Disaster socialism and disaster capitalism - opposite sides of the same coin

[Steven Toy]

A PFM member and friend (although I've not spoken to.him for a long time) told me while he was visiting me that the era of neoliberalism was coming to an end. This was in 2012, in the wake of the recession following the banking crash in 2008.

At that time, the far right fringes of the Tory Party (the ones basically in power now) had spoken against bailing out the banks with public money, presumably so we would have an even deeper depression which would create more buying opportunities and allow them to fulfill their goal outlined in Rees-Mogg Senior's book "Blood on the Streets."

The far left also saw this as an opportunity for socialism to replace neoliberalism as the model for our economy. (They deliberately polarise the debate to exclude the regulated markets option espoused by the European Union.) Presumably the population as a whole would regard socialism as the better option once capitalism had failed and the ultra wealthy had cleaned up at their expense. The anger on the part of the masses may even herald a revolution.

The fact that history shows that economic turmoil usually causes the general population to lurch to the right rather than the left as they seek, at the behest of some opportunist demagogue, to blame foreigners and perceived traitors for their woes, seems to be lost on those of the far left.

Fast forward to the present day and a no-deal Brexit presents exactly the same opportunities as the financial crash 11 years ago and both the far left and far right are seemingly excited by what may arise from the chaos and crisis.

Whilst Jeremy Corbyn is indeed a very nice chap, a man of principle and compassion unlike the current occupant of No 10, he has his own puppet master, Seamas Milne who is likely just as devious if less shouty than Cummings.

The leaders of the two main parties are both basically puppets to their advisors.

If this is reading like pure tinfoil-hat nutjobbery to some, why is it that Jeremy Corbyn, as instructed by his advisor, refuses to allow anyone other than himself to lead a government of national unity when he knows very well that he would fail to secure the backing of Parliament? He simply doesn't have the numbers. Jo Swinson may appear to be obstructive but she is only laying out the facts.

As much as I like Corbyn as a person, if he died peacefully in his sleep tonight the Brexit crisis would be over because he is the only Labour politician who is able to command support of the predominantly Remainer grassroots party members despite being a Leaver.

Moreover, there is any number of potential alternative candidates who could command a majority in Parliament and lead a government of national unity, including the Speaker.

Pretty much any other person leading the Labour Party would unite the Remain vote in this country and the Tories would be toast. Milne wants a crash-out Brexit, even if Corbyn doesn't. He knows that the Remain vote is split and he wants to.keep it that way.

If Johnson died in his sleep he would simply be replaced by another fanatical English nationalist Tory, probably Dominic Raab.

That leaves Corbyn as the instrument of hard Brexit, if only by default.

 

[droodzilla]

Sed contra...

My thoughts on the latest twist in the Brexit saga (specifically, Corbyn's plan to table a vote of no confidence to stop No Deal, organise a general election, and campaign for a second referendum). Management summary: keep calm and support the plan.

First, let’s deal with the accusations that Corbyn is “refusing to compromise” and/or “playing political games”:

1. Corbyn’s offer already represents a huge compromise. It’s a significant climb-down from Labour’s ambition to negotiate a soft Brexit. It risks losing Leave voters in Labour seats, and it alienates some of Corbyn’s key allies in the union movement and elsewhere on the left.

2. A general election is coming so political games are inevitable to some extent. For example, the vast majority of Lib-Dem target seats are currently held by the Conservatives (there are only two LD/Lab marginal and I live in one of them) so it makes sense for Jo Swinson to “punch left” and burnish her anti-Corbyn credentials. Also, it would undermine Corbyn’s legitimacy and damage Labour’s electoral prospects if Corbyn were prevented from assuming his natural position as head of a caretaker government, following a successful VoNC. Conversely, leading a caretaker government would immediately make Corbyn appear more "prime ministerial", the one thing his opponents insist he isn't, and would improve Labour's prospects in a general election. In theory it shouldn't matter who leads a caretaker government, but the political reality is different. All party leaders know this and are positioning themselves accordingly. To that extent, all of them are "playing political games", not just Corbyn, as the dominant narrative invites us to believe.

