Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 09, 2017

Corbyn's Success Will Revitalize Europe's Social-Democracy

My heartfelt congratulations to Jeremy Corbyn and the social-democratic wing of the British Labour Party. You won the June 2017 election against huge resistance from the establishment even when Theresa May, for now, will continue to head the government.

AP: May’s UK election gamble backfires as Tories lose majority

Spectacularly punished by voters who took away her majority in parliament, a politically wounded Theresa May sought to soldier on Friday as Britain’s prime minister, resisting pressure to resign after the failure of her high-stakes election gamble made the massive challenge of untangling Britain from the European Union only more complex and uncertain.
With 649 of 650 seats in the House of Commons declared, May’s bruised Conservatives had 318 seats — short of the 326 they needed for an outright majority and well down from the 330 seats they had before May’s roll of the electoral dice. Labour has 261.
The results confounded those who said [Labour leader Jeremy] Corbyn was electorally toxic. Written off by many pollsters, Labour surged in the final weeks of the campaign. It drew strong support from young people, who appeared to have turned out to vote in bigger-than-expected numbers.
Many predicted [May] would soon be gone.

“Clearly if she’s got a worse result than two years ago and is almost unable to form a government, then she, I doubt, will survive in the long term as Conservative Party leader,” former Conservative Treasury chief George Osborne said on ITV.

May will now join into a coalition with the north-Irish conservative Democratic Union (DUP) which has won 12 seats in Parliament. Even then she will only have a slim majority. The DUP is tainted with some shady Saudi money involvement. We may well see another snap-election later this year.

Labour won the vote of the young people who turned out in high numbers. Most of the older people voted for the Tories. How will that development transfer into party percentages ten years from now?

Corbyn delivered the best results for Labour since at least 1997. This even though the Labour establishment and its media organs had defamed him since he was elected party leader in 2015. Consider the fake-leftist (and Zionist) columnist Nick Cohen, one of several of his kind in the Guardian columnist stable. Only three month ago Cohen wrote:

The Tories have gone easy on Corbyn and his comrades to date for the transparently obvious reason that they want to keep them in charge of Labour.

In an election, they would tear them to pieces. They will expose the far left’s record of excusing the imperialism of Vladimir Putin’s gangster state , the oppressors of women and murderers of gays in Iran, the IRA, and every variety of inquisitorial and homicidal Islamist movement, while presenting itself with hypocritical piety as a moral force. Will there be 150, 125, 100 Labour MPs by the end of the flaying? My advice is to think of a number then halve it.

For the record: Labour won at least 261 seats, 31 more than in the last election. The Tories won 42.5% of the votes, Labour 40% - 10 percent points more than the last time. The British elections system transfers the small Tory advantage in voter share into a rather big difference in parliament seats.

The Corbyn win gives hope for future developments in other European countries. (The long-term trends are way more important than Brexit shenanigans.) Corbyn has proven that social-democratic parties can again be competitive if they shun the neo-liberal dogma and go back to their class based policy roots. The lesson comes too late for the elections in France and the upcoming elections in Germany. In both countries the establishment still rules the social-democratic parties and loses one election after the other. Like Labour in Britain they need a renewal in which real left-wing politicians and socialist policies move back to the top. (The U.S. would probably have made a comparable move if the party establishment had not sabotage Bernie Sanders in favor of an un-electable Hillary Clinton. Sanders though was probably a one-of-a kind chance that will not return for a long time.)

It will need some time for Jeremy Corbyn's win to transfer into a Europe wide renaissance of social-democratic policies. But his was a huge step forward and the movement and trend are coming along well.

Posted by b on June 9, 2017 at 12:09 UTC | Permalink


Sorry b, for the past 20-something years social democracy has proven time and again (at least in Europe) that it's failed big time; nowadays they are just another "neo-quasi-something" tool (I highly recommend Reading the book) in the globalists' toolbox.

As an illustration, see James Corbett's lenghty video podcast titled "R2P, or How the Left Learned to Stop Worrying and Imbrace Wars of Imperial Aggression".

Posted by: LXV | Jun 9 2017 12:32 utc | 1

Anna Soubry, the re-elected Conservative MP for Broxtowe and a vocal pro-remain campaigner, also called for May to stand down as prime minister and party leader. She blamed Theresa May’s “disastrous campaign” for the Conservatives’ poor result, saying: “She's a remarkable and very talented woman and she doesn't shy away from difficult decisions, but she now has to obviously consider her position.”

Tory+Unionist = 328 seats. Labour won enough for a coalition government, but SNP collapsed, the reason that Tories hang on their nails is that they won 10+ seats in Scotland. One thing that should particularly strengthen Corbyn within Labour is that his campaign attracted a lot of UKIP defectors, more than Conservatives. His look warm support of EU membership was the formost accusation during the time of challenges in Labour, but manifestly, this is a vote gaining position.


A good quote from Nick Cohen. Indeed, this is why Putin was not found meddling in UK. The impression one gets that rightist and centrists reactionaries in UK would rather be ruled by Putin himself than by their more progressive colleagues. Just look at black and white pictures of Corbyn and Adams, "a pair of terrorists", amicably walking together. Vote for Corbyn and the fate of England would fall into the hands of radical republican Irish -- who needs hell? Unfortunately, the young English lads and [what is English for lassies, lassies are in Scotland, right?] have no idea what this stuff is about, they would not tell a trot from a trout, and worst of all, they vote.

But is Scotland the dynamics were different, from the distance Sturgeon looked magnificent.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 9 2017 12:50 utc | 2

@3 It looks like Labour picked up most of its extra votes from disaffected Scottish independents. Not sure of what age group. It will be interesting to see the SNP post mortem.

Posted by: dh | Jun 9 2017 13:15 utc | 3

I disagree a bit with b, the word is changing and old "class based policy roots" are not enough. For example, I doubt if expanding "protective state" with big budget deficit would work well, it is very hard to achieve healthy fast economic growth in most advanced economy (you can engineer real estate frenzy that leads to bust), and overhang of debt can eventually depress the economy as it can be seen in Italy and Greece. Scandinavian model is to tax progressively (and regressively, VAT) so the budget is balanced and people have services that they are proud of (trimmed from time to time by Scandinavian right wingers who would be acclaimed raving Communists in Anglo-Saxon countries).

That said, I am old enough to remember times when Blair, Gordon, Clinton were young, handsome and promising new, better ways. In retrospect, it is like new improved products that remove rusting, obsolete metal parts with modern plastic and sadly, fall apart. As a bicyclist, I have this powerful, rechargeable LED headlight which can be easily put on the bike and removed, and I was amazed how thin was the plastic part that broke, so now I carry the light in my hand. And on short distances this is OK, you can brake and change gears with right hand and carry the light with the left hand. But unlike the "New Labour/New Democracy/etc.", the headlight has good improvements, LEDs, lithium batter, charger. Somehow, almost any novelty in "improved progressive policies" were either based on "gold, cruelty and trickery" or subverted by the same.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 9 2017 13:16 utc | 4

LXV #1, but that's exavtly the point. For the past twenty years, there hasn't been social democracy in Europe. Corbyn & McDonnell's philosophy and policies represent a pre-welsh-windbag politics, i.e. pre-neolib (refreshed for the 21C, of course).

Posted by: Petra | Jun 9 2017 13:34 utc | 5

3) The demographics of independence

Age remains a very strong correlator of voting intention. Voters aged 16-41 are more likely than not to vote Yes whereas voters above 41 are more likely to vote No. • The median age of Scotland's voting population is 48 implying that there may exist a “natural majority” for No based solely on age. • A significant rural/urban split has been identified. Council areas with a higher population density were significantly more likely to vote Yes than council areas with lower population density.

Corbyn snatched the youth and city vote.

4)I agree to disagree, too. Martin Schulz in Germany now thinks he can replicate Corbyn's (and Sander's) success, but he is a Eurocrat careerist and not an age long Socialist having said the same stuff for more than 50 years plus having been arrested at demonstrations.
I think what kids crave is authencity and politicians who are in it for conviction, apart from generational waves usually turning to the grandfathers not the fathers.
Add to that public services being absolutely abysmal in the US and Britain. There is room for lots of improvement in Germany but neoliberalism did not bite that much over here.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 9 2017 13:36 utc | 6

@6 There was a lot of excitement in Scotland during the referendum...especially among 16 year old voters so for some reason they have changed their minds about independence.

Nicola is going with the 'disaster for Tories' line but she admits some young folk may have strayed from the fold. If she catches any of them they will get a good spanking.

Posted by: dh | Jun 9 2017 13:45 utc | 7

One can only hope that renewal within the British Labour party continues and that they don't get bogged down in identity politics in refuting neo-liberalism. I think we can expect the globalist forces to try and subvert those within the Labour Party by all means at their disposal to see that this Party returns to the fold. Early days yet but promising early days. Meanwhile the globalist Tories will continue to self destruct as their policies go against the population as a whole and more Brits cotton on to the game in play.

Posted by: BRF | Jun 9 2017 13:57 utc | 8

@Petra #5

I'm afraid the old traditional left-right distinction is no longer applicable after the last 20 years of globalist lunacy. Both sides are used by the lobbyists of the mega-rich to fit the Cleptocratic Oligarchy's needs above all else.

The "left" is supposed to support the poor when in reality they destroy the poor by making them dependent on welfare... not to mention their support of neo-colonial wars of aggression on all continents. OTOH, the "right" is supposed to support ideas of limited government; good luck with that! Both have proven to be birds of a feather, pushers of a false dichotomy of what they actually do, which in essence is whatever their Big Lobbyist Handlers® tell them to implement.

We need major structural paradigm shifts that go far beyond the declared priorities of some newly elected "party leader" (i.e. cleptocrats' spokesperson) because I for one, still remember all the promised "hopes and changes" of the past 2 decades. Like Einstein said: You can't solve problems by using the same mindset that created them...

Posted by: LXV | Jun 9 2017 14:13 utc | 9

I'm sure May's argument to keep her job will be - we won the election (if just barely) and changing leaders now will prove a huge disruption to the Brexit negotiations of which time is running short.

Give me the chance to negotiate the Brexit we need and judge me after that about whether or not I should continue as leader until the next election.

In other words - after this huge scare I've been given, give me the next 2 years to prove myself and judge me then - afterall, at that point there is still plenty of time for a new leader to establish themselves!! A whole 3 years in fact!!

I'm sure that'll be the basis of her argument, not at all sure it will, or even should, work though.

Posted by: Julian | Jun 9 2017 14:37 utc | 10

he's already back-pedaling on anything of real interest he's said. we'll get to see something of what it'd had been like if sanders had won in the US: big frickin' snooze.

Posted by: j | Jun 9 2017 14:48 utc | 11

Mr Corbyn's victory is the first step on a long journey. He hasn't beaten the tories yet but he has beaten the neolibs in his own party. But in saying that it must be remembered that selfish lying careerist toads far out number the Corbyns in the english labour party and unfortunately just about all the rest of that party's left faction are not Corbyns either.
A few of those do share his ideals but many of the others may agree with the policies but they lack Corbyn's strength of character.
Right now if something dreadful were to happen to Mr Corbyn the journey would be straight back to square one.
That is one of the reasons not winning a majority this time is a good thing long term. Hopefully the increase in seats at a time when Corbyn & Milne oversaw candidate preselection will mean that some decent candidates have been brought through because a win that sticks to the old oxbridge parachute club would ensure that the Labour Party is gonna be the same neolib turkey it has been for so long - 1983 was the start date of the domination by tory-lite.

Michael Foot got hammered by Margaret Thatcher and the catalyst for "winning is more important than an ethos" a mindset which dominated the Party until jeremy's ascension.
True believers are still vastly outnumbered by careerists and that must be dealt with prior to Mr Corbyn becoming PM cos otherwise he will be heading up a government comprised almost entirely of corporate sellouts, careerist white anters & tory press leakers.
Yvette Cooper was on TV saying how blown away she was by the result and that the only reason she opposed Mr Corbyn's leadership was because she didn't believe voters would ever buy what Mr Corbyn was selling.

Complete tosh of course although she now claims she likes Jeremy, she spent the last 2 years attacking his character and hunting for flaws in his policies then shouting that out to anyone silly or tory enough to listen. Cooper and just about every other senior labourite from the late 90's to mid noughties is gonna be hanging around like a fly on dogshit waiting for the chance to stick in a knife and win the leadership so the party can get back to hawking their forks off to corporate billionaires.

Mr Corbyn doesn't need to purge all of em but he does need to show what a strong and stable leader really looks like by making an example of a few of the worst ones.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Jun 9 2017 14:56 utc | 12

@11 Corbyn says he's prepared to form a government with the DUP if May can't.

Posted by: dh | Jun 9 2017 15:01 utc | 13

So does Nick Cohen apologize, resign, and slink away to obscurity in shame? Guessing not.

Posted by: Martin Finnucane | Jun 9 2017 15:11 utc | 14

sadly, war will be at (y)our door before it becomes a strong european trend. as always.

Posted by: roflmaousse | Jun 9 2017 15:29 utc | 15

Each time someone mentions Corbyn and the IRA in the same sentence, take a look at who the DUP are, at the gun licence waving lunatic group they founded, the legions of fanatics they fuelled with hate and whom they sent out onto the streets to keep hell going in the north of Ireland. It's a bit rich listening to them talk about the terrorist attacks of the past few months as if their own credentials give them any cover from their past deeds and their present shady dealings. This is the party the Tories are now quite happily in bed with.

Posted by: JBG | Jun 9 2017 15:34 utc | 16

"social-democratic parties" as well as "Christian Democratic" or "conservative" parties are in the process of committing a genocide upon the indigenous peoples of Europe. The only hope for saving these nations is to liquidate the segments of society that support autogenocide of Europeans, and that means physically liquidating all supporters of "social democracy". Round them up, send them to concentration facilities, debrief them to gather as much information as possible and then tell them they will be getting a shower and fresh clothes after an eye exam. The "eye exam" would involve sitting in a chair with a cattle stun probe positioned above. It would quickly thrust a bolt into the head of the patient, puncturing the skull and rendering a painless, humanitarian euthanasia. When a person threatens suicide, you get them help to remediate and remove the pathological elements of their psychological state. When a society threatens suicide, you have to remove the pathological elements that are the source of the pathological state.

Posted by: Pareto | Jun 9 2017 16:15 utc | 17

May Blew it but was that for purpose? Why those three false flag terrorists' operations where MI5 was involved in all of them?And May was personally implicated in all of them, being responsible for counterterrorism and recruiting of terrorists on UK payroll on her watch.

Why she attacked stupidly and callously pensions of elderly? Why now? It was suppose to be about Brexit mandate. OR as a excuse to loosing such a mandate.

Was Corbyn suppose to win this time? An reverse Brexit leaving it by name only while all the EU jurisdiction, laws and rules left intact?

It all stinks to heaven. Was that psyop of "blame labor" for upcoming next episode of 2000, 2008, 2018 disaster movie?

