Jeremy Corbyn

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: Jeremy Corbyn

Postby rd45 » 19 Sep 2015, 19:20

super_dipsy wrote:rd45, I think you miss my point.


No, I understood you very well, but I disagreed with you. Respectfully, of course. :)

super_dipsy wrote:Of course, I may be doing Corbyn a disservice. Perhaps the appointment of McDonnell is a classic bait and switch.


TBH, I doubt he's thought that far ahead. I'm a big fan, as you can tell. But even I'm not seeing any of this as being part of a master plan. He's plainly making it up as he goes along. Could turn out well, as these things sometimes do. But the odds aren't that great. McDonnell is very likely the best he has for shadow chancellor, now or in the future. He's got some baggage, for better or worse, but it's not like well-qualified candidates were queuing up at the door.

In reality, all Corbyn needs to do between now & the conference season is to hunker down & let some of the more egregious media shit blow past him. When it comes to the labour conference, that's when we'll see whether there's any kind of plot or splitting about to happen. But it would be handy if he's come up with three or four popular counterblasts in the meantime, so his supporters have got something to rally around.
User avatar
rd45
 
Posts: 350
Joined: 13 Oct 2014, 15:41
Location: tethered to the logic of homo sapien
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1302
All-game rating: 1329
Timezone: GMT

Re: Jeremy Corbyn

Postby Antigonos » 04 Oct 2015, 18:38

It seems that contrary to the impression that most of the media are trying to sell us Jeremy Corbyn is seeking and receiving some very serious and expert economic advice.


Jeremy Corbyn’s Necessary Agenda

by MARIANA MAZZUCATO

BRIGHTON –
Seven economists (including Joseph Stiglitz, Thomas Piketty, and me) have agreed to become economic advisers to Jeremy Corbyn, the new leader of the British Labour Party. I hope we will have a shared goal to help Labour shape an economic policy that is investment-led, inclusive, and sustainable. We will bring different ideas to the table, but these are my thoughts on the kind of progressive agenda the United Kingdom – and the rest of the world – now needs.

When the Labour Party lost the election last May, it received considerable criticism – even from its own frontbenchers – for failing to embrace the business community as “wealth creators.” But while businesses clearly create wealth, so do workers, public institutions, and civil-society organizations, which, through dynamic partnerships, drive long-term growth and productivity. Indeed, a progressive economic agenda must begin with the recognition that wealth creation is a collective process and that market outcomes are the product of how these various “wealth creators” interact.

We must drop the false dichotomy of governments versus markets and begin to think more clearly about the market outcomes we want. There is plenty to learn from public investments that were mission-oriented, instead of focused on “facilitating” or “incentivizing” business. Policy should actively shape and create markets, not just fix them when they go wrong.

Indeed, policies traditionally considered “business friendly,” such as tax credits and lower tax rates, can be bad for business in the long run if they limit governments’ future ability to invest in areas that increase innovation-led growth. Likewise, it is time to move on from the debate over austerity to a new conversation about how to build smart, mutually beneficial public-private partnerships to fuel decades of growth.

For starters, we must invest in education, human capital, technology, and research. Massive technological and organizational advances have raised productivity in many sectors. Many (if not most) of these breakthroughs have their origins in publicly funded research. Ensuring future advances will require direct policy interventions and investments in innovation across the entire innovation chain: basic research, applied research, and early-stage company financing.

Moreover, we need more patient, long-term finance. Most existing finance is too speculative and too focused on short-term outcomes. Exit-driven venture capital might be appropriate for gadgets; but technological revolutions have historically required patient, committed public financing. In some countries, like Germany and China, public banks take on this role. In others, the job is done by strategic public agencies.

This also means de-financializing the real economy, which has been overly focused on short-term concerns, so that profits are reinvested into production and research and development, rather than hoarded or spent on share buybacks. Over the last decade, Fortune 500 companies in areas like information technology, pharmaceuticals, and energy have spent more than $3 trillion buying back shares in order to boost stock prices, stock options, and executive pay. Meanwhile, in the United States and Europe alone, companies have hoarded nearly $4 trillion. Companies should be rewarded for reinvesting their profits in production, innovation, and human-capital formation.
Next, we must increase wages and standards of living. Until the 1980s, productivity increases were accompanied by wage increases and rising living standards. This link was broken by a drop in labor’s negotiating power and companies’ increased financial orientation. Unions are key to effective corporate governance and hence should be more involved in innovation policy, pressing for investments in education and training – the long-run drivers of wages.

