Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Britain Page 6 of 9

Jeremy Corbyn Re-elected as British Labour Leader

By

On September 24, 2016

Comments

61.8 percent of the vote, after a massive voter purge.

Labour Purge Numbers by Eoin

Labour Purge Numbers by Eoin

Labour Purge #s by Eoin

Labour Purge by Eoin

This is a fairly remarkable set of numbers. Even if we take them to be on the high side, a concerted effort appears to have been made to deny people votes, and almost always, from the anecdotes of those purged, they were Corbyn supporters. What is amazing is that even with so many people denied a vote, Corbyn crushed Smith.

The National Executive Committee (NEC) is the body which has the power to execute the purges.

I will suggest, strongly, that with a new roster on the NEC, Corbyn’s allies should re-instate virtually all the purged members, and that they should then purge those who were behind the purges.

There have been calls from neo-liberal Labourite leaders, like Kinnock, for ex-members of Labour’s Shadow Cabinet who participated in the abortive coup to ask to be reinstated and for Corbyn to let them back. Beyond a small number, I do hope Corbyn does not. These are not honest actors who can be trusted to stay loyal to Corbyn, and having lost two elections in a row, even despite the massive purge, they have little mandate.

We will now see if there is a split–many Tories and Labour MPs feel there should be a neo-liberal party dedicated to remaining in the EU.

This is a good day and a good result. Let us see what an actual left-wing Labour party is able to do going forward. For the first time in years, one of the two major parties in a Westminister democracy is actually left-wing, not “center-left” Blairist and neo-liberal.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Two Charts Which Explain J.K. Rowling’s Love of Blairism and Hatred of Corbyn

By

On September 2, 2016

Comments

J.K. Rowling

J.K. Rowling

So, the author of the Harry Potter books has come out hard against Jeremy Corbyn, and for Blairism. She has defended the Blairite legacy, and she has some good points: There were more nurses and teaching assistants, for example.

One could note that Blairism, as with all neo-liberalism before the crash of 07/8, was unsustainable. It was based on bubbles. Though it is true that Blairites did distribute more money than Conservatives have past the bubble: Insane austerity was not yet the guiding principle of the day.

Unsustainable means “helped cause the crash.” It’s true that Blairites would be less cruel than Conservatives, and it is also true that almost every MP who opposed Corbyn also abstained from voting against Welfare cuts, for example.

I don’t want to get too down on Rowling. As very rich people go, she’s a pretty good one. She doesn’t dodge taxes, she supports social welfare spending, and so on. “High” UK taxes are why she’s no longer quite a billionaire. (Quite; you needn’t worry she’ll be on the rolls again.)

But I think to understand Rowling’s love of Blairism one should understanding three things. First, she got welfare and doesn’t seem, again, to have noticed that the Blairites she loves are now anti-welfare.

Here are the other two things which might be important to understand Rowling’s love of neoLiberalism:

1)

Top Tax Rates

Top Tax Rates

Whatever else is true of Corbyn, if he becomes Prime Minister, he will raise taxes on the rich.

2)

UK one percent share of income to 2005

UK one percent share of income to 2005

Blairism is kinder-gentler Thatcherism. It is neoliberalism, and rich people have done very well under neoliberalism. Though this chart doesn’t show it, the top .1 percent do even better, the top .01 percent even better, and so on.

I don’t doubt Rowling’s good will, or her concern for those who have less money than she does. She’s put up by paying taxes she could have dodged. But that doesn’t alter the fact that neoliberalism has been very good to her, and she’d have been a ton less rich if the policies Corbyn favors, as epitomized by tax rates after WWII, plus far less generous copyright protection, had been in force.

Blairite neoliberalism, like Clintonianism, is the policy regime that lets rich and upper class people feel good about themselves. They get most of the benefits of neoliberalism without having to watch a boot stomping a face over and over again, as under Cameron.

That doesn’t alter the fact that neoliberalism is a cruel, unsustainable policy regime based on exporting British manufacturing, favoring “the City” and the financial industry over all others, and on pushing income and ownership of assets towards a small number of people. Nor did that change under Blairite Labour.

Rowling, of course, also thinks that Corbyn can’t win. Maybe he can, maybe he can’t. It’s certainly true that Labour infighting has seen the polls move heavily against Labour. It’s not clear, however, that this is Corbyn’s fault, or that it will be true come election time, or that a Blairite leader could win election either. Labour has been losing, and its collapse in Scotland did not happen while Corbyn was leader, nor probably would have, as it was driven in part by anger at austerity policies which Labour refused to oppose.

All this, however, is neither there nor that. The bottom line is that being a Blairite, Clintonian, or other third-way type, allows the rich and well-off to have their wealth and their tax cuts, and feel good about themselves.  Rowling may be 100 percent motivated by the milk of human kindness, but she is still supporting a regime that has done very, very well for her against the possibility of a change which would damage her financial position significantly.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

 

Posting to Resume & Corbyn (Open Thread)

By

On August 14, 2016

Comments

Due to a combination of sickness and hardware troubles I’ve been offline a few days and mostly out of commission.  The “Max Weber: A Skeleton Key” review will be published later this week.