It seems that way since already they talk about new elections this year. Two-time charm for Corbyn. He looks already like a goat so he will make perfect scapegoat, a phony leftist who want to arm more police and refurbish nukes and want to study the policy change for next decade instead of arresting Tory government as they are war criminals, proved and documented starting from Blair.

As far as Brexit was concerned what's tragic is that Jeremy Corbyn shown himself a traitor of working people as Sanders in US did, despite Cobryn's former impeccable working class credentials, they both sold out to the establishment.

Corbyn should have stand with labor, poor working people who voted Brexit, by now he would have been a PM. Now instead of readying for new UK PM with a chance to dismantle this abhorrent UK aristocratic regime of puppetry and no circumstance after EU shackles are thrown off, he divided Labor once again.

Posted by: Kalen | Jun 9 2017 16:34 utc | 18

This is what he said. He did not say "with the DUP" - but maybe he knows something about the DUP we don't.

They sound right wing socialist

To have their support Theresa May would have to negotiate a soft Brexit with a soft border in Ireland, full EU trade plus would not be able to cut anything maybe even spend - especially on Norhern Ireland.

It would be very very ironic if they end up aligning with Corbyn on issues. But the do deal with Sinn Fein don't they?

Posted by: somebody | Jun 9 2017 16:47 utc | 19

I too wish to congrat Jeremy Corbyn, even if he did not win completely. He is the proof that a (more or less) left platform can still - or again - be an option. Without having illusions about the socialdemocratic approach the Corbyn labour results are a ray of hope that Europe will not totally succumb to the hard right. If only the people my age would have the balls to stand against the ongoing disaster. They might think they on the safe side - what a misjudgment. Just ask younger people, they will tell them what's in store for everybody.

Posted by: Pnyx | Jun 9 2017 16:50 utc | 20

thanks b...

i kinda see it like debs (first 2 paragraphs especially), but would like to simplify... as an outsider, it seems like corbyn is a man of character who speaks the truth most of the time.. for that he ought to be commended, even if politics is all about lying and deceit... although he didn't exactly win, he continues to show the youth of today that one can speak truthfully the voice of many people and have a chance in politics.. i wish him well..

Posted by: james | Jun 9 2017 16:57 utc | 21

@19 You're right. He talked about a coalition but he didn't mention the DUP specifically. Hard to see where his 66 seats are going to come from though. The SNP are going to keep pushing for independence.

Re. the DUP they are opposed to gay marriage and 'hard' Brexit so May could have her work cut out keeping them happy.

Posted by: dh | Jun 9 2017 17:00 utc | 22

Posted by: dh | Jun 9, 2017 1:00:19 PM | 22

How and when do the Tories intend to get rid of Theresa May? After the election is before the election.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 9 2017 17:17 utc | 23

@23 That's a question you should ask them. Maybe they don't have anybody better.

Posted by: dh | Jun 9 2017 17:54 utc | 24

she's staying. the queen gave her green light. and she keeps 3 ministers of the former gov. election? what election?

Posted by: Mina | Jun 9 2017 18:23 utc | 25

There is an authenticity to Corbin, while May is a charmless authoritarian, who ran a dire campaign - almost as if she was trying to loose.
I am surprised labour did not win. If you look at the table below, it adds another context: yes May lost seats, but in terms of total votes / the popular vote - she did not get mugged at all. In raw votes she got 5.5 pct more than Cameron in 2015. We can all Agee that in 2015 a lot of labour voters switched to UKIP forcing the EU referendum, this time they went back to labour. Apart from the rubbish May campaign, the big Tory error was thinking those UKIP voters would come to them - they did not, they went home to labour. Yes, Corbin goth the young out to vote, for which I applaud him. But the first past the post electoral system in the UK is, in my opinion exaggerating the scale of his achievement.

Posted by: Reload | Jun 9 2017 18:27 utc | 26

I was quipping that Corbyn may form the government by attracting coalition partners from Northern Ireland by offering them thermobaric hand grenadets. The irony has it that this not a bad idea, actually, this is an indispensable ingredient in preparing the most delicious dish, "the ruling coalition":

Theresa May's new partners in government have strong historical links with Loyalist paramilitary groups. Specifically, the terrorist group Ulster Resistance was founded by a collection of people who went on to be prominent DUP politicians. Peter Robinson, for example, who was DUP leader and Northern Ireland’s first minister until last year, was an active member of Ulster Resistance. The group’s activities included collaborating with other terrorist groups including the Ulster Volunteer Force, to smuggle arms into the UK, such as RPG rocket launchers.

By the way, how it happened that North Ireland parties with no "paramilitary" connections lost all their parliamentary seats?

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 9 2017 19:18 utc | 27

@25 mina.. that really highlights what a facade this whole thing is... we will have an election to get a majority so we can ramp down all sorts of bs on the people.. they didn't get a majority and now it is on to the next election or whatever with the same bs and queen bee herself rubber stamping it... now the good queen wouldn't want the people, err i mean corporations ( like her own) suffering any, would she??

Posted by: james | Jun 9 2017 19:23 utc | 28

Why Labour did not win? In a nutshell, there are not enough leftist in UK, nor there are enough wing nuts to form a parliamentary majority. You need "centrists" too. But they are fragmented. On center-left, some are in Labour, some are Lib Dems, and in Celtic regions, some are in Celtic nationalist movements.

The "spoiler party" of the right, IKIP, self-destructed after Brexit. Most charismatic leaders retired, the process of replacement was marred by scandals, and the party lost like 3/4 of former support. Initially, it appeared that Tory will absorb them all, and increase the Parliamentary majority to some fantastic number, like 400 out of 650. Amazingly, Labour under Corbyn attracted more former 'KIP-ers than Conservatives. But Lib Dems were more stable so the fragmentation I have mentioned persisted.

In Scotland, Scottish nationalist got more seats than they could keep. Apparently, in a bout of enthusiasm before they got seat in areas that are actually conservative, while the party is dominated by leftist types. That was quite palatable, I guess, when oil prices were high and Scots were confident that this is affordable for the independent Scotland. And oil prices are not high anymore. To a lesser degree, SNP lost seats to Labour, I guess there was smaller perception of "Westminster arrogance and Corbyn was a more palatable leader to the Scots. For example, his opposition to Trident, so shocking to Fabians and Blairites, is an accepted postulate in Scotland (except for the Tories, I guess).

There are chances that Corbyn will do better in the future. It was very recent that he attracted hundreds of thousands of new members to the party, but spreading the appreciated of the "new, improved program" is a gradual process. Nevertheless, with an army of activists that have their own alternative media, this process can continue.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 9 2017 19:51 utc | 29

I'm not a socialist, more of a free-market nationalist. But I despise the globalists, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Posted by: Fidelios Automata | Jun 9 2017 20:56 utc | 30

I dont see much of a Win for Corbyn and Labour. May had a bit of a set back but still looks to be in power even if she has to cut some deals. Sort of like A President losing control over the House and Senate two years after a big W that got him elected with acmajority in Congress.

What may of happened without those false flags? We will never know. Maybe this is the desired outcome so that The Tories dont have to take all responsibility for what happens next and can blame Labour or the lack of a majority , which may help them in the next election. I cant say, not an expert on the local politics there.

The voters across the pond dont seem much brighter than Americans. Too bad.

