How Much is a Corbyn?

Shakethedisease

Very interesting from the Daily Record indeed. And Kezia, the new Scottish Leader already talking about 'debating Trident' ( as deputy to Jim Murphy it was always about focusing on job losses if it wasn't renewed etc )..Looks like the Scottish Labour party may be about to make some big changes. Alex Rowley the new deputy leader, seems to like the idea of an independent Scottish Labour Party... and said a few weeks ago...

I am passionate that the Labour Party in Scotland must lead the movement for Home Rule in our country.

But anyway, from a Scottish perspective, a big surprise with this front page. If the Daily Record has gone full on Corybn, it's pretty likely the Scottish Labour party will be too in supporting his policies in Holyrood at least. Ian Murray, the only Scottish Labour MP ( still feels weird typing that ) has backed Cooper I think.

Anyway, carry on. Just thought I'd sneak this in as in Scotland it's pretty ground breaking stuff for Labour up here.

Generali

Well I guess this is when we find out whether the Scots just find Labour too right wing or if they simply don't like Labour very much.

I suspect that the idea of splitting the Labour party is an attempt to address the problem of too left for England, too right for Scotland. It would be interesting seeing how Labour could stand, for example, on unilateralism in Scotland but on retaining The Bomb in England and how that would play out in Government. Assuming that Labour can ever win power again.

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

Well I guess this is when we find out whether the Scots just find Labour too right wing or if they simply don't like Labour very much.

I suspect that the idea of splitting the Labour party is an attempt to address the problem of too left for England, too right for Scotland. It would be interesting seeing how Labour could stand, for example, on unilateralism in Scotland but on retaining The Bomb in England and how that would play out in Government. Assuming that Labour can ever win power again.

I guess the problem with that. Is that there IS only one Scottish Labour MP now. Trident is a reserved issue. Ian Murray broke ranks in the Labour Trident consensus coming up to the General Election, which is probably one of the reasons why he very narrowly kept his seat.

LABOUR’S shadow business minister, Ian Murray, has broken ranks with the party leadership over the renewal of Trident by stating that he would not vote for the renewal of the submarine missile fleet under any circumstances.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/labour-mp-ian-murray-breaks-ranks-over-trident-1-3744485

However, he's since said he 'can't promise' to stay in a shadow cabinet' if Corbyn gets in. Splitting the Labour party up though who knows ? But you're right. There has been a distinct movement within Scottish Labour advocating the need for a separate Labour party up here. Corbyn might negate the need if the party moves back leftwards. AND damage the SNP in the process.

But anyway, this isn't a Scottish thread. And is English voters who win or lose General Elections. Interesting times though once again. Trident especially as you say.

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I guess the problem with that. Is that there IS only one Scottish Labour MP now. Trident is a reserved issue. Ian Murray broke ranks in the Labour Trident consensus coming up to the General Election, which is probably one of the reasons why he very narrowly kept his seat.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/labour-mp-ian-murray-breaks-ranks-over-trident-1-3744485

However, he's since said he 'can't promise' to stay in a shadow cabinet' if Corbyn gets in. Splitting the Labour party up though who knows ? But you're right. There has been a distinct movement within Scottish Labour advocating the need for a separate Labour party up here. Corbyn might negate the need if the party moves back leftwards. AND damage the SNP in the process.

But anyway, this isn't a Scottish thread. And is English voters who win or lose General Elections. Interesting times though once again. Trident especially as you say.

Any party is meant to be a broad church, normally at least, reflecting a range of views so close that they can stand under one banner. I'm a little unconvinced that a party could meaningfully stand in Scotland under a set of policies (e.g. unilateral disarmament and FFA) when the English arm of the party is standing under a policy diametrically opposed to that (e.g. have Trident and no FFA).

Having said that, we have a permanent coalition in Australia between the Liberal Party and the National Party. The Liberals contest urban seats and the Nationals contest seats out bush. They will often have very different views on things and that seems to work fine in the end. The Liberals can always force something through (like English Labour would in theory) but they do have to give the Nationals enough that they stay onside.

In this case perhaps the Labour coalition would end up with less Trident or Trident outside Scotland or something. Or perhaps Trident and no FFA. Each side gives a bit and the voters know and accept that.

When the coalition was ruling in the 2010-15 period there seemed to be an acceptance among Tories at least that they would get a chunk of their manifesto through but that some things would have to be sacrificed on the altar of coalition.

antrobus

MS1950 wrote: »

...I've no doubt that he's widely read and I like the bloke and find his reports interesting - but he's no more an economist than I am.

He's an economics journalist.

Besides, he believes that the idea of revolution is outdated, and that the "it is the left’s project that has collapsed", whilst his 'post capitalism' is a version of the Robot Zombie Apocalypse Of Everything.

Not very Corbyn at all.:)

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

.... I'm a little unconvinced that a party could meaningfully stand in Scotland under a set of policies (e.g. unilateral disarmament and FFA) when the English arm of the party is standing under a policy diametrically opposed to that (e.g. have Trident and no FFA)....

There is an idea knocking around in Labour circles that what the party needs are separate English and Scottish parties with separate manifestos. But I am unconvinced that English and Welsh voters would think any differently about a potential ELP-SLP government than they would about a LP-SNP one.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

There is an idea knocking around in Labour circles that what the party needs are separate English and Scottish parties with separate manifestos. But I am unconvinced that English and Welsh voters would think any differently about a potential ELP-SLP government than they would about a LP-SNP one.

I guess that rather depends on what the SLP is offering. If it's hard left policies then the English, I think, won't vote for their counterparts in in England.

This is a real problem for Labour, the apparent loss of a big chunk of their electoral heartlands. IIRC, Labour wouldn't have won an election between Atlee and Blair without Scottish seats and it's very hard to see how Labour could remain as the second largest party in England without forming a Government for almost 50 years.

As the SNP has discovered, you are unlikely to have power in the UK unless you carry England. As Labour are possibly discovering they can't have power in the UK unless they sweep pretty much every Scottish seat.

MS1950

antrobus wrote: »

He's an economics journalist.

Besides, he believes that the idea of revolution is outdated, and that the "it is the left’s project that has collapsed", whilst his 'post capitalism' is a version of the Robot Zombie Apocalypse Of Everything.

Not very Corbyn at all.:)

'Economist' or 'economics journalist' - here's his take on 'Corbynomics' (in the context of wider issues); which also includes a long reply in the 'comments' section that reads suspiciously like Richard Murphy....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/16/china-labour-debate-currency-economic-crisis

MS1950

"Against all odds, Labour has elected an unassuming left-wing leader who is surging towards power. Now he faces a conspiracy launched by the security services and a desperate British Establishment who will employ any means to discredit him.

Bookstores are ordering fresh copies of A Very British Coup, the prescient 1982 political thriller, written by Chris Mullin, the former Foreign Office minister, whose fantasy of a country falling under the sway of a Marxist leader is edging closer to reality following the rise of Jeremy Corbyn.

Now the ex-Labour MP has revealed he is planning a sequel to A Very British Coup, which may provide pointers to the shock leadership front-runner’s ultimate fate":

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-very-british-coup-part-two-new-novel-in-pipeline-as-jeremy-corbyns-rise-inspires-sequel-10428313.html

Generali

MS1950 wrote: »

'Economist' or 'economics journalist' - here's his take on 'Corbynomics' (in the context of wider issues); which also includes a long reply in the 'comments' section that reads suspiciously like Richard Murphy....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/16/china-labour-debate-currency-economic-crisis

Eff me. If that's the intellectual support for Corbynism then the Labour party is in more trouble than I feared. For example:

Yvette Cooper was right to say, “QE is a special measure” – but when she listed the supposed negative impacts of Corbyn’s demand for a more radical version, two of them were actually benefits: higher inflation and a weaker pound. Inflation helps wipe out the debts faster; a weaker pound steals growth back from countries manipulating their currencies to gain trade advantage.

Let's look at these 'benefits'. Higher inflation raises costs on both businesses and consumers, reducing GDP and thus the ability to service debts. A weaker pound further increases inflation and reduces spending capacity, impoverishing domestic consumers.

I bet he's one of those people that thinks a trade surplus is some macho show of economic brilliance rather than simply reflecting the fact that your people don't have either the confidence or the incomes to buy the stuff they're making.