Okay so here is the rub (possibly more than one): I massively feel sorry for friends, colleagues, opponents in the Labour Party who are faced with the very real election of Jeremy Corbyn. I genuinely believe that his election and his pitch would be a retrograde step for any party. An equivalent would be Nigel Farage tipped to win Leader of the Conservatives… which in the current climate Farage might want to think about.
But one of the jibes I hear most from Labour folk, and it is Labour folk, is that Liberals (and they can’t get the name right and choose not to) are too pure, to small and too broad stroke in our politics.
And yet, if I understand their concern over Corbyn-mania correctly it’s that he will confine them to unelectability for a generation. And so they demonstrate their flaw. They quite like Corbyn – but they can’t vote for him because he won’t give them power. They might agree with him, but dare not. That they can’t leave Labour and create either a new party or join with another non-Tory alternative because they are Labour folk – that is what I loathe about their politics. That their tribal instincts are so deep that they can’t be honest and advocate fair votes for local government, let alone our national parliament – even though they have allowed a series of different voting and counting systems across the UK.
Well, if that is the concern then frankly I find myself thinking ‘go hang’. In fact I can stand on the sidelines and cheerfully shout “Good luck Jeremy”.
I have spent a generation working for liberalism: a political cause that cares about people, that respects individuals and seeks to bolster community. Working to reduce hate and foster hope, striving to explain alternatives and not just criticise others. And for the most part, the response from ‘the Labour movement’ is contempt and sneering. (Tories at least have the decency to just be a little puzzled by liberalism).
Well on that basis – you Labour folk deserve Jeremy Corbyn. He has honesty, principle and passion. He may be deluded, but that judgment is for the public to make. But if you are so deeply divided then you should not be one party. What you need is intellectual honesty, fair votes and the courage to fight for what you believe. You need to stop fighting against those who do believe something.
And if you are in the Labour movement and a tad less partisan, then understand why so many of us are proud to stand alone and fight for lost causes. Why we are prepared to be counted and to lose today in order to be there tomorrow. That we will pick up the pieces of your failed ideology in local, regional and national government. For that is what it means to be a liberal and I also it should be what it means to be in a movement. You think, consider, share ideas, accept you can’t win all of the time, but advocate change consistently over time.
It is for these reasons that I am a liberal and proud of it and why I am a member of the Liberal Democrats. But it is also for these reasons that you deserve Jeremy Corbyn to be elected. It is why he himself deserves a chance to kick your mean spirited need to hold power where it most hurts. But it is also, frankly why you need to be honest about how politics could be better and fairer.
So good luck Jeremy Corbyn. And to the rest of the tribal Labour Party – you deserve all the contempt you have poured on others for so long. The wilderness is not fun, it doesn’t feel fruitful and it can be lonely. But you come out liking people, remembering why you are in politics. In short you may even find yourself advocating fairness, compassion, and equality for all.
So three simple steps:
1. Elect Jeremy Corbyn please
2. Drop your tribal partisan sneering
3. Advocate fair votes – it means you can be honest with the electorate.
Sadly you will ignore the last two at least, and though my party political affiliation will be a beneficiary to your civil war, the UK and its political dialogue will be the loser.
* Ed Fordham is a councillor on Chesterfield Borough Council and runs Brockwell Books of Chesterfield, selling many thanks, not least ephemera he bought from Liber Books over the last 25 years.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Devil's Porridge
The surprisingly complicated history of Highbury and Islington
Councillor joins Lib Dems in Somerset
Some kids just need more hugs and cuddles
Test post 6
Tim Leunig
Tim Rogers
Mick Taylor
Steve Trevethan
84 Comments
They’re also doubly concerned: all the arguments about compromising to be electable – and get real policy wins as a result – are the ones they sneered at when we were in coalition. They’re now making their own compromises (eg the abstention on welfare cuts) and the smart ones at least are starting to face their own uncomfortable truths.
We need more Tim Farron and less Jeremy Corbyn.
Himmmm,
I think Jeremy could revive the Labour Party. And given the average poster on this sites record when it comes to political predictions…Plus there are a lot of Tories registering as supporters to vote for corbyn in order to destroy labour, but they forget about karma. 😉
This is all playground stuff isn’t it??
Sorry, Ed but demonising JC is a tad patronising and short sighted.
Jeremy C seems to be pulling in the crowds in and capturing the sort of enthusiasm Tim Farron would give his back teeth for. In fact he has a lot in common with many radical Liberal Democrats….. and even Kenneth Clarke (yes, him) seems to think JC’s policies are so popular he might become Prime Minister.
Now just suppose a Liberal Democrat Leader said we should…………….
oppose austerity and re-introduce Keynsian economics
support free child care,
end the public sector pay freeze,
repeal anti-trade union laws
adopt a humane response to political asylum seekers and refugees from war zones and dictatorships.
Not renew Trident
Re-nationalise the railways (supported by 68% in latest poll)
Take the Post Office back into public ownership
Oppose privatisation of the NHS through TTIP
Reverse the closure of Women’s refuges
Tackle the funding of Isis by Britain’s so called ally the not so democratic kingdom of Saudi Arabia instead of bombing Syria
Recognise the Palestinian state
Introduce rent controls in London
Stop the destruction of democratic local government with all that implies for Social Care
Oppose the welfare cuts
Return schools to a revitalised local government
Raise the top rate of income tax to tackle inequality.
Oppose fracking
……… It might just strike a chord…….. because it’s an appeal based on politics as if ordinary people matter.
Let me just say, in case anyone has any doubt: Jeremy Corbyn’s figures don’t even come close to adding up.
He’s used some misleading tax researcher, Richard Murphy, who has used his qualification as a Chartered Accountant to peddle nonsense and receive a platform for it.
Jeremy will have to say who will pay for all his spending and if he doesn’t then he is just being dishonest, because, as I said: his figures don’t even come close to adding up.
We should also not be afraid to point out his cowardly foreign policy. We shouldn’t let far leftists steal the moral high ground. Point it out that he is wrong on economics and foreign policy.
He’s not wrong because he’ll let the Tories win – he’s wrong because he’s wrong.
David Raw 4th Aug ’15 – 8:20pm Just one example: “Oppose privatisation of the NHS through TTIP”
TTIP has not been negotiated yet and may never be. Please also see Catherine Bearder’s opposition to the key element.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/bearder-liberals-must-save-the-euus-trade-agreement-but-we-must-ditch-isds-to-do-so-46363.html
Only the lib dems would sneer at the idea of electing a leader simply because you happen to agree with their values.
How did the promise to be as middle as Middle can be work out?
