tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post4839756511699433581..comments2024-03-17T00:10:44.022+00:00Comments on From Arse To Elbow: What is the Purpose of Labour?David Timoneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-61905721025931465242015-07-24T21:11:45.715+01:002015-07-24T21:11:45.715+01:00Sir or Madam, you are a cynical genius.Sir or Madam, you are a cynical genius.David Timoneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-45164990685411452492015-07-24T21:00:35.919+01:002015-07-24T21:00:35.919+01:00The purpose of the Labour party is to allow a non ...The purpose of the Labour party is to allow a non violent transfer of power hopefully at least once every 10 years. Occasionally they can do something progressive in office. This is no small achievement.<br /><br />The answer to the current Labour leadership crisis is <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Charlotte-Church-for-Labour-Party-Leader/1590314524583758" rel="nofollow">Charlotte Church</a>. I urge all your younger readers to get behind this Facebook campaign to give it a second wind. Sadly I am too old for Facebook.<br /><br />I don't doubt Ms Church's already considerable political skills. It should be an easy job for Ms Harman to train her up to the level of say Chuka Umunna. It would take a lifetime for Chuka Umunna to learn as much about the media as Ms Church. We would need a Welsh Labour MP to stand down in favour of Ms Church. I nominate Stephen Kinnock. In a 2020 contest against a Conservative party led by Boris Johnson, Charlotte Church could be Labours best option.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-59908415465277772822015-07-21T08:48:39.432+01:002015-07-21T08:48:39.432+01:00"How would you define 'post-capitalist..."How would you define 'post-capitalist' and how does it differ from anti-capitalist?"<br /><br />More to the point, how will it differ from capitalist!<br />Herbie Kills Childrennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-53937861852539763872015-07-20T20:58:13.984+01:002015-07-20T20:58:13.984+01:00"The contest has been equally bereft of subst..."The contest has been equally bereft of substantive policy debate ..."<br /><br />And nothing could be truer when looking at the machinations of the Important People at the Observer and Guardian when discussing the Labour leadership.<br /><br />What is going on at these papers? It wasn't just the poll information at the Observer that was risible, there were Rawnsley's multiple Corbyn-as-Lenin analogies, today we have the Guardian publishing a completely disingenuous article from Osborne, of all people, and then leading with Wintour's report of it on the front page, and we have the continuous stream of articles from Umunna, Hunt and any old Blair-era politician (latest, at the weekend, Darling) punting Liz Kendall who, as Frankie Boyle so aptly pointed out, has all the gravitas and charisma of a candidate for The Apprentice.<br /><br />But read these articles, and they are entirely policy-free. Blair perfected the art of the use of the abstract noun to mean everything and yet nothing. Most neo-Blairites have taken this to another extreme - Blair did away with policy discussion to concentrate on meta-policies. I guess that today we must now discuss meta-meta-policies. So "credible" Labour politicians must not only not have policies (except those of the Tories), they must not even have ideas about policies. It's to that level of sterility and paralysis the Labour has succumbed.<br />gastro georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-33661857388914941192015-07-20T16:55:02.923+01:002015-07-20T16:55:02.923+01:00Good question. I'm brewing up a separate post,...Good question. I'm brewing up a separate post, partly in response to Paul Mason's recent book <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun" rel="nofollow">advert</a>. Watch this space ...David Timoneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-30354288509775921382015-07-20T15:31:43.373+01:002015-07-20T15:31:43.373+01:00How would you define 'post-capitalist' and...How would you define 'post-capitalist' and how does it differ from anti-capitalist?Igor Belanovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-20132397134702873492015-07-20T13:48:44.566+01:002015-07-20T13:48:44.566+01:00"The subject is...
