I like being outside the fray of party politics. I wasn't born with a sufficient capacity for compromise to believe that any political party has all the answers to all questions. And yet, equally, I can admire those who can make the sacrifice to take part in this process. It is, for better or worse, at the heart of democratic politics.
That demands that it be done well. This requirement is predicated on three things. The fist is a willingness to pretend you have the answer to all things. The second is a leadership that knows this is not true and which as a result respects its opponents. The third is an acute appreciation of the fact that compromise in pursuit of a higher goal, whilst saving face, is the ultimate political aim: nothing really happens without the accommodation of others.
So what has gone wrong? Three things. The first is the denial of choice. The neoliberal hegemony has refused to consider the possibility that it is wrong. It is this refusal that has led us to the political crisis we are in.
That leads to the lack of respect we now see in politics reflected in the refusal to recognise that some politicians have a valuable point to make, even when their position is outside the mainstream.
And third? That is the refusal to compromise even in the face of evidence. This has now seemingly destroyed the ability to permit another to save face when doing so.
Passion, dogma and steadfastness, come what may, are not what makes party politics.
Conviction based on wisdom, understanding and compassion does.
But these qualities remain in far too short supply, even if they're not quite out of stock, yet.
And that's the party political problem.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
You need to try living in a system with no realistic political parties, like Jersey or Guernsey. That would show up the problem in a very different light.
I have observed!
Living in the United Kingdom, I’m not sure we have any real political parties either!!
refusal to compromise. The American Republican party has spent six years blocking things for the sake of it. Now they are increasingly islamaphobic, homophobic, anti-science ( climate change and evolution) anti- abortion and committed to the policies of President Hoover. Yet people keep voting for them.
Now we may get Trump as their candidate. He may be more Berlusconi than Mussolini but he sums up what you are saying, Richard.
But Easter reminds us there is hope , even in the darkest hours. Happy Easter to you and your family.
and to you ian
That was, in part, an Easter reflection
@Ian S You use science and two particular examples within to prove your point, “climate change and evolution” but to me they demonstrate clearly how the establishment and elite’s have control over where all “our money” that is spent on science goes. As someone who studied science and loved it since school and University I am appalled at how it has developed. Science is about observation, development of a theory, and most critically, repeatable demonstration of that theory. Our technology has moved on in leaps and bounds in the last 100 years and what we are able to observe today in minute detail seldom supports theories developed over 100 years ago. Yet the establishment has discovered that if they hold fast to these theories they can divert trillions of our money chasing ghosts. The biggest ghost of all is man made climate change. Evolution is likely wrong because we have our time lines wrong, because its likely that radio dating is seriously flawed. Those who say evolution is wrong due to creationist theories are not the same as those who question radio dating.
The republican Party establishment don’t care which party wins the presidency. In fact they may prefer Hillary Clinton, the Wall St loving war monger. People are not voting for Trump because they like his policies, they are voting for him because they think he may destroy the republican party and if president destroy the elite enough to get the rule of law back into the US.
For once, Richard, I’m not entirely sure I agree with your analysis of a) suspension of disbelief b) a Leader who recognises that suspension and c) who therefore recognises the need for compromise.
My concern is about the first limb of the argument, because it overlooks the class interest aspect. In consequence, I think a Trade Union view of industrial relations is a better model: there a Union negotiator has (should have) a clear understanding of the interests if his or her members (class), as opposed to the interests of the employers, but always understands that a) things will never be perfect b) you can’t get everything you want and c) you win some and lose some, but the struggle goes on.
What has undoubtedly happened in the Thatcher era (within which we are still living), is that one class, the 1%, has sought to resolve the class conflict between the rulers/1% and the ruled/99% not by argument, reason, evidence and persuasive power, but by removing all sources of power and resistance available to the 99% (the latest Infrastructure Bill, referred to in a recent Blog post here is a classic example – just let the “NIMBY” middle class realise what their alleged “protectors” in the Tory Party are REALLY up to, and they’ll be able to hear to screams of anger and disbelief as far away as Paris. But I always said the Middle Class were next in the Tories’ sights, then the pensioners).