Richard,
Are you denying that the TTIP would open up the NHS to more privatisation , particularly from American big business ?
I’m afraid politics is much more subtle, (fickle?), than Ed Fordham realises.
Prior to the May general election, Farage had predicted that Labour would go for the In/Out referendum. He was wrong, and had been ‘floored’ by Labour (or Miliband), turning its back on an in/out referendum.?
This is important, because I am not just a Ukiper, but a Red Ukiper. If (prior to May), Miliband had accepted that UK voters had a democratic right, to an in/out referendum, I might have switched my vote, but Miliband (along with Clegg), foolishly ignored voters, and went for the ‘Crash and Burn’ approach, preferring to deny voters a say on their future in Europe.
The point to be gleaned, is that Ukipers want policies that have a consideration for British citizens. [… place your Little Englander comments here..!..] And just as importantly, for Ukipers, this is *not*, a right/left thing.?
If,..in 2020,..Corbyn were to declare a Socialism outside of the EU, that would do fine,.. or if Boris were to declare Toryism outside of the EU, that too, would be fine. For Kippers, being out of the EU is a core function, and absolutely pivotal to resuming democratic control of our own UK destiny. (Not a lot to ask?)
As such, if Corbyn were to declare a strong ‘out of EU position’, it could well be a game changer. As a Red Ukiper, I have warmed to Corbyn, who is astute, accomplished, decent and principled.
The question is, is he astute enough to pull together sufficient numbers of true Labour socialists, (excluding Blairites!), defecting Red-kipers, defecting socialist-SNPers, and maybe even a few wavering Lib Dems worrying about a nascent Christian mantle?,… into a reasoned solid voting cohort?
If he wins the Labour leadership and is astute enough to nail his colours to the ‘Out of Europe’ mast, and also promise ‘just enough’ further autonomy to a socialist hungry (but not necessarily SNP!), Scotland, your premature guffawing 🙂 could shift quickly to a glum face 🙁
We live in very interesting times?
The point about Corbyn is that he is a Marxist, he feels no obligation to stick to “bourgois” values like honesty. Forget his Policies & look what the people around him say about purging Labour of Tories & Neo-Liberals or “Curing” the virus of Blairism. It sounds nasty because it is.
On the prospects for Electoral Reform, I am not so pessimistic, a lot of people on both sides of the Labour divide are talking about the need for PR, alliances & Coalitions. An open split would crtainly lead to a lot of miraculous conversions to Reform.
David Raw 4th Aug ’15 – 9:13pm This would be serious if it were true. Please consider the massive subsidies that the USA gives to producers of cotton, They are openly ashamed, but the producer interests are powerful. These trade deals tend to take years to negotiate, maybe decades, and eventually include many compromises or fail entirely. Look at the history of the General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trades (GATT) the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
Gordon Brown’s government sent Peter Mandleson to be Trade Commissioner, so have a look at The Third Man, comments on the Cancun, Doha (and the Hartlepool by-elelction). in chapter 10.
Does he scare you that much? I just watched the Capra film Mr Smith goes to Washington with James Stewart. I recommend you watch it.
John Dunn 4th Aug ’15 – 10:20pm “We live in very interesting times” is an ancient Chinese curse, as Paddy Ashdown has often reminded us. Actually we live in relatively stable times, compared with World War I, two Russian revolutions in 1917, a great depression, the Wall Street Crash, World War II, the Cold War, the annus mirabilis of 1989. …partially because democracies in Europe are not fighting each other so much as previously, …
I see David Raw has demonstrated the the tribal instinct that Ed highlighted. So sad, yet so predictable. Ed did say JC has honesty, principle and passion. I don’t call that demonising!
The Labour Leadership contest is an odd one. Not only is it dragging on for months, but only two candidates – Jeremy Corbyn and Liz Kendall are actually saying anything! I believe they both support Electoral Reform, which may explain a lot. Corbyn will be portrayed by the Daily (hate) Mail and the Sun as some sort of reincarnation of Lenin, but that was certainly not how he came accross in his interview with Emily Maitlis on Newsnight.
Can anybody tell me what Andy Burnham and Yvette Copper actually stand for? Or what they achieved in Government come to that? There sole ambition seems to be to have a Labour Government in office, but to do what excatly? Presumably pursue the same manageriealist agenda as the Coalition and the Tories?
Radical policies like opposing Trident, exposing the IS backers in the middle east, strengthening local government, and most of the rest on David Raw’s ARE popular. The Liberal Democrats lost votes to the SNP and the Green Party beacuse we became third centrist party in a crowded field. Its time to articulate OUR vision and policies.
I joined the LibDems for pretty much the attitude that I see coming from JC (I was impressed that Menzies Campbell spoke out so eloquently against the second gulf war). I find postings like this desperately condescending and repulsive. In fact party politics is generally pretty depressing. I’d support JC as much as I would MC, and will release my LD membership if JC is elected due to a conflict of interest (although I doubt I’d actually join Labour). I’d like to think my local Julian Huppert is of a similar heart to JC.
Why all the fuss about Jeremy making Labour unelectable for a generation? Nick made us unelectable for two!
I think I was a bit harsh on Jeremy. I don’t doubt his compassion, which often extends greater than mine, but on some issues he is wrong and it should be pointed out.
I think we should also recognise the self-interest in some of his actions, such as being a bit of a pacifist. It removes himself from harms way, but not always others and this is something the “stop the war” movement do often and it is hardly ever pointed out.
Jeremy has seemed lukewarm at best on Electoral Reform.
He gave the old red herring line about it being important that the constituency link is maintained – but didn’t go on to point out that under STV it is arguably strengthened.
I think there’s a good opportunity to place political
pressure on Corbyn at the moment, or his supporters, to ask if he was elected would he at least campaign for PR for local government. Otherwise what happened to straight talking, principled Jezza?
@David Raw. TTIP does not include the provision that would allow US business to demand entry into public services, because the EU negotiators have refused to agree to it and it does not form part of TTIP. If you are going to oppose TTIP please do so based on fact, not the fictions peddled by 38 degrees and others. TTIP is very good for the EU (and the UK) because it will establish a level playing field for trade between the EU and the US with common standards and will stop the nonsense of goods being excluded because they don’t meet the requirements of one country or another. You should have faith in the judgement of Catherine Bearder MEP and not make the mistake – all too common during the coalition – of believing our enemies.
