Back to blog

Unpicking the Corbynist manifesto

See blog

Readers' comments

Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.





( 40 years in GERMANY)


Jeremy Corbyn mentioned the COWS of EIRE are mor important
to England than The GOLD of RUSSIA,USA or others.




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-


xeWGAjqhJy in reply to CnKQ7pSia6

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.


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.


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.


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!"


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.


"... 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.


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.

Ben.Graham in reply to Barracuda008

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.

Tony Sudworth

'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

blue asgard in reply to daysaccountedfor

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.