Two FT commentators reveal the confusion in the commentariat caused by the election of Jeremy Corbyn. Wolfgang Munchau says:
So why is the centre-left by and large not benefiting from the failures of their political opponents? The deep reason lies in its absorption of the policies of the centre-right, going back almost three decades: the acceptance of free trade agreements, the deregulation of everything, and (in the eurozone) of binding fiscal rules and the most extreme version of central bank independence on earth. They are all but indistinguishable from their opponents.
He's right, of course. Martin Wolf appears to agree:
The Corbyn earthquake, then, is more than an event of British significance. It is also more than a sign of the failure of Labour's past leadership to manage the party successfully, in power and out of it. It is another indication of the scale of the disaffection with conventional wisdom now rife in many countries.
But then says:
It seems highly likely to increase the durability of Conservative rule.
Before adding:
But a Labour victory is not utterly inconceivable. The past is, suddenly, a very foreign country.
So two quite wise people agree that we have been living in a politically hegemonic era. And they agree that the left must break out of that to succeed. But then forecast that if it does it will fail. Maybe.
I think it best to say they're confused.
And maybe fairly so.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Not really a contradiction. The scale of disaffection might be high, but probably won’t be enough in the UK, due to the electoral system and Corbyn’s personal baggage in the eyes of the not (yet) disaffected enough electorate.
We needed a Labour leader in Chukka’s mold but able to respond to this disaffection and formulate a new set of policies. They’re not ready yet; maybe next time round.
It’s an interesting idea
But how can a neoliberal offer an authentic non-neoliberal agenda?
Leon-Ummana (sic) was UTTERLY hopeless in challenging the Tories because he had one foot in the Tory camp and the other foot, well, dangling and not sure where to place itself.
Labour is in a place of transition-it will be difficult but I’d rather have difficulty that acquiescence.
I meant an Ummana type: more charismatic, simply a better leader. Maybe not the best example 🙂
To use a horrible business term: your Coopers, Burnhams etc. failed to pivot. You can’t lead the party if you’re so detached from what it believes (unless you’re winning elections…). And it’s not like Corbyn is actually *that* leftwing — PQE strikes me as sensible.
I agree about transition, and it will be difficult. Maybe Corbyn’s a necessary phase.
Yes-I read the Wolf article with bemusement -here seems to swing rather schizophrenically from one end of the argument to the other as if he doesn’t really know where he stands.
I think this is becoming typical of the media at the moment-Corbyn as a phenomenon has, without even trying to, wrong-footed the lot of them, the can’t fit him into their conceptual models of how a politician functions (soundbites, image, suits, ‘ronsealed’ skin colour, everything pre=planned and memes spat out).
Corbyn has already ‘succeeded’-so why Wolf thinks he is likely to fail eludes me-I suppose the phenomenon could peter out and leave a TINA-Tory party in for years (horrific!), I fear that, but there is an undeniable sign that SOMETHING has changed.
i think in dismissing Corbyn they might be attaching too much significance to Thatcher’s victory over Foot and the recent success of the right-wing press in smearing Miliband.
but it’s not 1983 and social media’s influence on public opinion is taking off whilst right-wing rag sales and credibility are in decline. add to that the cuts planned by the Tories in the next few years and you have all the ingredients for a British version of what happened in Greece and Spain.
past victories are no guide to future success; current conditions suggest Corbyn will have the wind in his sails.
I don’t think they’re that confused; they seem to have cottoned on to key features of the problem. There is an increasing right and centre-right hegemony governing the economic policy debate and the implementation of policy. Bill Clinton started the “triangulation” that involved holding a core centre-left supporting vote while competing for a majority of the 10-15% for voters in the centre that will get you over the line. Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder pursued this approach successfuly in 1997 and 1998, resp. Two problems then arise. First, while the centre-right has little problem holding its core vote (and adding to it) as the terms of the economic policy debate shift rightwards, centre-left politicians become centre-focused and distanced from their core voters and, inevitably, lose them. (The damage the SNP did to Labour is clear, and UKIP probably snaffled more core voters from Labour than the Tories.)