The reality is that – unwritten constitution notwithstanding – there is a natural expectation that the leader of the opposition should have the opportunity to form a government following a successful VoNC. Labour is the single largest opposition party by far, and Corbyn commands the single largest bloc of anti-No Deal, pro second referendum votes by far. Therefore, on any reasonable test, he should lead a caretaker government, the sole aim of which is to prevent no deal and organise a GE/second referendum.

None of the additional objections raised by Swinson, and others, stack up:

1. Corbyn can't control his own MPs.
Firstly this is an exaggeration. In a VoNC, the number of Labour rebels would be in low single figures (Hoey, Stringer, and other lost causes). Secondly it's irrelevant because, even if it were true, it would apply equally to any attempt to form a "government of national unity" led by (e.g.) Kenneth Clarke.

2. Corbyn can't get enough support from rebel Tories and smaller parties.
This is vacuous or, at best, a self-fulfilling prophecy. If there are enough MPs opposed to No Deal, and if preventing it is the absolute priority they claim it is, then there is no *principled* objection to a time-limited caretaker government, led by Corbyn, with the sole aim of stopping No Deal and organising a GE/second referendum. Rather than immediately ruling this out, Swinson should commit to backing Corbyn’s plan to put extra pressure on soft Tories, and/or strive to persuade them that it’s the right thing to do. Similarly, People’s Vote activists should be organising petitions and letter writing campaigns aimed at potential Tory rebels such as Dominic Grieve. Where there's a will, there's a way.

3. Corbyn is "a divisive figure".
That might be true. But again it's irrelevant since, on the "single biggest political issue of the day" Corbyn is now offering exactly what pro-Remain MPs have always wanted, and nothing more. If the issue really is that important, there is no excuse not to take up the offer.

4. Corbyn can't be trusted.
Irrelevant. If Corbyn tries any funny business his caretaker government will immediately fall to a VoNC.

5. Corbyn secretly wants Brexit.
So call his bluff and accept his offer. Also: see 4, above.

6. We want a referendum before a GE.
There's some room for debate here but I see at least four arguments against this:
a. It's more complicated, and takes longer = more chance that things will go wrong.
b. It lacks the clear political legitimacy of immediately calling a GE (in line with convention, following a VoNC).
c. It sets Boris Johnson up nicely for a "People vs Parliament" election, which he might easily win.
d. It stands less chance of carrying the 20+ Labour MPs who opposed a second referendum in the indicative votes.

The last point is important, but few commentators have picked up on it, even though Jo Swinson mentions these MPs in her official reply to Corbyn. Three or four Labour MPs support Brexit, even if that means we leave the EU without a deal; these people are lost causes. A more significant group of, perhaps, 25 Labour MPs (including Lisa Nandy, Caroline Flint) opposed a second referendum in the indicative votes. These MPs aren’t ideological Brexiteers, but they are concerned about the political legitimacy of trying to overturn the referendum result. Corbyn’s proposal (GE first, with Labour campaigning for a second referendum) allows them to reclaim political legitimacy, if Labour secure enough seats to form a (coalition) government. For all the focus on rebel Tories, Change UK and the LDs, it’s important not to forget this important group of Labour MPs, whose support will be critical in a VoNC.

So, stepping back from the detail, Corbyn's plan has clear political legitimacy, and looks like the quickest and cleanest route to prevent no deal, force a GE and (potentially) stop Brexit via a second referendum. If those are your political priorities, there is no principled reason not to support it. The plan might not succeed but it's the best chance we've got.

 

[PaulMB]

I seem to remember that at the time of the Brexit referendum, Labour were more pro-Brexit than the Tories. Only recently has Corbyn grudgingly shifted to a timidly "remain" position. But I'm only a poor foreigner and most PFM members have a far greater grasp of UK politics.
On another note, I wonder if today's neoliberalism was not gradually ushered in by the rise of the Chinese, Indian, Korean, etc., industrial economies, which made the Social-Democracy which dominated European thinking until the 1980s obsolete through being uncompetitive. An uncompetitiveness which, incidentally, was to a great extent the fault of the political Left, that could not see beyond domestic economic policy favourable to its voters and largely ignored the brutal realities of global competition.