So it is here that the real change has occurred in the era of TINA – the invalidation, even “de-validation” of ANY dissent – there could hardly be a greater irony that the mantra of neo-liberalism should be “choice”, given that under TINA the ONLY choice is “Hobson’s choice”, and Ford’s “any colour you want, so long as it’s black!” – and the consequent characterisation of dissent as “dissidence”, even ” aberration”, so implicitly labelling all dissent as “terrorism”, as has been implicit in some of the Government’s recent actual or planned legislation.
Invalidation, even de-validation, and movement towards a monochrome view of reality, and a one-dimensional view of authenticity are the deeper problems underlying the undoubted accuracy of your analysis, as far as it goes.
I thought I was saying what you are
Let me read it again
Richard, the key difference is that I don’t believe a political philosophy has to pretend to have ALL the answers, only to believe that its approach and solutions are, in general, superior to other approaches and solutions.
It was Marx’s belief that historical materialism constituted a “scientific” system – “scientific Socialism” – that had the same rules of applicability and proveability (or what Popper more correctly described as openness to falsification) as physics that ended up vitiating the brilliance of his sociological (very great), economic (great) and political (only of less than great worth) insights.
That is why I prefer a Trade Union model of Party political activity – clear principles and ground rules, clarity of direction and recognition that “you win some and lose some”, rather than an assent to the absolutism of some political dogma.
But then, that probably reveals more about my approach to politics than that of some of the undoubted ideologues of the Thatcher era, the chief being Maggie herself, who certainly believed her poltics were the only “valid” politics, and that Socialism was invalid, and should be “killed” – to use her own word. An absolutist to her fingertips.
I agree entirely!
A party has to suggest ur knows more answers than anyone else
It has to be wise enough to know it does not
And to climb down when it is appropriate
The Trade Union industrial relations model is, as correctly pointed out, extremely useful and valid when dealing with conflicts of interest.
However, since the onset of the TINA doctrine the IR model as well as the wider political sphere has not been dealing with differences or conflicts of interest but with something far more intangible and next to impossible to achieve compromise with; conflict of values. Which is why any internal dissent is labelled as ‘enemy within’, subject to 20/20 security state surveillance 24/7, infiltration,blacklisting, and relabeled now as terrorism, and any external dissent or reaction classified and treated as unlawful in both national and international spheres of the law – leading to state sponsored kidnapping, torture and limbo incarceration.
In essence the conflict of values scenario we are now immersed in and “living” through, as defined by and since the inception of the TINA doctrine, regards any opposing viewpoint or deviation from the one true faith as an act of blasphemy which represents an existential threat to those adhering to that faith and, in the eyes of the faithful, justifies treating anyone and everyone not adhering to the doctrine as outlaws with no rights whatsoever, including due legal process, privacy, freedom of expression, and right to life and liberty.
“This requirement is predicated on three things. The fist is a willingness to pretend you have the answer to all things.”
I agree with Andrew Dickie against the first point above, but the trade union model has the weakness that it cements the “us vs. them” attitude, which makes compromise much more difficult. What it then effectively comes down to is who wields the most power, and the unions are not winning this.
I would break Prof. Murphy’s first point down in two as follows:
A) the first requirement is an understanding of the real situation faced by British people today, together with an awareness of the policy options available and their likely consequences. This should be common to members of all political persuasions, although their interests would be weighted for or against different policy areas accordingly.
B) the second is a judgement on the best course of policy action, and this is where political differences of opinion come to the fore. Only one course of action can be taken, and the leadership have the difficult and delicate task of balancing all options to reach a compromise solution.
I.e. No-one needs to pretend they have the answer to everything. Rather, there should be an awareness of the different options, together with the affirmation “I believe we should do X,” defended rationally, with evidence, against those who believe we should do Y. The problem we have got is too much negative campaigning, attacking personalities rather than policies. This is what leads to public disengagement and a lack of respect for politics.
I like that version
In the Matrix film, the hero Neo learns the truth by swallowing a red pill, which reveals that his previously held beliefs about the world were all simulated reality. The question is, could we also hold any beliefs which may prove to be untrue? Yes. The BoE revising its understanding in 2014 of where money comes from is an example of this.