The popular tide is starting to turn against the hegemony of the centre-right, but they have been dominant for so long and have been so successful in erecting a huge edifice of legislation and regulations – and, in the EU context, treaty provisions – to protect their hegemony that it will be difficult to push it back. My simple hope is that Jeremy Corbyn will succeed in shifting the terms of the economic policy debate a notch or two back towards a more liberal and progressive centre – and that some of the more able members of the PLP will be able to grasp the opportunity. With a clear majority of the PLP opposed to some or all of his policy proposals, his leadership is untenable in the medium term. If the Labour party is seen as being unable to govern itself there is no way a majority of voters will give their consent to it governing the country.
Labour needs to give itself some time to thrash out a set of policies that can secure some broad measure of support within the PLP and capture the legitimat rejection of the current “conventional wisdom”. And it will have to work towards a leadership transition in the next 2 to 3 years under the current rules or under revised rules. This is a representative parliamentary democracy and it was stupid depriving the PLP from having a significant say in the election of the leader.
The PLP has not represented the membership (or potential membership) for many years. The important thing is to empower members to choose their parliamentary candidates.
That’s heading into ‘ real split’ country like the 1980s – its not the sincerity of Corbyn which is the issue for many of us who are sceptical including 90% of PMs and half the full membership- its his electability and the threat to Labour regaining seats across England’s Tory marginals some of which we lost in May.
Yes we have the most aggressive Right Wing Press in Europe and yes we have FPTP. UK history shows the ‘centre left’ only can win the centre ground and have enough MPs to make a difference. JC can not attract that popular vote which can form a government and so Labour has to evolve a leader who will be attractive to many more voters and offer policies which will not be too divisive otherwise its 2010 all over again. Politics is the pursuit of power not wishful thinking.
They’re not the only media puppets who are now ‘confused’ – the ground is shifting under their feet :
http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015-09-20/guardians-terrible-dilemma-over-corbyn/
Very good
That article is one of the best I’ve read on this shameful scenario-thanks.
I think only the Morning Star gave Corbyn a positive assessment and it has a circulation of less than 20,000. If we didn’t know the ghastly sate of British Media we do now.
Mirror has done alright
In my opinion we are seeing the development of the transformational change described by Marx, where successive QUANTITATIVE changes build up to produce a QUALITATIVE change, as a new mode of production breaks away from the fetters of the old.
I am not sure whether that Marxian language actually applies (though Corbyn’s approach to new forms of social ownership my constitute a “new mode of production”), and so prefer the language of “paradigm shift” resulting from the movement of the tectonic plates of what are “the givens” of the time.
For there can be little doubt but that at last – and very long-delayed, after the Great Financial Crash of 2008 totally discredited TINA and neo-liberalism and “trickle down”, exposing the Emperor’s nakedness for all to see “if they have eyes to see” (which, alas, they usually hadn’t, because hands were firmly clamped over their eyes to preserve their ignorance!) – but that the old hegemony has shattered, and its total discrediting is on the point of being widely accepted.
The truth is, then, that, if he can craft the language correctly, Jeremy Corbyn could win, and win big in 2020, but equally could come an enormous cropper – language is key. As to Chuka Umunna – sorry, no way. As Richard says, “But how can a neoliberal offer an authentic non-neoliberal agenda?”.
I’ve often likened TINA and neo-liberalism to pre-enlightenment medicine, which believed in blood-letting as a way of “releasing pressures in the body to restore the balance of the Four Humours”. Frankly, neo-liberalism is the economic equivalent of a Four Humours theory of the economy, and TINA and austerity are doing more to kill, rather than cure. And “more of the same” will do just that – kill the patient. So, until Chuka, and all the other Red Neo-Liberals in the Labour Party give up their adherence to an economic theory that belongs to the age of alchemy – no way!
Didn’t express myself clearly enough in my earlier post: the component of Marxian analysis that I DO accept, is that a sufficient QUANTITATIVE change is thereby transformed into a QUALITATIVE change.
The Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, was on Radio 4 today dismissing Corbyn’s ideas as fantasy.
He says he wants a sound economy so that we can have the things we all desire, good health care etc That’s the easy bit. The hard bit is how? And how is it different to the neo-liberal policies on offer from the Tories?
