Jeremy Corbyn to be elected Labour Leader?

[Anonymous]

RE Corbyn and the national anthem.Am I correct in believing that Socialist Delegates elected to parliament will swear allegence to the Crown. If this is the case are there members who would refuse out of principle?

[Anonymous]

imposs1904 wrote:

On the matter of the poppy industry – and its use in propagating ruling class ideas – 'Ivan' wrote an excellent article in the Socialist Standardin 1973 on that subject:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/07/day-of-remembrance-for-what-1973.html

 Tweeted to the pied Piper 

[alanjjohnstone]

It has been debated at conference (more than once?) which has determined that socialists will indeed take the oath of allegience. Why a member would volunteer to stand knowing this will be the case and then decline to take the oath on principle puzzles me. And recall the party rule..an elected member takes his instruction from the Party, not his individual conscienceIf any elected member to Parliament refuses then he would not be permitted to take his or her seat. Our purpose is to use the Commons as a fulcrum to denounce capitalism and eventually when a majority acquires political supremacy it will have a role in establishing socialism.  

[Anonymous]

So if a delegate refused to swear allegience, thus refusing the wishes of the majority, he could well be expelled from a socialist party for not swearing allegence to the crown.My original point should have been are there members who would not stand for election out of principle?

[Anonymous]

 He is after IMF backing lol

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

 "Guns blazing"?  What are you on about; been watching too many Westerns, Robin?   Look, it's always been 'horses for courses' but when one's dealing with a quasi-religious phenomenen it matters little which approach is taken when confronting those who find the allure of a 'pied-piper' quite irresistible.  Ask the party member whose spouse was totally unconvinced by laid-back, calm and reasoned argument and ended up joining the Labour Party in the days following the coronation of King Corbyn.

Its a metaphor, Dave, for a heavy handed tactless approach to political opponents which fails to discriminate between them or adapt one's argument to the political opponent in question.  And since you've introduced another metaphor into the discussion (and  talking of "horses for courses") I'll wager a bet  that far from it  mattering little" which approach is taken when confronting those who find the allure of a 'pied-piper' quite irresistible"., it matters an awful lot.  You keep on telling them that there is no difference whatsoever between Corbyn and Cameron and I guarantee they will blank you out for good and come to think the SPGB is just completely divorced from reality.  (BTW you did not tell me how many of those 24 things that Corbyn believes in, Cameron also believes in). Look you've got to think tactics, Dave. A blunderbuss approach is not going to do it.. I agree with SP when he said in an earlier post that an intelligent approach is needed . That means acknowledging that not everything your opponent says is nonsense or undesirable. As for the example of spouse of the party member you refer well this hardly constitutes evidence against making a "laid-back, calm and reasoned argument" , does it? Imagine if the member in question had lambasted Corbyn as no better  than  and  no different to, Corbyn.  I imagine that not only would the spouse have joined the Labour Party anyway but is more likely to remain in the Labour Party once Corbyn starts to disappoint as he assuredly will. A reasoned approach that at least acknowledges some of the good things that Corbyn has said is far more likely to convince precisely because it gets to the heart of the matter – that Corbyn will fail despite his good intentions  And you cannot demonstrate that unless you at least acknowledge and say something about those good intentions…

[Young Master Smeet]

Private Eye has printed our replies, so these and the previous article will have been seen by a qurter of a millon people, and this sort of advertising space would normally have cost us a good few hundred quid:

[ALB]

So it's true what they say, that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

[ALB]

I know this is going to send Vin (further) up the wall but these observations by Corbyn's critics in the Labour Party are accurate:Here's John Mills, one of their big funders:

Quote:

I'm not sure that Corbyn shares my view on what needs to be done to get away from austerity. The only way you can possibly get away from austerity is to grow the economy much more quickly.But the sort of policies that the far-left tends to go for don't unfortunately lend themselves very easily to getting the rate of economic growth up: you've got to get business on side, you've got to increase profitability – these aren't part of the far-left agenda.

And this from Hopi Sen of the left-of-centre thinktank Policy Network:

Quote:

Even on the most basic test – that of how his plans are paid for, Corbyn takes refuge in either the fantasy of tax gaps or the idiocy of unproblematic money being printed at the behest of politicians. How often has that ended well? (…)  Corbyn has embraced fantasy because he knows the realistic, expensive version of his radicalism would not appeal or prosper. Even if by some freakish chance we did win on such a programme, we would, like early Mitterrand or late Tsipras, abandon it or fail.

But what are we supposed to do if some of our opponents see things accurately too?The big difference is of course in the conclusion drawn from these facts. They conclude that you've got to accept capitalism and be business-friendly and put profits first. We conclude that that's why capitalism has to go because it is inherently incapabable of putting people before profits.

[Anonymous]

ALB I am not sure why that should send me up the wall?I endorse it all. 

[ALB]

It was just something you have said a few times about our analysis of the reason for austerity (inevitable when capitalism is in a slump) letting the likes of IDS off the hook, i.e austerity is inevitable, so he's only doing what he has to and so not to be blamed personally. Hope I didn't misunderstand you.I'd just may two points. First, while all governments have to impose austerity they do have some leeway as to where to apply it (and this government has decided to clobber the working age poor rather than pensioners because they deem there's more votes in that). Second, they don't have to enjoy imposing it like Thatcher obviously did (but is a Labour minister imposing it saying this hurts me as much as you any better?).

[jondwhite]

Not a defence of left-wing capitalism, but it looks like Corbyn's right-wing critics are wrong if they want Labour to winhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34278338

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

It was just something you have said a few times about our analysis of the reason for austerity (inevitable when capitalism is in a slump) letting the likes of IDS off the hook, i.e austerity is inevitable, so he's only doing what he has to and so not to be blamed personally. Hope I didn't misunderstand you.

I am afraid you have misunderstood me. While I am on I may as well make it clear that niether Corbyn nor Brand is my pied piper and I follow no leaders.Members will have to come up with a better argument for making  the working class my enemies.We are involved in a struggle and no matter how bad things get there is room to struggle back, its not reformism.Lets not make being a socialist an excuse to do nothing.I think you have said in the past that as the socialist movement grows the capitalists will make concensions. Does this not contradict the claim that austerity is inevitable? 

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

So it's true what they say, that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Probably true. Congrats to Bill and Max.

[ALB]

Actually, I never said that austerity was inevitable under capitalism but I agree that the word is ambiguous. I meant it in the sense of the government have to cut back on its spending (what Gladstone called "retrenchment") rather than the general rationing through the wages system that will last as long as capitalism. Austerity in this sense is only inevitable during a slump. In a boom governments can, and often do, increase their spending. This in fact is the whole rationale behind Social Democratic reformism: they want to engineer a permanent boom so that the government can tax away more money to spend on reforms (they come unstuck of course because booms cannot last for ever, but always end in a slump).As to what is likely to happen in the last days of capitalism it probably is reasonable to assume that the ruling class will be prepared to spend money on reforms to try to buy off the socialist movement and their pending expropriation. Whether they would do this faced with a mass working class anti-austerity but non-socialist movement is more dubious. But they might offer something (probably a share in government for some of its leaders). But if such a movement comes into existence, hopefully, it will opt for socialism, i.e. the bakery and corn fields as well as most of the loaf. But this is all speculation of course.

[Author]

Posts