 

[droodzilla]

Brutal realities: https://twitter.com/DLeonhardt/stat...jWs7rJgbn8THjZlN0PhPw3ehq3CrRo30JK7opc9ysc6QE

 

[Steven Toy]

Sed contra...

My thoughts on the latest twist in the Brexit saga (specifically, Corbyn's plan to table a vote of no confidence to stop No Deal, organise a general election, and campaign for a second referendum). Management summary: keep calm and support the plan.

First, let’s deal with the accusations that Corbyn is “refusing to compromise” and/or “playing political games”:

1. Corbyn’s offer already represents a huge compromise. It’s a significant climb-down from Labour’s ambition to negotiate a soft Brexit. It risks losing Leave voters in Labour seats, and it alienates some of Corbyn’s key allies in the union movement and elsewhere on the left.

2. A general election is coming so political games are inevitable to some extent. For example, the vast majority of Lib-Dem target seats are currently held by the Conservatives (there are only two LD/Lab marginal and I live in one of them) so it makes sense for Jo Swinson to “punch left” and burnish her anti-Corbyn credentials. Also, it would undermine Corbyn’s legitimacy and damage Labour’s electoral prospects if Corbyn were prevented from assuming his natural position as head of a caretaker government, following a successful VoNC. Conversely, leading a caretaker government would immediately make Corbyn appear more "prime ministerial", the one thing his opponents insist he isn't, and would improve Labour's prospects in a general election. In theory it shouldn't matter who leads a caretaker government, but the political reality is different. All party leaders know this and are positioning themselves accordingly. To that extent, all of them are "playing political games", not just Corbyn, as the dominant narrative invites us to believe.

The reality is that – unwritten constitution notwithstanding – there is a natural expectation that the leader of the opposition should have the opportunity to form a government following a successful VoNC. Labour is the single largest opposition party by far, and Corbyn commands the single largest bloc of anti-No Deal, pro second referendum votes by far. Therefore, on any reasonable test, he should lead a caretaker government, the sole aim of which is to prevent no deal and organise a GE/second referendum.

None of the additional objections raised by Swinson, and others, stack up:

1. Corbyn can't control his own MPs.
Firstly this is an exaggeration. In a VoNC, the number of Labour rebels would be in low single figures (Hoey, Stringer, and other lost causes). Secondly it's irrelevant because, even if it were true, it would apply equally to any attempt to form a "government of national unity" led by (e.g.) Kenneth Clarke.

2. Corbyn can't get enough support from rebel Tories and smaller parties.
This is vacuous or, at best, a self-fulfilling prophecy. If there are enough MPs opposed to No Deal, and if preventing it is the absolute priority they claim it is, then there is no *principled* objection to a time-limited caretaker government, led by Corbyn, with the sole aim of stopping No Deal and organising a GE/second referendum. Rather than immediately ruling this out, Swinson should commit to backing Corbyn’s plan to put extra pressure on soft Tories, and/or strive to persuade them that it’s the right thing to do. Similarly, People’s Vote activists should be organising petitions and letter writing campaigns aimed at potential Tory rebels such as Dominic Grieve. Where there's a will, there's a way.

3. Corbyn is "a divisive figure".
That might be true. But again it's irrelevant since, on the "single biggest political issue of the day" Corbyn is now offering exactly what pro-Remain MPs have always wanted, and nothing more. If the issue really is that important, there is no excuse not to take up the offer.

4. Corbyn can't be trusted.
Irrelevant. If Corbyn tries any funny business his caretaker government will immediately fall to a VoNC.

5. Corbyn secretly wants Brexit.
So call his bluff and accept his offer. Also: see 4, above.

6. We want a referendum before a GE.
There's some room for debate here but I see at least four arguments against this:
a. It's more complicated, and takes longer = more chance that things will go wrong.
b. It lacks the clear political legitimacy of immediately calling a GE (in line with convention, following a VoNC).
c. It sets Boris Johnson up nicely for a "People vs Parliament" election, which he might easily win.
d. It stands less chance of carrying the 20+ Labour MPs who opposed a second referendum in the indicative votes.