Public institutions must also be strengthened. Bold policy choices require public agencies and institutions that are able to take risks and learn from doing so. Outsourcing government services that lie within the government’s own competency hinders this process as it reduces the public sector’s “absorptive capacity.” Creating a network of well-funded, decentralized agencies and institutions that work in partnership with business would make government both more effective and more strategically focused.

The tax system must be made more progressive as well, with tax credits for businesses designed to encourage inclusive outcomes. We must end the current practice of blindly lowering taxes, creating loopholes that allow legal tax avoidance, and offering tax credits that have little effect on investment and job creation.

When the public sector takes key risks along the innovation chain – such as providing guaranteed loans to companies like Tesla – we should think more creatively about the kinds of contracts that enable the public to share not only the risks, but also some of the rewards.

We must also shape a new narrative on debt. Rather than focus on budget deficits, we should concentrate on the denominator of debt-to-GDP ratios. As long as public investment increases long-term productivity, the ratio will remain in check. In the OECD, many of the countries with the highest debt-to-GDP ratios – including Italy, Portugal, and Spain – ran relatively modest deficits, but failed to invest effectively in education, research, training, or well-designed welfare programs that facilitate economic adjustment.

Fiscal and monetary policy will be important, but only if coupled with the creation of opportunities in the real economy. Money creation, through quantitative easing, will not fuel the real economy if the new money ends up in banks that do not lend. And when businesses do not see opportunities, interest rates stop affecting investment.
Finally, we must not shy away from guiding the direction of development toward a green economy. Beyond “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects, fiscal stimulus should support transformational projects, such as those that led to advances in information and communication technology, biotech, and nanotech that were “chosen” by public policy working alongside businesses. Green development can be about much more than renewable energy; it can become a new direction for the entire economy.

The British Labour Party, along with other progressive parties around the world, has a responsibility to change the discussion on economic policy. By doing so, it has the opportunity to shape the future.
Classicists Platinum, Oldies & soldier in Cavalry to the rescue
Samnites 3 draw Ad Arma
Prussia draw Ambition & Empire
USSR in 3 draw Blitzkrieg[
England solo Renaissance
Germany in 6 draw World Influence
Athens 4 draw Greek City States
Zaire solo Africa
Iran 3 draw ModEX II
Antigonos
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1505
Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 02:30
Location: New York
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1483)
All-game rating: (1517)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Jeremy Corbyn

Postby super_dipsy » 04 Oct 2015, 21:31

Antigonos wrote:It seems that contrary to the impression that most of the media are trying to sell us Jeremy Corbyn is seeking and receiving some very serious and expert economic advice.

Contrary to the impression you are trying to sell us, the fact that jeremy Corbyn's team is seeking and receiving guidance from this list of eminent economists is widely reported at least here in the UK, being in many newspapers and discussed on the TV for the last week or so :)
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12068
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (931)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Jeremy Corbyn

Postby Antigonos » 04 Oct 2015, 23:29

super_dipsy wrote:
Antigonos wrote:It seems that contrary to the impression that most of the media are trying to sell us Jeremy Corbyn is seeking and receiving some very serious and expert economic advice.

Contrary to the impression you are trying to sell us, the fact that jeremy Corbyn's team is seeking and receiving guidance from this list of eminent economists is widely reported at least here in the UK, being in many newspapers and discussed on the TV for the last week or so :)


OK, great so I guess he has received sober and reasonably objective coverage as exemplified during the past week or so by:

The Times reporting on things like a "secret plot to oust moderates" . The Daily Mail: announcing
Revealed: The £218billion black hole in Corbyn's plans to nationalise the railways scrap tuition fees and reverse benefit cuts
The Telegraph:
Jeremy Corbyn's top team encouraged street riots
Labour's shadow chancellor called for insurrection against government, economic adviser said the ruling class would be killed if they resisted and key political aide boasted of his role in violent student protests
Earlier in September the Telegraph also had a chart with Corbyn linked to Russia, Hamas and the IRA.
Classicists Platinum, Oldies & soldier in Cavalry to the rescue
Samnites 3 draw Ad Arma
Prussia draw Ambition & Empire
USSR in 3 draw Blitzkrieg[
England solo Renaissance
Germany in 6 draw World Influence
Athens 4 draw Greek City States
Zaire solo Africa
Iran 3 draw ModEX II
Antigonos
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1505
Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 02:30
Location: New York
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1483)
All-game rating: (1517)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Jeremy Corbyn

Postby beowulf7 » 07 Oct 2015, 17:06

Labour seen as more divided, extreme and out of date under Corbyn, poll suggests - Politics live

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/sep/24/liam-byrne-praises-corbyn-as-craft-ale-of-the-labour-movement-politics-live

(and that's a left wing newspaper)
User avatar
beowulf7
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: 07 Jan 2009, 17:55
Location: Kent, UK
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (938)
All-game rating: (946)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Jeremy Corbyn

Postby Antigonos » 07 Oct 2015, 17:22

beowulf7 wrote:Labour seen as more divided, extreme and out of date under Corbyn, poll suggests - Politics live

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/sep/24/liam-byrne-praises-corbyn-as-craft-ale-of-the-labour-movement-politics-live

(and that's a left wing newspaper)



It seems to me that the picture is a bit more complex than you suggest.


