Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Kevin D]

http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2017-06-17/guardian-pundits-its-about-more-than-gloating/

 

Election backlash is about more than gloating

 

17 June 2017

 

Guardian columnist John Harris, like a lot of liberal journalists at the moment, is moving rapidly out of a brief interlude of atonement for so badly misjudging the outcome of the UK’s recent election to a sense of resentment. Those of us who held firm against the media doomsayers over the past two years – rejecting their predictions of a Labour rout under its leader Jeremy Corbyn – are being accused of triumphalism.

 

In Harris’ words:

 

"

Haters, doubters and sceptics have been rounded on. Journalists with any history of disbelief or hostility should apparently resign or be sacked. Labour MPs who once wanted Corbyn to quit should be reciting the socialist equivalent of Hail Marys, and burying any hopes of a return to the shadow cabinet. …

Looking back at the very real woes that preceded the party’s breakthrough, there seems to be some implicit suggestion that a huge crowd of true believers always knew things were on track but could not be heard above the hostile braying. But this, obviously, is not true.

"

 

That “obviously” needs examining. The desire to hold journalists to account for their treatment of Corbyn is not about gloating – even if it looks that way to those now facing the backlash. Harris badly misunderstands and trivialises the current mood, just as he misunderstood the mood of the past two years.

 

There is real frustration and anger, and it is being directed at individual journalists because there is no one else to vent the rage at. Faceless media corporations have no meaningful presence on Twitter or Facebook. We cannot berate them directly. But we can channel our protests at the corporate media’s employees, those who acted as its spokesmen and women.

 

Our problem is not that individual journalists reached mistaken conclusions about Corbyn. The concern runs much deeper than that. It is that most journalists, even among the most liberal parts of the media, rejected Corbyn and what he stood for from the outset. Even those who had some sympathy for Corbyn’s politics, like Harris, were easily swayed by their colleagues into abandoning him. And therein lies our grievance. It is not a new grievance; Corbyn’s wholesale abuse simply clarified it for us.

 

The corporate media earnt its name for a reason. Like other corporations, it has a collective agenda. Its bottom line is support for a political, social and economic environment that is good for corporate profits.

 

That doesn’t make media outlets identical. There are liberal and rightwing parts of the media, just as there are branding variations in other markets. Apple wants to persuade you that it is a progressive and socially conscious company, even as underpaid and overworked Chinese workers throw themselves out of the top-floor windows of its factories. The reality is that Apple is no more concerned about workers rights than Microsoft – its packaging is simply better designed to persuade you that it cares, because that is what its users expect from it.

 

Harris and others at the Guardian did not fail just because they could not foresee how popular Corbyn would prove when put to the electoral test. They failed because it was their role to fail. Whether they understand it or not, they reached their positions of influence in the media either because their imaginative horizons had long ago been so beaten into submission that Corbyn’s success was impossible for them to contemplate or because their defences were so weakened – or maybe their desire to succeed in their organisations so strong – they could not withstand the tide of elite opinion.

 

Moreover, their failing is not just that they doubted Corbyn; it is that they collectively ridiculed those who thought differently. We were dismissed either as naïve fools or as dangerous subversives. Where were the outraged voices in the Guardian putting that calumny to rest?

 

Harris is right about one thing. The times are volatile, indeed:

 

"

Events of all kinds now seem to move at light speed. And look at how wildly the political pendulum swings: from Obama to Trump; from the SNP triumphant to Nicola Sturgeon in sudden abeyance; from Europe supposedly in hopeless crisis to the twin leadership of Macron and Merkel; and from the Brexit victory to the glorious shocks and surprises of last week.

 

As the cliche goes, the election proved that no one knows anything any more.

"

 

That volatility, however, is not as inexplicable as Harris implies. It has an explanation. It is caused by two factors that are coexisting dangerously together.

 

The first, much of it generated by social media, is a sense of outrage among large parts of the population. New avenues to information – bypassing the gatekeepers of yore, like the BBC and the Guardian – mean that we have access to more real information and analysis than ever before. Many now understand that the political and media class has been lying to them for a long time, and that it no longer feels, or is, accountable.

 

The second factor is a profound sense of loss, alienation and confusion at the dawning realisation that the corporate media cannot be trusted. Social media have helped to prove that the political and media class cannot be trusted, but it has not offered a clear path out of the bewilderment. People know they want change, but they have not yet found a compass they are confident can guide them to a better place. That is why a Trump can be the beneficiary of this new mood as much as a Corbyn.

 

What we need now is a revolution in consciousness. We need to understand not only who are our enemies, but who are our friends.

 

The anger directed at Harris is not simply about making him feel bad for a day or two. It demands real change. And that change is being delayed by journalists like Harris, who continue to be incapable of understanding their role in the world of the corporate media.

 

Until those inside the corporate media become a voice of dissent from within, joining us in our demands for radical reform that stops the media representing only the interests of billionaires, that ends the influence of corporate advertising, and that ensures true pluralism, then they are the problem. And journalists like Harris will continue to find the comments on their social media accounts bubbling with discontent.

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

It was a joke you bell whiff.

 

Even Comrade Vlad worked that out.

Repped for bellwhiff (despite the egregious spacing).

[cloggypop]

I'm struggling to get the FF references in Kevin D's post here.

[Jairzinho]

Re the Magic Money Tree

 

The money can’t run out. The UK is the monopoly issuer of its own floating currency and faces precisely no financial constraint within sterling. The UK government is not dependent on tax receipts or borrowing in order to fund public spending. The only limitation in providing public services or anything else is the availability of real resources such as workers, energy, equipment, raw material etc. never a shortage of money. At a macro level, the currency is simply an accounting tool to measure and allocate those real resources. The simple reality is that the UK government cannot run out of the money that only it can issue.

 

The UK government spends sterling into existence by simply crediting bank accounts. The sterling doesn’t come from anywhere. It’s created by the act of government spending. For example, An NHS employee’s salary is simply paid by the government instructing the workers bank to credit his/ her bank account. The bank is then credited by the same amount of sterling reserves in its account at the Bank of England. That’s it. The worker then spends his wages into circulation in the economy.

 

Taxation is then used to remove a portion of that money from circulation. After a certain number of transactions and the tax imposed at each stage the money will eventually be removed completely. Neither does the tax money go anywhere. The government takes your money, records the transaction and that’s it. The money ceases to circulate in the economy and is extinguished.

 

Neither do sovereign floating currency issuing states like the UK need to borrow their own currency from anywhere. They’re not really “borrowing” as is generally understood by the term.

 

When those states choose to issue government bonds, the objective is to adjust their chosen base interbank interest rate to target, not as a necessity to obtain their own currency from the financial markets. The bonds/gilts generally carry a higher interest/yield than the currency reserves and the state determines the interest which will be paid, not the markets.

 

So In order increase the overnight interest rate on reserves to target, the central bank/treasury will sell government bonds to the central bank in a swap for their reserves and so drain aggregate reserves from the system and so increase the interest to target.

 

In the reverse transaction, the central bank buys government bonds from the commercial banks giving them central bank reserves in return and so pumping more reserves into the commercial banking system to reduce the interest rate.

 

The government bonds and reserves are both created electronically at will as necessary to maintain liquidity and the desired overnight interest rate in the interbank reserves market. The state is simply swapping these different financial assets with the commercial banks as an interest rate control mechanism.

 

Money is not a finite resource. It’s simply a count of the real resources produced by the working class through its labour. Britain can run short of real stuff like energy, food, housing etc but it can’t ever run out of its own money in the same way as it can’t run out of numbers. If this reality was grasped by the working class then the power of private capital is fundamentally undermined and so it’s necessary for big capital to preserve the notion that they hold a large amount of a finite commodity. Therefore the economic commentary we hear in the mainstream is largely an illusion of self-preservation for the 1%.

 

Here’s a short description of how the monetary system actually works:

 

https://think-left.org/2017/05/06/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-how-our-money-system-works-but-were-afraid-to-ask/

 

The Labour manifesto is entirely affordable and firmly in the interests of the majority working class

[razor]

I'm struggling to get the FF references in Kevin D's post here.

 

 

Exactly.  The very pinnacle of irony is to redefine it.

 

The merit's in its effortless beauty.