In news from across the Pond I see that the right of members who joined British Labour after January 12th to vote in the leadership election has been taken away again by the High Court on appeal (they had won in the original ruling); their right to appeal refused and the court insisted the five new members who launched the court pay thirty thousand pounds of court costs to the Labour party within 30 days.

I was surprised when the original ruling went in Corbyn’s favor.  This is a particularly spiteful ruling, however, and exactly in line with my reading of the British ruling class.  Corbyn will still win, I expect, but the British ruling class keeps making the case for (non-violently) purging them.

Feel free to use this as an open thread.

(Article corrected to reflect that May wishes to expand Grammar schools, not “public” schools. (aka. took that bit out. Thanks to commenter MFI for the correction.)

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Corbyn’s Plan

By

On August 9, 2016

Comments

This is post-WWII liberalism, updated for social justice:

  1. Full employment and “an economy that works for all.”
  2. “Secure homes for all” by building “at least 1m” new homes over the next five years.
  3. Stronger employment rights and an end to zero hours contracts.
  4. End NHS privatisation, integrate NHS and social care.
  5. A free national education service and universal public childcare.
  6. Commitment to a low-carbon economy and green industries.
  7. Expand public services by renationalising railways and local leisure and sports centres.
  8. Shrink the gap between highest and lowest paid via “progressive taxation.”
  9. Act to end discrimination based on race, sex, or disability.
  10. Conflict resolution “at the heart of foreign policy.”

I find nothing radical here. Corbyn has also suggested a six hour work day, which is long overdue. The nations which work the longest aren’t the most productive nations; we might as well share jobs, and for people over 40, productivity drops radically after 30 hours a week anyway.

Jeremy CorbynI have little patience for all the Brits who are wringing their hands about Labour and parking their votes in the Conservative party. This is a good, non-radical plan that will work. It is a plan of a government that wants to be good to the poor and the young. Corbyn is entirely credible regarding the lot of it, as he’s stuck by these principles all through the Thatcher and Blairite years.

If you’re planning to vote Conservative in the UK, when this is on offer, you’re just an asshole, an “I”ve got mine, fuck you Jack,” or someone who has bought so far into neoliberal ideology that your political actions make you indistinguishable from an asshole, whether or not you think neoliberal policies “work.” (Especially as all the evidence is that they only work for a  minority, presumably a minority which you belong to.)

Brits have something which most of the rest of us don’t in most of the Western world: The opportunity to vote for a government which is not the lesser evil, but which is actually good. If they blow it, as far as I’m concerned, the majority blame will be on Brits, not on Corbyn. This is a character test: Do enough Brits still want a government which tries to take care of everyone?

Remember, the Conservative government, among other policies, cut a program which gave disabled people things like wheelchairs. That resulted, literally, wheelchairs being taken away from cripples. That’s what you’re voting for if you vote Conservative, and yes, you should be judged on that.

So, Brits have Corbyn to vote for. (He will defeat this revolt, there is no question in my mind, especially as the Courts have restored the voting rights of members who signed up since January and his supporters swept the NEP elections).

This is the potential first crack in the Anglo-world: The end of the neoliberal monopoly on power. Let’s see if the British are ready for it.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Labour National Executive Votes Corbyn is on the Ballot and Purges Members

By

On July 12, 2016

Comments

Jeremy CorbynSo, both sides got something.  Corbyn is on the ballot, but all members for the last six months are not eligible to vote, and those members who could vote before under the 3 pound membership (most of whom signed up to help Corbyn), must sign up for the 25 pound membership during a 48 hour window.

There can be no question that the NEC membership ruling hurts Corbyn, and badly, but labour unions are still for him, and I suspect he’s still the frontrunner.

The rebel MPs may still take the question of whether Corbyn is on the ballot to the courts.

I have been covering the Corbyn situation as closely as I have because it is important, very important. Corbyn is a modestly radical socialist, and if he winds up changing the Labour party in his image, it becomes an important anti-neoliberal force in one of the world’s most important countries.  This is the potentially the first serious, English speaking world, crack in the “you may choose from neoliberal party A or neoliberal party B” facade in my adult lifetime.

It matters, because as long as we can only choose neoliberalism, we cannot get off the train to hell.

Note that Corbyn, for example, believes in workplace democracy.  He is quite a bit more to the left than Bernie Sanders was.

Update-in case you’re British. Unite: https://t.co/IPBlltKdBw

labour Vote

Update 2: Turns out to be even more sleazy than I realized.

Labour Meeting pic


Corbyn may take this to the courts, himself, since the Labour website people were signing up on as members said they would have a vote for leader.

I do not know if the NEC can be recalled to change this.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

What the UK Labour Party Leadership Rules Actually Say About Nominating a Leader

By

On July 11, 2016

Comments

Angela Eagle has launched her leadership challenge against Jeremy Corbyn.

