Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
I think you are far too negative here.  Leaders won't save us and we shouldn't expect them to. And when was the last time one created a new ideology that was more than a rebranding of old ideas? Frankly in more normal times I'd have little objections to Corbyn's stance. In so many questions the correct answer is "just don't". And the Tories are a ready source for those. Just don't cut social services, privatize the NHS, deliver weapons to Saudi Arabia....
Sure the outreach to economic experts was completely bungled and McDonald's economic statements are worrying conventional very serious person reassurance noises. But then no one close to power anywhere else is offering anything close to a reasonable economic program either. Sanders' program wasn't really either. And just as in the case of Sanders the most important thing here is that he can serve as both a focus point of organization and a showcase that leftists can actually win. Getting either no or slanderous media attention is what every socialist can expect. That's neither here nor there. Of course that leads to a natural tendency to only get news from friendly sources which blinds one to real missteps and irreversible wrong turns.
Which is a good place to place a failure condition. According to the latest I heard on the bureaucratic infighting front team Corbyn now has the majority on the NEC again. If they don't get to revoking the frivolous expulsions within the next few months the party is going nowhere.
And yes I left out Brext. At the moment there really is very little that can be done about it and every position the labour party takes can only hurt their fortunes.
by generic on Mon Jan 9th, 2017 at 07:16:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And of course the moment I write a positive piece we get another blunder.
Jeremy Corbyn: I've not changed mind on immigration - BBC News -
"Labour is not wedded to freedom of movement for EU citizens as a point of principle, but I don't want that to be misinterpreted, nor do we rule it out," he said.

From reading the rest he clearly hasn't changed his mind on immigration. So who thought putting that in the speech was a good idea and what was it supposed to signal? Loss of nerves?

I also must agree with Richard Seymour that "the populist turn" still needs some work:

Corbyn, the Unlikely Populist | Jacobin -

But as Bernie Sanders demonstrated without conceding an inch to this sort of politics, it is possible to articulate a class hatred sincerely and effectively. One can, in the name of every casualty of capitalism, uncompromisingly revile the "billionaire class" and its political advocates, without giving ground to bigotry.

Corbyn, though, is currently too nice to be a populist: hate is not his metier. If Labour really wants to go down this path, he will either have to draw out the more lupine aspect of his appearance and character, or delegate nastiness to one of his colleagues.

by generic on Tue Jan 10th, 2017 at 11:34:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Because it is not entirely clear from my comment: The fracas started with a press release including the first sentence without the qualification. The quoted one is a clarification from an interview afterwards. But even from the first version it was relatively clear that there wasn't any real change of policy here. So why lead with this?
by generic on Wed Jan 11th, 2017 at 01:32:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series