Posted by: Pft | Jun 9 2017 20:59 utc | 31

The election in the UK is highly significant because for the first time in a generation or two young people have become politicized and have gone out to vote. And, in vast numbers, for Corbyn. The baby boomers, who are now pensioners or reaching that age, voted Tory in the belief that their pensions are guaranteed by the current financial neoliberalism. Young people, on the other hand have to face the nasty side of neoliberalism - zero hour contracts, crap jobs, sky-high rents and house prices and a second-rate education at a very price.

For those who argue that Corbyn is somehow part of the neoliberal elite I can assure you that he is quite the opposite. Some years ago I read the journals he produced for his electors in his Islington, London constituency, each month to show what he did each day. To give just a snapshot from memory that stuck in my mind: 11 p.m. meeting with Bolivian tin miners leaders; 8 a.m. the next day meeting with a Palestinian group, then on to a meeting with Tamil representatives from Sri Lanka. I could not believe how much listening to the victims of oppression a person could get through in one day. That is aside from repeated votes against the Iraq invasion, Libya, Yugoslavia and on and on, and his brave manifesto calling for the re-nationalization of rail and utilities.

On the subject of false flags it would have been very stupid of British intelligence to plan any attacks given Theresa May’s record of slashing police numbers and the highly hostile attitude of the Police Federation to her. Certainly, in the case of the Manchester attack it would have been madness to select a pansy with a Libyan connection given that the Tories have blood on their hands for the destruction of Libya. When Corbyn suggested that the attacks could have a connection with British foreign policy it seemed to resonate in the country.

Posted by: Lochearn | Jun 9 2017 21:57 utc | 32

I don't get the British urban youth. On the one hand they want things like a strong NHS and help with tuition fees/student debt, perfectly reasonable social democratic requests. On the other hand however, they wish to remain part of this ever burgeoning autocratic superstate known as the European Union. A superstate governed by all manner of neoliberal corporatists, warmongers and all round sleaze merchants. Look no further than the likes of Verhofstadt, Barroso and Draghi if you need examples.

Posted by: Nick | Jun 9 2017 22:11 utc | 33

@ 33

Very good point.

Posted by: Lochearn | Jun 9 2017 22:28 utc | 34

@33 Isn't it always that way with youth? They want to be progressive rather than reactionary.

Posted by: dh | Jun 9 2017 22:34 utc | 35

Posted by: Nick | Jun 9, 2017 6:11:53 PM | 33
It is better to live in a superstate ruled by neo-libs than in a substate ruled by arch-cons. It is always better to be a small fish in big pond than a small fish in small pond.

Posted by: hopehely | Jun 9 2017 22:44 utc | 36

@ 33

Maybe Europe offers a possibility of escape from the very neoliberlism it itself engenders. Things are hard for young people so they see any restriction on their possibilities of escape from that as repressive. The neoliberals have us cornered like rats in cages so a denial of any other options (i.e. Europe) is seen as more bars on the cages. How does Barrroso matter when you can't pay the rent?

Posted by: Lochearn | Jun 9 2017 23:07 utc | 37

@35 Or put another way they see Europe as the future. They want to be part of something bigger. Nationality is seen as old-fashioned. Pointing out that many European politicians are sleaze merchants is a quick way to get dismissed as an old fart. I've tried it.

Posted by: dh | Jun 9 2017 23:10 utc | 38

@26 reload

interesting table

tories  : 650*0.424=275.600, but 650*0.424 gets 318 seats? difference 42 seats
labour : 650*0.401=260.650, but 650*0.401 gets 262 seats? difference 1 seat

Posted by: jfl | Jun 9 2017 23:43 utc | 39

@35, @38 dh

i think it's a lack of analysis as to what's really going on. i was the same way when i was younger. life was not politics, except to the degree the pols f*cked things up. vietnam, for instance. but i really took things at face value. things worked the way they were said to work. it was really not until ... yugoslavia? certainly 9/11 and 2003 ... that i came to understand the real lay of the land. i just hadn't been paying attention. i was paying attention to everything else that i considered 'real life'.

obviously, there is small constituency for actual analysis of 'how things work' in the 'mainstream' of western, or any civilization. go along and get along is the unspoken rule.

somehow the assumption that things are basically what they seem has to be erased, and a much more realistic attitude instilled in children as we grow up.

i don't know how that can ever become mainstream. i think we must somehow have a permanent, conscious, counter-culture which realizes that all large undertakings are eventually subverted by their apparat and so be ready to constantly keep our hands on the wheel and to change structures themselves when they're shown corrupted. no more auto-pilot while we see to 'real life'. it doesn't get any more real than politics.

this requires a sea level devolution of power.

i grew up at the zenith of economic prosperity in the usofa. kids of my age then are now at the nadir, or can clearly see it from where they are today. maybe that will force them to keep focused. but they're not there yet, as you point out.

sorry for the personal digression, but in the end it seems to me it's at the personal level that change will come about, or not.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 10 2017 0:11 utc | 40

@40 That's OK jfl. We all need to let this stuff out sometimes. I think cynicism is not a very attractive quality in the wine it needs time to mature.

Posted by: dh | Jun 10 2017 0:28 utc | 41

There seem to be many misconceptions throughout this thread about what happened in england so here's Jonathon Pie to explain it all.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Jun 10 2017 0:28 utc | 42

@42 debs.. i don't usually watch videos for info, but that was entertaining, lol...

i usually like what craig murray has to say.. he has a few links on his site today -

Posted by: james | Jun 10 2017 1:00 utc | 43

@41 dh

it's not cynicism to take a realistic view of the world, if you actually make the effort to put things on track.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 10 2017 1:11 utc | 44

@43 James
Well here is some good reading from Jacobin editor Bhaskar Sunkara enjoy.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Jun 10 2017 1:11 utc | 45

It isn't in these cynical to appreciate that as political structures get larger and more removed from contact with those they are alleged to be representing, they become more corrupt more accessible to self serving assholes of whatever stripe.
Calling such realism cynical is plain stupid a moronic ignorance of plain facts.
It isn't cynical to assert that a Jeremy Corbyn could never gain national political power in amerika where the entire system is designed to reward only the corrupt and self serving.
The best that people can hope for is a Bernie Sanders who as his eagerness to get onside with ClintonCorp showed was merely pretending to care. Political power and the baubles that come with it have always been Sanders' main focus as a perusal of his voting record displays.

Romantics who chose to look at the world through rose tinted glasses generally fall into two categories - the foolish who cannot deal with the world as it is or the nefarious who adopt a 'blissful' view of the world because it helps to conceal their own dubious actions by coating what they do with a patina of self righteous altruism.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Jun 10 2017 1:49 utc | 46

@ 46
first sentence should read:
It isn't in the least cynical to appreciate that as political structures get larger and more removed from contact with those they are alleged to be representing, they become more corrupt more accessible to self serving assholes of whatever stripe.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Jun 10 2017 1:51 utc | 47

@44 Of course not. I was responding to Nick's post @33. But young people need to be idealistic....and rightly so. Time has a way of changing everything.

Posted by: dh | Jun 10 2017 1:54 utc | 48


No, it's not cynical, it's plain wrong. Local structures create incestuous elites where everybody knows each other, politics, business, media...bigger structures offer a better chance to enforce universal rules.

What's true is that they're more removed from the average people, harder to oversee and slower in their reactions. Democracy in a village is necessarily different from democracy in a country, or on a global scale.

