On the Anti-Corbyn Coup

Yes to much of this BUT it’s way too early to write Corbyn off. Look at the man’s career – he’s nothing if not persistent. I’ll just copy and paste what I wrote on the other thread:

“Too early to tell if Corbyn’s going down or not. He was made leader by a very large majority of the membership and has a good organisation behind him. It’s not all that difficult to deselect a Labour MP and the PLP is very much out of sync with their membership. Another possibility is that a large group of MPs will jump before they’re pushed.”

and

PS: Momentum’s Corbyn loyalists to confront rebel Labour MPs | Politics | The Guardian

and

First, if anyone is undemocratic enough to think that there can be a new leadership election with the existing leader kept off the ballot, then they are setting the Labour party on course for a split.

And second, Unite has hitherto opposed any plans to change the party rules governing mandatory re-selection of Labour MPs. That, too, we have looked on as a divisive distraction.

But those MPs who have missed no opportunity to tweet and brief against the party’s elected leader over the last 10 months will find that their disloyalty finds no favour with party members and will make this an increasingly difficult line to hold.

Labour mutineers are betraying our national interest | Len McCluskey | Opinion | The Guardian

Corbyn tried to hold the party together – that”s why he reluctantly went against what he’s been saying for most of his career and campaigned somewhat unenthusiastically for remain. It’s also why he appointed Blairites to his shadow cabinet. I think he failed and I think it unlikely that the rift can be healed. What’s far more likely I think is that the Blairite’s will split off from Labour and well see the SDP fiasco all over again. Tim Farron must be experiencing 60 orgasms a minute.

From what you’ve written it seems you think that there was unanimity on the British left against Brexit. This is very far from being the case. There was a left-wing campaign for Brexit it didn’t get much attention from the media but it was very active. People like Dennis Skinner were strongly for Brexit and campaigned accordingly. The same is true of Frank Field. Then are centre-left people like Nigel Willmott who made a pretty good case for why Left wingers should vote for Brexit: Remain and reform is wishful thinking – the left should vote leave

Too many links – is the upper limit two?

To address your other points:

Scotland – I was for Scottish independence and still am. If the Scots want to break free of England and join the EU fine. I suspect that they might be a lot nimbler on their feet than the English and make a go of it. They’d probably be a better neighbour for us as well. Even the rump state consisting of England & Wales might be a lot easier to get along with once they’ve got used to being a smallish country, then again maybe not they could go into one gigantic snit and stay there.

As to Irish reunification I’m an Irish Republican and my instincts are far more aligned with Sinn Fein’s republicanism than they with the natonalism of the SDLP. (Or the republicanism of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael come to that.) I’m also a realist the fact is that a minority of the electorate in the Republic voted for Sinn Fein. Another fact is that the majority of the population in the Six Counties still look to London. The political loyalty of the Six Counties will change as the Unionist population shrinks and the Nationalist one increases a process that’s well under way. Once there’s a majority Nationalist/Republican population point the English will leave “pausing” as a Loyalist politician once put it “only to write a cheque”.

Any form of coercion of the Unionist population would be catastrophic for Ireland as a whole and I don’t see the Loyalists voting to join with us just because the province gets a lot of subsidies from the EU. Identity trumps economics.

I very much like your article, and your support of J Corbyn, who seems to me a mild Eisenhower Republican sort of politician, even if he has a bit of a “wild youth” background. He has a very difficult situation: for example he is very keen as you say on party unity, so he cannot quite disclaim the past 30 years in which New Labour tried to push down low end wages with a policy of high immigration. As to this:

«To Blairites the left is the real enemy. Their only real dispute with Conservatives was a matter of pacing and style.»

I have a wonderful quote from the published diary of a Labour politician, L Price, dated 1999:

«Philip Gould analysed our problem very clearly. We don’t know what we are. Gordon wants us to be a radical progressive, movement, but wants us to keep our heads down on Europe. Peter [Mandelson] thinks that we are a quasi-Conservative Party but that we should stick our necks out on Europe. Philip didn’t say this, but I think TB either can’t make up his mind or wants to be both at the same time.»