The plan is to keep Corbyn off the ballot. The rebels claim he needs to be nominated, his camp claims the leader does not need to be nominated.

Here are the rules:(pdf)

2.
Election of leader and deputy leader
A.
The leader and deputy leader shall be elected separately in accordance with rule C below,unless rule E below applies.
B.
Nomination
i.
In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy leader, each nomination must be supported by 12.5 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.
ii.
Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 percent of the Commons members of the PLP.
Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.

Those who wish to suggest that the rebels are correct, or that the law could easily be read either way, tend to quote only one part:

In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 percent of the Commons members of the PLP.

Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.

This section later seems key to the “not on ballot” argument.

Valid nominations shall be printed in the final agenda for party conference, together with the names of the nominating organisations and Commons members ofthe PLP supporting the nominations. In the case of a vacancy under E below this information shall be included with the documentation circulated with any ballot.

This suggests that everyone must be nominated in order to go on the ballot.

The first section clearly implies that only challengers need nominations. The second section, however, speaks of nominees being printed.

I am given to understand that those who drafted the regulations say that the intent was for the leader to automatically be on the ballot.

There is a strong argument that, legally, Corbyn, in the name of fairness, should be excluded from the ballot. You may read it here.

In any case, it seems clear that this will go to the courts. I am not sanguine, but we shall see.

I would suspect, if Corbyn is not on the ballot, that we may see some very bitter battles as members attempt to de-select and re-select MPs. There is also a real chance of the party splitting (as there is if Corbyn is on the ballot). The Conservative party will do very well out of this, but clearly it is most important to rebel MPs to keep the party as a neo-conservative party, not to oppose the Conservative party. (As it happens, I think they’re right. The Conservatives will do mostly what they would do, just somewhat more of it.)

The game continues.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Blair, et al. Committed War Crimes

By

On July 6, 2016

Comments

So, the Chilcot report is out and it’s not pretty.

Jeremy Corbyn has apologised on behalf of the Labour party for its role in the 2003 Iraq war, and warned that the people who took the decisions “laid bare in the Chilcot report” must now face up to the consequences.

…

The Labour leader’s apology went further than he had earlier in parliament, when he responded to the Chilcot report after David Cameron. At that point, Corbyn called the war an “act of military aggression”, arguing that it was thought of as illegal “by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion”. (emphasis added)

I very much hope this next man, who has far less worth than the toilet paper I clean myself with, is not a Labour candidate in the next election.

As Corbyn issued his excoriating statement to the House of Commons, he was heckled by his own backbencher Ian Austin, who shouted: “Sit down and shut up, you’re a disgrace.”

When you’re screaming at someone for apologizing for a war crime that is identical to that which many Nazi leaders were hung for, you’re officially a waste of human skin.

Corbyn hasn’t actually called for “war crimes trial for Blair,” but he’s made the case. The European Criminal Court, being also basically worthless, had already said that they would not try Tony Blair, but might charge ordinary soldiers.

I have never had any respect for the ECC, whose mandate appears to involve prosecuting the politically powerless, especially Africans, and avoiding anyone with any influence. Justice as unevenly applied as the ECC applies it is not a step in the right direction, it is actually injustice. Saying that they would not charge Blair even before the Chilcot report was out simply confirmed the primacy of political over legal considerations for them.

Yet again, Corbyn has proved he is one of very few honorable people in a den of scum. May he become Prime Minister and, once Prime Minister, may he ensure Tony Blair and those who aided and abetted him in selling the Iraq war with lies, have the fair trial they so richly deserve.

Oh, and as usual, doing so is not just the right thing to do ethically, it would be the right thing to do politically, keeping Corbyn’s primary enemies completely occupied. Because, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, the people who fear actual left-wingers or people of principle the most aren’t Tories, they are Blairites.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Neither Corbyn Nor Labour Need the Rebel MPs

By

On June 29, 2016

Comments

I see a great deal of fear around the idea of Labour splitting. While this is a slight concern, it isn’t a major one:

  • Corbyn has the support of the membership. Even most who don’t support him are unlikely to leave the party if he wins this confrontation.
  • If Corbyn wins, Britons will have a choice between an actual socialist party and a neoliberal party.
  • I suspect that “actual socialists” will do as well or better at the polls than “Tory light.”

It is possible that the rebel MPs, once kicked out through re-selection, will form a rump party. That would be a problem, but the next election is will be so non-standard, and likely wild, that I doubt they will make the key difference.

In any case, if you’re a left-winger, a chance to elect a left-wing party instead of choosing between two neo-liberal parties is too important to pass up. In a first pass, the post-system people eventually lose patience with the lead party and elect the second party, it’s just that simple.

Make sure you control that second party, and you will have your chance to enact your policies.

Labour, as a Blairite party, basically continued Thatcherism, but not as quickly. Labour was, simply, the slower road to hell.

Perhaps a party that offers “not heading to hell” will do better than one which offers the scenic route to the same place Tories want to go.

It’s certainly worth a flier. Hell ain’t that pretty. People should be understanding that by now.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 6 of 9

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén