Politika u UK

[Dr Arslanagić]

svojevrsna kvaka 22. sa Corbynom su stranka i imaju politiku ali nemaju šansu da dobiju izbore.

 

ovo je zapravo budućnost svih socijalističkih partija u Evropi, čini mi se.

[MancMellow]

pa da, ali, ne znam, tako ostavljaju više prostora LibDems da hvataju razočarane Torijevce. Sa recimo Kendall bi se borili na jednom širokom polju i sa Tories i sa LibDems. A workere bi totalno ostavili UKIP-u na izvolte. Plus, niko ne zna da li će ekonomska situacija u EEvropi generalno, ali i u UK biti baš ista kao danas. Za pet godina svakakve promene mogu da se dese. Tory cuts mogu da uspeju (statistički), ali mogu i da ne uspeju. Pet godina je jako dugo. 

[hazard]

Interesantan clanak:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33687369

 

 

 

Labour leadership: Beware the muddled middle

 

 

Mark MardellPresenter, The World This Weekend

 

I've been off on a course for a week or so and feel rather detached from the news of the day.

Still, I can't help noting that the Labour leadership has been having an attack of the vapours.

Commentators, both well-meaning and mischievous, have been playing the role of maiden aunt to our fainting heroine, alternatively rushing around shrieking about the shame they are bringing on the family, and waving under their nose, Blairo (patent expired) "the stronger acting smelling salts" to bring them to their senses.

What has caused this alarm could be summed up in a crossword clue: "Exclamation of surprise, party ends in trash" (Cor! Bin).

The possibility that the next Labour leader will be the old stalwart of the Islington left, Jeremy Corbyn.

My course was in "hostile environments" and one of the things you learn is the danger of minefields - stick to the well-trodden middle path, don't go into the areas either side marked with red flags, for there death lurks.

This is Labour's sin in the eyes of the commentariat: that they are being lured, by the vision of a man with a beard, into the explosive land of red flags.

"You can only win on the centre ground!" is the complacent chorus.

No-one can doubt elections are won in the centre. Just ask Alexis Tsipras. Or Marine Le Pen.

The commentators are not exactly wrong. It's just they are right for all the wrong reasons, misunderstanding, unwittingly or for ideological purpose, the meaning of the centre.

Valuable perspective

But before we eviscerate the middle ground let us lie the swooning Labour party down on the sofa, usher out the maiden aunts, and urge everyone to take a pace back.

Complacency is never wise, but perhaps a bit of perspective is valuable.

We may be at a critical break point, but we may not. Democratic politics tends to go in cycles.

After a longish time in government, which ends in defeat and disappointment, it takes a while for the electorate to trust that party again.

It always feels terminal at the time. After Obama's victory in 2008 there were magazine headlines "the death of the Republican Party", without even a cautious question mark.

Two years after that they won the House, then in 2014 the Senate. Along the way they have collected a clutch of governorships.

They are not in the White House, they have serious problems, but dead, they ain't.

Or ask William Hague about baseball caps, saving the pound and what it was like to be Conservative leader of the opposition in 1997.

Labour are perhaps simply having their William Hague moment.

The grim news for them is that they still have to endure their equivalent of IDS and Michael Howard before finding a Cameron analogue.

The Conservatives' slow crawl back to electability was straight from the Tony Blair playbook, so it is hardly surprising that people have drawn the lesson that wooing your own hardliners fails, and moving to the middle works.

But times change.

Traumatic times

I am not playing down the fact that a Corbyn victory would be a moment of extreme trauma for Labour, would leave them branded unelectable by friend and foe alike and would raise ghosts from those who lived through the Bennite civil war and the formation of the breakaway SDP.

But that inevitability says something about the narrowness of debate, and the dangerous lure of the centre ground.

 

Corbyn after all, appears to be calling for a higher tax rate for the better-off, not thenationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy.

It is hardly surprising that Westminster journalists crave the ideologically soft centre.

None is on the minimum wage, let alone tax credits, nor are any, to my knowledge, owners of third homes on the Cayman Islands, or running big corporations.

They are nearly all university educated and live in London or the South East of England (Yes, all that goes for me, too).

There is group-think in the muddled middle, a fear of thinking outside a comfortable box.

They, like the politicians they write about, may dwell too much on the mechanics of winning, maintaining and exercising power, rather than why they want it in the first place.

This rather mechanistic approach excludes the real reason why most people get involved in politics - it also explains, why, increasingly these days, they don't bother.

It underscores why Jeremy Corbyn appeals to many Labour members.