In the Western world, we like to think of ourselves as critical, independent thinkers, but the scientific picture is rather different. One example is belief perseverance. A study by Anderson et al. (1980) asked two groups whether they believed risk-takers made better firefighters than risk-averse people. Both groups were presented with fabricated evidence, the first indicating that the risk-takers were better firefighters, while the second indicating the opposite. Both groups formed their beliefs based on the evidence they were given. Then they were told that the evidence was fabricated. But the beliefs they had formed from the fabricated evidence persisted – those in the first group continued to believe that risk-takers made better firefighters more than the second.
Another study by Kuhn, Amsel and McLoughlin (1988) identified three types of scientific believers, by asking questions such as:
1. How sure people were about their beliefs;
2. Whether experts can know the truth;
3. Whether it is rational/ possible to hold different views;
4. Whether they might all be correct, in some sense.
The three groups, in increasing order of complexity, are:
1. Absolutists. These are fundamentalists who hold only their own beliefs, very strongly, and believe experts know the truth.
2. Multiplists. These are post-modern relativists who believe experts can be wrong, and there are different theories but we cannot compare different theories because experience and emotions play such a big role in belief formation.
3. Evaluative theorists. These are critical realists who believe several theories can be true, experts can err, but even if we do not get it right, we can still compare and evaluate different theories.
The bad news is the majority of people have absolutism as a default, and very few (only 14% of college students, and 5% of non college students) reach the evaluative stage.
For anyone who wants to know more, follow this link (start from 19:45 for the discussion of open-mindedness, and 26:25 for the effect of negative campaigning in politics.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPc0ksyAeqo
Developing our cognitive virtues (as well as the humane ones such as kindness) might be the answer to the party political problem, given that there is no red pill. The video talks about three:
1. Open-mindedness – the ability to set aside our default thinking to understand others;
2. Humility – the ability to criticise our own held beliefs;
3. Wisdom – where this blog appears to be headed.
Thanks you
From the Conservative Home website, a couple of very interesting articles that don’t bode well for the rest of us.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/03/we-should-face-up-to-the-end-of-retirement.html
Work forever
The enslavement of the 99 per cent
I do expect that eventually the Tories will break the triple lock promise to pensioners (but only once they have found out how to ring fence their own voters from all the rest).
Their own perverse logic dictates that there must be many “undeserving pensioners” scrounging off state benefits when they could be working, and it can only be a matter of time before private outsourced “assessment centres” will be used to decide whether a person has yet reached the age at which they are “entitled” to retire and the level of pension they “deserve”.
Working until you literally drop dead on the job is now on the horizon once again in this Orwellian dystopian world now being created by some Tory think-tanks.
In a world of private greed and public squalor, we will all end up stealing from everyone else in order to survive. The rich will steal from the poor (and get away with it because they make the laws that allow it), the poor will try to steal from the rich (and end up in prison or on the run), the old will steal from the young to fund their retirements, the young will steal from their parents to try to survive in a dog eat dog world. It will be like the mediaeval dark ages all over again!
That is the only logically conclusion from a world where social and communal interests have been lost because of blind adherence to false ideological dogma.
My instincts wish to reject what you are suggesting
My logic won’t let me
These people are utterly bonkers. This bonkers thinking to the nth degree and typical of the Tory ne-feudalist garbage that seems to flow like diarrhoea out of the mouths of these petty minded twaddlers.
Usual rubbish spouted like a fount of effluence:
1) The author refers to the elderly as ‘expensive’-monetisation at work!
2) Compare the Government pension as a pyramid scheme-utterly bogus fallacy of composition (again).
3)Retirement described as an ‘artefact of welfare.’ Implying welfare is a done historical system.
4) The usual crap about the ‘State cannot afford…’ ignoring that it somehow managed 375 billion of QE with no problem.
5) ‘Retirement is a guillotine that fell across careers. This is clearly an utterance of someone who has never done physical graft in their lives – people need to stop at some point.
The Tories are taking the piss again-they know it won’t touch them because they are the rentiers who ‘sow without reaping.’
The language is that of a young policy wonk who has never faced reality
What too many young, inexperienced (or just plain stupid) so-called political thinkers/advisers fail to understand (perhaps because they have never experienced or cannot comprehend historical truth) – is the inevitable breakdown of law and order that occurs when injustice, prejudice and inequality become institutionalised and endemic within a society.