An Ipsos MORI poll has shown that Labour is now seen as much more divided, extreme and out of date than it was before the general election following the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader. The findings, from the firms’s detailed September political monitor survey, are not all bad for Corbyn, but overall there is more to worry the party than to reassure it. The negative findings include:
1 - A striking increase in the number of voters seeing the party as divided (75%, up 32 points since April), extreme (36%, up 22) and out of date (55%, up 19).

2 - Corbyn having worse ratings than Ed Miliband in April on being a capable leader, being good in a crisis, having sound judgment, understanding the problems facing Britain and being out of touch with ordinary people. On all these measures except for being out of touch, David Cameron also beats Corbyn. But although Corbyn’s ratings are lower than Miliband’s on these five measures, the differences are small.

3 - Corbyn has a net satisfaction rating of -3. According to Mike Smithson, this is worse than for any Labour leader from the time of Michael Foot in their first Ipsos MORI poll.


But there are some more encouraging findings for Corbyn.

1 - Corbyn is more liked than Miliband was in March. Some 37% of voters like him, compared to 30% liking Miliband in March.

2 - Corbyn easily beats Miliband’s ratings in March on having a lot of personality (41%, compared to 20% for Miliband) and he beats him too on substance (only 25% think he is more style than substance, compared to 30% for Miliband) and on having a clear vision for Britain (47%, compared to Miliband’s 45%).

3 - Corbyn easily beats Cameron on not being out of touch with ordinary people, on being more honest than most politcians and on having substance.

4 - The Tories’ overall poll lead is just five points. Ipsos MORI puts the Tories on 39%, Labour on 34%, the Lib Dems on 9%, Ukip on 7% and the Greens on 4%.
Classicists Platinum, Oldies & soldier in Cavalry to the rescue
Samnites 3 draw Ad Arma
Prussia draw Ambition & Empire
USSR in 3 draw Blitzkrieg[
England solo Renaissance
Germany in 6 draw World Influence
Athens 4 draw Greek City States
Zaire solo Africa
Iran 3 draw ModEX II
Antigonos
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1505
Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 02:30
Location: New York
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1483)
All-game rating: (1517)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Jeremy Corbyn

Postby beowulf7 » 08 Oct 2015, 09:49

"I suggest?"

Its the leader from the article I linked to... and yes, I read it

Even further down the article it talks about the degree to which labour would expect to be riding high but, in fact, has shown no "new leader" improvement.

I merely want to explore to what extent Corbyn is electable as my current position is that he is unelectable in today's Britain.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

The rest of the poll repeated some of the questions YouGov asked just after Ed Miliband became Labour leader, five years ago. Corbyn’s figures are worse than the ratings Miliband had at the time and as I wrote in relation to the Ipsos MORI poll earlier in the week, while Corbyn’s ratings aren’t that bad at first glance, brand new leaders normally get some leeway from the public, so they are bad when compared to the ratings new leaders have usually got.


The only areas* where there is a significant shift since 2010 are the claim that Labour are a party only for immigrants, welfare recipients and trade unionists (49% agreed in 2010, now only 42%) and the claim that if Labour returned to government they’d get the country into even more debt (47% agreed in 2010, 53% agree now).


I just don't get where this guys support is going to come from? Yes, there are a few naifs talking about "revolution" and "class war" but nowhere near enough to swing an election. The middle class will not support any erosion of their lifestyle. Cameron is no Thatcher-Demon who will create a backlash. If he delivers a weaker SNP then that helps the Tories. Us Liberals are seeing growth in the polls. So no real sign that there is an appetite for Corbyn in the wider population even though this is the time he should be riding the "new manager" wave (I'm growing a Klopp beard as we speak)
User avatar
beowulf7
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: 07 Jan 2009, 17:55
Location: Kent, UK
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (938)
All-game rating: (946)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Jeremy Corbyn

Postby Antigonos » 09 Oct 2015, 00:12

beowulf7 wrote:"I suggest?"

Its the leader from the article I linked to... and yes, I read it

Even further down the article it talks about the degree to which labour would expect to be riding high but, in fact, has shown no "new leader" improvement.

