tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post8988180330630431723..comments2024-03-29T09:14:53.583+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: Should Labour Worry about UKIP?Philhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-4379792651118624502018-07-23T23:52:39.136+01:002018-07-23T23:52:39.136+01:00It is not a coincidence that the sudden surge in s...It is not a coincidence that the sudden surge in support for UKIP has followed the alt-right's announcement that they intend to "colonise" the party and take it over. This isn't UKIP enjoying a revival, this is nothing short of a total rebrand. We should be taking it seriously. <br /><br />It was largely due to "meme warfare" that the enormous swell of support for Trump (confined to the internet) went pretty much unnoticed by the traditional media, and we know how that worked out. <br /><br />That outcome (an alt-right demagogue in charge) is unlikely to unfold here, for a number of mundane electoral reasons. However, a neo-trumpian alt-right mob occupying the place of the "official third party" could have serious knock-on policy effects, particularly for a Tory Party that is haemorrhaging credibility down the drain.<br /><br />We laughed at Trump. We're laughing on the other sides of our faces now, are we? <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-34634975286837230072018-07-23T16:43:12.359+01:002018-07-23T16:43:12.359+01:00Another factor is that much of the Lib Dem vote in...Another factor is that much of the Lib Dem vote in 2010 was voting not for liberalism out of principle, but just against the Tory and Labour parties. Once the Lib Dems became part of the establishment by joining a coalition government, UKIP replaced them as the default "anti-establishment" choice.<br /><br />This was especially true in the old Lib Dem heartland in South West England, which switched to the Tories in 2015 and stayed switched thanks to that region's support for Leave in the referendum.George Cartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12170378024031141482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-65181256588654372102018-07-23T13:46:29.607+01:002018-07-23T13:46:29.607+01:00What happened in 2015 in terms of UKIP effects on ...What happened in 2015 in terms of UKIP effects on the Tories and Labour is this. <br />Cameron never enthused much of the Tory base. Especially working class tory voters. Its one of the reasons they failed to get a majority in 2010. But Cameron was much more successful in getting a slice of the Middle classes who had voted Lid Dem or new Labour and wouldn't call themselves tories to support him as a personal vote or as a representative of a sort of proxy national government.<br />By 2012 with austerity and the socially liberal term the Tories began shedding votes to UKIP. But by the beginning of 2015 by utilising the fear of a minority government with the SNP and really quite underhand and sometimes very dodgy smearing of Ed Miliband the tories managed to scare enough voters who had been dallying with UKIP in the period 2012-2014 back to the Tory fold for the election to give them a majority. <br />Meanwhile Labour really only started shedding voters to UKIP outside of European elections in the Last year or so before the election. The problem is their response to that was the infamous "Control Immigration" mug and the EdStone. That managed to put off young urban voters on the one hand so they did not turn out for Labour with much enthusiasm but was never going to win over voters whose main issue was immigration because they knew there was no substance behind the claim. <br />Labour were much less successful at convincing working class 'Labour' voters who had dallied with UKIP to vote Labour then the tories were in convincing 'tory; voters who had strayed. Plus Milibands Labour did not enthuse enough new people to get out and vote. <br />Dave Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05342174682376899373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-61578085611990811132018-07-23T11:41:42.755+01:002018-07-23T11:41:42.755+01:00The whole argument over state ownership is a red-h...The whole argument over state ownership is a red-herring. Firstly, socialists should be interested in workers ownership of the means of production not ownership by the capitalist state which is their primary enemy. As Kautsky argued long ago, and as UK Miners discovered in 1984-5, the capitalist state is far more powerful in being able to exploit and oppress them than any individual capitalist could ever be.<br /><br />Secondly, as Marx describes in Capital III, Chapter 27, the main form of large-scale capital is the socialised capital of the joint stock company, which he describes along with co-operatives as the transitional form of property between capitalism and socialism. Shareholders exercise unwarranted control over that capital, which is capital they do not own. Rather than a costly nationalisation or renationalisation programme, a Labour government merely needs to change the Company law on Corporate governance.<br /><br />Germany already has co-determination laws that enable workers to elect 50% of company boards. The EU, in the 1970's proposed its Draft 5th Company law Directive that basically extended that principle across the EU, but it was shelved as conservative parties took control of EU national governments, and thereby the Council of Ministers during the 1980's. In the 1970's, Wilson also set up the Bullock Committee, whose report proposed similar industrial democracy, but which again got shelved with the arrival of Thatcher.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.johnkay.com/1996/08/31/corporate-governance-with-aubrey-silberston/" rel="nofollow">John Kay</a> 12 years ago discussed why current law on corporate governance makes no legal sense in enabling shareholders to exercise control over capital they do not own. Labour should go further than the BUllock Report et al, and simply abolish the right of shareholders to vote, or appoint Directors. It should legislate new corporate governance laws based on industrial democracy, so that workers and managers in joint stock companies, as with worker owned co-operatives appoint directors, and so on. That costs nothing. They should seek to get the support of other EU socialists to extend that principle across the EU.<br /><br />Boffyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157650969929097569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-23103202201367181772018-07-23T09:27:34.374+01:002018-07-23T09:27:34.374+01:00Once again, we're going to have to agree to di...Once again, we're going to have to agree to disagree about both the wisdom and the principles that lie behind Labour's "acceptance of the referendum result." What concerns me with regard to your latest piece, Phil, is your resurrection of the old myth (widely peddled by "Lexit" people) that EU membership is incompatible with Labour's present policies and Corbyn's election manifesto. This simply isn't true: As a cursory glance at state-owned railways and industries all over Europe will confirm, state ownership is not a problem. Most European countries have state-owned railways. The UK is the exception, not the rule. It is true that EU law requires that infrastructure (rails, stations, etc.) be separate from the train services using them, but both can be publicly-owned or controlled, as they are in many EU countries. There is nothing to prevent a Corbyn government taking private rail companies back into public ownership as their franchises expire.<br /><br />Energy supply networks can be publicly-owned and decentralised. That is the situation in many EU countries. It is also the case for water distribution. A big row erupted in Germany and Austria a few years ago when the EU considered opening water distribution concessions to a public tendering process. In those countries, and probably elsewhere, water distribution is handled by municipal bodies.<br /><br />There is no reason why a network of regional publicly-owned water companies could not be created or recreated in the UK. <br /><br />Renationalisation of Royal Mail by the compulsory purchase of privately held shares at market prices is a matter for the British Government. In many EU countries the state is the majority shareholder in the Royal Mail’s counterpart.<br /><br />There is nothing in the Labour manifesto which breaches EU state aid law. Individual measures would have to be approved. Rescue aid for companies in difficulty would require a credible restructuring plan to secure approval. Perhaps the best way to understand the challenge facing a leftist Government in the EU is to look back to the early years of François Mitterrand’s Presidency in France. Elected in 1981 on a political programme which makes Corbyn’s manifesto look palely social-democratic, the Government included Communist ministers and set about nationalising banks and large industrial companies. Social protection policies were strengthened.<br /><br />Industrial policies were instituted to dynamise the French economy in key sectors. Some aspects of this were a continuation of statist Gaullism, others were more genuinely socialist in inspiration. Did Europe stop this happening? No, and when a choice had to be made between staying in the common market and going it alone, it was a French decision to choose the former.<br /><br />The grounds for doing so included internationalism and geopolitical interests and also the conviction that nationalisation and state-driven industrial policies did not require protectionism to succeed. Mitterrand’s Finance Minister, Jacques Delors, went on as President of the European Commission to turn that common market into a single market with the support of Mitterrand, Kohl and Thatcher. France chose open borders and continued European integration over some form of socialist autarky in one country. But the choice remains, and would be there as well for a Corbyn government.Jim Denhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01642992463679646250noreply@blogger.com