Ed
I must admit I agree with David Raw, your post feels like it is in danger of slipping into the relm of spite. Whatever anyone thinks of Jeremy Corbyn he is waking up many members of the Labour Party to what is possible for them if they reach out and grab it. I confess I lean more to the social liberal message and what I understand that to mean. Living in Scotland I am seeing a reawakening of politics and community action which I for one will be embracing as a Liberal, a reawakening of political will among communities is something that we should all be aspiring to. If Jeremy Corbyn brings hundreds to meetings to discuss alternatives to the Tory agenda, no matter the party, then I am all for it. I tend to think that there is less centre now, esp in Scotland. I was a member of the SNP in the past and the politics of social justice and fairness , of honesty and decency are Liberal Politics and one that we should all be embracing. The shift to the right in this country is horrid in my opinion, the idea that we should be beholden to big buisiness and the financial centre is wrong. We do not live to serve them, the opposite is true.
I joined the Liberal Democrats because I have always been a Liberal in my beliefs and my feelings that being a Liberal means finding common ground, means looking after the most vulnerable while facilitating a system that allows everyone to contribute and succeed, for me it means promoting the point that those with the most have a responsibility to treat those with the least ethically and fairly. Being a Liberal for me is about local dicision making, electoral reform and the abolition of the HoL to a democractic second chamber. If Jeremy Corbyn takes the Labour movement down the road to a similar discussion then I am all for it and wish him all the best.
People are more important than spite, more important than numbers on a bit of paper or a balance sheet, more important than profit, it’s why I’m a Liberal.
alistair 5th Aug ’15 – 6:56am
“Why all the fuss about Jeremy making Labour unelectable for a generation? Nick made us unelectable for two!”
This seems very optimistic, Alistair.
After the damage done to our party we will be lucky to climb back to 62 MPs that quickly.
I agree with all those who are saying “more Farron less Corbyn” in LDV.
I watched Tim Farron interviewed on Ch4 News last night in Calais putting the LIberal Democrat case for treating refugees as if they are human beings. It made me feel proud to be a member of the LIberal Democrats.
It’s refreshing to see a post on LDV that isn’t all starry-eyed about the Labour Party, our “partners in a centre-left anti-Tory alliance”. Well said, Ed.
It also confirms in spades the point I made on another thread that activists in Labour-facing seats are very different to those in Tory-facing seats – asks some of them what they think of Labour and the answer will be similar to my remark in quotes above.
I sincerely hope Corbyn is elected to become Labour Leader. He’s a socialist and the UK needs a distinctly socialist party. It will also free up the Liberal Centre for us.
Mick Taylor 5th Aug ’15 – 9:00am
Mick – I think you should look more closely at what TTIP is likely to bring forth – perhaps Catherine Bearder too. I watched her discuss the matter with Lord Dartmouth of UKIP on one of Andrew Neil’s shows – she did not seem to understand the threats presented.
It is not just 38 Degrees that are against the introduction of TTIP – there are many organisations who recognise the dangers. Essentially it is pretty certain that the majority of additional trade will be from the US to the UK and the EU – apart from a few very strong EU global corporations who will be able to compete with the US giants.
We have seen that US style food outlets achieve great success with McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Starbucks, Costa etc. Objectively – UK food chains should be able to compete with these businesses – but generally they can’t. Other US corporations like UBS are likely to gobble up huge chunks of the distribution business and other sectors will also be vulnerable.
The point is that when an overseas corporation operates in the UK – there is little ‘trickle down’ effect as the profits earned are removed from the UK – also little corporation tax is paid because there are a multitude of ways that this can be avoided by multinationals. For the sake of the UK economy – every effort needs to be made to block these corporations operating in the UK. There are other serious problems as can be seen from these two articles:
What is TTIP and why should we be angry about it?
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership may sound boring, but it could affect everything from your income to the food you eat and the state of the NHS. Here is a beginners’ guide to the controversial trade deal
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/03/ttip-what-why-angry-transatlantic-trade-investment-partnership-guide?CMP=share_btn_tw
Corporate vampires have tried to suck $4 billion out of Romania, and with TTIP the UK could be next
TTIP’s opponents may be accused of speculation, but the impact of similar trade deals abroad is terrifyingly real
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/corporate-vampires-have-tried-to-suck-4-billion-out-of-romania-and-with-ttip-the-uk-could-be-next-10435975.html
@ John Tilley,
I am appalled. I would have thought that at least on here, it would be the new leader of the Liberal democrats who would be the centre of attention.
I thought that Tim Farron with his calm, measured words and decency, was a much needed antidote to the hysteria that has been a whipped up on a problem that requires all three qualities.
@ Donald Smith,
What is the difference between belonging to a ‘tribe’ and belonging to a ‘family’. Are one’s instinctive reactions and responses different? I have never been a party member, so I really am puzzled by this apparent criticism, and what it means in real terms.
If reversing the closure of Women’s Refuges is part of his manifesto, Jeremy Corbyn, a politician who had never previously appeared on my radar, seems very attractive. I’m not surprised he is pulling in the crowds.
@Jayne Mansfield ultimately whether it’s a tribe or family doesn’t matter; it’s about the type of behaviour that’s exhibited.
Examples of tribal behaviour:
– arguing that someone can never truly belong because of their (class) background
– supporting someone because they are in your (party) regardless if they’re right or wrong
– undermining others who share your views even when you agree with them because they don’t belong to your (party)
David Raw
“Kenneth Clarke (yes, him) seems to think JC’s policies are so popular he might become Prime Minister”
Ken Clarke has a fluffy image with a lot of people, but his is a ruthless politician and wants Tory majorities as often as possible. So when citing him as suggesting JC’s election would be good for the Labour party you may want to consider that, and by the way you probably want to delete that email from that guy in Nigeria who wants your bank account to help collect an inheritance…
“oppose austerity and re-introduce Keynsian economics”
Errr, you mean introduce politicians economics whuch they attribute to Keynes. The Economy is now growing and there is talk of interest rates rises, so applying the demand management ideas we should have severe austerity and run a surplus.
“nationalise the railways”
“nationalise […] the Post Office”
And then… Exactly what would be better? What would improve? Those who remember the nationalised railways remember how bad they were, many of us have been dissatisfied by the Post Office and its backward ways, it has only been private for a very short time.
David Raw
Contd…
“Introduce rent controls in London”
Assar Lindbeck – ‘rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing’
Most people can see that the problem is the lack of supply of housing, when offered the choice between the options of: building more houses (which most people can see is sensible); compared with a policy that has vast evidence of being counterproductive you would have to be mad to choose the latter. I don’t mind peoepl also suggesting the adffditional sensible liberal policy of a LVT (in addition), but there needs to be more building.