I would like to see some unity on the left although this could leave the field open for Labour and the Greens.
There’s unity on the Left already as, let’s not forget, PQE was originally Green QE till Corbyn nicked it. Sorry, adopted it. As for Fallon, yes it is unusual to see rats joining a sinking ship 🙂 But who cares, eh? 🙂
CYBERNETIC ECONOMICS GROUP
Probably the most important idea that a possible future Corbyn government could implement is to bring together the best experts in the field of Information Technology, or IT, and other relevant subjects. The aim should be to develop a Cybernetic Economy within a Capitalist Economy. However, with this approach it would also be possible with “ease,” and with the “desire of the people” for it to evolve into a more genuine “Socialist” Economy where democracy of a higher order could ideally exist. Such an approach is already outlined in what is termed Transfinancial Economics (or TFE), and a future Cybernetic Economics Group could base most of its ideas on it.
Essentially TFE goes beyond QE for the People to an Information Economy (in the literal sense of this term) in which it would be possible to understand the Economy in Real-Time. Interest rates, and taxation could if desired be phased out altogether to be replaced by super-flexible electronic controls. These would monitor, and control inflation en direct, but in a way which would allow the Free Market Price to fluctuate as much as possible. Such controls are a stark contrast to price controls of the past.
It must be understood that technology in the field of Information Technology is growing exponentially (notably the processing power of data) and would have untold implications for Economics. Thus, the above paragraph may seem “fantastic” but the “fanstastic” is already occurring as indicated (eg. Big Data, and Quantum Computing). It is time to wake up to all this, and what it means to humanity.
For basic info on TFE please press my name on the above post. This subject is part of an entry on the P2P Foundation which is a credible, and influential site of high repute. TFE is ofcourse a form of Cybernetic Economics.
A SPECIAL NOTE
As indicated in the main body p2p foundation entry to Transfinancial Economic it should be made thoroughly clear that Information Technology is such that it would be able to deal with uncertainty in the Economy, and ofcourse, the irrationality in the money markets. This could be undertaken by the super-flexible controls instaneously with the right algorithmic programming. This is very important to grasp. It has huge implications.
Perhaps they are confused by a Labour leader who is going to actually oppose, rather than back down because they don’t believe the policies play well with the media? In other words, let’s ditch principle and plump for electability at all costs.
This is what the Blairites still do not get; that there continual backing down or actual agreement with things like the recent Social Security act is alienating great swathes of working class voters who are now starting to come back.
It will be undoubtedly confusing for them to see a Labour leader actually standing for many of the core values of socialism rather than casting them aside.
And this is mostly why the media is out to destroy Corbyn.
The real problem Corbyn will face is about his foreign policy ideas. They are frankly those of student societies in the 1970s and make no sense to most people: disband the army, leave ISIS unchallenged, blame Israel for most things, appease Russia, blame America for the things that can’t be blamed on Israel, open doors to migrants.
Which is a pity, because it means his economics will struggle to get a hearing. There is a lesson here, which is that nobody gets elected because of their foreign policy. I watched this years election closely and foreign policy was never mentioned. But I suspect that it can stop you getting elected and it can monopolise your media time.
Corbyn may well pave the way for someone else. He has too much baggage, but it may take the next general election for his supporters to understand this.
And the British are never going to vote for someone who is a socialist. They may vote for exactly the same policies from someone else, but the word “socialist” is not understood by many and is toxic to the rest. It is one thing to be authentic, but you have to be authentic and appealing. “Artisan Rosette salami” will sell, whereas “Cured arsehole sausage” will not, even though they are the same thing. Even the authentic needs to be properly branded these days.
I have seen no hint that Corbyn is abolishing the army
Where do you get such stuff from?
Surely you don’t read the Daily Mail?
No, though it does pollute my vision at the supermarket checkout. The responses below illustrate my point perfectly: his foreign policy appeals to the minority who are already converted to his world view. I understand that Michael Foot could get hundreds of thousands to his rallies in Trafalgar Square.
To get power, you need to do more that energise your power base, you need to appeal to the middle ground.
