed politicians, that havn't even been elected by the people.

 

IMO the HoL should represent all walks of UK life, by all means keep a bishop, keep the ex-military personnel, the scientists, the businessmen - there needs to be a bigger influence from differen sectors - not just politicians who are not elected, that's just not democratic to me.

[The Railway Man]

Some good posts on this page. Repped. 

 

What's your opinion on an unelected second chamber?

[Captain...]

What's your opinion on an unelected second chamber?

 

Sometimes, when you see what we elect, I have no problem with unelected bodies. I find it difficult to see how electing the HoL will make it any different in make up to the HoC, unless the HoL elections are between general elections, then the people can elect an opposition if needed. But that could lead to a lot more vote winning populist policies, career politicians and a greater influence of the fickle whim of public favour.

 

For those who want an elected second house, how do you see it working?

[theessexfox]

The idea in principle that we have experts in various fields in the HoL to scrutinise legislation and apply their knowledge from their career has the potential to work well to allow the HoL to be a good revising chamber, imo. However, the influence of the bishops, which is rather out of date in today's society, along with party donors and cronies of the leaders being appointed makes it less democratic and more in need of reform.

 

I would strongly argue against a fully elected Upper Chamber; who wants more career politicians? And it would potentially make the HoL on par with the HoC, often causing political gridlock and not a lot getting through, unless one party has a large majority in both houses in which case government scrutiny would be greatly reduced. I like the secondary, revising nature of the Lords but I'm stuck on how you'd change the make-up to purely deserving experts in their fields.  

[Captain...]

The idea in principle that we have experts in various fields in the HoL to scrutinise legislation and apply their knowledge from their career has the potential to work well to allow the HoL to be a good revising chamber, imo. However, the influence of the bishops, which is rather out of date in today's society, along with party donors and cronies of the leaders being appointed makes it less democratic and more in need of reform.

 

I would strongly argue against a fully elected Upper Chamber; who wants more career politicians? And it would potentially make the HoL on par with the HoC, often causing political gridlock and not a lot getting through, unless one party has a large majority in both houses in which case government scrutiny would be greatly reduced. I like the secondary, revising nature of the Lords but I'm stuck on how you'd change the make-up to purely deserving experts in their fields.  

 

Would they be elected, either by the public or from within their industry, or appointed by elected officials, or would it come with certain roles, if you become the chief of the police then one of your responsibilities is to represent the police force in the HoL and you have rights to vote on policing issues or does that represent too much vested interest and it should be academics/neutrals?

 

It is very difficult to think up a fair way of creating an upper chamber filled with experts, the easiest thing is just to hide behind democracy and absolve yourself of responsibility letting the public vote.