The last point is important, but few commentators have picked up on it, even though Jo Swinson mentions these MPs in her official reply to Corbyn. Three or four Labour MPs support Brexit, even if that means we leave the EU without a deal; these people are lost causes. A more significant group of, perhaps, 25 Labour MPs (including Lisa Nandy, Caroline Flint) opposed a second referendum in the indicative votes. These MPs aren’t ideological Brexiteers, but they are concerned about the political legitimacy of trying to overturn the referendum result. Corbyn’s proposal (GE first, with Labour campaigning for a second referendum) allows them to reclaim political legitimacy, if Labour secure enough seats to form a (coalition) government. For all the focus on rebel Tories, Change UK and the LDs, it’s important not to forget this important group of Labour MPs, whose support will be critical in a VoNC.

So, stepping back from the detail, Corbyn's plan has clear political legitimacy, and looks like the quickest and cleanest route to prevent no deal, force a GE and (potentially) stop Brexit via a second referendum. If those are your political priorities, there is no principled reason not to support it. The plan might not succeed but it's the best chance we've got.

Great post and it actually makes me feel a little less despondent than when I wrote the thread starter.

I have but one objection:

5. Corbyn secretly wants Brexit.
So call his bluff and accept his offer. Also: see 4, above.

I know this is often said but it is not my position.

Milne wants a crash-out Brexit.

Corbyn wants Brexit with a deal. He does not want a crash-out.

I personally would wholeheartedly accept his offer. The problem is, a majority of MPs almost certainly won't.

Perhaps it should be Milne not waking up tomorrow.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

But at least Corbyn's approach could be the optimal path in the preferred direction.

The LD grandstanding simply lets the right play their favourite 'divide and rule' card.

 

[Seanm]

Sed contra...

My thoughts on the latest twist in the Brexit saga (specifically, Corbyn's plan to table a vote of no confidence to stop No Deal, organise a general election, and campaign for a second referendum). Management summary: keep calm and support the plan.

First, let’s deal with the accusations that Corbyn is “refusing to compromise” and/or “playing political games”:

1. Corbyn’s offer already represents a huge compromise. It’s a significant climb-down from Labour’s ambition to negotiate a soft Brexit. It risks losing Leave voters in Labour seats, and it alienates some of Corbyn’s key allies in the union movement and elsewhere on the left.

2. A general election is coming so political games are inevitable to some extent. For example, the vast majority of Lib-Dem target seats are currently held by the Conservatives (there are only two LD/Lab marginal and I live in one of them) so it makes sense for Jo Swinson to “punch left” and burnish her anti-Corbyn credentials. Also, it would undermine Corbyn’s legitimacy and damage Labour’s electoral prospects if Corbyn were prevented from assuming his natural position as head of a caretaker government, following a successful VoNC. Conversely, leading a caretaker government would immediately make Corbyn appear more "prime ministerial", the one thing his opponents insist he isn't, and would improve Labour's prospects in a general election. In theory it shouldn't matter who leads a caretaker government, but the political reality is different. All party leaders know this and are positioning themselves accordingly. To that extent, all of them are "playing political games", not just Corbyn, as the dominant narrative invites us to believe.

The reality is that – unwritten constitution notwithstanding – there is a natural expectation that the leader of the opposition should have the opportunity to form a government following a successful VoNC. Labour is the single largest opposition party by far, and Corbyn commands the single largest bloc of anti-No Deal, pro second referendum votes by far. Therefore, on any reasonable test, he should lead a caretaker government, the sole aim of which is to prevent no deal and organise a GE/second referendum.

None of the additional objections raised by Swinson, and others, stack up:

1. Corbyn can't control his own MPs.
Firstly this is an exaggeration. In a VoNC, the number of Labour rebels would be in low single figures (Hoey, Stringer, and other lost causes). Secondly it's irrelevant because, even if it were true, it would apply equally to any attempt to form a "government of national unity" led by (e.g.) Kenneth Clarke.

