Rolling Brexit Links/UK politics in the neo-Weimar era

Boris seems to be floating the idea that the UK will join in with the next round of Trump's air strikes if they've invited.

I keep thinking about the headline of that NS piece implying that Labour should not be a party that appeals to socialists

Brown was attacked for being dangerously left-wing too. The Blair years really did pave the path for socially liberal types to completely detach themselves from the economics of inequality.

Miliband was also and more effectively attacked for not looking like a leader or potential PM: in fact there's an entirely plausible theory that this factor on its own was enough to cost Labour the election.

I thought Miliband should have stood down in time to give a successor a chance to bed in before an election. The electorate's perception of him wasn't fair, but it was consistent enough over a long period of time to suggest that it wasn't going to change.

Unfortunately Miliband looks like a Hollywood casting director's idea of a successful British politician compared to Corbyn.

looking like a leader 2017:

http://cdn-03.independent.ie/incoming/article35635109.ece/ALTERNATES/h342/DailyMail.PNG

which leads to the question, not how does a left party compete in this environment, but why bother? let's just kill ourselves and get it over with

Several of Corbyn's policies wouldn't be out of place in a Miliband manifesto and some of them could have even been in Blair's without many people batting an eyelid, but there are more than enough points of difference as well. It's a reasonably moderate social democratic policy platform (that's also in and of itself very popular) but he's been painted as a dangerous radical. Being timid while looking radical is probably the wrong way round. Unfortunately he's just not capable of countering this, although he's been doing well enough at campaigning. Opening up debate in and of itself isn't enough, and I wonder whether the "why should he resign?" crew would take Labour never winning an election again in exchange for being sufficiently left-wing.

The PLP haven't backed him at all, they should resign from their seats instead.

Pretty sure most of them won't have any choice.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n08/david-runciman/short-cuts

Runciman in the LRB is interesting on this - Tony Benn's concerns that a left-wing leadership with no authority would be worse than a right-wing leadership that had to be able to work with the left. It's becoming very apparent that you need a coalition of both in order to stand a chance - the right knows how to do the down and dirty things that actually win elections, and knows how to appeal to the wider electorate. But you need the left to keep them accountable and remind the party what it's actually for. That coalition held throughout the early Blair era because for every one thing he was doing they didn't approve of, there were another two or three they were very happy with. But it frayed from 2001 onwards, was on life support throughout the Miliband era and collapsed completely when the right failed to oppose the welfare cap.

Any Labour leader who can't find a way to repair that isn't going to do shit.

I wonder whether the "why should he resign?" crew would take Labour never winning an election again in exchange for being sufficiently left-wing

yeah, basically, for a value of "sufficiently left-wing" equal to or greater than "actively working to promote greater economic equality and a strong, well-funded welfare state"

because without those things the Labour party is functionally useless to me and why would I care whether it could win an election or not?

Do you think that makes it functionally useless to other people?

I mean people who aren't smug media liberals or investment bankers.

also, reducing inequality and poverty should not be the furthest extent of the party's ambitions, it should be its starting point and bare minimum reason to exist

I dunno Matt, what is the point of a Labour government that doesn't want to try to manage the economic base of the country?

unless we're back at the politics of "not the most heinous bastards in the bunch" in which case, again, probably better off just not thinking about politics

probably better off just not thinking about politics

I'm trying.

Blairite apologists are still trumpeting Brown's accelerated privatization of the NHS and the demonstrably failed Sure Start programme as their notable achievements ffs

Agreed that the Labour party doesn't serve any purpose in and of itself if it doesn't do the bare minimum for what it's supposed to represent. Still hoping against hope that there's a middle ground between PLP takeover and happy fringe party status tho.

I'm not sure there is one in theory, but what we have right now is so venal, destructive, stupid, vindictive, divisive and racist that I would take virtually anything that stopped it right now. And no the party of Tony Blair and David Miliband is not going to be able to do that, but it also has to be something that isn't completely fucking ineffectual in the face of such an onslaught.

A neoliberal wonk is unlikely to win next time round but it has to be someone that isn't going to preside over another clusterfuck. A left-wing or even centre-left leader with some charisma and strategic thought could actually succeed.

(And yes I totally blame New Labour for opening the door to our current toxic immigration policy, which is why I don't trust them to row back from it)

"actively working to promote greater economic equality and a strong, well-funded welfare state"

This is the bare minimum for me as well fwiw, and no one who can't convince of their ability to do this is going to stand a chance with the membership. But Corbyn is making it less, not more likely.

obv I will go and vote against the Tories which in my constituency means a vote for left-wing firebrand Diana Johnson, and I'd encourage everybody right now to vote for whoever is most likely to beat the Tory in their constituency. but that doesn't mean going forward I'm happy for anything to happen to the Labour party as long as they're electable.

Yeah I'd cosign that really. But "electable" doesn't have to mean "a slightly pinker version of every Tory policy", which is what a lot of the PLP seem to think it should be right now.

I have to think they're just not very bright, or not very interested in economics, most of them. which is gob-smacking if you think about it, like centrist politics has become a branch of social work or charity work. but if they're confused about big technical terms like neoliberalism, maybe some could spell out to them that the Labour party wasn't really set up to let businesses just do whatever the hell they like while the government mops up their mess with inadequate benefits and inadequate social services and inadequate education and etc

shall we do an election thread? "n'er cast a clout til May be out: brelection 2017?"

^^^

a+

I was gonna go with No Brexit: Hell is Other Voters

or "I'm Talkin' Fear" tbh

should maybe combine the former imo

"n'er cast a clout til May be out: Hell is Other Voters

"n'er cast a clout til May be out aka NO BREXIT: hell is other voters -- UK election 2017

tidy work there

Miliband managed to appear moderate despite having policies that were well to the left of Blair/Brown. The right-wing press did their worst to make the Red Ed tag stick but the only people who bought it were other convinced right wingers.

It wasn't the electorate's impression of where he was on the left/right spectrum that did for him, it was the belief that this gawky nerd might be a nice enough bloke but wasn't the sort you'd want to put in charge of anything.

why not move to the nice new thread?

I would argue it's not the politician that's on trial in those situations