Is Jeremy Corbyn slowly turning UK Labour into the ‘nasty party’?

It is getting hard to know whether Jeremy Corbyn is actually malign, or just a bit ‘slow’. On foot of this and other incidents, no branches of the British Labour party are allowed to meet. Whatever your own definition of leadership is, I doubt it resembles this…

That long slow summer of poisoning has well and truly begun…

, , ,

  • aquifer

    That last bit should be; ‘freedom to plan is more often exercised by the servants of capital.’

    Thanks Seaan for exercising my grey matter.

    The servants, like the coffee baristas, nowadays are rarely unionised, so Labour’s reliance on the Unions is a relic that flatters organised labour without doing enough for the unenlisted majority. Ed Milliband was on the right track, trying to give Labour a life separate from the Union bosses, but too little too late.

    Neither did Blair Brown introduce PR or state political funding while they could, and now the Tories have electoral boundaries that suit them better. And their press and rich funders.

    This Momementum Manifesto had better be good!

  • SeaanUiNeill

    And thank you Aquifer for a genuinely intelligent response, I value what you’re saying. I’m probably a lot more in agreement with you than the bald comments above show. I’m very, very critical of all politicians, of whatever hue, certainly of Blair and Brown, and of the recently deposed Notting Hill Set.

    My original point was at Teddyear’s belief that somehow those of us striving for a little more freedom, and to some degree treading down our fellows in the process, was somehow “Christian”. It’s certainly pragmatic, and we all do it to some extent when we benefit from a bigger income than someone else, but I simply cannot see that making a profit as such can ever be in any way particularly “Christian”as such. It must after all involve someone somewhere being exploited in some manner, something that some evangelicals seem to find easy to ignore. I’m profoundly suspicious of that other current pyramid scheme, “The Gospel of Wealth”:

  • aquifer

    “I simply cannot see that making a profit as such can ever be in any way particularly “Christian”as such. It must after all involve someone somewhere being exploited in some manner”

    Profit is impersonal, a surplus of revenue over costs, but without it an economic activity will cease sooner or later, which is likely to impact more than the employees.

    Workers may not feel themselves exploited at all, when people often queue up for a job or enjoy the company of colleagues, or when wages surge during a boom.

    Labour’s answer to underemployment when the value of people’s labour was low in the market was tax credits, a form of means tested benefit for workers and a wage subsidy for firms. The Conservatives instead used raising the minimum wage, which might suppress employment slightly, but which promotes higher productivity and leaves people more in control.

    What Labour may lack is ideas about identifying and promoting forms of employment that have positive economic and employment feedback effects. Labour may be averse to helping small firms that create jobs but whose owners may vote Conservative. Closer to home, property rates for small businesses are excruciating, much higher than Britain now.

    Information Technology can create jobs and new markets, and support flexible employment, but Labour may not have the commercial nous to be able to exploit this.

    The Conservatives have commandeered the big transport and infrastructure projects, and Boris got on his bike too.

    Do Labour get childcare, or the Urban thing? Their EU social democratic colleagues certainly do.

    Interesting to see Cameron adopt EBay traders, many of whom would have voted labour in the past.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Hi Aquifer, “Profit is impersonal”. No, its a human action. Profit as such is a reification which has no agency of its own. In the final analysis, it exists as an aspect of a human decision somewhere, which is always personal. Only the interplay of the wills many individuals confuses direct human agency and gives us a simulacra of thee impersonal.

    I personally know a few very wealthy people, (for example, through my wife’s family had a nodding acquaintance with the Rockerfellers, yes, I know, some person without a life is going to say “Walter Mitty”) and the sense of focused management of wealth entirely occupies such people. When one encounters those individuals managing this aspect of our culture, the impersonal perception of “profit” entirely vanishes.

    I’ll come back on the rest later, have to run for a meeting.