2. Corbyn can't get enough support from rebel Tories and smaller parties.
This is vacuous or, at best, a self-fulfilling prophecy. If there are enough MPs opposed to No Deal, and if preventing it is the absolute priority they claim it is, then there is no *principled* objection to a time-limited caretaker government, led by Corbyn, with the sole aim of stopping No Deal and organising a GE/second referendum. Rather than immediately ruling this out, Swinson should commit to backing Corbyn’s plan to put extra pressure on soft Tories, and/or strive to persuade them that it’s the right thing to do. Similarly, People’s Vote activists should be organising petitions and letter writing campaigns aimed at potential Tory rebels such as Dominic Grieve. Where there's a will, there's a way.

3. Corbyn is "a divisive figure".
That might be true. But again it's irrelevant since, on the "single biggest political issue of the day" Corbyn is now offering exactly what pro-Remain MPs have always wanted, and nothing more. If the issue really is that important, there is no excuse not to take up the offer.

4. Corbyn can't be trusted.
Irrelevant. If Corbyn tries any funny business his caretaker government will immediately fall to a VoNC.

5. Corbyn secretly wants Brexit.
So call his bluff and accept his offer. Also: see 4, above.

6. We want a referendum before a GE.
There's some room for debate here but I see at least four arguments against this:
a. It's more complicated, and takes longer = more chance that things will go wrong.
b. It lacks the clear political legitimacy of immediately calling a GE (in line with convention, following a VoNC).
c. It sets Boris Johnson up nicely for a "People vs Parliament" election, which he might easily win.
d. It stands less chance of carrying the 20+ Labour MPs who opposed a second referendum in the indicative votes.

The last point is important, but few commentators have picked up on it, even though Jo Swinson mentions these MPs in her official reply to Corbyn. Three or four Labour MPs support Brexit, even if that means we leave the EU without a deal; these people are lost causes. A more significant group of, perhaps, 25 Labour MPs (including Lisa Nandy, Caroline Flint) opposed a second referendum in the indicative votes. These MPs aren’t ideological Brexiteers, but they are concerned about the political legitimacy of trying to overturn the referendum result. Corbyn’s proposal (GE first, with Labour campaigning for a second referendum) allows them to reclaim political legitimacy, if Labour secure enough seats to form a (coalition) government. For all the focus on rebel Tories, Change UK and the LDs, it’s important not to forget this important group of Labour MPs, whose support will be critical in a VoNC.

So, stepping back from the detail, Corbyn's plan has clear political legitimacy, and looks like the quickest and cleanest route to prevent no deal, force a GE and (potentially) stop Brexit via a second referendum. If those are your political priorities, there is no principled reason not to support it. The plan might not succeed but it's the best chance we've got.

Thanks drood I think this is unanswerable.

It's the "Corbyn is a divisive figure thing" thing that I find especially frustrating, because it's just transparently bad faith BS and yet sensible people indulge them on it. Corbyn's "divisiveness" is neither here nor there: it's 100% electoral calculation. I mean, fair enough, they'll want some more MPs. But why aren't journalists capable of remembering anything?

https://twitter.com/bentrott/status/1179755064421957633?s=20

 

[droodzilla]

Blimey! What did they have against Ed "he's the greatest dancer" Balls?!

 

[droodzilla]

Great post and it actually makes me feel a little less despondent than when I wrote the thread starter.

I have but one objection:



I know this is often said but it is not my position.

Milne wants a crash-out Brexit.

Corbyn wants Brexit with a deal. He does not want a crash-out.

I personally would wholeheartedly accept his offer. The problem is, a majority of MPs almost certainly won't.

Perhaps it should be Milne not waking up tomorrow.

I have an ice-pick you can borrow if you like?

Seriously, I think it's easy to overdo the "puppet-master" Milne argument. Corbyn is a stubborn old goat (a necessary survival skill for leftist MPs in the New Labour era) and I don't think he's especially malleable. Which is not to deny that he values and listens to Milne's advice.

I wrote the post weeks ago and I feel more despondent now because there is almost no pressure being put on Swinson and the Conservative rebels to back the plan. And Swinson could easily increase the pressure on Conservative rebels by saying that the LDs support the plan. The truth is this is all about positioning for the coming GE (nowt wrong with that, but let's not pretend it's anything else).