The “rational” dominant group’s ideological response to such a threat is to try to increase their control and power through even greater restriction on personal liberty and freedom of expression. But it is that vain attempt to further consolidate economic and political power that eventually leads to systemic downfall, as every empire and despotic regime has succumbed to (usually violent) overthrow.
For those with any understanding of history and its political and economic context, there is a great responsibility to try to ensure that those who do not are never allowed near the corridors of power.
We owe our forefathers, as well as our children, an obligation not to forget the countless lessons of the past and to challenge anyone who espouses any such policies that will inevitably lead to increasingly dangerous social division instead of greater social cohesion.
The fact that politicians increasingly rely on “think-tanks” for their ideas and justification for their actions, says as much about the lack of intellectual capacity of our so-called leaders as it does about the corrosive impact of narrow interest groups.
The funding of these politically motivated organisations needs to be questioned just as much as the funding of political parties themselves does. The ability for vested interests on all sides of the political spectrum to influence everything that happens in government (from thought, voice to action) is yet another huge impediment to anything that resembles democracy and the principle of “one person one vote”
So, this is how the received wisdom of our supposed being unable to afford the elderly is created.
Again, in the middle class word I live in, I sit down to dinner or have a drink with university educated middle class professionals who say the above and other things like:
“We can’t print money to help the economy because we’d end up like Germany before WWII or Zimbabwe”
“The Labour party bankrupted the country and I will never vote for them again”
“Mr Cameron is a really nice bloke – I trust him”
“The standard of living in the UK is going up all of the time”
“The banks did not pay the ratings agencies to rate their credit worthiness and there was never any conflict of interest”
“We can’t afford to keep paying out benefits when we are in debt”
“The reason why utilities are so expensive is because of green taxes”.
I could go on.
Depressing isn’t it? I keep hoping that the Government will mess with the BBC and that The Archers gets sold to Murdoch.
Perhaps only then our wonderful half-asleep at the wheel middle class might actually want to spoil for a fight and we’ll see riots in Tunbridge Wells?
Maybe, just maybe Nicky Morgan has managed to ruffle a few feathers in Tunbridge Wells.
In an interview with the ‘Guardian’ she said she expected that the public were unlikely to have strong feelings about changes to school governance.
“I’ve never yet been on a doorstep where education has come up as an issue,” Morgan said.
“I’ve met teachers who have wanted to talk about things but I’ve never met somebody, a parent, who has said: I’m not voting for your party in a local election because of the state of our schools. If people think that local elections are won or lost on local education matters, that isn’t happening.”
I wouldn’t mind betting that there are quite a few parent governors in Tunbridge Wells (and maybe Loughborough) who are quite offended to be told that being a parent isn’t enough to have a say in education. What she’s effectively saying is that she doesn’t think the plebs care about education, so the Tories can just plough on and do what they believe to be right.
I do wonder if she’s ever been near the type of school gates I’ve been at
The issue is pretty big on most parant’s agenda
It was EXACTLY such comments by a Tory that brought me into local politics – well, politics , generally.
One of the notable “fossils” on Barnet Council, Tory Councillor Dot Benson, when interviewed by the local Press and radio on the question as to why Labour representatives had been banned from being appointed to governorships, delivered herself of the immortal statement – with all the right to comment garnered from her, no doubt honourable, experience as a WREN, words to the effect that “we don’t want such people messing up our education service. We don’t think they are fit and proper to be governors!”
As a teacher, with 14 years experience, I was SO incensed, I went off to Barnet Education services, and offered myself as a co-opted Governor, knowing they would NEVER turn down an Oxford graduate who attended his local church, and served on a Board of Governors of a girls’ REAL comprehensive (which I managed, by canvassing votes, to prevent going Grant Maintained), for 14 years, from 1988 to 2002.
The experience propelled me into local politics, and on my 3rd attempt managed to wreak “vengeance” on Dot Benson (by then retired) and her gang, by winning a seat on the Council for Labour, splitting a Tory Ward, and putting Labour in control, as a result – as I’d promised would happen (to gales of Tory laughter!) in my concession speech at my second defeat – when my vanquisher was the current Junior Health Minister, Jane Ellison – the one who key to the cat out of the bag about how the Tory Health and Social Care Act had relinquished government control of the NHS to whatever predator (“bidder” I think she said) might care to step up like Oliver and ask for more!
