The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.Don't have an account? Register
GOOD LUCK NEWCASTLE JUNE, 8th,2017
PRINCESS OF HEARTS
( 40 years in GERMANY)
THE NEW MIDDLE IN BETWEEN.
CARDIFF CLOSED. LUCKY MAN.GOD BLESS YOU NEWCASTLE.NEUFCHATEAU, FRANCE. YOUR FRIENDS
COVENTRY, ENGLAND,JUNE 5th, 2017
The History of COVENTRY has been a mistake by several Parties.
TODAY is named to be PFINGSTEN, a Day of PEACE , LOVE and
I Remember that DAY, when a WHITE MAN left his plane Alitalia-
ROWDY, BRITISH AIRWAYS
Jeremy Corbyn mentioned the COWS of EIRE are mor important
to England than The GOLD of RUSSIA,USA or others.
BANK OF SCOTLAND
Left wing kooks and right wing nuts. That is what western democracies have become. filled with left wing kooks and right wing nuts. Where this all leads to I don't know, but I sure know it doesn't lead somewhere good.
Nothing shows the whacko nature of the left wing kooks and right wing nuts more than immigration policy. On the left you have the open border, sanctuary city kooks. And on the right you have the build walls and deport all illegals nuts. Both sides are complete idiots.
I AM REALLY SUSTAINED IN CONCERN TO MORGANS IN SPIN DRIVER.
DIANA, WEDNESDAY,JUNE 7.2017
Great article! Really enjoyed it. But funny how I have never seen anything so savage about the Tories.
GOOD LUCK FOR BREXIT BRITAIN!
SCOTLAND YELLOW SUBMARINE GERMANY 1945 Europe
A prediction of May-hem?
So what? ... What's wrong with a party having an ideology? Parties don't all need to be 'all things to all people' - when they try that you end up with all parties as alike as Tweedledum and Tweedledee. A choice, not an echo - that's the ticket ...
Sometimes that means a party gets wiped out - like US Reps in 1964 - but the electorate learns and moves when it sees merit in the ideology, ... and thus the same '64-style agenda put Reps in power in '68 and again in '80. The voters came to the party, not the other way around. And so what if they hadn't - it's not like the losing party leaders get taken out and shot, is it? (Maybe it should be that way, but it isn't.)
Labour voters who don't like the new leftist agenda can go elsewhere; there are lots of parties, or they can form a new one, like Manny the Frog did so successfully. Of course, those kinds of Labour voters who bitch so much about Corbyn - they're the kind who feel much more comfortable cursing the dark than lighting a candle - screw them.
In other words Corbin is more interested in internal Labour Party politics than in British politics at large.
If that is the attitude of its leader the Labour Party seems doomed.
Or perhaps the press is more interested in internal Labour Party Politics than either politics or economics? I came to this website specifically to read The Economist's analysis and reaction to the Labour manifesto. What an enormous disappointment to read so little economic analysis of the manifesto content and so much focus on what the leak implies about Labour in-fighting.
I don't remember the media ranting about shambolic Tory government when the leaking of texts revealed in February that the Tories and Surrey council leaders suggesting central pressure to call off a local referendum on a 5% council tax rise to fund social care. Did the fact of the leak reveal a chaotic shambles? I haven't heard yet.
I'm not even a Labour voter. I'm just increasingly disillusioned with the reduction of this election campaign, like the EU referendum campaign, to contrived themes and disingenuous slogans designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
The core of Labour Party support, and indeed where they get their strength and financial support, is the Labour controlled local councils. Not only around London, but spread through the Midlands and up North. On these councils sit the council members, the majority paid or receiving generous expenses, and nowadays for the most part they are Trotskyites.
There is a cure for this. This suppurating putrescence can be excised with one blow. Return the voting franchise to only those who are ratepayers. Let only ratepayers vote. These Trotskyite hangers on will then lose their jobs. The Labour Party will lose the bulk of its income. This source of the far left in the central Party will wither and die. And yes, eventually sanity will return to the Labour Party.
I wish the major political parties in the United States published manifestos.
"... Stephen Kinnock, the son of the party’s former leader, Neil Kinnock and Hillary Benn,..."
A very clumsy sentence overall and an excellent example of where the Oxford comma should be used; or better still semi-colons.
It was only a couple of weeks ago that the Communist Party of Great Britain announced that it shall not be fielding any candidates in the upcoming elections for the first time in almost a century, suggesting this man and Labor will help achieve its "revolutionary" aims. In fact, the (Communist) party's general secretary said communists would provide support on the ground for Mr Corbyn.
