Sensible Discussion on Labour Leadership hopefuls MK 2

Did you do that, growstuff? Links from dodgy sources?

Of all the EU countries, the UK has been the most hawkish towards Russia. The UK is also seen as influenced by the US and, therefore, is seen as providing an entry point for US pressure on Europe.

Russia had a vested interest in Brexit. Not only does it remove UK/US influence from the EU, but Russia has supported right-wing nationalist politicians in Europe, such as Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini. Arron Banks also had very close links with Russia during the referendum. Brexit destabilises the EU, which is in Russia's interest.

Russia has supported the Conservatives because it was the party more determined to "get Brexit done". There is some very compelling evidence that at least £3.5 million of Russian money since 2010 was paid by Russian donors directly to the Conservative Party.

If the referendum had gone the other way, Russia might very well have supported Labour because Corbyn was/is a Nato and Trident sceptic. However, its manifesto committed Labour to both. Ideologically, Labour and the current Russian government don't have that much in common. The Russian communist party is authoritarian, opposed to human rights and nationalistic. It has far more in common with right-wing extremist parties, such as UKIP (does it still exist?)

Maizie I don't think so!

Russian donors to the tory party

www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnsons-conservatives-receive-surge-in-cash-from-russians-2019-11?op=1&r=US&IR=T

I am not sure what to make of Lisa Nandy's interview on the BBC website. She talks about a 'factional war' within the Labour Party. Is it a last ditch attempt to get votes or an admission of defeat?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51752969

I like the final comment, the words of a human being rather than a partisan politician:

"Occasionally, when I'm not doing this I do get out and go for a pint and have a chat to my actual mates, Tory or otherwise."

Cunco

Well Lisa Nandy was correct in what she said, from your link :-
-

Labour leadership contender Lisa Nandy has spoken out against "faction fighting" under Jeremy Corbyn.

Ms Nandy said she raised her concerns with the Labour leader before she quit his shadow cabinet in 2016.

She said some members of his team "made it very, very clear they were going to continue to wage that factional war until the other side had been crushed".

Allies of Mr Corbyn say it is "nonsense" to suggest he wanted to wage "war" on another part of the party.'
-

Andrew Marr brought this up with John McDonnell who denied it. I think as usual McDonnell is determined to try and rewrite his history but some of us have better memories.

Of course there has been a bitter division in the Labour Party since Corbyn became leader of the Jeremy for Leader/Momentum /Labour Party. Why deny it when at one time 172 Labour MP' s declared ' No Confidence' in Jeremy Corbyn and 60 Labour MP's resigned from the front bench because they could not work with him or more to the point work with the control Momentum/Seamus Milne et al exercised over them.

There was practically immediate talk of getting rid of MP' s who did not agree with Momentum, the Party within a Party, by 'DESELECTIONS' and we all know the abuse and vitriol that came the way of any MP who had the temerity to voice an opinion against Momentum or the far left circle surrounding Corbyn/McDonnell.

McDonnell was right however when he once said of the Parliamentary Labour Party MP's who were on one side of the faction attempting to get rid of Corbyn/Momentum when he said they were “fucking useless” as plotters.

But have any labour MPs actually been deselected?

I believe that the parliamentary Labour Party demonstrates that it is not fit for purpose with every interview given at this point in time. Whoever of the three candidates is elected to the office of Parliamentary leader it is ever more becoming clear that bringing unity to those MPs will be an impossible task.

Lisa Nandy in her interview last week demonstrated, I feel, her realisation of the above, and in that the prospect that the right-wing of the Parliamentary Party has massively overplayed its hand and now may have brought the Labour Party as it is constituted and structured at present to having no future whatsoever.

The problem is for the Labour Party, that within the wider Labour movement there is a confidence and solidarity of purpose has not been higher for very many decades. That circumstance has large numbers of it's activist having little or no confidence in a parliamentary Labour party continually divided within itself with little prospect of that changing at any time in this present Parliament.

Certainly, within the Unite Union, there are several options being circulated which could be the basis of replacing a Labour party that it has wholeheartedly supported for so very many years. We may well see those options being discussed within Unite and other trade unions statutory committees in the coming months unless the new leader can very quickly demonstrate he or she has the skills to bring an end to the infighting among the Labour MPs.

