Conservative party/opposition watch

[UndercoverElephant]

The UK parliamentary Labour party showed who it really served, for anyone politically astute enough to be seriously interested, as far back as the General Strike of 1926.

The UK parliamentary Labour Party serves the people who vote it into power. If they judge that it has failed to do so then it won't remain in power. That is how democracy works.

Don’t be ridiculous UE.

“The UK parliamentary Labour Party serves the people who vote it into power.”

It serves the big money that funds it.

Your ever so earnest naivety is charming, but you will grow out of it eventually.

There is nothing naive about my comment. If Labour were to serve the interests of big money instead of its voters, then its voters will no longer vote for it. Corbyn did not fail to win an election because he failed to serve big money. He failed because insufficient numbers of people were convinced he could actually deliver what he said he could deliver, or didn't want those policies.

[UndercoverElephant]

The UK parliamentary Labour party showed who it really served, for anyone politically astute enough to be seriously interested, as far back as the General Strike of 1926.

The UK parliamentary Labour Party serves the people who vote it into power. If they judge that it has failed to do so then it won't remain in power. That is how democracy works.

One may only manage to genuinely hold the belief espoused above if one is sufficiently naive as to think that any political party or movement may overcome all of the impediments to mass communicative reach with the population at large in the face of all of the primary means of cultural transmission, not to mention all of the tools of the judiciary, police and, if push comes to shove, the military, in the hands of the ruling class

You do not strike me as that naive.

See my response to DO. Corbyn offered an alternative, and failed at the ballot box. The primary reason for this was that he was at the mercy of the extremists within his own party who forced him, against his will and advice, to back a second brexit referendum. And had he tried to over-rule them -- if, like Starmer on electoral reform, he'd just tried to ignore labour party members when he deemed it strategically important to do so, then those remainer labour members would have turned against Corbyn and voted for the liberal democrats.

The bottom line is that Corbyn did not fail because powerful people wanted to make sure he failed. Such people did indeed do everything in their power to make sure he failed, but I am not convinced that was the real reason he failed. I think he failed because it was impossible to assemble a political coalition large enough to get him elected against Johnson's "Get Brexit Done".

What is the real problem with democracy here? Is it the powerful vested interests opposing people like Corbyn? Or is it that the opposition to the status quo is hopelessly divided?

This is the key to understanding British politics. The Labour Party, like the old Liberal Party before it, can only win from the centre. Yes, it was different in 1945, but that is because the centre was somewhere different in 1945. Starmer, like Blair, is going to win a massive landslide by positioning himself in the centre.

And yes the mainstream media, if it wanted to, could try to push the centre further to the left, but I am not convinced society in general wants them to do that.

[UndercoverElephant]

the majority of the UK isn't up for radical politics..
As we descend down the slope, people may increasingly turn to radical voices that are currently on the margins... ??

I think this small c conservatism amounts to rather more than just not being up for radical politics! I suspect a very sizeable majority
are totally terrified of the prospect of things being done in any way significantly different to what they are used to, even if it is blindingly obvious that it is not working.

Have they been offered a realistic alternative? By anybody?

[Default0ptions]

The UK parliamentary Labour Party serves the people who vote it into power. If they judge that it has failed to do so then it won't remain in power. That is how democracy works.

Don’t be ridiculous UE.

“The UK parliamentary Labour Party serves the people who vote it into power.”

It serves the big money that funds it.

Your ever so earnest naivety is charming, but you will grow out of it eventually.

There is nothing naive about my comment. If Labour were to serve the interests of big money instead of its voters, then its voters will no longer vote for it. Corbyn did not fail to win an election because he failed to serve big money. He failed because insufficient numbers of people were convinced he could actually deliver what he said he could deliver, or didn't want those policies.

I’m sorry, I should have made it clear that it isn’t just Labour who serve the interests of ‘big money’, but that the entire ‘democratic system’ is now just ‘the best government that money can buy’

“[Corbyn] failed because insufficient numbers of people were convinced he could actually deliver what he said he could deliver, or didn't want those policies”

Perhaps they were ‘de-convinced’ (to coin a phrase) by the massive anti-Corbin campaign orchestrated through the mainstream media - owned and controlled by ‘big money’?

Edward Bernays’ book Propaganda https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book) is astonishingly prescient about precisely this

You could also usefully consider how ‘regulatory capture’ illustrates the control that ‘big money’ has over government: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

“There is nothing naive about my comment.” - except it’s obvious naivety

[UndercoverElephant]

Perhaps they were ‘de-convinced’ (to coin a phrase) by the massive anti-Corbin campaign orchestrated through the mainstream media - owned and controlled by ‘big money’?