I merely want to explore to what extent Corbyn is electable as my current position is that he is unelectable in today's Britain.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

The rest of the poll repeated some of the questions YouGov asked just after Ed Miliband became Labour leader, five years ago. Corbyn’s figures are worse than the ratings Miliband had at the time and as I wrote in relation to the Ipsos MORI poll earlier in the week, while Corbyn’s ratings aren’t that bad at first glance, brand new leaders normally get some leeway from the public, so they are bad when compared to the ratings new leaders have usually got.


The only areas* where there is a significant shift since 2010 are the claim that Labour are a party only for immigrants, welfare recipients and trade unionists (49% agreed in 2010, now only 42%) and the claim that if Labour returned to government they’d get the country into even more debt (47% agreed in 2010, 53% agree now).


I just don't get where this guys support is going to come from? Yes, there are a few naifs talking about "revolution" and "class war" but nowhere near enough to swing an election. The middle class will not support any erosion of their lifestyle. Cameron is no Thatcher-Demon who will create a backlash. If he delivers a weaker SNP then that helps the Tories. Us Liberals are seeing growth in the polls. So no real sign that there is an appetite for Corbyn in the wider population even though this is the time he should be riding the "new manager" wave (I'm growing a Klopp beard as we speak)


You have been quite honest in providing your own party identification as a Lib-Dem and it think you are viewing the situation both immediate and long term through orange tinted glassed.

You quote the polling somewhat selectively.


YouGov also repeated the bank of party image statements they normally ask at conference time, testing positive and negative lines about the Labour party. The figures are (remarkably) close to what they were five years ago when Labour first entered opposition – 71% think Labour need to make major changes to their policies and beliefs to be fit for goverment (up 2 from 2010), 58% think they have lost touch with ordinary working people (down 1), 56% think they haven’t faced up to the damaged they caused to the economy (down 4), 44% think they care about helping all groups, not just the few (up 2), 39% think their core values and principles are still relevant (down 2), 42% think they would cut spending in a fairer and more compassionate way than the government (up 1).


These figures are not great but they are not beyond improvement and I would argue that they primarily reflect the general and much deserved view of Labour that came out of the New Labour years. That they have not changed overnight with the election of Corbyn as the new party leader especially given the reports (and reality) of serious resistance within the party to going back to a modern version of "original principles" might be seen as a sign that Labour will have to work to regain the trust and support that it forfeited ...is that a bad thing.

You say
Us Liberals are seeing growth in the polls.


The Sun had fresh YouGov voting intention figures today, fieldwork conducted straight after Jeremy Corbyn’s speech. Topline figures are CON 37%(-2), LAB 31%(nc) L,DEM 7%(+1), UKIP 17%(+1) – changes are since YouGov’s last poll in mid-September, just after Jeremy Corbyn became leader. Tabs are here.


You will forgive me if I fail to see signs of a Liberal resurgence especially as they continue to serve as an adjunct to the Conservatives in the Coalition.

By the way speaking of resurgence and collapse here is what you said about another left party in Greece a month age.

beowulf7 » 08 Sep 2015, 07:14

Plus, the collapse within months of the leftist popular party in Greece has hardly encouraged others to think that this is a way forward (even if you blame it on "the establishment")


Collapse? As it turns out Syriza has had everything thrown at it by the EU and has made it's own share of mistakes such as not following the mandate provided in the referendum. But they did not collapse and they won the September elections. Perhaps there really is an appetite for change in Greece as well as a deep rejection on the part of a large number of voters of the old establishment parties. Perhaps some of the same feeling help propel Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party and perhaps this is only the beginning of a long but necessary process.

Leaving the world of polls and politics of immediate gratification and success what I wrote in an earlier post still stands:

Either a party stands for some set of ideas, policies and principles or it is merely a market driven exercise in advertising in order to make a sale and win power (and profit). Why is it that the right, center right and moderate center should have parties that represent their views but when the left tries the same thing it is seen as unreasonable and doctrinaire? I realize that there are additional complexities such as the Greens but once again I fail to see why the party to the left of the UK political spectrum should limit itself to identity politics and environmentalism as their left bits and not go further by embracing a left social democratic or even socialist vision and policy.