 

[Guest Pistonbroke]

I was a miner
I was a docker
I was a railway man
Between the wars
I raised a family
In times of austerity
With sweat at the foundry
Between the wars

I paid the union and as times got harder
I looked to the government to help the working man
but they brought prosperity down at the armoury
We're arming for peace, me boys
Between the wars

I kept the faith and I kept voting
Not for the iron fist but for the helping hand
For theirs is a land with a wall around it
And mine is a faith in my fellow man
Theirs is a land of hope and glory
Mine is the green field and the factory floor
Theirs are the skies all dark with bombers
And mine is the peace we knew
Between the wars

Call up the craftsmen
Bring me the draftsmen
Build me a path from cradle to grave
And I'll give my consent
To any government
That does not deny a man a living wage

Go find the young men never to fight again
Bring up the banners from the days gone by
Sweet moderation
Heart of this nation
Desert us not, we are
Between the wars

[Pureblood]

Nobody is bigger than the PLP. 

[cloggypop]

Nobody is bigger than the PLP.

More like it

[Jairzinho]

Tom Watson is.

[VladimirIlyich]

Re the Magic Money Tree

The money can’t run out. The UK is the monopoly issuer of its own floating currency and faces precisely no financial constraint within sterling. The UK government is not dependent on tax receipts or borrowing in order to fund public spending. The only limitation in providing public services or anything else is the availability of real resources such as workers, energy, equipment, raw material etc. never a shortage of money. At a macro level, the currency is simply an accounting tool to measure and allocate those real resources. The simple reality is that the UK government cannot run out of the money that only it can issue.

The UK government spends sterling into existence by simply crediting bank accounts. The sterling doesn’t come from anywhere. It’s created by the act of government spending. For example, An NHS employee’s salary is simply paid by the government instructing the workers bank to credit his/ her bank account. The bank is then credited by the same amount of sterling reserves in its account at the Bank of England. That’s it. The worker then spends his wages into circulation in the economy.

Taxation is then used to remove a portion of that money from circulation. After a certain number of transactions and the tax imposed at each stage the money will eventually be removed completely. Neither does the tax money go anywhere. The government takes your money, records the transaction and that’s it. The money ceases to circulate in the economy and is extinguished.

Neither do sovereign floating currency issuing states like the UK need to borrow their own currency from anywhere. They’re not really “borrowing” as is generally understood by the term.

When those states choose to issue government bonds, the objective is to adjust their chosen base interbank interest rate to target, not as a necessity to obtain their own currency from the financial markets. The bonds/gilts generally carry a higher interest/yield than the currency reserves and the state determines the interest which will be paid, not the markets.

So In order increase the overnight interest rate on reserves to target, the central bank/treasury will sell government bonds to the central bank in a swap for their reserves and so drain aggregate reserves from the system and so increase the interest to target.

In the reverse transaction, the central bank buys government bonds from the commercial banks giving them central bank reserves in return and so pumping more reserves into the commercial banking system to reduce the interest rate.

The government bonds and reserves are both created electronically at will as necessary to maintain liquidity and the desired overnight interest rate in the interbank reserves market. The state is simply swapping these different financial assets with the commercial banks as an interest rate control mechanism.

Money is not a finite resource. It’s simply a count of the real resources produced by the working class through its labour. Britain can run short of real stuff like energy, food, housing etc but it can’t ever run out of its own money in the same way as it can’t run out of numbers. If this reality was grasped by the working class then the power of private capital is fundamentally undermined and so it’s necessary for big capital to preserve the notion that they hold a large amount of a finite commodity. Therefore the economic commentary we hear in the mainstream is largely an illusion of self-preservation for the 1%.

Here’s a short description of how the monetary system actually works:

https://think-left.org/2017/05/06/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-how-our-money-system-works-but-were-afraid-to-ask/

The Labour manifesto is entirely affordable and firmly in the interests of the majority working class

Great article and pretty similar to what I have always believed but never been able to adequately describe. If anybody has any doubt that the tories simply exist to empower and feed the rich then this is how and why.

[Jairzinho]

Great article and pretty similar to what I have always believed but never been able to adequately describe. If anybody has any doubt that the tories simply exist to empower and feed the rich then this is how and why.