This looks too much like a conspiracy theory to me. Yes, there was a massive anti-Corbyn campaign. There has also been a major attempt at an anti-Starmer campaign, but it has been a complete failure because Starmer is intentionally as unscary as possible. Corbyn (I am so naïve I actually know how to spell his name) was advocating policies which were very popular with about 20% of the population, but were never going to convince the centre ground. He was actually suggesting switching the whole country to a 4 day week.

The truth, I think, is that while Corbyn's 2017 manifesto contained some really good policies that could have been part of an election-winning ticket, the whole thing taken together simply didn't stack up. It wasn't believable. Had he actually won, and tried to implement that manifesto, he would have lasted about as long as Truss did, for very similar reasons. The only way that wouldn't have happened is if he'd won by the sort of margin Starmer is going to win by next year.

[Mark]

The truth, I think, is that while Corbyn's 2017 manifesto contained some really good policies that could have been part of an election-winning ticket, the whole thing taken together simply didn't stack up. It wasn't believable. Had he actually won, and tried to implement that manifesto, he would have lasted about as long as Truss did, for very similar reasons. The only way that wouldn't have happened is if he'd won by the sort of margin Starmer is going to win by next year.

Agreed - some of Labour's 2017 manifesto was very good, but it would have been interesting to see how 'the markets' reacted when push came to shove... suspect we might have seen a 'crash' similar to the one Liz Truss created and subsequent turmoil... For me 'the markets' seem to be the most powerful factor in UK economics - they'll accept minor tinkering, but nothing too radical - if we want 'radical', I think we've got to accept economic turmoil on the markets, and probably a crash in currency, share values, pensions etc.

Would also have been interesting to see how a Corbyn government played the current Israel/Palestine conflict. That could have seen us lining up with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran against the US, EU and Israel...

[Mark]

Tory donors from JCB empire could face £500m bill to settle tax inquiry:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ax-inquiry

Yet more corruption and sleeze....

[Potemkin Villager]

the majority of the UK isn't up for radical politics..
As we descend down the slope, people may increasingly turn to radical voices that are currently on the margins... ??

I think this small c conservatism amounts to rather more than just not being up for radical politics! I suspect a very sizeable majority
are totally terrified of the prospect of things being done in any way significantly different to what they are used to, even if it is blindingly obvious that it is not working.

Have they been offered a realistic alternative? By anybody?

I think the answer to that is no depending how you define "realistic"! (Maybe it would need to be "reasonable" as well.)

Sadly I still think even if a "reasonable and realistic" alternative was proposed fear of change would still trump hope of something better.

[UndercoverElephant]

Sadly I still think even if a "reasonable and realistic" alternative was proposed fear of change would still trump hope of something better.

Maybe. Change is coming anyway though.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67206997

The cap on bankers' bonuses is being removed as part of a post-Brexit shake-up of UK financial rules, it has been confirmed.

The plan was announced by former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng last year as a way of making London a more attractive place to do business.

It was one of the few mini-budget policies to remain after most were unwound by Mr Kwarteng's successor.

The cap on bonuses will be lifted from 31 October, the regulator said.

Introduced in 2014 when the UK was part of the EU, the cap was designed to curb excessive risk taking in the financial services industry in the wake of the 2008 financial crash.

That should lose them a few more votes.

[Mark]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67206997

The cap on bankers' bonuses is being removed as part of a post-Brexit shake-up of UK financial rules, it has been confirmed.

The plan was announced by former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng last year as a way of making London a more attractive place to do business.

It was one of the few mini-budget policies to remain after most were unwound by Mr Kwarteng's successor.

The cap on bonuses will be lifted from 31 October, the regulator said.

Introduced in 2014 when the UK was part of the EU, the cap was designed to curb excessive risk taking in the financial services industry in the wake of the 2008 financial crash.

That should lose them a few more votes.

They don't care.
They now know they're going to lose the next GE, so they're just feathering their own nests and rewarding their backers/mates whilst they can...
Labour is probably going to have to spend the first 12-18 months reversing everything back again...

[Default0ptions]

I wish I could imagine any of the current parties doing anything that actually needs doing in a post growth environment

[UndercoverElephant]

Peter Bone suspended. Another byelection in an ultra-safe tory seat. Labour pretty much guaranteed to win it.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67233090

Conservative MP Crispin Blunt has confirmed that he was arrested on Wednesday in connection with an allegation of rape.

There appears to be no limit to how bad the news gets for the tories. Assuming he goes in the forseeable future, it will be very interesting to see whether labour or the libdems take this one, or whether somehow the tories manage to cling on because the opposition is split. Only 35 votes between them at the last election. My late father was once a liberal democrat councillor in this constituency. The idea of Labour winning it is quite extraordinary. There are very few pockets of typical Labour support in that area.

[Potemkin Villager]

Surely his arrest is not related in any way to his position as a director of the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians
who has been mouthing off a lot recently!