PSR – here’s a good article on selfishness for your more objectionable friends and acquaintances:
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/03/28/open-letter-david-cameron-dont-want-live-selfish-society/
‘The neoliberal hegemony has refused to consider the possibility that it is wrong’
The issue seems to be is that our Parties don’t realise what the neoliberal hegemony nor their part in it. They don’t even use the term! In other words they don’t understand the framework of their own thinking and take it for a representation of reality. POliticians have become useless in the face of the forces of finacialisation and they are (to use JR Saul’s expression) ‘managerial castrati’ for the financila sector.
Hope you are having peaceful Easter with the family, Richard. Not sure the Church has much to offer us except it’s own staleness. But as individuals we can hope for renewal.
Maybe that’s why I am a Quaker
As Nicky Morgan (so much more emolient than that Mr Gove!) just put it to the NASUWT,“I want to be clear there will be no pulling back from that vision, there is no reverse gear when it comes to our education reforms…Teaching unions have a choice — spend the next four years doing battle with us and doing down the profession they represent in the process, or stepping up, seizing the opportunities and promise offered by the white paper and helping us to shape the future of the education system.” ”
Or, as Oliver Cromwell famously put it, to the assembly of the Church of Scotland, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”
And, as he said of the Quakers, after a meeting with Geirge Fox, “Now I see there is a people risen that I cannot win with gifts or honours, offices or places; but all other sects and people I can.”
We need more Quakers then
So really a coalition, in theory, should work well. The best of minds from all parties and especially with a compassionate outlook. The power that government achieves must indeed infect them with something that removes the compassion, that, and the adulation of riches galore, and ever more riches. Would we all succumb, they say everyone has his price. I like to think that honour is still out there somewhere.
As the second most famous Marx said:
“I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member”
There is still a very large element of truth of this in today’s politics, as no one party can ever reflect the interests of all its members. The most democratic form of party politics therefore must be a large number of smaller parties, none of whom are able to take disproportionate levels of power based on a minority groups interests.
As today’s political and economic systems are not yet able to accommodate real democracy, if a nation state claims to be democratic that must be challenged by the electorate. We cannot allow this facade of democracy to be allowed to pervade and hope that we will get anything other than semi-autonomous elected dictatorships and massive inequality.
When a system is unstable or unsustainable, it eventually breaks down, but usually not until after many failed attempts to keep patching it up until all the wheels and cogs finally fall off the machine. It does feel like we are at that point of frantic patching of both the political and economic system in the vain hope that some miracle cure will be found before it gets too sick to recover.
I look forward to the day that no more patches are available, and fundamental change occurs.
I agree with much of your post. But to be honest Richard, I’m sick of so-called ‘conviction’ politicians – the Thatchers and the Blairs.
By definition, such people are convinced by something or other so that any feedback loop they have to the contrary is instantly cut off. Conviction politicians (and economists) over simplify life and too many of us pay the price. There is also a certain religiosity about it that is worth noting.
Personally I have come to favour a more dialectic approach – proper debate and the realisation (as Yanis Varoufakis once put it) that any idea is always accompanied by its opposite. Dialectics takes into account complexity and deals with it from a practical point of view. It is problem solving leading to some form of balanced resolution. There is so little compromise these days.
What we could end up with is more balanced approaches to policy – why we see benefits cut whilst top rates of tax are effectively cut to provide more for those who already have a lot is not a dialectical approach. This is about being convinced that trickle down works!
Political parties need to take less rigid approaches to policy by just listening for feedback.
This does happen.
After Thatcher tried strict monetarism in the later 70’s – early 80’s it did not work – we got a huge drop in industrial output as firms folded as the short term loans to help cash flow dried up because of high interest rates; we got Brixton and Toxteth and then urban regeneration to patch up the cracks that have never healed and a refutation by Thatcher that she had ever been a monetarist (a lie).
This change in tack was because of too much ‘conviction’ and not enough dialectics to begin with in the first place. Less ‘belief’ and more hard facts would have prevented the economic scars we live with now.
I want rationality in politics Richard; not conviction. The planet needs it; humankind needs it. Now.