 

[Tim Jones]

Welcome back Steven (sincerely). Apologies if I've missed your return elsewhere.

 

[awkwardbydesign]

6. We want a referendum before a GE.
There's some room for debate here but I see at least four arguments against this:
a. It's more complicated, and takes longer = more chance that things will go wrong.

I presume "going wrong" means another vote to leave?

 

[droodzilla]

I presume "going wrong" means another vote to leave?

Yes. Or, for some reason, the second referendum never happens. The post is written from a left-Remain perspective, obviously.

 

[maxflinn]

Assuming by the far-left Steven means Corbyn, McDonnell (and Seamus 'puppet master' Milne), well I'm afraid the assertion that they want to replace capitalism with socialism is just plain wrong.

What they seek is a fusion of the two, with government ensuring that, regardless of whether there's a recession or a boom, the most vulnerable in society are catered for, not targeted! And there's adequate affordable housing, and no more tax loopholes for the wealthy and giant corporations. That kind of good old fashioned socially responsible stuff.

Capitalism would be still alive and kicking, not replaced.

 

[roman]

Sed contra...

My thoughts on the latest twist in the Brexit saga (specifically, Corbyn's plan to table a vote of no confidence to stop No Deal, organise a general election, and campaign for a second referendum). Management summary: keep calm and support the plan.

First, let’s deal with the accusations that Corbyn is “refusing to compromise” and/or “playing political games”:

1. Corbyn’s offer already represents a huge compromise. It’s a significant climb-down from Labour’s ambition to negotiate a soft Brexit. It risks losing Leave voters in Labour seats, and it alienates some of Corbyn’s key allies in the union movement and elsewhere on the left.

2. A general election is coming so political games are inevitable to some extent. For example, the vast majority of Lib-Dem target seats are currently held by the Conservatives (there are only two LD/Lab marginal and I live in one of them) so it makes sense for Jo Swinson to “punch left” and burnish her anti-Corbyn credentials. Also, it would undermine Corbyn’s legitimacy and damage Labour’s electoral prospects if Corbyn were prevented from assuming his natural position as head of a caretaker government, following a successful VoNC. Conversely, leading a caretaker government would immediately make Corbyn appear more "prime ministerial", the one thing his opponents insist he isn't, and would improve Labour's prospects in a general election. In theory it shouldn't matter who leads a caretaker government, but the political reality is different. All party leaders know this and are positioning themselves accordingly. To that extent, all of them are "playing political games", not just Corbyn, as the dominant narrative invites us to believe.

The reality is that – unwritten constitution notwithstanding – there is a natural expectation that the leader of the opposition should have the opportunity to form a government following a successful VoNC. Labour is the single largest opposition party by far, and Corbyn commands the single largest bloc of anti-No Deal, pro second referendum votes by far. Therefore, on any reasonable test, he should lead a caretaker government, the sole aim of which is to prevent no deal and organise a GE/second referendum.

None of the additional objections raised by Swinson, and others, stack up:

1. Corbyn can't control his own MPs.
Firstly this is an exaggeration. In a VoNC, the number of Labour rebels would be in low single figures (Hoey, Stringer, and other lost causes). Secondly it's irrelevant because, even if it were true, it would apply equally to any attempt to form a "government of national unity" led by (e.g.) Kenneth Clarke.

2. Corbyn can't get enough support from rebel Tories and smaller parties.
This is vacuous or, at best, a self-fulfilling prophecy. If there are enough MPs opposed to No Deal, and if preventing it is the absolute priority they claim it is, then there is no *principled* objection to a time-limited caretaker government, led by Corbyn, with the sole aim of stopping No Deal and organising a GE/second referendum. Rather than immediately ruling this out, Swinson should commit to backing Corbyn’s plan to put extra pressure on soft Tories, and/or strive to persuade them that it’s the right thing to do. Similarly, People’s Vote activists should be organising petitions and letter writing campaigns aimed at potential Tory rebels such as Dominic Grieve. Where there's a will, there's a way.

3. Corbyn is "a divisive figure".
That might be true. But again it's irrelevant since, on the "single biggest political issue of the day" Corbyn is now offering exactly what pro-Remain MPs have always wanted, and nothing more. If the issue really is that important, there is no excuse not to take up the offer.

4. Corbyn can't be trusted.
Irrelevant. If Corbyn tries any funny business his caretaker government will immediately fall to a VoNC.

5. Corbyn secretly wants Brexit.
So call his bluff and accept his offer. Also: see 4, above.

6. We want a referendum before a GE.
There's some room for debate here but I see at least four arguments against this:
a. It's more complicated, and takes longer = more chance that things will go wrong.
b. It lacks the clear political legitimacy of immediately calling a GE (in line with convention, following a VoNC).
c. It sets Boris Johnson up nicely for a "People vs Parliament" election, which he might easily win.
d. It stands less chance of carrying the 20+ Labour MPs who opposed a second referendum in the indicative votes.

The last point is important, but few commentators have picked up on it, even though Jo Swinson mentions these MPs in her official reply to Corbyn. Three or four Labour MPs support Brexit, even if that means we leave the EU without a deal; these people are lost causes. A more significant group of, perhaps, 25 Labour MPs (including Lisa Nandy, Caroline Flint) opposed a second referendum in the indicative votes. These MPs aren’t ideological Brexiteers, but they are concerned about the political legitimacy of trying to overturn the referendum result. Corbyn’s proposal (GE first, with Labour campaigning for a second referendum) allows them to reclaim political legitimacy, if Labour secure enough seats to form a (coalition) government. For all the focus on rebel Tories, Change UK and the LDs, it’s important not to forget this important group of Labour MPs, whose support will be critical in a VoNC.

So, stepping back from the detail, Corbyn's plan has clear political legitimacy, and looks like the quickest and cleanest route to prevent no deal, force a GE and (potentially) stop Brexit via a second referendum. If those are your political priorities, there is no principled reason not to support it. The plan might not succeed but it's the best chance we've got.

I admire your post but fear no 6 is the wrong way round for the reason that I think Johnson would be more likely to win an election whereas remain could win a referendum (notwithstanding Facebook/ Cambridge analytica type shenanigans). Obviously I speak as a remainer.

 

[Steven Toy]

Welcome back Steven (sincerely). Apologies if I've missed your return elsewhere.

You haven't.

I've been away for a few years due mainly to spending too much time on FB, both on the issue of Brexit and cross-border subcontracting of Private Hire bookings (it is a bad thing but that is something for another thread).

I have come back, in part because I need an echo chamber. FB is full of trolls and hysterical remainers who are not much better than the we-won-you-lost-so-suck-it-up knuckle-dragging Brexiteers who sport the Union flag when it should be the Cross of St George.

I need to read and participate in reasoned and informed debate for the sake of my mental health (no, I'm not being flippant about that).

I need an echo chamber because there are zero rational arguments for leaving the European Union (without a withdrawal agreement) which are not purely in the abstract. (Even the abstract arguments regarding sovereignty are inauthentic given the real reasons - deregulation for it's own sake as any competitive advantage of this would be wiped out - and rightly so by punitive tariffs, disaster capitalism and tax avoidance for the ultra-wealthy).

It isn't possible to have a reasoned discussion with a dyed-in-the-wool Brexiteer who has read the fake Lisbon Treaty and can recite it verbatim but has no idea what WTO default terms are.

I've tried, believe me, just as I've tried reasoning with the sycamore tree just over the fence on public land with overhanging branches for the various pestlilences that it heaps upon my garden and car during the year (yellow blossom, sap, spinners, autumn leaves and bird shit).

The success with both has been broadly equal.

Pfm did not use to be an echo chamber for me, far from it, but my political views have shifted decidedly leftwards as I realise what a shower of entitled manipulative sociopathic shitbags the Tories have become, if they weren't already.

I voted Labour in the 2017 GE and all the local politicians I know are in the Labour Party.

My natural political home now would be the Lib-dems or Labour with a different leader.

Given the choice between Johnson and Corbyn I'd pick Corbyn.