I find it funny how people see a bad policy that has a nice ‘left wing’ feel to it (nationalise stuff, rent/price controls, mansion tax, etc.) see it polled and scoring well and simply assume lots of these things will be even more popular. Then when offer the choice at the polls the public don’t behave as expected. Well a politician making simplistic claims can sound ‘bold’ ‘genuine’ ‘authentic’ (or particularly bizarrely) ‘fresh’ as the policy equally can be liked for being different.
The problem comes is when voters are asked to decide on them in the cold light of day (not a split second decision when speaking to a pollster) and discuss these things with friends/family/colleagues when they know it will matter there is real thought to it. People will have seen the holes in the policy they will be more inclined to engage the brain not the gut, and in those circumstances people suddenly find ‘sensible’ a far more attractive quality.
Having said that.
Ed – I think your piece was a bit confused, I think what you were trying to say was a bit lossed in it all. It seemed to be we need electoral reform and Labours tribalism isn’t good, is that a fair summary?
John Roffey
“Mick – I think you should look more closely at what TTIP is likely to bring forth – perhaps Catherine Bearder too. I watched her discuss the matter with Lord Dartmouth of UKIP on one of Andrew Neil’s shows – she did not seem to understand the threats presented.”
I think most of the current problem is that there is no final position to take a view on, almost every thing has risks, even more so when something is still in negotiation so the sensible thing is to highlight concerns then take a position once there is a final document to take that position on.
“We have seen that US style food outlets achieve great success with McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Starbucks, Costa etc. Objectively – UK food chains should be able to compete with these businesses – but generally they can’t”
Costa is owned by Whitbread and based in Dunstable. I know some people don’t like chains but that doesn’t make them American.
“Other US corporations like UBS are likely to gobble up huge chunks of the distribution business and other sectors will also be vulnerable.”
Errr, Union Bank of Switzerland is a US corporation?
John Roffey
I can’t remember last time I noticed a KFC, do they still have any kind of market share? I see lots of fried chicken shops in various UK cities but I can’t remember a KFC. Is that a dominant firm?
I think so many on the JC issue are wrong, he in engaging not only with Labour Party members but also with the general public. He will in my view be a major threat to the recovery of the Lib Dems. I think to discount him is a huge mistake.
@Neil “he in engaging not only with Labour Party members but also with the general public. He will in my view be a major threat to the recovery of the Lib Dems. I think to discount him is a huge mistake.”
Corbyn is a socialist. If people are attracted by socialist ideas, so be it. I can’t see the point in claiming to be a Liberal party if we want to compete with socialists by trying to out-socialist them.
If people want to be socialists; be socialists. But don’t be Liberals.
@ TCO.
Thank you.
It sounds as if the Liberal democrats are as guilty of tribal behaviour as any other party.
It has always puzzled me that some posters on here lash out at some who are in others parties who support similar policies to those espoused by the Liberal Democrat Party, either past or present. One would have thought that they would seek out common ground and oppose those who favour and promote regressive policies.
I am also puzzled by the ‘authoritarian’ word that is bandied around to describe others . There seems to be some double standards here. Is Jeremy Corbyn authoritarian? In what way? Is he really an old type socialist? He seems quite moderate to me compared to some of the firebrand demagogues that I vaguely remember.
That’s the problem with all this attention being focussed on Jeremy Corbyn, it is making people inquisitive, and sometimes he doesn’t seem to fit into the mould that the press are suggesting.
Psi 5th Aug ’15 – 11:31am
‘I think most of the current problem is that there is no final position to take a view on, almost every thing has risks, even more so when something is still in negotiation so the sensible thing is to highlight concerns then take a position once there is a final document to take that position on.’
Psi – my poor post indicates my utter frustration of feeling obliged to point out that TTIP holds great dangers and few benefits – whenever this subject arises.
It is quite beyond me to understand why any UK citizen should wish to promote the interests of overseas global corporations ahead of small UK businesses, who benefit greatly from economy of scale, use the cheapest labour in the world and thereby wipe out the vast majority of competition.
The mere fact that this remains a secret agreement when it should be entirely transparent – should be enough to concern anyone.
Do you believe that businesses other than the largest overseas global corporations are likely to benefit the most from the agreement or that the increased profits of these corporations are going to benefit the UK financially?
If JC becomes Labour leader all that Ed predicts may indeed transpire. But actually, we don’t know.
No-one io British politics has tried to lead public opinion for a very very long time.
There have been a succession of so-called leaders who have examined the polls, had the views of focus groups fed to them, lunched with the Westminster commentariat and taken the advice of advisers who make their living ‘translating’ political utterance to business and communicating to politicians what business wants.
So used has the Westminster village got to this quite incestuous and exclusive system that a recent ‘poll’ reported in the Washington Post has come as a surprise, indeed a shock.
People actually like their leaders to lead and leaders (if they were not restrained by this system) actually like to lead.
Tim Farron appears to be of this ‘leaders who lead’ mold. Let’s hope so. Actually a successful Corbyn debunking some of the mythical barriers erected to keep leaders enthralled to their advisers and people in the grip of folklore, would be a considerable help to us.
Here’s the WP piece: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/10/study-politicians-can-change-hearts-and-minds-simply-by-stating-their-views/
Obviously, JC’s possible election is not my fight. But it is interesting that, when someone says a few clear, unequivocal things in politics that don’t conform the the strategists’ ‘formula for winning’, the response is total panic. I think the ‘experts’ don’t know how to poll Corbyn, and don’t know what to say in response to him. Folk in the political mainstream seem to have slipped into lionising election strategists and bean counters, to the neglect of the product itself – and there are self interested folk with a vested interest in that happening (mainly people who want to pay less tax, pollute more, and pay people less). If there’s a shortage of moderates with conviction and clarity, it does seem to me that that’s because the structures and priorities of the main parties have discouraged that.
Psi 5th Aug ’15 – 11:31am
Here are a couple more articles to read:
Bilderberg 2015: TTIP and a travesty of transparency
Charlie Skelton
A summit where senior policymakers are locked away for three days with incredibly powerful corporate lobbyists, and senior figures at Transparency International
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/14/bilderberg-2015-a-travesty-of-transparency
TTIP: Here’s why MEPs have been protesting it, and why you should too
Despite all consultations on the huge trade deal being secret, 92 per cent of those involved have been corporate lobbyists
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ttip-heres-why-meps-have-been-protesting-it-and-why-you-should-too-10313239.html
John Roffey
“It is quite beyond me to understand why any UK citizen should wish to promote the interests of overseas global corporations ahead of small UK businesses, who benefit greatly from economy of scale, use the cheapest labour in the world and thereby wipe out the vast majority of competition.”