There is not need for one more business oriented neo-liberal party differentiated only by it's more "progressive" views on social issues and identity politics. There is a need to a genuine party of the left. Left on economic issues and left on foreign policy.
Classicists Platinum, Oldies & soldier in Cavalry to the rescue
Samnites 3 draw Ad Arma
Prussia draw Ambition & Empire
USSR in 3 draw Blitzkrieg[
England solo Renaissance
Germany in 6 draw World Influence
Athens 4 draw Greek City States
Zaire solo Africa
Iran 3 draw ModEX II
Antigonos
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1505
Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 02:30
Location: New York
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1483)
All-game rating: (1517)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Jeremy Corbyn

Postby beowulf7 » 09 Oct 2015, 10:06

Well, I guess it's clear that people have a great capacity to see what they want to see
User avatar
beowulf7
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: 07 Jan 2009, 17:55
Location: Kent, UK
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (938)
All-game rating: (946)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Jeremy Corbyn

Postby sjg11 » 10 Oct 2015, 12:19

Antigonos wrote:These figures are not great but they are not beyond improvement and I would argue that they primarily reflect the general and much deserved view of Labour that came out of the New Labour years. That they have not changed overnight with the election of Corbyn as the new party leader especially given the reports (and reality) of serious resistance within the party to going back to a modern version of "original principles" might be seen as a sign that Labour will have to work to regain the trust and support that it forfeited ...is that a bad thing.

I don't think beowulf is arguing that it's totally impossible for Corbyn's poll rating to improve. 5 years is a long time. What beowulf is arguing is that you would expect a honeymoon period after becoming party leader and that hasn't happened. Which is worrying and suggests an improvement probably won't happen. Oh yes and I haven't gone into the fact that the Tories maintain a solid lead in the polls despite Pig-Gate. Honestly, my conversations with denizens of Middle England suggests the same thing. I haven't seen anything to suggest Corbyn can win a general election. Whether it's fair or unfair, he's widely dismissed as a joke. Some of his decisions have been widely ridiculed, such as appointing a vegan in charge of farming. If you're a leftist leader in a country which generally votes for a centre-right party... you have to make damn sure that you don't make many gaffes or you'll be ripped apart. Corbyn has, in my view, probably made too many errors already to be taken seriously by the people he would need to win an election. Whether he can win ground in Scotland and potentially establish a base which another leftist candidate could build from in the future I don't know.
Either a party stands for some set of ideas, policies and principles or it is merely a market driven exercise in advertising in order to make a sale and win power (and profit). Why is it that the right, center right and moderate center should have parties that represent their views but when the left tries the same thing it is seen as unreasonable and doctrinaire? I realize that there are additional complexities such as the Greens but once again I fail to see why the party to the left of the UK political spectrum should limit itself to identity politics and environmentalism as their left bits and not go further by embracing a left social democratic or even socialist vision and policy.


There is not need for one more business oriented neo-liberal party differentiated only by it's more "progressive" views on social issues and identity politics. There is a need to a genuine party of the left. Left on economic issues and left on foreign policy.

You bring up a comparison between Syriza and Corbyn-Labour. Honestly I find that comparison futile. Greece exists in a completely different context to Britain. Not enough people feel pissed off enough to risk voting for what is viewed as a populist movement. A lot of the British population really just wants a party to uphold the status-quo at the moment and ensure that they don't lose their jobs, their cars and all the things they care about. A Syriza style situation is unlikely to happen within a British general election unless a crisis comes first and/or unless an intellectual groundwork is laid so that leftist ideas aren't dismissed out of hand immediately. Personally I don't want a crisis to engulf Britain any time soon so I would settle for someone who is simply going to establish the groundwork which can be built on by someone else. Corbyn may be the start of a process whereby leftist ideas become more likely to be successful in Britain, see my earlier point about Corbyn laying a base for someone else to build on. But that's a different question, and currently even that looks like it will be a major challenge.

You bring up the fact that Corbyn won the Labour leadership election. Most people who are Members of the Labour party lean Left. Those people are pissed off with having a center-right government. Moreover, they're irritated with neither winning or, they feel, having principles. If you'll forgive the analogy, it's like supporting a sports team. You're fine with the team playing ugly (New Labour) as long as it wins since you figure it's better than the alternative. When it stops winning you start looking either for a winner, and none of the Labour leadership candidates looked like a winner in a general election, or someone who'll play a more attractive style, in a political scenario this would be Corbyn standing up for what are viewed as traditional Labour principles. In that context it makes a Corbyn situation likely. In my view this might, in the long run be a good thing for left-wing politics in Britain. In the short-term it definitely looks like it will be an unsuccessful experiment simply because the British electorate at large doesn't want a Syriza style change.
One of the people in charge of the Mafia forum.
Telleo wrote:The mafia forum, to them,
Sir SJG's known as a gem,
He writes a good game,
and runs it the same,
Oh what a perfect GM!

Come on Arsenal!
User avatar
sjg11
 
Posts: 17069
Joined: 24 Dec 2010, 15:30
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (908)
All-game rating: (899)
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest