Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

I was just thinking about the other day. Assuming a Corbyn as pm world where all else goes the same I'd imagine if he weren't gone already (not unlikely- a minority government was the most likely outcome and its main work done it would disband) then this might well have been the issue to finally topple him.

[Tamas]

There is a Guardian article around how Labour party members like the ones going on picket lines should prioritise winning the next election (which I agree with). The comments under it seem largely a 50-50 divide between those agreeing, and those who seem to have far stronger negative feelings toward the center-left (they think) Starmer represents than toward the Tories and Johnson.

This is something I see in Hungary as well, and I do wonder if many of these people (maybe they wouldn't admit it even to themselves) are actually ok with the kind of populist nationalistic environment the current government creates, and indeed would not want to see it go for anything less than the far-left utopia they have in their heads.

[Sheilbh]

There is a Guardian article around how Labour party members like the ones going on picket lines should prioritise winning the next election (which I agree with). The comments under it seem largely a 50-50 divide between those agreeing, and those who seem to have far stronger negative feelings toward the center-left (they think) Starmer represents than toward the Tories and Johnson.

This is something I see in Hungary as well, and I do wonder if many of these people (maybe they wouldn't admit it even to themselves) are actually ok with the kind of populist nationalistic environment the current government creates, and indeed would not want to see it go for anything less than the far-left utopia they have in their heads.

Yeah I think Tories get purpose from being in power. It's why they're one of the most successful political parties in the democratic world. They change, adapt, evolve to stay in and win power because that's the purpose and meaning of them as a political party.

I think there is a chunk of people on the left who get the meaning and purpose of their politics from protest and social movements (I think Corbyn is one). For them politics is not about power and doing things, but about the movement and extra-parliamentary. I think that group - though they'd probably never admit it - prefer being in opposition because there's lots to protest and even when Labour win are unhappy/discontented for the government. I wonder if that trend has been exacerbated by social media.

Plus I think it helps that they delude themselves - this government is Trump, we are on the edge of a fascist regime - and that's a very compelling narrative if you're going on protests against them. You're hero of your own narrative. I don't think it's either. And I think one of the challenges for the left in this country is that it spends a lot of time fighting against the opponents it wishes/imagines it had, rather than the reality. Now admittedly even if a country does fall to fascism I don't think the angry Tweeters will be 21st century's Sophie Scholls which is the extent of resistance by most, but it is a nice feeling.

But the reality is every time Labour wins office there is a chunk of the left that is unhappy and dissatisfied. They never deliver socialism, they are always disappointing and often, frankly, "right-wing"/"no better than the Tories". If Starmer wins the stuff you're talking about will curdle into the next Labour factional fight over how much a failure his time in office was. There's an anecdote about Clement Attlee that him and his Tory opponent in the 1950 were watching the ballots be sampled and a number of spoiled ballots started piling up with things like "NOT SOCIALIST ENOUGH" written over them. The Tory candidate asked about them because he was surprised at that about the Labour PM who'd nationalised major industries, created the welfare state and the NHS etc - Attlee just replied that he knew them well and had for many years. It's why, I think, we've seen Wilson finally be rehabilitated in the last decade. There's been enough time that those factional fights about him have finally completely died and Labour people now look back to two good/decent PMs (Attlee and Wilson). I fully expect Blair to be rehabilitated ten years into the next Tory government in the 2040s

Separately interesting developments in the leadership race.

A lot of the discussion around the race has been shaped by early YouGov polls that showed Truss ahead by about 20%. But YouGov's 2019 leadership polling for the Tories overestimated Johnson's support by about 15% - so there was always some question about this. In particular it's just incredibly difficult to poll Tory members because we don't know much about them. The Tories don't collect or release demographic information about their membership that would allow weighting, for example, so pollsters are going off academic research which is good and helpful but always a little more retrospective. There's a very respectable Italian polling firm which has a great record in Italy and has been starting to work in the UK too - they've just released a poll of Tory members which shows Truss is ahead by only 5%. Not sure who's right or if the same problem is happening with YouGov as in 2019 - but the Sunak campaign have been saying for a while (but then all campaign's do) that they think it's a lot closer.

Separately Truss apparently suggested that one way to save money in the budget would be for a civil service/public sector paycut for workers outside London and the South-East. It seems like this is the risk of a candidate who perceives herself as a "disruptor" who'll pick up ideas and run. The idea is going down very poorly. Her campaign are already trying to walk it back. Leading Sunak backers like Metro-Mayor Ben Houchen are really going for her on this:

Ben Houchen
@BenHouchen
Actually speechless.

There is simply no way you can do this without a massive pay cut for 5.5m people including nurses, police officers and our armed forces outside London.

So much that we've worked for in places like Teesside, would be undone

Given the campaign is already trying to back out of this I get the sense it's doing damage. If the national polling undermines Sunak's argument that he's more electable, I think this plays into the other argument that he is a pair of safe hands while Truss is a risk (that is also her pitch - she wants to disrupt the "Treasury orthodoxy" and wants radicalism).

The postal ballots go out this week and it strikes me as very bad timing for Truss to accidentally set fire to her campaign.

Edit: Fairly strong u turn now
"Our hard-working frontline staff are the bed rock of society and there will be no proposal taken forward on regional pay boards for civil servants or public sector workers."

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, Corbyn reinforces his reputation as human scum in my mind with that little stunt.

While I am sure many Brits would not agree, I always saw Corbyn as a far greater risk to Britain than Johnson. Corbyn struck me as someone who would undermine pretty important things like the Five Eyes Alliance, the Quad, probably even NATO etc.

[Jacob]

Yeah, Corbyn is deeply wrong. Whether it's ignorance or malice doesn't matter at this point. He's on the side of evil.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, Corbyn reinforces his reputation as human scum in my mind with that little stunt.

While I am sure many Brits would not agree, I always saw Corbyn as a far greater risk to Britain than Johnson. Corbyn struck me as someone who would undermine pretty important things like the Five Eyes Alliance, the Quad, probably even NATO etc.

I think he was the Trump of the last 6 years in British politics - not Brexit or Johnson. He's always supported the UK withdrawing from NATO - it was an issue that the Labour party conference voted against so the party policy was different than his, but that was the big fight of his first year.

And it was all so obvious from who he is and what he's said as an MP for 30 years but you couldn't talk to his fans - and frankly still can't with the hardcore.

But just today his former head of comms, reportedly closest ally and guy nicknamed "Corbyn's brain" (and former Comment Editor of the Guardian) liked this tweet. This is who Corbyn and his wing of the left are:


The report on Corbyn's full interview, not just the clip, is even worse - no idea how this guy had so man anti-semites somehow in his orbit despite being a "passionate anti-racist":

Jeremy Corbyn urges west to stop arming Ukraine
Ex-Labour leader also tells Beirut-based TV channel he was criticised over antisemitism because of stance on Palestine
Heather Stewart Political editor
Tue 2 Aug 2022 13.55 BST
Last modified on Tue 2 Aug 2022 17.11 BST

Jeremy Corbyn has urged western countries to stop arming Ukraine, and claimed he was criticised over antisemitism because of his stance on Palestine, in a TV interview likely to underscore Keir Starmer's determination not to readmit him to the Labour party.

"Pouring arms in isn't going to bring about a solution, it's only going to prolong and exaggerate this war," Corbyn said. "We might be in for years and years of a war in Ukraine."

Corbyn gave the interview on Al Mayadeen, a Beirut-based TV channel that has carried pro-Russia reporting since Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

"What I find disappointing is that hardly any of the world's leaders use the word peace; they always use the language of more war, and more bellicose war."

He added: "This war is disastrous for the people of Ukraine, for the people of Russia, and for the safety and security of the whole world, and therefore there has to be much more effort put into peace."

He called for the UN to be "much more centre stage", and suggested involving other international bodies such as the African Union or the League of Arab States if the UN were unable to help negotiate a ceasefire.

Elsewhere in the interview, Corbyn condemned his expulsion from the parliamentary party, calling it "disgraceful".

"I spent my life in the Labour party; I joined the Labour party even before England won the World Cup in 1966. I was proud to lead the Labour party," he said, citing Labour's strong performance in the 2017 general election and the surge in membership on his watch.

"I think the way I've been treated is disgraceful, and the allegations that have been made against me are disgraceful," he said.

Corbyn also suggested that he had been criticised over antisemitism because of his stance on the Middle East.

"I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that my clearly stated support for the right of Palestinian people to be able to live in peace free from occupation, free from being under siege as in Gaza, and for those living in refugee camps ... played a factor in all this. Benjamin Netanyahu couldn't wait to condemn me for my support for the Palestinian people."

The Labour MP Margaret Hodge condemned his remarks. She said: "To suggest our fight against antisemitism on the left means that we are all part of a conspiracy to smear Corbyn is frankly absurd and of itself antisemitic. This consistent failure to understand and distinguish between our Jewish identity and the complex Middle East political issues is at the heart of why Jeremy continues to be outside the Labour party."

A Labour source said of Corbyn's comments: "There cannot be any ambiguity about the choice he's making, and that is to put himself outside the Labour mainstream."

Starmer has offered staunch support for the government's stance on Ukraine, including the provision of weapons and military training to the country's troops.

He has stressed Labour's longstanding backing for Nato, which is preparing to expand significantly in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with Finland and Sweden poised to join.

Starmer has also criticised the Stop the War Coalition, of which Corbyn is the co-vice chair with his close ally Andrew Murray, and hinted Corbyn's readmission to the party would require him to distance himself from the organisation.

In a Guardian article earlier this year, Starmer said of Stop the War: "At best they are naive, at worst they actively give succour to authoritarian leaders who directly threaten democracies. There is nothing progressive in showing solidarity with the aggressor when our allies need our solidarity and – crucially – our practical assistance now more than ever."

Corbyn has had the whip suspended since November 2020, over his response to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's report into Labour's handling of antisemitism under his leadership.

Unless he is readmitted, he will be unable to stand as a Labour candidate in his Islington North constituency at the next general election. Some allies have suggested Corbyn might opt to stand as an independent instead, drawing on historic local support.

He also talked about military figures, the intelligence agencies and the "Zionist lobby" operating against his leadership. There's something peculiar about it: I was allowed to become Labour leader, led the party to a very good result in 2017 (which was my achievement) and then the worst result since 1935 in 2019 (which was the result of establishment forces who knew I was a threat)

Edit: And it does make it stick in my craw when I see Angela Rayner (who I generally like) saying there'd have been no difference on Ukraine policy between this government and Corbyn-led one because that's clearly untrue. It's also why when it came to Labour leader I preferrred Lisa Nandy because even though I think Starmer's been good on this, it is difficult to square with him sitting in the shadow cabinet with Corbyn.

[Jacob]

Did anyone look at John Wight's argument? Why is it important that Russia wins? Because NATO and the US are bad, so murdering and torturing Ukrainians somehow shows the West what for?

[Admiral Yi]

Did anyone look at John Wight's argument? Why is it important that Russia wins? Because NATO and the US are bad, so murdering and torturing Ukrainians somehow shows the West what for?

Based on the map I assume NATO is the evil, aggrandizing Roman Empire and Russia is the freedom loving Germanic tribes.

[Josquius]

I do get the distinct impression that since he stopped being labour leader Corbyn has gone literally insane.

Sure. He has always dabbled in this kind of nonsense. But the stuff he is coming up with in recent years seems so much worse.

Oh. And the article of this Wight guy.

https://medium.com/statecraft-and-global-affairs/the-world-needs-russia-to-win-the-conflict-in-ukraine-heres-why-c4e8ec9c82e9

Rome is relevant due to the cataline conspiracy and Rome devolving into decadence and stagnation after defeating carthage and creating a unipolar world which is bad.
World today is the hegemonic imperialist capitalist us and the anti hegemonic China and Russia. Even though they're bad the world can't be unipolar and needs a rivalry.

Elsewhere are some somewhat reasonable from the Russian side arguments, very careful not to hail Putin (yeah they're bad but they're useful!) , and nonsense about how the whole thing is the US vs Russia.

Odd article which seems quite at odds with the stance of the anti nuclear lobby where Corbyn made his name. Disingenuous anti Americanism really.

[Sheilbh]

Did anyone look at John Wight's argument? Why is it important that Russia wins? Because NATO and the US are bad, so murdering and torturing Ukrainians somehow shows the West what for?

Unipolarity is bad. The Western hegemonic bloc is too strong and reckless. It would be good if the "vanguard" of the anti-hegemonic bloc (Russia and China) did well to make the West understand they can't do anything, which is bad for the world. A balance of power would be better - with the usual disclaimer that it doesn't mean Xi and Putin are good.

Though I would also note the reference to the "Maidan coup" and the far-right in Ukraine etc (as I say I think if Corbyn was still leader we'd see a lot more people here pondering those points).

I do get the distinct impression that since he stopped being labour leader Corbyn has gone literally insane.

Sure. He has always dabbled in this kind of nonsense. But the stuff he is coming up with in recent years seems so much worse.

Before he was leader, when he was just a fringe backbencher, he regularly went on Press TV (Iranian propaganda - no banned in the UK after showing a coerced confession) and had his own show on Russia Today. He regularly participated with Holocaust deniers, not to mention inviting senior IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah figures to parliament.

I don't think he's gone crazy or that it's new - I think he's gone back to his comfort zone.

I am a little pleased that people seem to have noticed. I thought after his leadership ended Corbyn would end up either going full David Icke or becoming a national treasure bleached of the controversies of his actual career, like Tony Benn. It looks like he's going the David Icke route which I think is probably better for our politics.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I've seen leftists of this ilk before, back in my youth. There was always this current in American leftism where you start with a premise of criticizing America--specifically American imperialism, our meddling in other country's affairs, the government's close ties with big business etc. That is not an entirely invalid world view, frankly self-reflection and being critical of oneself is a good trait. But they did not stop there, as they would get deeper into thinking that much of the world's problems were caused by American imperialism, suddenly they would see say--the Soviet Union, as a bulwark against that, ditto Fidel's Cuba etc. It helped that those places also were of course communist which many of these American leftists were as well.