I have to say that I have reluctantly come around to the conclusion that it is time to "pull the plug".

So, is what you are saying, Grandad, that factions within the Labour Party have no desire to become the party of government?

It does sound like that, and possibly a good thing if it happened.
Clearly, the very left wing membership is out of step with a massive amount of voters.
If the far left broke away, that would then leave a more centrist LP who would be more electable come the next GE.

Grandad1943 seems to be echoing the tone of this recent 'Socialist Worker' article.

socialistworker.co.uk/art/49693/Labour+left+issue+a+call+for+movement+outside+of+party

With all the economic challenges that lie ahead, recession or even depression cannot realistically be ruled out. It would remain to be seen whether a hard Left party would gain the confidence of voters in such circumstances. Corbyn and McDonnell never had that trust. If such conditions are avoided, I find it difficult to see why it would win a majority in the Commons.

If climate change becomes the overriding factor, any party attempting to shift us from a Consumer Society to a Conservation Society will have a massive job on its hands.

“ If climate change becomes the overriding factor, any party attempting to shift us from a Consumer Society to a Conservation Society will have a massive job on its hands.”

There we have a problem, it is the Taxation of the consumer society that pays for all the services that we rely on. Conservation relies on large inputs to subsidize its activities,

To clarify my earlier post, I feel that the trade unions through their rank and file activists are evermore believing that this Labour party which their political levy subscriptions almost totally support is no longer capable of supporting their memberships wider ambitions.

In the above, it is not a question of left v right, but one of a Parliamentary Labour party that is so divided within itself that it cannot any longer serve those who have totally committed to supporting it for over one hundred years.

At this point in time, I feel the debate within the trade union activists is what structure could replace the Labour Party. In that, could the Labours constituency and district parties be "coaxed" into closer alignment with the TUC, or even absorbed to become an integral part of its structure?

The alternative to the above would be the ending all ties and support for the present Labour Party and to bring forward an entirely new political wing from within the TUC possibly through one of the already existing affiliate organisations.

Much will depend on the new Parliamentary leader by way of his or her actions in the first weeks and months of taking office if the above is to be avoided. However, I strongly believe that that the ending of the ties between this Parliamentary Labour Party and its founders and century long supporters is sadly coming to an end.

For those who think that the above would not be a bad thing have to ask themselves, who in Britain would come forward with the millions of pounds necessary annually to maintain a left of centre party that has any realistic chance of being electable to government.

True, if that happened the PLP would need big donors to come forward, but maybe they would do?
It’s also a big risk for the trade unions to be thinking along those lines ( not supporting the PLP) and thereby perhaps
Facilitating the demise of the above.
A centre left PLP is the only hope of ever regaining power in the UK.They may revile Blair’s government but he was elected three times.

'Who in Britain would come forward with the millions of pounds necessary annually to maintain a left of centre party that has any realistic chance of being electable to government?' It's a good question. Mind you, Lord Sainsbury gave the biggest political donation ever to the Liberal Democrats and George Soros helped fund the campaign for a second Referendum, so you never know. Like him or not, Blair would probably get people crowd-funding.

In 2018, trade Union membership was estimated to be 10% of the UK population so about 14% of the electorate. It would be a political force to be reckoned with but would it win an election against Conservatives and a Liberal Labour Alliance? It might but perhaps in a harsh economic environment which would be difficult for any party to manage.

It does seem ironic that the slogan 'no going back' is used by a faction, viewed by the majority of the electorate as stuck in the 1970's.

lemongrove in regard to your above post, all the trades unions have requested from the Parliamentary Labour Party in the last forty years is that it commits to revoking at least the worst of the anti-trade union legislation, an end to Gig Economy working practise, and minimum hours employment Contracts.

If the above constitutes the policies of "a centre-left party" then I feel the trade unions will possibly continue to affiliate to this parliamentary Labour Party.

However, only under Corbyn's leadership have the PLP ever given a commitment to the above.

However, I feel that other factors are now coming into play, such as the general overall behaviour of a number of Labour MPs, that is now making it far more likely that the trade union movement will dis-affiliate from the existing Labour Party and set up a new political structure.

After all the view within the trades union activist is that in over forty years their trades unions have received nothing from the Labour Party which has helped sustain them despite all the commitment that has been forthcoming from those trade unions.