Not saying that Corbyn is to be held to account for any group supporting him, and not even that it matters given that the communists (thankfully) haven't gotten even 1% of the popular vote in recent decades. but that the communists should think that his policies are close enough to what they hope to (realistically) achieve.
My point is about the double standard when it comes to murderous loons on the far left versus the far right -
Consider for a moment now that communism has had a far more murderous track record in the last century than even fascism, yet how the media and the left would react hysterically if a fascist party threw their support behind the mainstream Tories. The latter would be browbeaten into disavowing and distancing themselves by a mile from such an endorsement.
Yet the communists throw their support behind Labor and you hear not a peep. Consider how even in the recent U.S. presidential elections, the Communist Party in America endorsed Hillary Clinton - yeah, bet you didn't know that, did you? Then compare it to the furore about the KKK endorsing Trump. And tell me, who between the KKK and the Communists have a more wicked and murderous track record? It's not even close.
Because you know, as many leftists say time and again "But see, what happened in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba or Pol Pot's Cambodia wasn't REAL communism....but the next time, we'll get it right!"
I think the thing is that communists IN BRITAIN and IN AMERICA seem like pretty harmless loons. Despite the indisputable horrors of foreign communism, the worst ours do is go on strike for a bit. Whereas in racially diverse Western countries, fascists do not seem harmless to a lot of people.
Antifa and other leftist political rioters are not 'harmless loons'. They have staged multiple violent protests (see Berkeley). Marxists in the US are just as violent as marxists anywhere else in the world. It's just a good thing that currently the majority of people in US do not agree that violence is an acceptable means for political action, so the violence is relatively small scale.
There's something surreal about British politics at the moment, and it might be the way the country is working through the vast unintended consequences of two small decisions. David Cameron saw a political advantage in promising a referendum on EU membership; and Labour thought it would be nice to reform its voting and make the party easier to join.
When Labour opened its doors, hard-left entryists and student radicals surged in, while moderates stayed home and put the kettle on. The result was a party membership far to the left of Labour voters and Labour MPs. They elected Corbyn, who helped doom the Remain campaign with his apathetic support, is handing the Conservatives a landslide victory, and may (if his "reforms" are successful) prevent Labour from putting up an electable PM candidate for years to come -- which, in turn, might call a new party into existence and produce a major political realignment.
That's an awful lot of upheaval to arise from an innocent attempt to make one party's internal workings more democratic.
How about the decision by the Unions to support Ed Miliband for Labour leader, thus driving his far more charismatic brother David out of the Labour party forever?
I cannot help feeling that that was a 'fix', a deliberate attempt to put in place a leadership which the public would reject, thus paving the way for the otherwise unelectable Corbyn and his entryist Momentum group. Oh, and Ed had to change the rules to allow the people who would not be being led day-to-day in the Commons to have equal votes to everyone else, including those same MPs the leader would lead.
The left has a long record of not understanding how power works, how it is arrogated or how it is dispensed. 'Collective leadership' is another way of saying no leadership, and offers an invitation to entryists and manipulators to subvert the whole silly system. Of course, socialists aren't supposed to behave that way, but there lies a big advantage in doing so for those who do understand that the democratic processes within socialist parties are, at best, a joke and at worst an exercise in going through the motions. This is why collective leaderships always give way to one-man rule and that man invariably has to command respect by virtue of strength of personality.
The same applies to the parliamentary party. Labour, after all, is a parliamentary party. That is its MPs determine, policy and execute it when they can. If their leader is someone who doesn't command the majority of the sitting MPs you get the internal warfare you see to-day.
Most people are expecting a (regrettable) labour washout at the next election. The main reason isn't policy but the projection of the personalities of the leadership to the voting public. Even traditional labour voters don't like what they see. While Labour might indeed turn Corbynista at the coming election and then fail to rebuild a meaningful command structure, which would mean a change of leadership, it could also find it had turned its back on relevance at the same time while giving the impetus to the formation of a new centrist party which could be forged with Tory disaffectors with Hard Brexit, as well as Labour anti-Corbynistas. And of course the centrist Lib Dems, who also face a charismatic leadership problem which is currently killing them at the polls. Surely there will be a genuine charismatic leader amongst that lot. Who knows, it could be the second coming of David Miliband.
Frankly, it would be better if this realignment happened before the election, not after. But there isn't time now. There could have been, if the various faux 'remain' flagpoles had come together, but they haven't, they've multiplied instead. Meanwhile the centre vote remains fragmented, leaderless, and lacking in new, exciting policies.
Britain does need a new party in the centre ground, and if credible politicians can put one together, there are votes to be had. The Conservatives are getting a bit too Daily Mail, Labour have gone Morning Star and the Lib Dems have their chance to be the party of the centre and blown it.