It depends on what the final agreement looks like. Your argument could be used at any point in history against free trade, foreigners getting big economies of scale ‘taking our jobs.’ The discussion around this has become increasingly shrill from both the pro and anti side. Many people who would normally have taken an interest if the discussion had a different tone are just switched off until there is an end point where it is a fixed point to discuss.
John Roffey
Contd…
“Do you believe that businesses other than the largest overseas global corporations are likely to benefit the most from the agreement or that the increased profits of these corporations are going to benefit the UK financially?”
The reality of markets is that there are not a lot of industries where a YKK type natural monopoly exists. Also most of the manufacturing people romanticise (the utility standardised stuff e.g. while t-shirts) has long gone, the manufacturing that is left is here because there are specific skills (high value add) or travel time is very important (food, bespoke, fast changing fashion).
There is a constant cycle of people complaining how one business has become a monopoly and how they now will dominate for ever only to suddenly for them to be shown to have financial problems because customers aren’t like that and don’t want just the same and bigger of everything. McDonalds had to scale back; Tesco went from dominant monopoly to under investigation for inflating profits to hide its poor business performance. How the benefit will fall will depend on the type of market, there are plenty of markets where the small are kept out to the benefit of the large. Until there is something finalised I can’t be bothered to trying to pick through the claim and counter claim, to see where I come down on balance.
I also don’t consider if the company is making profit or not to be the measure of benefit to the public, I think about what the company offers to us. I don’t think the late British Leyland cars were better than their European counterparts on the basis that they were built here. If we have a skilled population (and support for the work force adjusting as industries change) we will have good opportunities here. I don’t share your dystopian view that all industries will end up as vast monopolies, I can understand those who only know the US imagine that but not those who live in Europe.
Eduardo Reyes
Your comment sounds familiar to those that were coming from the cheerleaders of Ed Milliband before the last election.
“I think the ‘experts’ don’t know how to poll Corbyn”
I think everyone should be suspicious of anyone claiming to be an “expert” I just see everyone being guided by their own confirmation bias. As Bill le Breton points out we don’t know.
All of this seems like a distraction for liberals, the LibDems took a pounding at the last elections where it was impossible to pick out what they were actually ‘for’ so that needs to be the focus of any discussion rather than the theoretical proposition of someone who runs a party that is not liberal.
Corbyn is everywhere, from Country Life to Private Eye.
Some worry about his effect on the Tory Party (do Labour voters care?) and therefore on the government.
The Guardian is an exception, Johnson (Alan) not to be confused with Johnson (Boris) wants unity behind Yvette Cooper.
Ed – I am at a loss to understand why you think Corbyn’s election would be a retrograde step for Labour.
He has clearly struck a chord with many including existing Labour supporters, newly-signed up supporters and others new to political involvement. He is advancing a coherent alternative to neoliberalism at a time when neoliberalism is failing, degenerating into crony-capitalism, oligarchy and never-ending financial crisis. Better leadership and a different plan are badly needed and so far his is the only game in town.
He may or may not win and if he does he may or may not prove to be an effective political leader but whatever the outcome he stands a good chance of moving the Overton window sharply to the left. That prospect must really scare the hollow people, the empty apparatchiks who have built their career out of serving vested interests and not the people who elected them. To me it looks more like a rediscovery of what would once have passed as middle of the road social democracy with a big dash of liberalism but needless to say Murdoch & Co will be up in arms at the supposed impossibility of it all, desperate to paint it as ‘extremist’. The real extremism is that which makes mammon god. Humans have understood that for millennia but periodically forget – something that always ends badly.
I get that there are aspects of Labour’s culture that you really don’t like. Fair enough, but all parties have their bad sides, they just err in different ways. Pot meet kettle.
Re TTIP. Those who support it presumably haven’t noticed that its actually a protectionist measure designed, for example, to allow big pharma to extend patent life of drugs on the flimsiest of excuses, to extend copyright protection and so on. Of course it would be difficult, probably impossible, to pass if that were admitted so it has to be described in the best Orwellian tradition as ‘free trade’ knowing that this is a ‘dog whistle’ term for some.
Check your Adam Smith. He rightly observed that when commercial interests get together it is to hatch a plot against the public interest. What else do you suppose is happening when huge numbers of lobbyists are closeted with oligarchs in secret? Why else are lawmakers who are supposed to represent the public interest kept out? It seems that the most basic understanding of democracy in the Liberal Democrats is at a low ebb that they can officially support this and moreover do so without any debate beyond the blogosphere.
Also how disgraceful in the 800th anniversary year of the Magna Carta to plan to revoke it. Magna Carta established the fundamental principle that everyone is equal under the law – even the king. TTIP revokes it by making that no longer true for large corporations giving them exclusive access to their own ‘courts’, staffed by their own retainers and not answerable to the law of the land so Parliament is no longer sovereign. In effect this will make large corporations a commercial version of the warlords that history tells us emerge to ravage and pillage when sovereign authority fails. It degrades the law into a mechanism for the powerful to exert their will without regard to decency or even life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window Not about double-glazing.
Gordon 5th Aug ’15 – 6:00pm
“Magna Carta established the fundamental principle that everyone is equal under the law – even the king. ” No it did not.
As the Director of Libert said “Magna Carta does nothing for Serfs, women and Jews” . Most people.
TCO. Go to the EU website and read what is in the TTIP and what isn’t. Stop listening to those who are against TTIP because they’re anti EU, like Farage and 38 Degrees.
Gordon, the proposals you refer to are not in TTIP, because the EU has refused to accept them
David Raw: The Post Office is in public ownership. It is the Royal Mail that has been privatised. TTIP does not privatise the NHS or any public services. It is these and other examples of either poor briefing or deliberate misleading that show a politician to be unfit to hold any elected office, let alone leadership of a party that might form a government..
Psi 5th Aug ’15 – 3:10pm
“It depends on what the final agreement looks like. Your argument could be used at any point in history against free trade, foreigners getting big economies of scale ‘taking our jobs.’ The discussion around this has become increasingly shrill from both the pro and anti side. Many people who would normally have taken an interest if the discussion had a different tone are just switched off until there is an end point where it is a fixed point to discuss.”
Whereas what you say might be true – if all of the indications are that TTIP will advantage overseas global corporations at the expense of many UK businesses [with the loss of revenue to the Exchequer and little or no trickle down] – surely the Lib/Dems and left of centre parties should be doing all they can do to prevent the agreement being ratified.
There have been dire warnings from many sources as to how much of a disaster for the UK TTIP could be – but in truth the primary concern is that global corporations are likely, eventually, to be able to over-ride the decisions of nation states.
With such an important agreement – don’t you think that the parliaments of each nation should have an opportunity to debate the final version before it is ratified?
However, unless you know differently, the final version will be agreed by the EU Parliament once enough of the various groupings are agreeable [as already appears to be close to being the case] then ‘whoosh’ the agreement will be signed – Obama already has his end sown up – and there will be no turning back.
Given your responses – I assume you haven’t read the articles I have highlighted. Have you read the latest version of the agreement? If you have you are almost certainly a corporate lobbyist.
Here is an article from the US prospective which might help to explain the greatest dangers:
The TTP and TTIP Trade Agreements: “A Dystopian Future in which Corporations Rather Than Elected Governments Call the Shots”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ttp-and-ttip-trade-agreements-a-dystopian-future-in-which-corporations-rather-than-elected-governments-call-the-shots/5447643
John,
You were quite convincing until you linked to that website! Have you read the other stories on it? It makes the Sun look like the Independent!
I think Global Research is sponsored by Putin actually – Russia Today is always quoting it!
Andrew 5th Aug ’15 – 8:14pm
“You were quite convincing until you linked to that website! Have you read the other stories on it? It makes the Sun look like the Independent!”
There are far too many issues covered by GR to go into each in depth on this thread. So as to keep the subject of the global corporations and TTIP in focus – this from the Guardian – provides significant insight.
Bilderberg 2014: George Osborne and the man at the centre of everything
“On the sun-drenched patio of the Marriott Hotel in Copenhagen sat the chancellor of the exchequer. He sat quietly and listened carefully as a distinguished older gentleman gave him what appeared to be an intense and barely-interrupted 25 minute briefing. George Osborne sat and listened, while we stood and watched.
The body language was fascinating. George was tense, leaning in, petitioning. The man opposite was physically relaxed but full of gestures and explanations. George was there to listen hard and get up to speed. Apart from a two-minute speech at the end, he opened his lips barely a dozen times, and half of those were simply to have a sip of his fruit punch.”
More:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/02/bilderberg-2014-george-osborne-john-kerr
John,
I don’t think it is news that there is an unholy alliance between big business and Tory politicians (and New Labour ones..). My default position is to assume that business people have no interest whatsoever in my welfare, and every interest in making money and increasing their influence. I am very suspicious of TTIP as well!
On the other hand it would be good to have rather more specific evidence than the “body language” of Osbourne in that conversation… He was probably getting a hard time for completely failing to control the deficit!
And Global Research is so full of rubbish that I would not trust anything it said under any circumstances! The Guardian I trust rather more
Ian MacFadyen 5th Aug ’15 – 6:19pm Now you really shouldn’t condemn poor Jeremy C –
Twas I that typed Post Office when my brain knew it was Royal Mail. Fingers sometimes have a mind of their own and it’s a form of early stage confusion that frequently follows from 53 years of being a Liberal.
Bit ironic that an article criticising tribalism is itself ridiculously tribal. It isn’t a given that JC would make Labour unelectable; on the contrary, he seems to be reaching parts other politicians cannot reach, and getting more young people involved / interested, which has to be a good thing; he may alienate some, but he also seems to be attracting many of those who don’t normally vote. Non-Labour people wishing / campaigning for a Corbyn victory based on what may well be a faulty premise that he will make Labour unelectable could end up with egg on their faces. I actually think a Labour party led by any of the other three would be easier to campaign against; Kendall because many of her positions seem to be little different to the Tories, leaving room for LDs to provide a radical, progressive alternative, and Cooper / Burnham because they represent more of the same “new labour” tinkering at the fringes with timid policies, talking in soundbites with nothing new or radical to say; Tim F’s practical, common sense approach would make them look like robots if backed by sufficiently radical policy positions.
Jeremy Corbyn-old thinking.
Tim Farron -new thinking . (that is what is needed)
Andrew 5th Aug ’15 – 9:16pm
Part 1.”My default position is to assume that business people have no interest whatsoever in my welfare, and every interest in making money and increasing their influence. I am very suspicious of TTIP as well!
On the other hand it would be good to have rather more specific evidence than the “body language” of Osbourne in that conversation…”
Andrew – the primary problem with TTIP is that the agreement covers such a range of issues coupled to the fact that the latest proposed version is unknown – almost any comment might be true – or at least have an element of truth.
I think we can safely assume that whatever the final version looks like – it will benefit both the US and German global corporations – the value of their exports, surprisingly, are similar. However, from a UK prospective [nation and people] – our interests are likely to be much further down the pecking order.
This paragraph from the previously linked ‘What is TTIP and why should we be angry about it?’ [almost 2.5k words!] – seems to provide a good starting point:
Part 2. “But seriously. How is TTIP going to affect me?
TTIP will hit Europeans like you in the pocket, critics argue, so you need to pay attention. While the European commission estimates that, by 2027, TTIP could boost the size of the EU economy by £94bn or 0.5% of GDP, an economic study by Jeronim Capaldo of the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University argues that the commission’s econometric modelling is jejune and that, in fact, TTIP will clobber Europeans. Capaldo predicts 600,000 European job losses as a result of TTIP, a net fall in EU exports, declining GDPs for EU member states and a fall in Europeans’ personal income.”
What we can assume is that the benefits will not be of any major significance to the UK and its people – whereas the potential dangers are great [excluding the concerns that national governments may/will become answerable to global corporations through their lawyers]. The Party’s existing policy of wholehearted backing of the deal does not seem sensible for any part of the membership – whether of the left or right. – even if liberals are historically in favour of increased trade.
Although geopolitically [from the US and Germany’s point of view] there may be good reason to want the deal put in place asap – these considerations are not of such great concern to the UK and its people – so I would suggest that the most appropriate policy for the Party, presently, would be to not reject the concept of a deal out of hand – but, before ratification by the EU, the final version of the agreement should be put before the HofC and HofL for detailed consideration because of the immense potential ramifications of the agreement.
There does not seem to be any reason why an agreement of such complexity needs to be ratified as a whole – it appears as if it could be ratified in sections using the same process suggested above for the UK.
@ Manfarang,
The problem as I see it, is that to the young, what Jeremy Corbin is offering IS new thinking.
Jayne Mansfield
As Bill says earlier in this thread —
“…Bill le Breton 5th Aug ’15 – 12:55pm
No-one iBritish politics has tried to lead public opinion for a very very long time.