Labour as a parliamentary..."The subject is...<br /><br />Labour as a parliamentary party and its relationship with the welfare state"<br /><br />If you had made that the title of this article rather than,<br /><br />"What is the Purpose of Labour?"<br /><br />, it would have made it clearer! :)<br /><br />If your article was focused on welfare policy then it is quite remiss to ignore the decades assault by the tabloids and the right wing on benefit cheats etc. No coherent welfare policy can be put forward as long as the level of debate is dictated by the tabloid press and the right wing media. The strategy should be to directly target and take on that right wing mob.<br /><br />When I said there is too much economic determinism on display I was really saying that economic determinism is itself a struggle between classes, people, ideas, i.e. there is really no such thing as economic determinism, or call me agnostic on the issue!<br />Herbie Destroys the Environmentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-25452895232408377522015-07-20T12:40:53.024+01:002015-07-20T12:40:53.024+01:00Labour's reluctance to consider a basic income...Labour's reluctance to consider a basic income reflects its institutional belief that labour must be managed, which in turn stems from its historic role as "capital's foreman" and the class bias that arises from its ideological population by the professions. Working class autonomy is treated with suspicion. <br /><br />For this reason Labour can only advance in the long-term if it breaks the link with capital, which means positioning itself as post-capitalist rather than anti-capitalist (or Corbynist). The "business-friendly" meme is significant in this regard, not because it insists there is only one "reasonable" outcome (pro-capital), but because it insists there is only a simple binary (pro vs anti).<br /><br />The party careerists fear that the electorate is not yet ready for even a modest post-capitalist programme (Miliband was clumsily inching in this direction), though this just reflects their own prejudices and institutional inertia (in fact, many non-capitalist policies - pre, anti and post - are highly popular). Basically they're looking to a re-run of the early 90s, in which the growth of public squalor and the Tories executive incompetence opens up the opportunity for "New Labour" once again. David Timoneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-31005078416856080852015-07-20T11:41:55.902+01:002015-07-20T11:41:55.902+01:00The subject is Labour as a parliamentary party and...The subject is Labour as a parliamentary party and its relationship with the welfare state. I've not mentioned the unions because they don't have much influence on welfare policy - that has always been dominated by capital and the professions (obviously the McCluskey bogey is propaganda, and the idea that Corbyn will be elected through the signing-up of union drones or even malicious Tories is nonsense).<br /><br />As regards the workplace, I think you're forgetting the traditional attachment of UK unions to differentials and hierarchical pay (including the gender-gap). Specific unions certainly agitated to boost low-pay, but the movement's major contribution to aggregate wages was to drive up skilled pay. Since the 80s the unions have become more focused on low-pay simply because more of their members are low-paid (and female).<br /><br />For the unions to be a progressive force, rather than simply defensive, they would need to shift their focus from advancing their members' pay and conditions to reducing hours and supporting a basic income. That would be extremely difficult (not least because the unions have been in defensive mode since 1926), and might well lead to a breakaway by more "aspirational" unions (i.e. skilled workers seeking overtime). Don't forget the UDM, EETPU etc.<br /><br />I agree that I've focused on economic determinism, and specifically the impact of technology, but that was deliberate. There cannot be a "battle to win hearts and minds" if there is no clarity on the party's purpose, and that means coming to terms with the implications of changes in the material base. That is why the leadership contest is so vacuous. David Timoneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03568348438980023320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-29022239612486520862015-07-20T09:53:12.976+01:002015-07-20T09:53:12.976+01:00The Labour Party establishment is really stuck in ...The Labour Party establishment is really stuck in an enormous rut. The whole basis of their position was that they could win elections, and at the last two elections they have feebly fallen well short of this. The real conservatism of their position, and evidence of their complete inability to 'think the unthinkable', was the ridiculous assertion that Ed Miliband was too left-wing.<br /><br />I'm with you on Jeremy Corbyn, he is a man of integrity and a good communicator, but more the sort of person you want defending your rights rather than setting out a vision and embarking on a genuinely radical new course. Plus, while the majority of members sympathise with him, ultimately their reflex is 'accommodationism', as you put it, and I think they will know that a Corbyn leadership would be marked by either an exodus of the careerists or a sustained period of backstabbing carryied out in league with the media.<br /><br />I can only put the unwillingness to advocate a basic income down to small-c conservatism and an unwillingness to drop ideas of the 'dignity of labour'. After all, surely a basic income combines concepts of solidarity with an increase in personal freedom and autonomy? I can't believe the general public are so sadistic that it is considered harder to sell a basic income to the electorate than it is to promote collective punishment.Igor Belanovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5312853715123370916.post-11005789471409191502015-07-20T09:40:55.153+01:002015-07-20T09:40:55.153+01:00I would have expected more analysis of the role of...I would have expected more analysis of the role of trade unions in this article. In the past unions have not only agitated for higher wages and better conditions but have also acted as a voice for low skilled workers. So union negotiation had in the past ensured the difference between skilled and unskilled labour within the firm was relatively narrow. The weakening of the unions has weakened low and middle skilled labour relative to high skilled labour, and in a world of globalisation.<br /><br />I think Labour should put the argument why trade unions are more important than ever, and not some dinosaur that belongs to another age<br /><br />This brings us onto another omission from the article, namely the ideological defeat of the labour movement. There is too much economic determinism on display on not enough on the battle to win hearts and minds. <br /><br />If we don't start fighting back soon I think Robocop will come to be viewed as social realism in the not too distant future.<br /><br />Herbie Destroys the Environmentnoreply@blogger.com