Cunco, the Labour movement in Britain has a membership of over seven million with six and a half million being in the trades unions, and that number has once again been growing in recent times.

The above constitutes by far the largest workplace and political organisation in Europe, and it it is in that this country, I believe, has the only organisation that has the financial ability to maintain a left of centre party that is a credible elecetable force.

Dismiss it if you will Cunco, but those who do have to come forward with something equality viable?

Grandad1943 Your number for the Trade Union membership is basically the same as mine; and my comment that a new far Left party would be a political force to be reckoned with hardly equates to dismissing it.

The present situation is so volatile, I would not rule anything out. The UK stock market now down about 20% in a couple of months (6% again today) amid concerns of company collapses and deep recession while climate change and Brexit negotiations make predictions more than tricky. Perhaps we will fast-backward past the 1970's to the 1930's, in which case, who knows, the ghost of Corbyn and McDonnell may rise again.

Grandad

You have for a while on GN stated your opinion that there is a distinct possibility the Unions may separate/withdraw funding from the Parliamentary Labour Party .
You said a few posts up :-

" To clarify my earlier post, I feel that the trade unions through their rank and file activists are evermore believing that this Labour party which their political levy subscriptions almost totally support is no longer capable of supporting their memberships wider ambitions.

In the above, it is not a question of left v right, but one of a Parliamentary Labour party that is so divided within itself that it cannot any longer serve those who have totally committed to supporting it for over one hundred years"
---

Indeed over many threads posters such as yourself and many Corbyn backing MP' s have spoken bitterly (putting it politely) about Labour MP' s who were deemed as not following the Corbyn/Momentum/ NEC/Unions line. Whether it was their candid opinions over the anti-semitism issues, a problem with the Corbyn/Momentum far left inner circle that took over the running of the party etc. etc. they were presumed to be ' Tory Light', ' Blairites ', ' Traitors '.

So I don't see how it can be nothing short of a ' question of left v right ' within the Labour Party that may well be the cause of a 'split ' in Labour, which was by the way mooted shortly after the Jeremy for Leader/Momentum Labour Party was formed years ago.

' IF ' and I stress ' IF ' the Unions do withhold finances and reorganise the Labour Party in it's eye then I think that was possibly a goal from the start and this is the time for it's culmination.

Yes POGS and I said so shortly after Corbyn became leader,

There we have a problem, it is the Taxation of the consumer society that pays for all the services that we rely on.

You illustrate an even bigger problem, David because, contrary to the belief carefully fostered by tory governments in order to justify slashing public spending, TAXATION DOES NOT FUND SPENDING

Properly speaking, taxation should control inflation. Government can issue as much money as it likes. It taxes to ensure that there is not too much money circulating in the economy, which would cause inflation.

This is an explanation of how money actually 'works'. It's worth exploring and considering.

gimms.org.uk/mmtbasics/

The economics I learned at university put the money supply at the heart of controlling inflation. For an explanation of how money works, therefore, I doubt whether a single source will suffice. It was a raging debate through the 1960's to 1980's.

The challenge of switching from a Consumer Society to an Conservation Society is not just about tax and subsidy. It would involve some industries running down or disappearing and people accepting a life using fewer resources, possibly through rationing. Governments might have to manage in a world where economic growth is not a given. It is probably common ground that managing an economy, and indeed a society, is easier when it is growing.

Anniebach

Indeed, after we had more than our fair share of cross words and just to remind some posters you were once pro Corbyn but opinions can shift.

I agree, by the way, that taxation alone has not funded government spending which is why we have a high level of government debt. From memory, it has increased under Conservative governments over the last decade. I may be wrong but I seem to remember that government spending, relative to GDP, was higher than 2008 for several of those years, maybe, only recently dropping slightly below.

If I am wrong, no doubt I will soon be put right.

I believe you're right Cunco. The government's debt is increasing every day. Somebody told me about a website, where you can see it mounting up in real time, but I can't find it.

I think the text book term for taxes on issues such as pollution is "taxes on negative externalities", which are intended to make consumers/producers pay the full social cost of the good.

Without economic growth, governments are faced with the inevitability of redistributing existing wealth, which most of them don't like.