As for Cameron & Co I see them as ‘convicted’ politicians – politicians who will incriminate themselves by displaying their callousness, ignorance and lack of empathy but also because they are simply repeating the ‘golden age’ of Maggie without looking at the facts. Blair – as a result of Iraq – also conforms to this charge.
Go easy on the Easter eggs!
I thought that was what I was arguing for
This was obviously not my most successful post
Even the greatest teacher has to learn.
Happy Easter Richard. 🙂
I promise you I’m not the greatest teacher (although rumour has it my students like me)
And I sure as heck have a lot to learn
We all do
Au contraire, I’d argue it is a very successful post. It has generated some very thoughtful and interesting responses which surely, as a blogger, is what you would be hoping for.
With Syriza and Podemos (both hamstrung by their blindness to the Euro issue which prevents any kind of positive change in their countries) along with Trump, Sanders and, in perhaps a very British way Corbyn we begin to see the stirrings of a revolt against TINA. The hubris of the Tories (along with their fellow travellers in the PLP) gives me little hope that our neoliberal politicians will recognise the public mood (or at least the mood of a significant and growing minority) and change course before things become more ugly.
PSR’s post above encapsulates the propoganda power of the mainstream media in the UK, but the very fact that despite everything thrown at Corbyn he is now ahead of Cameron in the personal polls and Labour are neck and neck with the Tories in other polls shows there may be some limited scope for hope after all
Thanks
That may also, of course, just show that it is for government’s to lose elections
@ PSR “rationality, rather than conviction”. I would rephrase that idea in other terms, namely “wise government, rather than strong government”.
I’m tired of being told that FPTP makes for “strong” government: I’d settle for wise government, ANY time, given that Hitler, Stalin, Ivan the Terrible and Pol Pot, and all the apartheid governments of South Africa are all examples of “strong government”
And lets add in that suggestion of yours – “kindness”.
Lets ask for wise and kind government, over strong conviction government – the sort of government the Buddha (an Quakers, I am sure!) would subscribe to.
Wise, kind government
Now there is an aspiration
‘Wise & Kind’ – indeed – I really like that.
I can see the howls of derision in The Stun, Daily Mailevolent & Torygraph but yes – let’s go for it!
Labour – are you watching?
we can have firm moral convictions and flexibility in the best way to achieve these convictions.
You are forgiven.
As a very independent thinker, why should you be able to analyse something 100% correctly all of the time since you are not actually a part of it and thus (thank goodness) avoid being infected and deluded by it?
One book I wish politicians would read is ‘On Kindness’ by Adam Phillips and Barbara Taylor (2009). It paints kindness as a rational approach to life; that humans are psychologically pre-disposed to it (Thatcherites please note).
How about a polity that put ‘kindness’ at the centre of its approach?
Sounds like a good idea to me
Ooops – self moderated and removed the potentially unsuitable medical treatments in case my joke is misinterpreted!
PSR — re your comment “It paints kindness as a rational approach to life; that humans are psychologically pre-disposed to it (Thatcherites please note).”
That of course assumes that all our brains are wired the same, which clearly they are not!
I can believe that the majority of people may be so pre-disposed to kindness, as they are equally likely to be pre-disposed to peacefulness, equality, community, family etc. etc….
But history (and psychology) also demonstrates that there are many others (probably a minority but certainly spread throughout society) who are pre-disposed (and probably enjoy) such things as cruelty, violence, inequality, invidualism, narcissism, egotism, etc etc….
So what are we to do with such people? Certainly not raise them on a pedestal, consider them “leaders” or “aspirational” role models, allow them to dominate the corridors of power and wealth, and through hereditary control enable their equally or more so inclined offspring to continue the breed — which seems to have been the dominant trend for much of human history.
Those who do tend towards kindness are going to have to get much tougher on those who don’t. The law is the obvious vehicle to achieve this, with new forms of anti-social behaviour laws introduced and suitable punishments and preventative treatments for repeat offenders.
The point being that when you recognise an insidious disease, you must always treat it effectively and eradicate it, not just ignore it or hope that it will go away by itself.