There have been a succession of so-called leaders who have examined the polls, had the views of focus groups fed to them, lunched with the Westminster commentariat and taken the advice of advisers who make their living ‘translating’ political utterance to business and communicating to politicians what business wants.
So used has the Westminster village got to this quite incestuous and exclusive system that a recent ‘poll’ reported in the Washington Post has come as a surprise, indeed a shock.”
So for the young the prospect of a Labour Leader who actually leads is exciting.
We have got there first with Tim Farron. Earlier this week he demonstrated his leadership by going to Calais and tackling the Cameron myth-making head on.
The point about Corbyn is he reflects Labours membership better than some caqndidates. Blairites are whining because their party members are rejecting them. What they are arguing against is one person one vote.
As a Lib Dem supporter, I would much prefer Liz Kendal as Labour leader because she’s more likely to alienate labour voters than Corbyn is. We benefited hugely from Blair alienating voters in Labour seats . To me Labour’s problem is they take their voters for granted so sort of used them as cannon fodder for the Daily Mail and TV, constantly depicting them as scroungers or racists and obsessing over presentation. it’s not like Peter Mandelson has any kind of moral centre or Ed Balls was popular-I firmly believe he lost his seat because he his Ed Balls rather than because of Ed Miliband or the left.
But to be honest, I’m more interested in where the Lib Dems are heading than where Labour are heading.
Psi
Most people can see that the problem is the lack of supply of housing, when offered the choice between the options of: building more houses (which most people can see is sensible); compared with a policy that has vast evidence of being counterproductive you would have to be mad to choose the latter.
And here we go again, the usual market fanatics’ argument.
No, more building will NOT solve the problem, because you are confusing two things: need and demand.
People will always demand more housing. People will always want bigger houses and second houses and houses with bigger gardens and houses in more central locations. That’s demand. It isn’t need.
So if, as you market fanatics keep saying, you carry on building house to meet demand, you carry on building houses forever. But you will not meet need.
If you want to meet need, you have to ensure that when new houses are built they go to people who are most in need of them, not people who can pay the most for them. The problem is that those in real need are always outbid by those who have less need but more demand. For example, if you build a nice big house suitable for a family, it’s a couple without children who just fancy a bigger house who can afford to pay more for it than the family with children because they have more money because they aren’t spending money on children and can both work full-time.
@ John Tilley,
You are preaching to the converted John.
However, I mentioned quite a while back that there seems to be an obsession with Jeremy Corbyn and not enough attention paid to Tim Farron, even on here!
Just look at the number of responses to Tim Farron’s Calais visit compared with all the discussion about Jeremy Corbyn. I see all this discussion about whether a place will open up for the Lib Dems if he takes the Labour party pretty miserable stuff. In my view, he should be allowed to take the Liberal Democrat Party to a place that represents what the party claims it stands for. Anything else will lead to claims of ‘lack of authenticity’, the new buzz word. He will be viewed with the same near contempt that the focus group /triangulators are now viewed, a seeker after power with no ideological underpinnings or values that offer a real alternative vision for the future. ( I don’t think that he would fall into that trap from what I have gathered so far.)
What a pity so many are focussing on what may or may not happen in and to the Labour party rather than banging the drum for their new leader. I may be wrong, but it seems that even on here he is being sidelined.
Jayne Mansfield 6th Aug ’15 – 11:57am
“However, I mentioned quite a while back that there seems to be an obsession with Jeremy Corbyn and not enough attention paid to Tim Farron, even on here!”
Jayne – disappointing as it, not much has happened yet under TF’s leadership that is newsworthy and the Party is suffering from losing so many representatives during its time in coalition – as was to be expected. We are also in politics summer break so only the political scandals are likely to make it into the MSM. Labour are still the main opposition so their leadership contest is bound to be newsworthy until it is settled. Other than that – we must wait until the party conferences start before politics becomes interesting again.
Having said that – I do believe TF will have great trouble in attracting the attention of the MSM once the political season recommences because of its lack of representation. I remain convinced that it will need big, bold and fitting lead policies for it to throw off its present negative image and start to attract the interest of the floating voters once again.
Matthew Huntbach
“the usual market fanatics’ argument.”
“No, more building will NOT solve the problem, because you are confusing two things: need and demand.”
“People will always demand more housing”
Well, indeed. Here we go again. So your position is that demand for housing is infinite. I can’t see it, if I were to take your argument if peoepl had second homes they would demand 3rd, then 4th etc. demanding larger and larger.
Well that doesn’t actually represent how people actually live. If my demand for housing were infinite then if I had limitless funds I would constantly move from one house to the next endlessly. Well if I were to have limitless funds I wouldn’t want limitless homes, in part because they would stop being homes, life would be like traveling between endless hotels. I know a small number of people enjoy that life style but it is not the majority.
Humans are tribal creatures, we like the familiar most of the time, we do like a break from it but not a constant churn. People want things on hand, not to have to go and search for them, they want to be close to the people they choose to include in their lives.
Matthew Huntbach
Contd…
More properties and more space come with costs, to clean, to repair, maintain garden etc. Most people don’t want the responsibility of cleaning Hearst Castle or maintaining 3 houses. I have some friends in North America who have built their own homes and could have built more homes in more locations if they had wanted. They have all built slightly differently but there are some common themes, mostly people build 4 bedrooms (occasionally one more but not often) they tend to have a large open plan living area and a decent size garden where they can entertain but also have 2/3/4 smaller private spaces (home office, tv room for kinds/grandkids/utility room). Given very little restriction on what they could have (they could have spent more, used more land) they chose not too. They can sustain maintain a certain level of space, they have anj approximate number of close friendships they can sustain and therefore will entertain and they want to be able to keep an eye on the children/grandchildren/pets.
It probably says more about the situation in UK housing that people assume everyone wants more and more space/properties suggesting people don’t know many friends who have had their demand sated.
Matthew Huntbach
Contd…
You say that building family homes will simply result in couples without families filling them, well that suggests that the current housing stock is not catering to the couples and they families, this is a argument for more not less housing. I don’t know anyone I can think of who would want to live as a couple occupying Lyme Park, the lonely existence of rattling about the place would be very depressing. There are of course a few people who would fill any space as they are perpetual hoarders, but that is a psychological issue and they are sufficient to affect housing demand.
Humans have an inbuilt limit as to what we are comfortable with and how much social interaction we want. It is often a criticism of those who believe in Markets that they assume simplified economic models are accurate when they model linear demand functions etc. The reality is that humans are not limitless consumers, even if when something is new it can look like they are, as children often learn by eating too many sweets.