Posted by: smuks | Jun 10 2017 2:15 utc | 49

@ smuks No. what is wrong is imagining that local structures always create incestuous elites - while they can do so the presence of an empowered and enlightened population will prevent that whereas the converse that an enlightened population can ensure large entities remain faithful to their citizens has been proven wrong time and time again. But most importantly that when corruption and deceit does occur it is necessarily confined to a smaller area and can only wield limited control as a consequence
If you are claiming the awfulness of state and local government in europe or amerika you are ignoring that those corrupt nepotistic structures only succeeded because they were deliberately enabled by large national & trans-national entities (kings, senates. religious leaders) as a way to further their power and wealth.

I realise that this will go down like a shit in a phonebox around here but if you consider the awful & violent corruption illustrated in Leviathan , that occurs because Russia's larger national political structure doesn't just permit it; it encourages such assholery because it is expedient. Without the ultimate force of the Russian state behind him the asshole mayor would never be able to escape the wrath of his citizens. And for the record yes travesties that are even worse occur in small town amerika and europe I only included Leviathan because it was the first good example to come to mind.
If some want to debate the unfairness of the portrayal or the directors pox infected wife or whatever go ahead but you are missing the point that it is the top down nature of those countries blessed with asshole governance which permits corruption - the inevitable result of large remote and uncaring structures, not the inability of decent ordinary people to best select how they choose to live.

But what would I know? I only speak from what I have experienced not from over promoted bulldust pushed out by those who most benefit from centralised systems.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Jun 10 2017 3:07 utc | 50

Posted by: Nick | Jun 9, 2017 6:11:53 PM | 33

You don't realise what "independence" in Europe .i.e. small states would mean for young mobile people.

At present you can enter a plane - they are cheap - or train and go to any place London, Paris, Prague, Rome, the countryside without bureaucratic hassle within a few hours. You can work, study, holiday and party where you wish.

You are not stuck in any place with low opportunities. The countryside is - old. To be stuck in Scotland without Europe would be a nightmare.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 10 2017 5:13 utc | 51

@45 did

thanks for the link. it's a relief to read something from non-takfiri 'left'. personifies that. the only people they hate more than the 'right' is 'infidels' on the 'left'.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 10 2017 6:01 utc | 52

@45 debs... thanks man! good read and inspiring.. while reading it i was thinking how things could be different here in canada, or in bc, the province i live in... no one wants to stand up and represent the people.. they claim to, but they are all representing big biz, corps and privatizing everything so that billionaires can rule.. everything is being gutted out... i liked this quote from the article and would like to see that here "Labour’s surge confirms what the Left has long argued: people like an honest defense of public goods. Labour’s manifesto was sweeping — its most socialist in decades. It was a straightforward document, calling for nationalization of key utilities, access to education, housing, and health services for all, and measures to redistribute income from corporations and the rich to ordinary people.'

i just figure i am too idealistic here at my age, but hey, i am happy corbyn has made a dent and i hope he does what you have said and rid his party of those freaks that want to subvert the idea of some democracy is..

Posted by: james | Jun 10 2017 6:41 utc | 53

more from debs link.. corbyn - my kinda guy - "Corbyn found another way through the madness. In the wake of the horrific Manchester and London attacks, the Labour leader was unafraid to connect British imperialism overseas and the proliferation of Islamist terror. Corbyn expanded his criticism into other aspects of British foreign policy: a deep-rooted set of alliances with Gulf States at the center of Middle East reaction."

Posted by: james | Jun 10 2017 6:48 utc | 54

Scottish people seem to know who they vote for

Ruth Davidson is to defy Theresa May’s plans for a hard Brexit and tear her Scottish party away from English control after the UK Tories’ disastrous General Election result. ... Although it has been mooted for some time, the imminent split between the Scottish and English parties is a direct result of a dramatic deterioration in relations between the Scottish Tory hierarchy in Edinburgh and 10 Downing Street.

Fresh from her success in winning an extra 12 Scottish seats in Thursday’s election, at the same time as the Prime Minister was losing 21 constituencies in England, Ms Davidson also vowed to use her Commons votes to prioritise the single market over curbing immigration.

This is certain to split Tory ranks as Mrs May has pledged to take the UK out of both the single market and the EU customs union as part of her Brexit negotiations, which begin next week.


Ms Davidson also signalled her opposition to Mrs May’s deal with the DUP in blunt fashion by tweeting a link to the same-sex marriage lecture she gave at Amnesty 's Pride lecture in Belfast last year.

She is engaged to Jen Wilson, an Irish Catholic Christian who campaigned during the Republic's same-sex marriage referendum, is a practising Christian herself and has said she would like to get married in a local church.

Her views could not be further from those of the DUP, a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage and supporter of the “traditional” definition of marriage. Last night, Ms Davidson said she had sought and received assurances from the Prime Minister that she would try to advance gay rights in Northern Ireland despite the DUP's record.


Most Scots voted Remain in the EU referendum and Ms Davidson has repeatedly said that she favours Britain reaching an agreement that allows it to stay in both the single market and customs union.

As a result it is expected that she will now seek to bring about a dramatic change in the government’s negotiating position which hitherto has been opposed to both the single market and the customs union.

At a press conference in Edinburgh Ms Davidson said: “We must seek to deliver an open Brexit, not a closed one, which puts out country’s economic growth first.” In answer to questions she said she wanted the “greatest possible amount of free trade”.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 10 2017 7:56 utc | 55

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 9, 2017 3:51:12 PM | 29

Why Labour did not win?

Because of the unprecedented media onslaught against Corbyn. People are more easily cowed than you think, and propaganda works, which is why they keep it up at fever-pitch.
No wonder if propaganda, also called PR or simply communication (or "journalism") is the second major world area of expenditure, after weapons. It keeps the system afloat, hated as it is.
The MSM media is the enemy.

Posted by: Lea | Jun 10 2017 9:08 utc | 56

What? did the Social Democrat corpse arise? Just in case you didn't know in the EU and most of the world 'social democrat' means 'Left Liberal". In the U.S., the bozos there regard social democratic as Satan's Communist Legions. Which means they don't know the first thig on thes ubject.

So go get stuffed.

Posted by: Robert McMaster | Jun 10 2017 10:20 utc | 57

@51 In terms of studying, holidaying & partying, no problem but I don't believe in completely unrestricted movement of labour in Europe which encourages a race to the bottom & hurts the working class, especially in the traditionally wealthier nations. This is not just about what the "young & mobile" want. Qualified young professionals will generally be able to find work in most parts of the world whatever happens. They'll earn nicely and live in nice apartments in nice parts of Rome, San Francisco or Sydney, out of sight & out of mind of working class problems.

Posted by: Nick | Jun 10 2017 10:28 utc | 58

Posted by: Nick | Jun 10, 2017 6:28:36 AM | 58

The solution to that would obviously be a European labour movement.

Neither British nor German nor French workers can afford to cut out workplace competition at home as the solution for companies would obviously be to outsource the work.

Neither British nor German nor French workers want to forego cheap products produced by cheap labour abroad.

And neither Spanish nor Greek nor Italian nor French people want to forego the Euro that allows them to buy cheap stuff from abroad.

Socialism is about sharing. If you want competitive advantage you have to compete.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 10 2017 10:57 utc | 59

add to 59
The other - obvious - solution is investment in Southern and Eastern Europe.
People don't migrate because they want to but because they are forced to.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 10 2017 11:07 utc | 60

@Debs 50

Sorry if I sounded too apodictic: I didn't mean that local structures 'always' produce corrupt swamps, just there is a strong tendency. You're right that popular control is more difficult in bigger entities, but there are usually competing factions within the elites, who control each other to make sure none is granted unfair advantages. So the state has to guarantee a somewhat level playing field and enforce impartial rules, if it wants to limit unproductive/ destructive infighting among elites.