For many of us of a progressive persuasion especially Centre-Left these are grim times. Today is especially sad with the last printed version of the Independent weakening press pluralism and giving more dominance to the really Right Wing/ Boris Brexit press. Meanwhile the Corbynites spoil the Labour party with their delusions of power, their weak grasp of the English swing voters and their dogmatic approach to politics which has led to the current Labour leader having the lowest ratings of any leader in history. To be brutally honest until a new leader evolves progressivism in England is more or less halted especially as Boris J. is now the media’s pin up boy and all coverage of Brexit including by the BBC is within a Boris Brexit frame. God help us.
Is there something wrong with Jeremy Corbyn’s and John McDonnell’s policies? If so, please tell us what are the right policies. Or do you think it’s just a question of having the right image?
Given that Corbyn has a better rating than Cameron and Osborne on the last poll (albeit on a lower negative spread) it seems reasonable to surmise that the problem here is the perception problem which was discussed the other day on this site.
The corporate media, along with the neo liberal factions who have been inserted into the Labour Party over the past few generations, have spent so much time using Berney’s methods telling everybody how unsuitably crap Corbyn is, along with the policies he stands for, using simplistic dog whistles rather than rational evidence based argument that it is hardly surprising that these perceptions appear.
I do not disagree with your analysis at all Keith. Nor with your proposed tactics to enable change.
But I’d argue that the success of those with darker motives is seldom to do with the ideas themselves – it is more about the insidious means in which they are helped to inculcate their mal-adjustment into society.
The use of the media is well known – it helps if newspaper owners support your cause. And what about academia and its willingness to teach neo-liberal economics? And to be seen supporting it even though we know it does not work?
To sum up – there is too much silence in the realm of kindness at the moment and it needs to change itself before it can change the world.
Andrew Rawnlsey is sticking the boot in again with Corbyn in the Observer today (why do I bother to buy it?).
However, his rubric of successful opposition is that of a parliamentary sketch writer – he just wants Corbyn to throw insults back to Cameron no doubt. Rawnsley wants entertainment – not debate.
Agreed
It was a ridiculous article by one of the elite
While I agree with Rawnsley’s view that lucky timing was the real reason that both Blair and Cameron took power after too many years of one-party rule, it’s becoming tiring to see the game of “play the man not the ball” continuing in the mainstream media.
While this is no doubt of great amusement and kudos to themselves and their sponsors, it fails to address the real issues and failures in British politics (which no doubt is what many of their proprietors aim to do with such bland material) – for example how in a real democracy you can have long terms of one party rule.
My interest is now turned off by most “opinion” articles – like anyone really cares about lame opinions about “leadership qualities” when there is a complete void of reality and analysis in mainstream media of how the economic and political system is rigged against the vast majority of people in this country.
There are still many good investigative reporters, but the best are now independent of the mainstream media to avoid being shackled by the restrictions placed on them by editors more interested in sales and not offending “polite society”. More facts and less opinions would be nice to see for a change!
Isn’t your problem, or at least the problem that manifested itself in the election of Corbyn, that nobody understood what ‘centre-left’ stands for any more? A few tax credits or means tested benefits to ameliorate the worst excesses of neoliberalism – was that the limit of the alternative vision? I don’t think that Corbyn or his supporters have ruined the labour party – they have simply occupied the ideological vaccuum that was left by New Labour. If Corbyn could think on his feet, orate better and use these skills to rip into Cameron he’d be ahead in the polls now.
John, nobody understands what any politician stands for now!
John-you are right, Corbyn needs to orate better, much better. A recent example comes to mind in Richards Territory:
Corbyn reminded Cameron that he had said ‘those with the broadest shoulder’ should carry the burden of austerity. Cameron, of course, replied with the usual bluster about the wealthiest paying the most tax (nominally). Corbyn should have ripped into Cameron using data to prove beyond doubt that the system is regressive and marginal impacts are vastly greater on those on lower incomes-the mer example of VAT would have sufficed. Richard’s book makes this clear and straightforward-he could have simply quoted it. He could have left Cameron floundering hopelessly-this needs to improve. Sanders gets these simple points home with great power and simplicity.
In my view it is too early to tell if Corbyn’s different approach to dealing with the House of Commons is beneficial or detrimental.