Matthew Huntbach
Contd…
I imagine that London with its severe shortage gives the impression of limitless demand as the rich buy second homes, as Auldburgh and Southwold become “Chelsea on Sea” as little groupings of rich Londoners decamp there on mass to socialise with the same people they see in the Capital, or the very wealthy to European destinations, and the superrich to private islands/yachts. But most of us want somewhere that is large enough to accommodate us and entertain our loved ones. We have an unhealthy interest in the super rich these days; it gives a false impression not just of our own relative financial situations in society but also how most of us would behave if we were in their shoes. I were to become the wealthiest person on earth tomorrow, I wouldn’t live the lifestyle of a Russian oligarch it doesn’t fit with normal social interaction.
None of this is to say that building should exclude other good ideas, better transport is important, an LVT is sensible there are plenty of other policies that could compliment but fundamentally more (and better) housing is the primary action.
John Roffey
I gave up reading news articles on TTIP some time ago, the pro pieces and the anti both became uninformative. The pro, dismissing risks rather than addressing them, the anti often making claims that would then turn out to be out of date. More depressingly there was very little of “this should be included” which actually informs. In particular lots of the anti complain about the international arbitration panels, I am waiting for one that suggest rather than dismiss the idea that a government should be held to agreements they sign up to (the rule of law), they suggest a way to make them better. We are happy with the ECJ doing the function in the EU acting as a proper court, why not take this example and demand an open accountable process for TTIP. As is often pointed out the tribunals are written in to lots of these agreements, why not create a model for other agreements to start to copy?
I would agree with you that there should not be some sudden rush to seal the deal while the ink is still wet, as it should be given proper consideration and scrutiny. However I would point out that you are worried about tomorrows vested interests, while we will have today’s which will be scared by any increase in free trade.
Psi 6th Aug ’15 – 1:24pm
“The reality is that humans are not limitless consumers”
I mentioned in my last post that I thought the Party was going to need ‘big, bold and fitting lead policies for it to throw off its present negative image and start to attract the interest of the floating voters once again’.
The approach chosen by the king of Bhutan would certainly meet that description and might be fitting if the long-term view of our ultra competitive world is going to keep vast numbers pay levels at or below a living wage. If not – it is still a fascinating read!
“In the 1970s, the king of Bhutan announced that the happiness of the population was more important than Gross Domestic Product. Saamdu Chetri has been charged with overseeing Bhutan’s happiness – but his own life has had its share of suffering.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33617673
Psi 6th Aug ’15 – 1:40pm
“As is often pointed out the tribunals are written in to lots of these agreements, why not create a model for other agreements to start to copy?”
I had tried to take a more practical approach – the Party needs new a policy on TTIP – because the current ‘wholehearted support’ is not sensible given what we do know. If the policy I have suggested was seen as sensible – the Party would join with others trying to block its ratification within the EU Parliament – and obviously challenge Cameron’s clear enthusiasm in the HofC at each opportunity along with encouraging the other opposition parties to do likewise.
Reforming any part of the EU would not be possible in time to stop TTIP being ratified – and it holds far too many potential threats to allow it to be ratified without taking whatever possible practical steps are presently available.
Visiting the EU website reveals that, for instance, there is a problem in that US and European cream-making machines are different so that: “European companies make safe, fresh cakes and export them around the world, but not to the US”. (see ‘The Top 10 Myths about the TTIP’.)
Leaving aside the oxymoron, I seriously doubt that so much lobbying effort and expense is really about facilitating European exports of cream cakes and suchlike. The big money brigade is pushing hard and that is a giant tell – they hope to make a killing. Moreover, it far from clear what we still aren’t being told despite unprecedented public concern.
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/ttip/ttipanddigitalrights.aspx
All this speaks to an establishment committed to putting the interests of corporations ahead of people and using all the dark arts of bureaucracy to achieve that end. Hence I think the strong support for Corbyn who is standing against this and has clearly taken the time to educate himself about the economics involved rather than just swallowing the pro-establishment mythology hook, line and sinker as Clegg did. Tim Farron has yet to make his mark one way or the other but I fear he hasn’t sorted out the economics yet. It may well be that there is no-one close to him to provide an alternative view. Whatever the reason he needs to sort this out quickly.
Jayne Mansfield
@ Manfarang,
” The problem as I see it, is that to the young, what Jeremy Corbin is offering IS new thinking.”
That’s why we need to put on our thinking caps. Liberalism is a spring from where new ideas flow.
Psi
But most of us want somewhere that is large enough to accommodate us and entertain our loved ones.
Oh sure. I’d be happy enough with a nice country mansion with an acre or so of land, plus a City penthouse. No more than that, and I’m sure most people would say the same. Can the market supply all of us with just that?
@Manfarang Corbyn doesn’t appeal to everyone: http://cicerossongs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/corbyn-is-ct.html
Matthew
“Can the market supply all of us with just that?”
I am certainly not claiming the market removes the need for there to be choices. Simply it gives better choices than the proposals a statist system produces. Rent controls are either pointless (set so high as to have effect) or very damaging causing falls in housing quality.
“”But most of us want somewhere that is large enough to accommodate us and entertain our loved ones.”
Oh sure. I’d be happy enough with a nice country mansion with an acre or so of land, plus a City penthouse.”
Well at least we agree demand is not infinite.
I thought I had thought I had covered how most people don’t want to rattle around in a mansion. Also most people wouldn’t want the responsibility of a city penthouse and the hastle of moving between (service charges; cleaning; where did I leave that book I was reading; little Al wants to play with his friend, oh we’re 60 miles away…).
I’m not sure how much space you need to entertain but the only people I can think of who have it was for a wedding.
*”I’m not sure how much space you need to entertain but the only people I can think of who have it was for a wedding.”
Correction
“I’m not sure how much space you need to entertain but the only people I can think of who have entertained in a mansion was for a wedding.”
Matthew
Having just reread your comment I now think you may have been using the term Mansion to refer to a 4 bed detached. I wouldn’t describe that as a mansion but I would agree it is much bigger than a 3 bed terrace or Semi that is roughly the median house in the country. But my point is that most people’s aspiration is probably (when actually exposed to more options) a bit more than the no but not wild. If you notice there have been a few lottery winners who have bought big houses and regretted it.
Most of us like to be sufficiently close to those around us and close to amenities. If every house round me had an acre of garden it would make walking 20 houses down the road a long way and getting to the local shop would be a drive.
Matthew Huntbach 7th Aug ’15 – 3:50pm The penthouse can be provided if you have enough tall buildings, but, of course, failing to maintain the lifts may render them uninhabitable.
Commuting between the two homes may be needed less often if enough broadband is provided.