Correction - have had their chance.
Yes, that is the tragedy. Well spotted.
The heart of the problem is that those on the left of the Labour Party had themselves been through the experience of having their party stolen from them by Blair and ‘New Labour’. In the face of this, the behaviour of Corbyn etc. is all too understandable. Those on the right of the party have, surely, to decide whether or not they care about the Labour Party as such, or whether they wish to repeat the Social Democrat experiment – and risk ending up a group of chiefs with no Indians who, like the last lot, risk having to end up amalgamating with the Liberals. If they don’t want this, then, surely, the price is for them to re-enter the contest for the Labour Party, while at the same time giving the party and its leader their full support. The striking thing about what has happened recently, is that they seem to have done everything within their power to sabotage the party and Mr Corbyn – up to and including the leak of the draft Manifesto. This all amounts, in its consequences, to supporting Mrs May, hard Brexit and all.
Given that FPTP makes a two party system not only inevitable, but required, the chances of a left-wing party getting into power in 2022 is virtually zero.
Britain could undergo another 17 years of Tory rule. Given Brexit, slow growth due to austerity, lack of state investment, creaking state services and growing inequality that have characterised the past 7 years, it's clear that this will be an unprecedented period of national decline. Thank you, Corbyn.
'Britain’s large armies of public-sector workers who soaked themselves in Marx and Foucault at university and now make their living dispensing state services' - I resent that - I actually absorbed economic ideas from across the spectrum at university and while you seem to decry service quality it would be difficult to not see what the end game of the Tories will be. A bare minimum of services with large swathes of the population opted out purchasing what they need. The post war consensus was state that provided a safety net and support when needed. Maybe it does need reining back but I think a bit of honesty would help clarify the choice for voters ?
If you can pay , you'll be fine - if you can't , tough
The Economist has demonstrate a complete ignorance of communism/socialism. Once a socialist obtain power only death/violence or revolution can remove him. Its strategy is to transform the Labour party in a communist party maintain a core of support and wait for the mega disaster that Brexit will clearly produce to implement socialism in the UK. The manifesto is just a copy of the one of Chavez in Venezuela and many other socialist leaders around the world. The result of implementing it will be the same.
Not only does a socialist economy that Corbyn want in the manifesto requires a central plan, but his plan will require us to subordinate our personal liberties to the plan of the government. The hard treatment the few remaining non Corbyn's MPs are suffering we all be subject to it. That hardly seems like a future today’s millennials would want to live in but ignorant manner support such barbarity (instead to just moving to Venezuela where they can enjoy the final result). After this landslide of blue be ready to have an opposition with people like Abbott, McDonnell, Osamor, etc... People that are so incapable that are beyond believe.
Comparing the 2017 draft Labour manifesto - that mostly promises to renationalise privatised monopolies e.g water, rail and energy (to some degree)- to Chávez's programme in Venezuela is laughable and is the kind of thing a Daily Mail editor would write.
They're nowhere near Chavez, and anyway they won't get the chance to implement anything.
Fully agree that they will not have a chance to implement anything (in this election but wait for the next)
However, It is the same manifesto if latter Chavez/Maduro did more is another matter.
Their manifesto was:
reduction to inequality through fight to poverty, free university, free, school lunch, more investment in education, nationalization of public services, increase in taxation, price control, immense increase in public spending, etc...
On the contrary is exactly the same. Having reading it I can tell you with some INFORMED competence that are exactly the same.
Massive increase in public spending (same)
Nationalisation of all public interest utilities (same)
A heavy progressive or graduate income tax and heavy corporate tax (same)
Free university, free schools meals, increase in number of teachers (same)
Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by mean of nationalize the banks which the state obtained control during the crisis (same)
Abolition of all right of inherence (same)
Nuclear free world and lefty foreign policy (same)
Ministry of labour give power to unions and communes (same)
Massive increase in debt (same)
That the maximum salary of each firm must be equivalent to 12 minimum salaries (Corbyn said: fines for business that pay their staff high wages)
Missing from Corbyn's manifesto that were in Chavez' s ones
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
Centralization of the means of communication and TRANSPORT in the hands of the state (train nationalization???)
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state.
FACTS NO IDEOLOGY, and please READ a little before insulting others
No need to break away, just join the Lib Dems
They have such a toxic reputation (understandably after breaking much of their 2010 promises) and keep promising a second referendum that the population simply doesn't want, that isn't an option.
Form a new party that the Lib Dems can join?
Thay may be the only option if Corbyn really doesn't resign.