T Blair eventually I think aligned himself with P Mandelson on «we are a quasi-Conservative Party» but with G Brown on «keep our heads down on Europe».

@ Blissex June 26, 2016

Eishenower Republican – Jesus wept. Sorry but you manifestly haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re on about. Corbyn is an old-fashioned Clause 4 English socialist and proud of it.

Here’s the text of Clause 4:

“To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”

Corbyn’s a socialist in the same socialist tradition as Tony Benn, Michael Foot, and Eric Heffer.

He was furious when the Blairites got rid of Clause 4 and said so, repeatedly. He’s also said that he wants it or some form of it back in the Labour Party constitution he said it in an interview with The Independent when campaigning for leadership of the Labour Party:

“I think we should talk about what the objectives of the party are, whether that’s restoring Clause Four as it was originally written or it’s a different one. But we shouldn’t shy away from public participation, public investment in industry and public control of the railways.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-to-bring-back-clause-four-contender-pledges-to-bury-new-labour-with-commitment-to-10446982.html

What on earth do you mean “Eisenhower republican”? – If I a European conservative catholic heavily engaged in European conservative catholic politics can recognise and honour him for what he is a principled and decent socialist who has repeatedly stood up for his socialist beliefs why the hell can’t you?

Here he is at the Oxford Union in 2013 speaking in opposition to the motion:

“This House Believes Socialism Will Not Work.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZvAvNJL-gE

Incidentally the motion was defeated.

As to your quote from Lance Price’s book you could at least have had the honesty to point out that the L Price being quoted was Lance Price – that would be the Lance Price who worked at Number 10 Downing Street as special adviser* to Tony Blair. He now works as a political commentator for Rupert Murdoch’s Sky News. You get no prizes for guessing what kind of commentary he gets paid for making.

*Special Advisers or SPADs as they’re known are explicitly political appointees appointed to give specifically political – partisan political, advice to the minister that appoints them, they lose their job the minute the minister who appointed them loses his or her job.

It is completely expectable that the forces of the status quo will do everything in their power, legitimate and illegitimate, to see that the status quo (and their power) is maintained. I am struck by the similarities between the British and American experiences, despite the differences in the forms of government. The systems in both countries are struggling to provide the same non-choice between a pseudo populist on the right (Trump and Johnson) and an anti-populist on the “left” (Clinton and some Blairite). At the same time, they are seeking to marginalize the moderate, if limited, populist leaders. In the US, they have succeeded with Sanders. And now in the UK they are making their move on Corbyn. If that doesn’t work and Corbyn stays in charge of Labour, they will split the party or whatever else is necessary to see that he does not become PM. The same would have happened in the US with Sanders. The Establishment status quo Democrats would rather lose with Sanders than win with him, but even if Sanders had somehow managed to become the party’s nominee, and had won the general election, they would still have done everything they could to emasculate him and destroy his Presidency.

Corbyn and Sanders also share the same fatal flaw. They both tried to use completely corrupt parties as mechanisms for reform. At some point, there has to be a showdown, and a break. In the US, Sanders has already rejected these options, validating the BAR’s characterization of him as a sheepdog and mine that he was a Trojan horse. The jury is still out on Corbyn, but he is rapidly approaching his make a break moment.

Sorry Hugh but no – it is wholly wrong to say that the Labour party is “completely corrupt” it isn’t. There’s a very large part of it that never accepted Blair and his “third way” and there’s a very large part of it that never abandoned socialism. Quite a bit of the recent increase in membership was people who left in disgust because of Blair and his policies coming back.

And nobody could describe Corbyn as a populist any more than you could say Tony Benn was or Michael Foot were populists. Corbyn’s a conviction politician who could have had a very good career if he’d been prepared to compromise on his socialist principles. He wasn’t and was ostracised by the party leadership for the entirety of New Labour’s stranglehold on the party. That grip is now slipping. Many of the grassroots never completely accepted Blair and much of “Old Labour” is now resurgent for example in the Momentum movement.

The Blairite grasp of power was never complete and is now becoming tenuous which is why they’re making their move now they want to hang onto the Labour machine because they know damn well what happened to the SDP.

From the FT the last few paragraphs of a piece by Andrew Hill:

The fifth and final leadership failure is unfolding now as politicians fumble the transfers of power. Succession is almost always bloodier in politics than in business. Even so, the sight of leading Leavers Michael Gove, the justice secretary, and Mr Johnson struggling, white-faced, with the implications of victory, and Mr Cameron and Mr Corbyn with the consequences of defeat, presents a scene of near-total leadership disarray. The ever smugger Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence party, stands by to exploit the vacuum.

Boards often allude to contingency plans in case their chief executive is “run over by a bus”. With this referendum, the main political leaders have given such succession crisis scenarios a new and reckless twist. They have loaded the passengers, cheerfully removed the handbrake and stepped out in front, to be flattened by the vehicle of their own ambitions.

Read in full: Five failures of leadership and one hollow Brexit success — FT.com

It’s a good point. Johnson, Gove, and the ‘leave’ wing of the Tory party – people like Ian Duncan Smith, and John Redwood thought they could come in and pick up the pieces without being forced to “own” the consequences of their victory. They don’t seem to ever have had (sorry I can never resist a pun) an exit strategy.

Now they’ve just discovered that they’ve damaged their sponsors’ interests and probably irreparably split their party. I think they thought that Cameron would take the responsibility and the blame for initiating the Article 50 process. Except of course he’s changed his mind about that and said that that will have to be done by his successor.

Furthermore (I’m told by people I know in the Brexit campaign) that they weren’t at all expecting that Lord Hill would immediately tender his resignation as EU commissioner in charge of financial services. If you have access to the Financial times and have the same sort of schadenfreude laced sense of humour that I do it’s making increasingly hilarious reading. The last sentence is quite delicious:

His departure is the most tangible sign of British political influence in Brussels evaporating after its referendum vote to leave the EU, with power draining away from Brits in the EU institutions and the European Parliament. No new British commissioner was nominated, in part because a confirmation hearing in the European Parliament was seen as a lost cause.

Underlining the abrupt shift influence, Lord Hill’s powerful portfolio — initially offered to Britain as an olive-branch — has been taken over by Valdis Dombrovskis, the commission vice-president responsible for the euro.

The move is a sign the EU is shifting its policy goals towards aligning Europe’s 28-country strong single market for finance with the interests of the smaller eurozone and its banking union, rather than allowing them to permanently coexist. It is an outcome Britain had spent 25 years fighting to avoid.

City of London has lost its voice with Brexit, says Lord Hill – FT.com

Oops I mispasted while replying to mc sorry it should have read:

@ mc June 26, 2016

I think it’s making a mountain out of a molehill. The fact is that the Unionists/Loyalists share an identity – and that that identity is a specifically British one. They’re mostly the descendants of two waves of British colonists settled in Ireland first during the reign of Elizabeth I these were mostly English a second wave that settled during the English civil war and the interregnum were mostly Scots covenanters. Irrespective of which type of loyalist they are their loyalty is to Britain not Ireland.

All other considerations are overridden by that primary loyalty.

They regard Ireland – the republic as a foreign country and they’re right it is – we’re not British and we fought a long and vicious war of independence to force them to leave. My paternal granddad commanded one of General Collins’ death squads and was very explicit about how he wished he could have killed more of them.

The same type of primary loyalty is found amongst the nationalist community they look to the Republic and want the country to be reunited and ruled as independent republic from Dublin.

All other considerations are overridden by that primary loyalty.

Ian,

If it’s not too much bother could you delete my original comment?

Thanks

mfi

I’m so tired of these milquetoast pussies that the left pulls out of their hats like Sanders and Corbyn.

You’re an idiot. Sanders and Corbyn stepped up because no one else did!!!! If Corbyn didn’t step up, the Blairites would still be in control and have taken an even worse beating re: Brexit. So stop your damn bellyaching and get behind Corbyn. He’s doing the best he can, and hopefully was taking inspiration from the title of The Clash’s second album.

The Brexit vote and subsequent action by the Northern Irish and Scots seem to empathize the dislike and voter repudiation of unresponsive central governments.