He, like they, wants to change things.

You may label these ideas old-fashioned, or unworkable, but they are passionately held.

Appeal of principle

To them principle is important.

Fruitlessly opposing what they see as attacks on the poorest seems more noble thancunningly shadowing the Conservatives, in the apparent hope that no-one will spot the difference between the two parties.

Not long before I left the US, I was talking at a Tea Party convention to a couple of activists about who they wanted as the next Republican candidate.

One said, echoing the Buckley rule: "I want the most conservative guy who's electable."

"That's where I'm different," chimed in his friend. "I want the most conservative. Period."

There will be Labour Party members who echo the sentiment, if not the political direction.

To them it looks as if becoming a leading Labour politician has become about how many of your core beliefs you are willing to jettison to get into power.

The Buckley rule:

• Coined by William Buckley, the Conservative author and political commentator, during the 1964 Republican primary election which featured Barry Goldwater, the candidate of the right, and Nelson Rockefeller, regarded as from the liberal wing of the party.

• He said he would support the "rightwardmost viable candidate".

This suspicion, from activists, creates uncomfortable echoes in the wider electorate.

There is a sizeable proportion of voters who don't like any of the main parties very much, and don't trust politicians.

What they don't like is the idea that politicians are in it for themselves, don't tell the truth, and will say anything to get elected.

A Labour leader who gives the impression that they are getting rid of most of the distinctively Labour bits of their policy, perhaps with the intention of smuggling them back in again at a later date, starts out doing the splits over the authenticity gap.

Social Democrats once had the luxury of rather impatiently accusing old-style socialists of clinging to the wreckage of the past.

Now social democrats themselves are holding tight to levers that are no longer attached to anything.

Complex picture

All but the most rarefied politicians must have noticed that real, walking, breathing voting human beings have a luxury they don't - to believe several contradictory things at the same time.

The world outside Westminster is a confusing place.

Is it really true that many people who voted Liberal Democrat in 2010 voted UKIP this year? Well, yes it is.

Constructing centre-ground politics to attract these wayward souls is more complex than pick-and-mix.

 

It is axiomatic that elections are won on the centre ground - it is obvious that to win you have to shift people from one party to another.

If you like, that is the centre ground. But it is where metaphor can be misleading.

The Venn diagram does not only consist of circles marked left and right.

People may be divided almost equally between preferring Marmite or marmalade on their morning toast, but it isn't a winning formula to mix the two spreads.

I'd suggest the centre is something more profound - shared desires that go way beyond ideology.

The centre ground of Tsipras (who ironically does now govern from the centre, butthat's another story) was hope and a rejection of despair.

For Le Pen, it is perhaps a fear of change and a frustration with a grim economic future.

Cameron won the centre ground of competence - Ed Miliband was seen as extreme, but not because of the mansion tax.

He was seen as extremely unlikely to be a good prime minister.

Elections are won in the centre ground - but that means shared perceptions of competence and charisma, hopes and fears, not a nauseating mixture of Marmite and marmalade.

 

[Budja]

 

The centre ground of Tsipras (who ironically does now govern from the centre, butthat's another story) was hope and a rejection of despair.

For Le Pen, it is perhaps a fear of change and a frustration with a grim economic future.

 

Tacno to, tu cak i sama politika nije vazna.

 

Otud, enormna njegova popularnost a rezultat nikakav, a manifest u korpi za otpatke.

 

 

I to nije samo Cipras, to je i Vucic.

 

To je bio i Bler u svoje doba, no za razliku od Regana i Tacerke, osim art of winning njegov legacy je vrlo upitan. 

[MancMellow]

pa ne znam, pitanje je ko je bio bolji za ekonomiju, blair ili thatcher. ima argumenata i za jedno i za drugo (i ne samo za ekonomiju). takodje, da nije dosla SEKA (osim ako necemo Blaira da krivimo za nju, posebno ekskluzivno) mozda bi drugacije stvari izgledale

 

S druge strane, Vucic ne moze da se poredi ni sa jednim od ovih, on je nesto mnoooogo nize od njih svih. 

Edited July 31, 2015 by MancMellow

[Budja]

pa ne znam, pitanje je ko je bio bolji za ekonomiju, blair ili thatcher. ima argumenata i za jedno i za drugo (i ne samo za ekonomiju). takodje, da nije dosla SEKA (osim ako necemo Blaira da krivimo za nju, posebno ekskluzivno) mozda bi drugacije stvari izgledale

 

S druge strane, Vucic ne moze da se poredi ni sa jednim od ovih, on je nesto mnoooogo nize od njih svih. 

