Re the UK Labour Party leadership vote, now in progress:
Wow, I am grateful for the insightful analysis of Tony Blair, late of Downing Street. Equating Bernie Sanders to Marine Le Pen takes a certain daring indeed. Clearly the sane and moderate voice in First World politics.
Why, if not for the sage and cautious minds of our New Labour sort of politicians, what quagmires, disasters, and enormities might we have avoided? 
I don’t know much about British politics, but I’m honestly baffled by the support,for Corbyn. Gives money to Holocaust deniers, is friendly with Hamas supporters and radical Islamic preachers, wants to nationalize many industries and take the British economy back to the 70’s. Wants to withdraw from NATO. Does anyone think that Labor will ride back to power on this platform?
What’s the application appeal?
Here is the link.
Thank you. I obviously forgot that.
The equation with those two, and Donald Trump, isn’t on policy, but on the likely inability to achieve their final electoral goal.
When it comes to the usual topic of this sub-forum, American elections, the hypothesis is that there’s something in the world-wide air (or economy) lately that makes unelectable politicians more likely to go far in democratic politics. If Corbyn wins his leadership contest, as projected by polling in a difficult-to-poll race, that would be a good sign for both Sanders and Trump.
Obama’s victory was in itself made possible by some very unique circumstances, a primary opponent tainted by Iraq war (Mrs Clinton voted for the war) and the financial crises which destroyed any chances McCain had.
Bad times are always a way in for marginal politicians; Obama is much more mainstream than any of the people mentioned (not to mention smarter and centrist) but in normal times can you imagine a half term Senator winning an election?
Corbyn is a symptom of the dissatisfaction with political elites at the moment and the increase in the gap between the rich and the poor.
The particular problem in the Labour Party, I would say is twofold: firstly many of their supporters and natural base believe that they’ve moved too far to the right, particularly on economic issues, which have left people believing they no longer serve the needs of their natural constituency and secondly many believe the upper echelons of the party have a self-informed and self-serving agenda.
The antisemitic and terrorist smears are not a problem for Corbyn as nobody, not even his rivals, actually believes he is remotely antisemitic or supports terrorism.
Re-nationalization might be seen as problematic is some quarters, but I wouldn’t say it would be terminal to Corbyn’s success. You have to remember that the fruits of privatization have not exactly made it popular in the UK as many of the sectors in the UK that have moved from public to private ownership are among the least competitive and unpopular sectors. A platform of wholesale re-nationalization would probably be a vote loser, but a platform of reform of these sectors with more regulation and limited nationalization could be a vote winner.
Withdrawing from NATO and abandoning Trident is much more troublesome to Corbyn’s chances though. I couldn’t see him standing on that platform and winning many votes from the middle ground of voters.
At the moment politicians like Corbyn can only influence the political landscape rather than win general elections. However I do think that if economic/social disparities continue to increase then there will come a point where they become actual contenders.
Thank you for this link AKA I agree with it – both the first part criticizing Jeremy Corbyn, and the second part criticizing his out-of-office critics who have accepted millions to lobby in favor of authoritarian regimes.
US examples of former US politicians discrediting themselves as Peter Mandelson and Tony Blair have:
Maybe it’s just a difference between how Americans and Brits think about these things. An American running for president would never be able to shake loose from it after associating with those sorts of people.
Neither will Corbyn be able to shake them off. Corbyn is not running for PM right now. All he is doing so far is winning a contest in which Left are fighting centre Left. A contest in which Corbyn’s opponents on the centre Left are divided, and in all honesty are a pretty mediocre bunch. Even many of Corbyn’s supporters believe he has little chance of becoming PM. This contest imo is all about internal Labour Party infighting and longer term electoral strategy *not *in producing serious Prime Ministerial material at the next election.
Pretty much agree and add that, if he wins, we are in unknown and unknowable territory. Enough of the Labour Party wants a fresh approach to politics, will that hitherto untapped sentiment extend to the middle ground of non-aligned, swing voters … what will the filters of corporate media and the BBC. What will the erstwhile leading allies like the USA and Germany allow …
From 900/1 a few months ago to this … it’s already fantasy stuff.
The associations are that he had some fairly limited dealings with some people who later turned out to be a bit dogdey and he favours dialogue with the more radical organizations like Hamas and Hezebollah. Not something that is going to lose him a lot of votes and the danger for anyone seeking to make political capital is that it could easily backfire on them.
Maybe used as part of a more sophisticated attack by the much slicker Tory spin-machine it could be fashioned into part of something more damaging, but you also have to remember what might be damaging for more mainstream politicians isn’t necessarily so for Corbyn. Corbyn’s appeal is that he is willing to take a definite and principled stance on issues like Palestine, which most high-rank politicians flip-flop on for fear of being attacked by one side or the other.
More troublesome for Corbyn would be declarations like Bin Laden should’ve been tried rather than killed or his outreach to the IRA during the Troubles.
What was 900/1?
Amusing Private Eye piece on media representations of Corbyn:
The British Press, ladies and gentlemen.
The betting odds on Corbyn being leader were, until recently, up there with those for “Loch Ness Monster found” and the like.
Totally. Privatisation failed in many ways and a large segment of the population want to renationalise. UK railways just came out badly in a European comparison, being beaten by nationalised railways on prices, reliability and service. Besides, privatised industries in the UK often end up part owned by European state enterprises anyway.
Much of what has been said on some of the privatised industry is true. As it is also true on the public’s desire for renationalisation of some industries. What Corbyn and his supporters are missing however is the public’s usual unwillingness to pay for renationalisation. If a magic wand can be waved renationalisation of the railways would be around 80-90%. However, when it’s pointed out the billions in cost of renationalisation then that support will plummet. Most importantly it will plummet amongst those middle ground voters who Labour desperately need.
Rail renationalisation would be relatively cheap to do, although it would take years. Just don’t put each franchise out to tender come renewal time.