I used to be a climate change sceptic. This is no longer so. I like Greta Thunberg and believe in radical action but I still.maintain that a zero-sum-game model-shift transport policy is counterproductive. Congestion increases levels of nitrogen dioxide, particulates and carbon dioxide. Transport policy over the last 25 years has deliberately sought to increase levels of congestion out of the ideological premise that people would change their ways to avoid it. This has not happened and it was never going to.

Instead I want to see more roads and high-speed railways built but the internal combustion engine burning fossil fuels should be phased out in the next ten years and electricity generation should be carbon-free. I want to see our transport infrastructure expanded to allow the wealth of the country to be spread across it as well as improve productivity.

I already drive a hybrid vehicle and I will replace it with a fully electric powered one as soon as I'm able.

I did make a prediction about ten years ago that there is opposition to private cars which exists purely for ideological reasons. The impact on the environment was just a convenient if compelling argument.

I have been proved correct. The anti-car brigade now clutch at straws by talking of emissions from brake pad and tyre wear.

Take a set of four tyres and 8 brake pads that are worn to just above their legal minima of 1.6 and 1.5 mm respectively. Compare their weight to that of brand new sets of pads and tyres. Divide the difference in weight by the number of kilometers over which the worn sets have been used.

You get the picture.

 

[Steven Toy]

Assuming by the far-left Steven means Corbyn, McDonnell (and Seamus 'puppet master' Milne), well I'm afraid the assertion that they want to replace capitalism with socialism is just plain wrong.

What they seek is a fusion of the two, with government ensuring that, regardless of whether there's a recession or a boom, the most vulnerable in society are catered for, not targeted! And there's adequate affordable housing, and no more tax loopholes for the wealthy and giant corporations. That kind of good old fashioned socially responsible stuff.

Capitalism would be still alive and kicking, not replaced.

Boom and bust only exist because the ultra-wealthy make money out of the turmoil.

A regulated market effectively ends boom and bust.

You still get fluctuations, for sure but they are manageable.

 

[Tony L]

Steven, welcome back, but beware, there be Brexiters here!

PS I’ve noticed you attempting to talk sense on Facebook! A scary job, but someone has to do it. James ex-WigWam owner is very good too, a true master of the logical putdown. I just can’t be bothered and quietly unfriend the few people who spam ugly English nationalist content. Luckily most of my friends are actually well to the left of me, so its only been a couple!

 

[Tim Jones]

Boom and bust only exist because the ultra-wealthy make money out of the turmoil.

A regulated market effectively ends boom and bust.

You still get fluctuations, for sure but they are manageable.

It may surprise some here to hear me say this, but I agree with this diagnosis.

The conventional (ie pre-Marx) proponents of capitalism rested on the idea that it was good for producers, workers, and consumers.

What we have now is pretty much good only for the former, not least by virtue of their capture of both governments and information.

 

[Steven Toy]

It may surprise some here to hear me say this, but I agree with this diagnosis.

The conventional (ie pre-Marx) proponents of capitalism rested on the idea that it was good for producers, workers, and consumers.

What we have now is pretty much good only for the former, not least by virtue of their capture of both governments and information.

Neoliberals argue that recessions clear out dead wood and make those who survive them leaner, fitter and more competitive.

The reality is there can be no long term capital investment in industry under such circumstances because with each wave of recession the investment is lost as factories close and plant machinery is sold on.

When demand subsequently picks up production capacity has been lost and that demand cannot be met so another bust becomes inevitable.

By removing boom and bust the factories survive, even if they have to shed a few workers during any slowdown in demand but when the demand picks up again they are still in business to meet it.

UK productivity (read efficiency) is poor as a result of successive waves of boom and bust as well as lack of investment in transport infrastructure.

In summary, boom and bust is not good for producers either.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Welcome back Steven. From what you say, you have a fair few ideological compatriots here now. The only task I can see as outstanding is to get you to acknowledge that Corbyn might actually be a Good Thing for the country. We'll work on it...

Not too much has changed, other than the dominance of Brexit and Trump threads. There's a cable thread (mains leads, specifically) smouldering away on Audio but I wouldn't bother. You can pretty much write all the contributions, and attribute them to the usual suspects.