I'm certainly no expert on the internal mechanics of Russian politics, but it's an interesting case for sure. My impression is that the govt needs the oligarchs to run the country; they are protected and given the opportunity to exploit resources & people in exchange for their absolute political loyalty.
Maybe you could call it a capitalist feudal system?
In either case, most people tend to accept corrupt structures as long as there's some trickle-down i.e. bread crumbs for everyone. Think of the Mafia or drug cartels buying the tacit support of urban populations.

But as @somebody pointed out, the discussion about local vs. large-scale/ global is somewhat pointless: Political structures have to be on the same scale as economic structures, so in a globalized economy we need global policies. Anything smaller than that leads to competition between jurisdictions, i.e. a 'race to the bottom' of wages, taxes, ecological standards etc.
Of course, this doesn't mean each and every decision has to be centralized, only where appropriate.

Posted by: smuks | Jun 10 2017 12:10 utc | 61

I am very skeptical of theories that "it would be better for party X to be in the opposition while party Y collects the blame", but it seems that there are indeed special circumstances that may turn incomplete success of Labour into blessing.

First, Conservatives will have a bucket of troubles. Before they could count on rather docile Lib Dems to be partners, but in politics "moderates" typically latch to some shibboleths to have a separate brand, and Lib Dems are staunchly "Remain", so they cannot join "hard Brexit" government. That really leaves DUP as the only partner, and the de-facto coalition will have 3 votes to spare, or perhaps 7, dependent on the behavior of Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein abstains from the parliament of the "colonial power" as a matter of principle, but there seems to be genuine friendship between the leaders of Sinn Fein and Labour. So a group of 3 or 7 malcontents can bring the Conservative government down.

And malcontents actually exists. NOW we are learning that the closest advisors of Theresa May are "rude and childish", with demands to replace them. As South Korea recently showed, that can be a lethal crisis generator, a shy female leader relying on unpopular advisors. The case of Theresa May is definitely less extreme, but petty conflicts flare up when every small aggrieved group can credibly threaten the government. And more systemically, Irish supporters of the government seem to be total opposite of Scottish supporters. As explained by someone, Irish protestants are Scots who left their country for a very good reason.

And while Conservatives become fractured, Labour seems to be coalescing. The hopes of getting rid of this obstreperous leftists are gone, and PLP adapts to new realities. The party will probably gain even more activists, backstabbing from within will dramatically decrease etc. Corbyn proved that he has both heart and the brain. A political crisis within a year forcing another election can actually bring Labour to power.

On the other hand, if Labour got, say, few seats more and could theoretically cobble agreements with five small parties to support its government, it would be a extremely hard situation to govern.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 10 2017 12:42 utc | 62

@B Setting your own law , regulations, social, economic and foreign policy is shenanigans ?

What's the point of having whatever politic group in charge if the bulk of the decisions are not yours to make ?

Hell you can have the communist party win the election in whatever EU country he will still have to apply a neo-liberal economic policy because the sovereignty been transferred long ago to Bruxelles .

I am disappoint B ...

Posted by: Charlesg | Jun 10 2017 12:58 utc | 63

A concise summary of the DUP from Craig Murray

"It is fascinating that, after an election in which the Tories and their mainstream media acolytes attacked Jeremy Corbyn at every opportunity for his alleged sympathies with the IRA, the Tories have come to an arrangement with a party that was from its inception and still is the political wing of the loyalist terrorism. The mainstream media never even mentioned the existence of Loyalist terrorism during its sustained attack on Jeremy Corbyn.

The loyalist terrorists murdered 1,016 people in the period 1969-2001. They shot someone dead in a supermarket car park in an internecine dispute actually during the election campaign. In all the media attacks on Corbyn about the IRA, there was no acknowledgement that Loyalist terrorism even existed. I think we can be pretty certain that the media are not going to start digging into the terrorist links of the Tories’ allies now. But social media is going to discredit them.

The DUP are corrupt, homophobic, racist and above all religious bigots of the worst kind. The nastiest people in politics. The utterly discredited Theresa May refuses to resign and intends to continue to rule over us with the support of this ugly faction. Popular support for the Tory government is going to plunge to unprecedented levels. This gruesome malformation of a bigots’ alliance between Brexiteers is not going to last long as a government, and the popular retribution will be massive."

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 10 2017 13:27 utc | 64

Jim Webb tried to sell class based policies instead of identity politics, but was rejected as being racist:

Posted by: S Brennan | Jun 10 2017 15:59 utc | 65

Jim Webb tried to sell class based policies instead of identity politics, but was rejected as being racist:

Posted by: S Brennan | Jun 10 2017 15:59 utc | 66

In 2015 the conservatives got 36.9% of the votes, and in 2017 they got 42,4%.

That’s a 5,5% progress and actually a victory!

It’s the strange election system in Britain, that in each constituency there is only one parliament seat to win – a system that wastes a lot of other votes. This time the conservatives unfairly got 13 seats less – contrary to their election progress of +5,5%. The British election mechanism is actually very unpredictable, and it’s hard to understand why such an unfair system is being kept.

But since the conservatives do not control big media, which is still busy trying to prevent Brexit, they smear May and her party – calling their impressing 42,4% a defeat.

Posted by: Rolf | Jun 10 2017 21:24 utc | 67

Regarding comments 33 - 38: I should think the major motivation for young people to want the UK to stay within the EU is its no-visa travel policy allowing citizens of EU countries to travel within the EU wherever and whenever they want with no paperwork hassles.

Do people here not consider why countries in eastern Europe were so eager to join the EU in the early 2000s after suffering neoliberal economic policies applied to them in the 1990s? Why does Ukraine still hold hopes of joining the EU even though its economy has all but collapsed and the country now offers nothing to the EU? It's because joining the EU means being part of the Schengen no-visa free travel zone - so Poles, Romanians and others from the poorer parts of the EU can travel to the richer parts and pick up low-paying work so they can send money to their families back home.

When you're young and fresh out of high school, your priorities are going to be focused on finding fulfilling work, and study and travel, whatever forms they take, tend to be focused on finding such work in the long term. Young adults in Britain are probably not too fussed about the history of the EU, how it developed, how its formation mirrors the formation of Germany during the 19th century and at the same time benefits US foreign policy by giving Washington one political entity in western and central Europe to deal with. Moreover a political entity that now revolves around Germany's political and economic agendas in which insanely huge trade and balance of payment surpluses every year (at the expense of other EU members, especially those around the Mediterranean Sea) are an object of worship in itself.

Posted by: Jen | Jun 10 2017 21:25 utc | 68

Rolf @ 67: The British stick with their antiquated "first past the post" system of voting because to change over to a proportional representation system in which minor parties give first and second preferences to other parties - this is the system used in Australia and (I believe) New Zealand - would seem too demeaning to their elites.

Posted by: Jen | Jun 10 2017 21:31 utc | 69

@67, rolf, 'it’s hard to understand why such an unfair system is being kept'

see @39 citing data from @29.

the tories got 42.4% of the vote and 48.9% of the seats in parliament. 42 more seats than the 276 they earned at the polls.

labour got 40.1% of the vote and 40.3% of the seats in parliament. 1 more seat than the 261 they earned at the polls.

had the seats been awarded in proportion to the votes received there would be not be a tory government now.

so yes, it is hard to understand why such an unfair system is kept.

if, as you say, the tories got 330, or 50.7% of the seats with 36.9% of the votes in 2015 rather than the 240 they earned then at the polls ... well, yes indeed, the system really does deserve some looking into, doesn't it?