Now, they would typically disavow the known human rights abuses and authoritarianism of the Soviets when pushed, but often in the manner of "well yes they are bad on some things, but look how America treats black people." I don't think they are quite Russian plants, and I don't know that Corbyn is, but they are basically true "useful idiots." Their desire to critique America and the West renders them incapable of understanding that enemies of the West are not necessarily truly their friends.

I saw this same thing, but to a much lesser extent, with Hugo Chavez's movement in Venezuela. A lot of these leftists were really enamored of him. Glenn Greenwald is almost exactly in this same sort of camp, and he's often accused of being on the Russian payroll now. I think it is of course possible people are on Russia's payroll, but I've also seen enough of "this type of useful idiot" to know that for some of them this is just their genuine view of the world.

I will say, while Corbyn was often likened to a "British Bernie Sanders" (or vice versa), I think to Bernie's credit he matured his views on regimes like the Soviets / Fidel / Chavez etc over the years, and developed more nuance on the Palestinian issue. I still disagree with Bernie on almost all of those things, but 1980 Bernie Sanders and 1980 Jeremy Corbyn were pretty damn close in terms of their views on those terrible regimes. By more modern times when Bernie became a more prominent political leader he had kept a lot of his economic leftism but had moderate his views on the rest.

[Sheilbh]

I've seen leftists of this ilk before, back in my youth. There was always this current in American leftism where you start with a premise of criticizing America--specifically American imperialism, our meddling in other country's affairs, the government's close ties with big business etc. That is not an entirely invalid world view, frankly self-reflection and being critical of oneself is a good trait. But they did not stop there, as they would get deeper into thinking that much of the world's problems were caused by American imperialism, suddenly they would see say--the Soviet Union, as a bulwark against that, ditto Fidel's Cuba etc. It helped that those places also were of course communist which many of these American leftists were as well.

Now, they would typically disavow the known human rights abuses and authoritarianism of the Soviets when pushed, but often in the manner of "well yes they are bad on some things, but look how America treats black people." I don't think they are quite Russian plants, and I don't know that Corbyn is, but they are basically true "useful idiots." Their desire to critique America and the West renders them incapable of understanding that enemies of the West are not necessarily truly their friends.

Yeah it's old school left-wing "anti-imperialism". The US is an imperialist hegemonic. Therefore if you support the US you're either an American satrapy or colonial outpost; if you oppose them and their allies you are, definitionally, anti-imperialist. As a good anti-imperialist Corbyn will broadly row in behind you - even if he notes that your human rights record isn't great.

So you sympathise with the USSR, China, Assad, Russia etc because they are anti-imperial/counter-hegemonic powers. I think it also applied with Corbyn's attitude to the IRA agreeing with their perspective that it was a legitimate armed struggle against British imperialism.

I don't think it's often because they're on the payroll - though Corbyn literally was when he had an RT show. I think they have a worldview that leads them to these conclusions.

I will say, while Corbyn was often likened to a "British Bernie Sanders" (or vice versa), I think to Bernie's credit he matured his views on regimes like the Soviets / Fidel / Chavez etc over the years, and developed more nuance on the Palestinian issue. I still disagree with Bernie on almost all of those things, but 1980 Bernie Sanders and 1980 Jeremy Corbyn were pretty damn close in terms of their views on those terrible regimes. By more modern times when Bernie became a more prominent political leader he had kept a lot of his economic leftism but had moderate his views on the rest.

Yeah I think it does an incredible disservice to Bernie to compare him to Corbyn. They are lightyears apart. Even on economics Corbyn is ultimately a fan of Tony Benn's sort of economics which is basically a quasi-autarkic planned economy (though I think his economics team as leader was far more interesting and nuanced than that).

I know the Corbyn team were always desperate for some sign of endorsement from Bernie or the squad - but I think they sensibly kept their distance in general. Corbyn was - and is - closer to Melenchon and some Latin American left-wing traditions (he's a Spanish speaker, married to a Chilean and very inspired by Latin American "movement politics").

[Jacob]

In the past I was somewhat susceptible to that point of view, but the reality is that Russia and China are oppressive imperial powers. Just because they'd like to knock the US off the perch as hegemonic superpower does not confer any virtue on them, and all indications are that they'd be orders of magnitude worse for those subject to their "spheres of influence".

[Tamas]

It does seem almost certain that in a month Lizz Truss will be replacing Boris Johnson as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

If I wasn't living here I'd find this tremendously funny.

[The Larch]

I'm reading that Sunak is veering hard to the right on culture war stuff. Is this a sign of desperation? Does Truss have it in the bag already?