It is a pity, because there is a serious discussion to be had about the country we want to live in. I’ve been reading Chesterton recently, who very presciently noted that when you have too much capitalism you end up with too few capitalists: in other words, unfettered free markets will lead to an ever decreasing number of winners, and we see this all the time with companies like Amazon and Apple spreading their territory. My point is simply that Corbyn is on the right track, but his foreign policy will lose him votes and make him struggle to get his economics heard.
And Andrew, I stand by my point that “socialist” is as toxic a label for 70% of the population as “neo-liberal” is for those who read this website. It is, like the foreign policy, a barrier to attracting votes. It is not fair, it is not logical, but it is the way it is. Having spent the first half of this year convincing yourself that the Tories had no chance in the election I would have thought that most on the left could recognise the difference between what they believe in and what the electorate believe in.
Mind you, if Cameron stands down and the cadaver Osbourne stands, I’m not sure what the outcome would be. There is too obviously something of the night about him.
The British electorate will never vote for a Socialist!!??
This is on a par with the alleged comment of some toff dining in the Savoy, who, on being told that Atlee and Labour had won by a landslide in 1945, uttered the immortal words “Oh no, the people would never stand for it.”
Understand something, and understand it well – the tectonic plates HAVE moved, and a new paradigm IS struggling to be born, not just here, but in Greece, Spain, and above all in the USA. People ARE beginning to see through the guff and tosh.
May I recommend Thomas Mann’s marvellous short story “Mario and the Magician”, which explores how Mussolini pulled the wool over the eyes of the Italians to introduce Fascism. The introduction of neo-liberalism followed a similar trajectory, and could similarly collapse like a pack of cards – hopefully peacefully, but not without unremitting pressure and opposition from ordinary people, something already happening and growing.
Actually to some of us his foreign policy views are also a breath of fresh air. Why on earth do we want to start bombing Syria – the likelihood that it will cause the destruction of ISIS is 0%. Bombing doesn’t defeat ideology / fanaticism. Besides, in case you’ve forgotten – we don’t have any money apparently – although it can always be found for needless wars apparently.
Israeli governments have been behaving abominably and illegally for years- though no-one from the west is prepared to do anything abut it. American foreign policy is equally appalling – viz their latest blunder giving Turkey the green light to bomb the PKK – Turkey is now heading for instability – what a success.
“And the British are never going to vote for someone who is a socialist.”
Sez you!
Hundreds of thousands of new members to the Labour party say otherwise. He didn’t get almost 60% of the leadership vote just for being a novelty.
There is a sea change coming and Corbyn is hopefully going to build on that.
Spot on here Richard and well done for highlighting it.
I think that Yanis Varoufakis got it right when he said that the left over emphasise concepts like equality and fairness but have failed to rope in liberty or freedom. The neo-libs constantly refer to freedom in their narrative. It is almost ‘their word’.
If Corbyn is to break the mould, he needs to relate equality and fairness to the concept of freedom more clearly under his leadership. And has this not been done before?
Remember this?
” Freedom from want cannot be forced upon a democracy or given to a democracy. It must be won by them”.
Sir William Beveridge
Freedom from Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness can all be achieved by a courageous state – whether it is Corbyn’s Labour or the Greens who are running it. Or both in coalition. But we will have to vote for it.
Neoliberals are phoneys because they proselytise a reverse dominance strategy, market competition, as the fundamental core of their ideology but make no effort to check whether this strategy is actually delivering equitable well-being for all:-
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/18/the-typical-male-u-s-worker-earned-less-in-2014-than-in-1973/
I think Roger is spot on with his analysis. Jeremy Corbyn should now become a politician. Pragmatism is the word, if he were to succeed in changing the economic dogma we have had for generations at the expense of some of his other beliefs he will have improved the lives of millions throughout Britain.
Yeah, fair enough but Stevo is right as well. Too many pundits are trying to assess Corbyn on the basis of pre-Corbyn assumptions in a pre-Corbyn Britain. Which misses the point completely, the game has changed.
His success is based upon a transformative narrative. That’s how it works, the more the regular dropkicks in the regular establishment dismiss him, the more popular he becomes.
Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t need to accommodate the dominant paradigm, not too much anyway, that would be self-defeating.