Posted by: jfl | Jun 10 2017 21:55 utc | 70

@68 jen,

Young adults in Britain are probably not too fussed about the history of the EU, how it developed, how its formation mirrors the formation of Germany during the 19th century and at the same time benefits US foreign policy by giving Washington one political entity in western and central Europe to deal with. Moreover a political entity that now revolves around Germany's political and economic agendas in which insanely huge trade and balance of payment surpluses every year (at the expense of other EU members, especially those around the Mediterranean Sea) are an object of worship in itself.

i think you're absolutely correct. neither was i interested in such issues in the usofa when i got out of high school. in fact i was absolutely ignorant of them. i should not have been. they should not be.

the ordinary young person cannot be expected to know every detail of their political situation, nor can the ordinary 'old' person. but we all have to interest ourselves a lot more than we do ... or the beatings will continue as far as the eye can see into the future, glowing orb of the present or no glowing orb of the present.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 10 2017 22:05 utc | 71


i should add that the young people of today seem much more aware of their situation than i was at their age. it comes from the marked increase in the intensity of the beatings.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 10 2017 22:07 utc | 72

Posted by: Rolf | Jun 10, 2017 5:24:42 PM | 67

Theresa May managed to erase UKIP. If Corbyn had done as badly as expected, she would have a comfortable majority of seats for a "hard" Brexit.

UKIP voters tend to be male and retired. Momentum "get out the vote" managed to ensure young people did vote.

I agree the situation is kind of unfair to Theresa May (not that I care) as virtually no one, right wing labour included, counted on Corbyn.

But proportional representation would have beaten Theresa May's Conservatives easily by Labour plus LibDem - the Democratic Unionist Party would have made no difference.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 10 2017 22:09 utc | 73

@Charlesg 63

'Democracy' doesn't mean everybody has their own laws (that's called anarchy), but that common laws are decided for an appropriate geographical entity/ jurisdiction. Together. Ideally for the common good, and this always means somebody's got to give.

Posted by: smuks | Jun 10 2017 22:17 utc | 74

@68 There are a lot of pragmatic reasons for young Brits wanting to remain in EU. Ease of travel and employment are probably the main ones as you mention. Another reason could be that they don't want to feel unwelcome in Europe if Britain leaves.

But there are other young Brits who resent the influx of Poles, Roumanians etc. I have no idea whether the resentment is justified or not.

Posted by: dh | Jun 10 2017 22:18 utc | 75

@ smuks 63 who claims
"'Democracy' doesn't mean everybody has their own laws (that's called anarchy)" sheer bulldust again.
Anarchy is not a philosophy devoted to where "everybody has their own laws" In his page disillusions of anarchy the Encycopedia Britannica's original definition is put forward as a reasonably accurate precis of the philosophies of Bakunin et al it is:
""the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups..."
That is not what was propounded by Charlesg at 63.
I simply have better things to do with my life than engage in worthless debate with concrete thinkers - no net 'debate' has ever altered any point of view - all the opionating ever succeeds at is to reinforce whatever someone has already concluded; ideas are cherry picked so that a feelgood factor of not being alone can be generated. Plus of course after the initial sallies people get so determined to 'win' they quit listening, tho when I see facile strawman style arguments it is difficult to let them pass every time.
Centralised statism is what destroyed 20th century humanism aka leftists or whatever. The reason that occurred was partially to do with power grubbing but mostly do with a world where nearly all societies were centralising decisions regardless of left/right, as a reaction to the growth of corporations who led the way in centralising and attempting to consolidate power.
Centralisation has been an unmitigated disaster for humans and even corporations are beginning to acknowledge that a centralised private enterprise has exactly the same issues of poor decision making as public enterprise had.

In other words the awfulness of British Telecom or British Airways has nothing to do with who owns it, but everything to with the inefficiencies created by central decision making.
Economy of scale is the reason most corporations use to justify their power hungry swallowing up of other weaker capitalist enterprises, but even that bastion of corporate capitalism "The Economist" has been forced to acknowledge this is a furphy.

"Economies of scale, however, have a dark side, called diseconomies of scale. The larger an organisation becomes in order to reap economies of scale, the more complex it has to be to manage and run such scale. This complexity incurs a cost, and eventually this cost may come to outweigh the savings gained from greater scale. In other words, economies of scale cannot be gleaned for ever."

They go on to quote well known lefty T Boone Pickens:

"It's unusual to find a large corporation that's efficient. I know about economies of scale and all the other advantages that are supposed to come with size. But when you get an inside look, it's easy to see how inefficient big business really is. Most corporate bureaucracies have more people than they have work."

Pickens misses one thing though - since in private enterprise not having any work to do is the equivalent of being outed as having ebola, everyone in 'head office' or whatever the fuck it is called, 'makes work' they go off the reservation doing all sorts of weird shit in order to attract the goodwill of assholes further up the hierarchy.
That generally involves really messing with peoples lives in ways that can be in total contradiction with the corporation's undertaking to communities and it here here that centralisation really creates the most damage.
Jeremy Corbyn has electrified the brits because he sees a reduced role for fat assed bureaucrats sitting on their spotty behinds in westminister and wants to develop decision making devolved into the communities most effected by the circumstances that need to be ameliorated.

People who cannot trust their fellow humans to take a shit without obeying 57 different rules about the height and strength of the shitter and the weight of the paper used to wipe asses recoil at the idea of such a thing, but those of us who like and trust their fellow humans to make good calls about what they want, believe this is the only fair and just way for all humans to enjoy a fulfilled existence.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Jun 11 2017 1:04 utc | 76


Sometimes it makes sense to read attentively and think a moment before responding.
You completely miss the point, but it's ok, something that happens in online discussions.
Maybe next time.

Posted by: smuks | Jun 11 2017 2:34 utc | 77

- "Corbyn revitalizing Social Democracy" ?? Yeah, sure and I was born yesterday, right ?

Posted by: Willy2 | Jun 11 2017 6:22 utc | 78

@56 Lea
No doubt the UK MSM Corbyn onslaught rivals that of the US in the Trump era, and it does a point. Probably works very well in reaffirming support within the lifelong Tory faithful. But, in the age of wikileaks, where true journalism can exist (for the very first time in human history), painting a picture of Corbyn The Terrorist Sympathiser backfires completely when it posed against May whose time at the Home Office doesn't need any poetic adjustment whatsoever to frame her as Terrorist Enabler. Curious and undecided voters have plenty of contrary information available to see through the MSM shitshow.

Posted by: MadMax2 | Jun 11 2017 9:36 utc | 79

|@ Debsisdead | Jun 10, 2017 9:04:51 PM | 76

It seems this weekend I'm bound to burn all bridges with esteemed commentators here; I don't want you to feel neglected.

Your paragraph beginning: "Centralised statism is what destroyed 20th century humanism …", I would suggest a richer and more productive vein to mine would come under the rubric of authoritarianism which is inclusive of both leaders and followers. Modern history finds two basic camps contending for political position; one the conservative/reactionary minded defending a status quo, incapable of self correction; the other being the historical liberal, unwed to the status quo, promoting change to protect self-interests. There is nothing more manichean than that politically. The twentieth century saw the rise to dominance of absolute authoritarian states, not that these had not previously existed, but authoritarian states wedded to massive industrial scale production supporting the state. The American Civil War marked the inception of industrial warfare, and the Great War (WWI) the massive power that a state could bring to bear in warfare. The coup d'état that overcame FDR's New Deal was engineered by those in thrall to authoritarianism and their ability to control power surreptitiously and deviously. Centralisation is what began the modern era back in the 1500's and empires were built on that centralisation. Contending centralisation is a new phenomenon is lame reasoning. There you are, included at last.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jun 11 2017 11:50 utc | 80

"It’s the strange election system in Britain, that in each constituency there is only one parliament seat to win – a system that wastes a lot of other votes."