 

 

Pa... potpuno jasno Thatcher. Ona je radila neke strukturne reforme, dobre ili lose, ali uticajne.

Bler je jahao na talasu Grinspanove jeftine love i bavio se targetima u NHSu, inkuzijom, da ne kazemo i ratovima okolo.

Ne zaboravimo da nakom kraha 1992. britanskoj ekonomiji Dzona Mejdzora nije islo lose.

[MancMellow]

Kako li je doslo do toga kraha...

 

Ok, ne slažem se u vezo sa početnom tvrdnjom, mislim da je period Labour 1997-2010 dobrano izmenio Britaniju, a da se u tom smislu ne može pričati samo o ekonomiju (mada u poređenju sa periodom 1979-1990) ne vidim kako je bila losija. Na cemu je sve "jahao" to je posebno pitanje, da nije "eksplodirala" nafta 80-tih i Thatcher bi najverovatnije mogla da se slika. 

[Budja]

Kako li je doslo do toga kraha...

 

Ok, ne slažem se u vezo sa početnom tvrdnjom, mislim da je period Labour 1997-2010 dobrano izmenio Britaniju, a da se u tom smislu ne može pričati samo o ekonomiju (mada u poređenju sa periodom 1979-1990) ne vidim kako je bila losija. Na cemu je sve "jahao" to je posebno pitanje, da nije "eksplodirala" nafta 80-tih i Thatcher bi najverovatnije mogla da se slika. 

 

Ilustracija?

Koliko kapiram sa foruma, ti si proveo prvi period vladavine Blera na ostrvu dok sam ja dole dosao taman da sa 200 kolega sa univerziteta i 2 miliona gradjana Londona prisustvujem svojim najmasovnimjim demonstracijama u zivotu, tog 15. februara 2003. 

[Prospero]

pa ne znam, pitanje je ko je bio bolji za ekonomiju, blair ili thatcher. ima argumenata i za jedno i za drugo (i ne samo za ekonomiju). takodje, da nije dosla SEKA (osim ako necemo Blaira da krivimo za nju, posebno ekskluzivno) mozda bi drugacije stvari izgledale

 

S druge strane, Vucic ne moze da se poredi ni sa jednim od ovih, on je nesto mnoooogo nize od njih svih. 

 

Pre neki dan mi je palo napamet da je Sloba imao zapravo tačerističke crte kad je omogućio otkup društvenih stanova  :D Naravno, okolnosti su bile potpuno različite ali privatizaciona namera se računa...

[hazard]

pa ne znam, pitanje je ko je bio bolji za ekonomiju, blair ili thatcher. ima argumenata i za jedno i za drugo (i ne samo za ekonomiju). takodje, da nije dosla SEKA (osim ako necemo Blaira da krivimo za nju, posebno ekskluzivno) mozda bi drugacije stvari izgledale

 

S druge strane, Vucic ne moze da se poredi ni sa jednim od ovih, on je nesto mnoooogo nize od njih svih. 

 

Da se vratim na ono pisanje Richarda Koo-a koje sam postavio na topiku o Grckoj, Tacerine strukturne reforme su svoj pravi rezultat dale tek jedno 10 godina kasnije...Bler je jednim delom ubirao te plodove, takoreci. Strukturne reforme ne rade preko noci, cak u prvi mah umeju da kratkorocno povedu privredu na dole.

 

Blera necemo posebno ekskluzivno da krivimo za Seku ali on jeste bio jedan od kljucnih lidera (zajedno sa Busom) koji je gledao - i cak ohrabrivao - taj kreditni bum iz prvog dela 2000ih koji je nas i doveo dovde. OK, sad pitanje je da li treba vise da krivimo njihove ministre finansija (npr. Gordona Brauna) ili cak guvernere banaka (npr. Alana Grinspana), sad kod ministara finansija vertikala politicke odgovornosti je jasna (dovodi nas nazad do Blera / Busa), kod centralnih banaka je vec malo komplikovanije.

[MancMellow]

Ilustracija?

Koliko kapiram sa foruma, ti si proveo prvi period vladavine Blera na ostrvu dok sam ja dole dosao taman da sa 200 kolega sa univerziteta i 2 miliona gradjana Londona prisustvujem svojim najmasovnimjim demonstracijama u zivotu, tog 15. februara 2003. 

 

pfff, sredina, 2001-2005/6 (taj kraj je vec malo teže utvrditi, ali skupljeno sve zajedno 4 god)

 

Ilustracija? Pa ne, nema (sigurno ne ovako na brzinu) brojeva kojima bih sad odmah to mogao da dokažuem, jer, kao što rekoh, nije tu sve u ekonomiji. Ne znam, Sever mi se menjao pred očima. zgrade, celi blokovi, ulice, lokalci su pričali da they (severnjaci) never had it that good. Mislim da je u jednom momentu M'cr po kvalitetu života pretekao London, što je fantastičan podatak. E sad - ti ćeš mi reći, pa ok, ali to je sve samo regija, a i nije ceo sever, nego, ajde, duž M62. Jeste, ali dihotomija sever-jug je, kao što znaš, jedna od definišućih karakteristika Engleske. Imam osećaj da niko kao Labour tada nije napravio napor da se to bar donekle ublaži. Ali ok, vredi potruditi se naći nešto u pisanom obliku, siguran sam da je pisano, potražiću. 

 

Druga stvar, ne manje važno, čini mi se da je, da tako kažem, društveno nasleđe te Lab vladavine 1 izmenjeno britansko društvo. Ok, to je proces koji se odigravao na dosta mesta u svetu, ali...društvo jeste postalo tolerantnije, prema svim mogućim manjinama pre svega, rešena su (ne definitivno, ali tako da je nezamislivo potpuno vraćanje u prethodno stanje) neka pitanja šta je društveno prihvatljivo, šta nije društveno prihvatljivo. 

 

Naravno, ne želim da sporim jačinu uticaja Thatcher reformi i politika, ali meni se pre svega čini da je promena društva 1997-2010 na jednom manje brojevima izrecivom nivou nego njena. Široka je to tema. Zanima me time da se bavim i van foruma, ako nekad bude vremena. 

 

Naravno, na forumu su najpozvaniji da u smislu 1st hand iskustva o tome pričaju Adam i, možda, Marvin dakle oni koji su proveli ne samo duže, nego, čini mi se u slučaju Adama, i one Majorove godine u UK. 

[MancMellow]

Pre neki dan mi je palo napamet da je Sloba imao zapravo tačerističke crte kad je omogućio otkup društvenih stanova   :D Naravno, okolnosti su bile potpuno različite ali privatizaciona namera se računa...

 

To je jedna jedina (doduše ne baš nevažna) njegova mera koja je bila pametna. 

[MancMellow]

Da se vratim na ono pisanje Richarda Koo-a koje sam postavio na topiku o Grckoj, Tacerine strukturne reforme su svoj pravi rezultat dale tek jedno 10 godina kasnije...Bler je jednim delom ubirao te plodove, takoreci. Strukturne reforme ne rade preko noci, cak u prvi mah umeju da kratkorocno povedu privredu na dole.

 

Blera necemo posebno ekskluzivno da krivimo za Seku ali on jeste bio jedan od kljucnih lidera (zajedno sa Busom) koji je gledao - i cak ohrabrivao - taj kreditni bum iz prvog dela 2000ih koji je nas i doveo dovde. OK, sad pitanje je da li treba vise da krivimo njihove ministre finansija (npr. Gordona Brauna) ili cak guvernere banaka (npr. Alana Grinspana), sad kod ministara finansija vertikala politicke odgovornosti je jasna (dovodi nas nazad do Blera / Busa), kod centralnih banaka je vec malo komplikovanije.

 

Znam za takva gledišta i na drugim mestima. To jeste definitivno njeno nasleđe - da je jedina uspešna politika Labour mogla da bude u stvari politika čistog centra. Ma niko ne kaže, daleko bilo, da je Thatcherkino nasledje minorno, ono je isto veoma duboko.

[Anduril]

Da se vratim na ono pisanje Richarda Koo-a koje sam postavio na topiku o Grckoj, Tacerine strukturne reforme su svoj pravi rezultat dale tek jedno 10 godina kasnije...Bler je jednim delom ubirao te plodove, takoreci. Strukturne reforme ne rade preko noci, cak u prvi mah umeju da kratkorocno povedu privredu na dole.

...

 

Nece biti...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22070491

[MancMellow]

pa...prema ovom grafikonu ni Labour do 1979. nije bio tako los...

 

poreski prihodi od nafte i gasa iz S.Mora su 1982. porasli 50% (!) u odnsu na prethodnu godinu. Pravi napredak se u UK video tek 1985/6 kada je, konacno, pocela da pada nezaposlenost ("incidentally", 1985 su ovi prihod doziveli vrhunac i bili skoro 3 PUTA veci nego 1981)

Edited July 31, 2015 by MancMellow