We also do not really know how much time he is spending fighting off internal dissent amongst the PLP who still refuse to accept him as leader.
The big question for me is this: Is he helping to bring back those disenchanted with current political orthodoxy? I hope so – I think so.
In my view he needs to continue to be seen to be taking real people’s issues into the heart of parliament. He must not stop doing that – even during the budget.
‘We also do not really know how much time he is spending fighting off internal dissent amongst the PLP who still refuse to accept him as leader.’
That’s a good point-he’s in a very difficult transitional position, you are right.
Corbyn has been successful because he is not standard issue and it even got me to join Labour (which was a big thing for me after the last 30 years of LINO)-still the memes need to be challenged whenever possible. Corbyn symbolises the possibility of change, so I suppose that is highly significant, even a chink is a ‘big’ thing.
An interesting post, Richard. Many thanks for your insights. I think we are in a political ‘Dark Age’. Nothing lasts forever but what will follow is anyone’s guess.
I have a Marxist tendency because for me he was the most influential philosopher of the 20th century. He came to economics later (and naturally). Of course the 19th/20th century socio-political landscape was very different to what we’re currently experiencing but the basic principles of fairness (distribution + ownership), democracy and co-operation remain.
I found David Graeber’s recent essay for an American readership interesting and insightful – http://thebaffler.com/salvos/despair-fatigue-david-graeber#.
Wishing you and your readership a Happy ecumenical Easter!
That was a good essay
And happy Easter – however you view it
We’re going to have to get to grips with this one fairly quickly. The people of the most powerful nation are about to elect, as a presidential candidate, someone who has no understanding of anything outside USA & minimal understanding of anything inside USA purely because he “isn’t a politician”, I don’t think Trump can be president because he’s alienated too many people, like everyone black or hispanic, but he’s created a template for a more intelligent demagogue.
In this country the rise of UKIP has politicians of every ilk rising up to bleat on about immigration whilst ignoring UKIP’s other great selling point THEY HATE POLITICIANS! UKIP have one really good speaker, a Scally guy, who hardly ever talks about immigration, never uses the “dog whistle” race stuff but always brings it back to “you wouldn’t trust these fekkers to run a hot dog stand would you?”
Needless to say, the inhabitants of Westminster always pick up on the former point “we’re not sounding tough enuff on immigrants”, They cannot or will not understand or accept the latter one.
When the LibDens actually congratulated themselves for getting a 29 year old elected I knew things were getting bad. They’re only getting worse.
Unfortunately, any attempt to put things right (e.g. proportionate voting) has got nowhere. I’d really like to try to change from ‘top down’ to ‘bottom up’, I,E there would be (forced) voting in every community of 1,000. The elected representatives of those (forced) votes would sit on councils which would, themselves, elect a certain number of people to Parliament. Like Jurors those elected would have no choice but to serve. They would stand (or indeed fall) on their own merits-no parties.
Is that too idealistic? We have to do something.
Too idealistic?
Yes
And looks like having the ability to build in power to me
But do we need to do someting?
Yes
This may also be too idealistic, but it is an interesting essay by a non-economist (who has clearly studied some economics) on direct economic democracy and how to achieve it.
It was put up some time ago for debate, not as a conclusive argument, but the section on asset (wealth) taxes to level the playing the field again is of interest and no doubt will be debated more than most other things.
https://directeconomicdemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/direct-economic-democracy8.pdf
“Direct economic democracy is the idea that financial power needs to be wielded directly by all of the individuals in an economy.”
That hardly anyone, including Labour were present for the 2nd reading of the NHS bill, says to me that there is a dearth of kindness amongst them all. I am so angry at this. Many procedures are being taken of elected surgery, including cataracts and hip/knee replacements. A lot of elderly folk, me for one, will be hobbling around and losing their sight because insurance may not cover treatments.
It is a frightening future for us in this country now and the dismantling of the NHS is I think the most wicked, evil thing these tossers have done. Sorry, it’s a while since I had an NHS rant.
“So what has gone wrong? Three things. The first is the denial of choice. The neoliberal hegemony has refused to consider the possibility that it is wrong. It is this refusal that has led us to the political crisis we are in.
The parallel with the US Presidential race is striking in my view. Of course underpinning this political crisis is a major economic and increasing social one!