It is a simple requirement of democracy that some type of majority is sufficient to make decisions -- let leave aside "deep state" and other phenomena that are not connected to counting individuals. In one system votes are given to parties that have lists, the parties pick representatives from those lists according to the number of collected votes, and finally, the representatives in the parliamentary majority are "wasted". Deciding representatives separately for each district makes the moment of "wasting votes" more immediate. What was nice to see, actually, was how smooth are the district boundaries in UK, at least compared to USA where gerrymandering is a (n evil) science. Thus I would not recommend single-district system to countries with proportional representation, especially if politics are as ugly as in USA or Poland.

Last week I have learned an expression from British English -- "I am humbled" which seems to mean "I could not be more pleased with myself, let all my enemies wail in imponent rage! Bwahaha!"

And a uniquely British gesture of mutual congratulation. Leader of the party raises his hand and moves the flat palm seemingly trying to clap on the raised palm of his campaign manager. She turns her body just so that she gets a pat on her bosom. Perhaps this is "high 5+2".

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 11 2017 18:04 utc | 81

Did Corbyn yell from the roof tops the British government serves Israel and is for 100% under control of the Rothschild-Zionists? If the answer is NO then he is corrupt like all the others. Or a coward that knows better.

"A nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its laws made by cowards and its wars fought by fools."

- Sir William Francis Butler

Posted by: Thucydides | Jun 12 2017 13:26 utc | 82

Looking at the BBC headlines since the elections you'd think May has won. Is the UK getting a little more into a Gulf monarchy?

Posted by: Mina | Jun 12 2017 15:00 utc | 83

Zionist were "yelling from the roof tops" that Corbyn is Hamas supporter etc. etc., and Corbyn never recanted his "offending statements". And while Zionist influence is present in UK, within Labour it is distinctly associated with opponents of Corbyn -- during his two runs for party leadership there were attempts to purge the party from his supporters, and "anti-Semitism" was one of the criteria.

Thucidites should stick to the Peloponnesian War which he described admirably, and brush up on recent events which he does not follow nearly as well.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 12 2017 15:08 utc | 84

The British will be defeated. Their 300 years campaign of mass murdering people all over this planet will end with the complete and utter thermonuclear destruction of London. Since the Rothschild's played BOTH sides in WW1 and WW2, the Rothschild's are for 100% responsible for all the Jews gassed in WW2. So we have the Arabs that can NUKE London. We have the Russians that can NUKE London. But we also have the Israeli Jews that can NUKE London. We also have a Russian SS-18 ICBM commander that can NUKE London without any consent from the Russian military leadership. Looks to me like a lot of people that can NUKE London and have a very good reason to NUKE London. Nothing will change these facts, not May and not Corbyn. The British are still waging wars against the people of this planet for GREED (gold bars in Rothschild his vaults) and AMBITION (world conquest). There are many people on this planet that would love to destroy the British for eternity. And they do not want to conquer the UK or loot it. Just destroy them. Get ready for it. Any day now.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, London, ?

Posted by: Thucydides | Jun 12 2017 15:58 utc | 85

BBC headlines truthfully report that Mrs. May survived at her position, so she has won after a fashion. But a BBC commentary almost brought me to tears caused by her plight:

Mrs May has been broken on the electoral wheel but is forced to stand on splintered limbs, grimacing through the pain, for the sake of her party's chance to cling to office. She is like a medieval monarch, captured by her barons, shorn of the advisers she loved and trusted, allowed one old close friend to minister cold comfort. The government is stable as a two-legged stool, and she is sapped of strength, weakened by the demands of her colleagues.


By the way, I am not familiar with "breaking on a wheel" outside the grim context of dispatching traitors particularly hated by their monarchs. Perhaps the last such execution happened in Poland, where king of Sweden got hands on the last Livonian patriot, Johann Reinhold Patkul, paying generously king of Saxony to sell him. The vehemence of Charlex XI was in my mind when US was shaking earth and heaven to get hold of Edward Snowden. As Putin resisted demands better than August of Saxony, we did not see that.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 12 2017 16:11 utc | 86

@85 Aw come on.....I bet there'll be a bit of looting.

Posted by: dh | Jun 12 2017 16:56 utc | 87

There will be NO looting because so much strontium, thorium, plutonium, lithium, cobalt, etc. will be used that no one can live in London for 10.000 years to the life age of our sun. To counter these elites hiding in DUMBS (deep underground military bases) I have advised the Chinese/Russians/Iranians to make thermonuclear weapons that pollute the earth for more then 50.000 years. They going to role-play moles for a very long time.

Posted by: Thucydides | Jun 12 2017 20:42 utc | 88

Posted by: Mina | Jun 12, 2017 11:00:31 AM | 83

It is called a pyrrhic victory I think. Winning and losing are complex concepts and maybe outdated at the end of history.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 12 2017 20:57 utc | 89

@87 That hasn't stopped people looting at Chernobyl. Imagine the pickings in London. Some people just don't care.

Posted by: dh | Jun 12 2017 21:01 utc | 90

@smuck 74

Democracy mean that the group of people that make the law and whatever policy are elected and that the citizen are sovereign .
Right now the people that make the law in the EU, the European commission are not elected. Not only that but the people that you do elect don't have the power anymore to do what they promise because that power has been transferred to the European commission .

So not only you're not in a democracy but you are also being duped into thinking your vote matter. This end up with governement that have 5% approval rating because they have to do exactly the opposite of what they have been elected for to implement to European commission "recommendation" , Holland is the perfect exemple of that .

Posted by: Charlesg | Jun 14 2017 17:34 utc | 91


Lets not interrupt them. When this thing goes wrong they will be hunt with piano wires.

Posted by: Thucydides | Jun 16 2017 1:38 utc | 92

Is post-nuclear looting possible?

"When I was a wee lad", university students had to have two semesters of once a week classes on national defense, those "apt" for military service had military training, and boys with sufficiently poor eyesight or other health demerits, plus girls had civil defense classes. The latter had a unifying theme: "defense of a major socialist enterprise under the conditions of weapons of mass destruction". If you can defend, you can also loot! The trick is in so-called zones of destruction. Zone 1 (ground zero?) has total destruction, survival possible, perhaps, in the shelters of highest class, like those for the national leaders. Zone 2, firestorms. Still bad news, but you do not need to be so deeply underground to survive. Loot: scrap of metals that did not evaporate -- I guess only iron and steel. Zone 3, widespread fires and shock wave damage. The unburned patches would offer quite a bit of loot, I presume. Zone 4, more sporadic fires, glass gone from windows but all more durable structure relatively intact. If evacuated, the best picking. However, there is also fallout plume that depends on wind direction and wind strength.

But what should be looted? That is tricky. ATM machines? Will the currency survive? Food? Fuel? Ammo? The best stuff is something like this, so a survivalist should make a note of directions to nearby pickup dealers, and air-defense national guard. In my area people have a lot of pickup trucks, but they also tend to have weapons at home, but while the national guard unit clearly has a radar, it may lack anti-aircraft guns. After all, those guns are popular because ssthey can destroy all vehicles that are less sturdy than tanks, open gates to estates etc. Perhaps army national guard may have ordinary machine guns which would still be heads and shoulders above ordinary survivalist weapons.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 21 2017 13:32 utc | 93

The comments to this entry are closed.