 

It's actually not an article. I found it in the comments section underneath a Guardian article. 

 

It's this dude - https://profile.theguardian.com/user/id/17748976

 

- and he knows his shit.

[Scooby Dudek]

I have noticed a change in the rhetoric over the last few days. They have obviously had time to regroup and formulate a plan. 

 

Yes JC ran an amazing campaign but we did not win, we lost to the worst campaign ever, run by a PM who is obviously not up to the job. 

 

The insinuation being, we should have won, if we have had a good/popular leader we would have. I believe this is the line of attack they will go with. Damned with faint praise.  

[1892-LFCWasBorn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIUb0PWgHNA

 

My boy.

[Jairzinho]

You can actually see him mouthing "Am I fuck bowing to you, you inbred parasite".

[Lee909]

Good man.

Fuck the unelected twats.

Not enough money for safe housing for all but a good few hundred mill spare to do up a castle or two

[Red Phoenix]

Here we go again. I suppose the right are loving it because at least they don't have to focus as much on how right wing fuckwits are destroying the country. Instead they can whine about how Corbyn didn't bow!

 

Yes, big deal. We don't give a fuck.

[Red Phoenix]

Actually I don't know. I don't give a fuck about people not bowing to the queen, but he's just handing them ammo again isn't he? Is it going to be worth all the drama when he could've just bowed?

 

I'd prefer him to play the bullshit game a little in areas like this, because he's not harming anyone by bowing and the right will think he's coming to his senses. Then he could pull a massive troll if he becomes PM and stop bowing again. That'd probably be a lot more fun.

 

At least he's being honest like this I suppose.

[Lee909]

Fuck that

You start bowing to keep people happy and you might aswell give up. The mans got his principles amd beliefs and should stick to them what ever anyone wants to say

[Red Phoenix]

Looks like it could all be fake news anyway. From the Guardian :
 

Some reports are noting that Jeremy Corbyn did not bow to the Queen as he entered the Lords ahead of the Queen’s speech, styling this as a snub from the long-time republican. Theresa May did give a brief bow.

However, a source close to the Labour leader argues that it is May who got the protocol wrong, and that traditionally, only the officials at the head of the procession do so.
 
Footage of the May 2016 state opening of parliament shows that neither David Cameron or Corbyn bowed, so Labour might seem to be correct on this.

 
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jun/21/queens-speech-2017-theresa-may-promises-humility-and-resolve-as-she-publishes-legislative-programme-politics-live?page=with:block-594a626fe4b01a490fd245bc#block-594a626fe4b01a490fd245bc

 

"Might seem to be correct", sounds like he's gutted that another Corbyn drama fest might have been stopped before it got going properly.

[Anubis]

Corbyn followed the correct protocol. Apparently the Speaker and Black Rod bow on behalf of Parliament. It was Theresa May who fucked it up.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-observed-protocol-by-not-bowing-to-the-queen_uk_594a6408e4b00cdb99cb9b1c?utm_hp_ref=uk

[magicrat]

I hope Corbyn's interpretation of the protocol was correct. There is nothing to be gained in handing a gift to the Tories especially as they are on the ropes, JC knows the rules , he has been in the House for decades and if he wants them changed then get elected and sort it,
Personally I think a  nod to the Queen is no big deal but I would abolish the lot of them tomorrow given the chance, There are better ways of doing it than disrespecting the Queen who the vast majority like,   

[cloggypop]

Here we go again. I suppose the right are loving it because at least they don't have to focus as much on how right wing fuckwits are destroying the country. Instead they can whine about how Corbyn didn't bow!

 

Yes, big deal. We don't give a fuck.

I applaud it

[cloggypop]

Corbyn followed the correct protocol. Apparently the Speaker and Black Rod bow on behalf of Parliament. It was Theresa May who fucked it up.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-observed-protocol-by-not-bowing-to-the-queen_uk_594a6408e4b00cdb99cb9b1c?utm_hp_ref=uk

She's fucking shite

[Bobby Hundreds]

I can't believe the daily mail comments to this. Are they genuinely real people. Who the fuck uses terms like being a traitor these days.

[Scooby Dudek]

Despite the fact he was correct, it will not stop the usual suspects having a dig and being morally outraged.