The Irish peoposal for unification is amusing, given the history of seprtness on that Ireland. The South needs to become includes of the people in the North, and thos who consider themselves loyal to the UK crown eith move or reconcile themselves to eceoming Irish. This appears a complete change of heart on both sides.

A better question is not what will England do, but what others will do in the face of removal of their sovereignty under the EU and various trade treaties containing ISDS and Regulation Harmonization.

For that challenge the English people, who have been the victims of 40 years of neo-liberal rule have given the mandate to do what they can. The beneficiaries of the neo-liberal order over the last 40 years, the finance industry, can either take their skills and emigrate or put their skills to work to build a counter to the neo-liberal order.

That requires real leadership in england, and that leadership, inclusiveness and working together, is not a strength of UK conservatives.

I suggest the English, turn inward, erect tariffs, and create a “Made in England” reindustrialization system, with labor participation – something which has never been done before in England with its class system. It might be impossible, for people never escape their history.

The finance sector might experience a large outward migration of people to toil under the deliberately abusive neoliberal order elsewhere. Whatever happens the financial sector is too large for a small country.

One very clear product the UK could sell is a complete banking system software for countries wishing to regain their sovereignty by escaping the Euro. Or the dollar.

Phil Perspective
June 27, 2016
I’m so tired of these milquetoast pussies that the left pulls out of their hats like Sanders and Corbyn.
You’re an idiot. Sanders and Corbyn stepped up because no one else did!

Hmm, who’s the real idiot here? Incompetent leadership, is bloody incompetent leadership.
Sanders? Are you bloody serious; “I’ll vote for Hillary”.
And Corbyn? NLK’s statement: “Milquetoast pussies”, would seem a good fit.
In the end it’s a hopeless morass of manipulated (ignorant) masses who just cannot grasp what’s being (been) done to them; fuck’em all…

Greenwald still believes there are such things as good Democrats and principled conservatives. He went comfortable. He has a nice life in Brazil, a great gig at the Intercept, and all he had to do to have these is not release the Snowden trove. Of course, the relevance and importance of the Snowden files are rapidly diminishing, considering that it is already three years (June 2013) since Snowden leaked them to Greenwald, the NSA has returned to business as usual, and the issue is dead. Way to go, Glenn!

Why didn’t the Leavers get mad at the people who were giving the immigrants ‘their’ jobs? The anger just seems misdirected.

1) Glenn Greenwald also supported Iraq. Don’t trust him too?

2) Who exactly on the left wants to see Corbyn gone? I’m not accusing you of straw-manning, but I haven’t come across this. The argument that Brexit is his fault is laughable and only taken seriously by the drooling elites.

“The same I suppose could be said of Paul Krugman, David Brooks, and even George Will. The problem that they and Greenwald have is that at some point their errors seriously get in the way of their credibility.”

Krugman loudly opposed the Iraq war at a time when liberal pundits were losing their jobs for doing so (Donahue on MSNBC). We should remember he was hired by the Times to be a boring technocratic economics writer on trade & such and bravely repurposed his column to calling out the Bush campaign in 2000 for its rampant dishonesty. He’s said it was a radicalizing event and the majority of the press corps went along with it as if Bush and Gore were both running conventional campaigns. There are reasons many on the left gave Krugman a lot of credit even if he was generally a pro-globalization/free trade soft neoliberal in his academic career – he demonstrated courage and bucked the mores of his peers. That’s very rare among the elites.

His recent repetitive dumping on Sanders & blind eyes toward Clinton’s flaws are certainly reasonable cause to write him off going forward (and I’m sure there are other things one can criticize him for) or at least significantly discount his views, but putting him in the same league as Brooks & Will is ludicrous, as bad as all the both-sides-are-equally-wrong centrist fallacies.

Corbyn out:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-28/u-k-labour-s-corbyn-loses-confidence-vote-of-party-lawmakers

Corbyn refuses to resign. Insists on election of membership. Legal debate over whether current leader is automatically nominated or whether he needs 50 MPs to nominate. Lost by 172-40 in MP no-confidence.

Another question is whether the Blairites would attempt to create a new party out of a split Labour. That might serve to delay or derail an anti-Neo-Liberal government.