Monday, June 27, 2016

New Labour Tears should be a Joy to the Real Left

In one of the best and laugh-out-loud funny moments of commentary on Brexit:

Yes, Peter, it’s good to know they were in tears – all those scumbag New Labour neoliberals, career politician hacks, and Blairite war criminals. An actual sensible Left in Britain ought to be overjoyed at this development, for the modern Labour party is mostly an arrogant, out of touch, middle class party of neoliberals, regressive leftists and purveyors of poisonous identity politics.

I’m not sure if the Bennite wing of the party was in tears (especially since this is the natural home of the small group of Eurosceptics or even fiercely anti-EU people), but if they were they need to face reality quickly and rethink their whole attitude to Brexit.

Sargon of Akkad does Brexit. Watch for a good laugh:


  1. Yeah. Best interview on this I've seen. Very amusing.

  2. Could you clarify how Brexit is going to solve the problem of mass immigration/open borders in the UK? (genuinely curious, I haven't committed to a position yet)

    From what I'm reading the EU leaders are demanding already that the UK will have to retain free movement of labor with the EU countries in order to gain access to the European common market, (as is the case with Norway, for example) and that the EU countries will probably follow suit and demand the same because they need to take a 'hard-line' stance to prevent the Union from falling apart.

    Can the UK afford to operate without access to the European common market given that so much of their trade is with European countries? If so how? And if not, how will it gain access to the market without acquiescing to the 'free movement of labor' requirement?

    I think I have a grasp of what 'conventional' and/or 'mainstream' economists' views are, I'd like a heterodox perspective on these questions. Thanks.

    1. (1) non-EU immigration can be controlled if there is the political will for it.

      (2) on EU open borders, of course an end to free movement would require tough negotiating.

      However, it should be very clear now the EU in its current form will only last a few years now. Brexit will start the rush to get out.

      This unworkable, unviable union cannot last -- it is creating too much vehement hostility.

      The next economic crisis will probably bring about the breakup of it.

      At that point, European nations can retain beneficial trading agreements but ditch the open borders, except perhaps for tourism, temporary students, or retired people with money (e.g., rich people who wish to retire in Spain, etc.).

      The public hostility to open borders in Europe makes free movement politically unsustainable.

    2. Note also that the Swiss are showing the way on this issue.

      In 2014, the Swiss had a vote and decided to control immigration from EU countries, a blatant violation of free movement of labour to which they'd signed up.

      If the EU block this, this will be another nail in its coffin, as people see how democracy is being destroyed.

    3. Anonymous, first of all, migration from EU countries is the main reason why UK economy hasn't collapsed yet, together with weak pound. Attempting to reduce this immigration will impoverish them drastically, and this is, indeed, what UK *deserve*.

      Second point, the Brexit will hopefully eliminate all the privileges UK has. Especially the so called rebate. This is clearly very good, but for the rest of EU, not for UK.

      These two are the main reasons why other countries "must" hurry up on exiting EU. The idea is to quit before people start seeing the consequences in UK.

      Third point, about "bad" migration (the poor and war refugees), the Brexit will not provide any help whatsoever. They already had the right to restrict flow of these people, and if they have done a poor job it's just their fault, not EU fault. If they have ghettoes, it's also their fault, not EU fault. In Sweden they don't have ghettos despite having many more "bad" immigrations (and almost no "good" ones).

      Fourth point, the same argument can be applied for the lack of welfare or universal education. This also is their fault, and not an EU fault.

      Note also that the link above on Switzerland only proves my point. LK is very good at coming up with proofs that he is wrong! It proves that you can easily negotiate with EU on every single issue, and that's it. Also the fact EU has dozens of exceptions for every country proves how easy this is.

      It's as simple as that. But shhh, don't tell to LK. He can't stand criticism of his childish beliefs.

    4. Anonymous@June 27, 2016 at 7:59 AM

      "about "bad" migration (the poor and war refugees), the Brexit will not provide any help whatsoever. They already had the right to restrict flow of these people"

      Hahaha. What effective right does the UK have to control immigration, Anonymous? Do tell. This will be good.

    5. "In Sweden they don't have ghettos despite having many more "bad" immigrations "

      Of really?!:

  3. Ah, I'm not even that huge of a fan of Sargon, but he's making the remainers look absolutely pitiful. It's quite entertaining.


    LK, you ought to take this quiz and see what your results are. Since there's this thing among regulars hereabout whether you should identify with "The Left" or not. It'd be fun to see. Despite many differences, it was surprising how much I sided with certain entities more than others!

  5. Richard Carrier was just banned from Free Thought blogs, and his blog taken off, because he is accused of being a sexist.

    This, even though Carrier himself has been a very staunch feminist, often accusing others in the progressive movement of being sexists.

    It is as if the modern leftist movement is eating itself alive.

  6. Silly things of course, and often tendentious, intended to prove you are really a libertarian or socialist or whatever. Anyway no surprise I sided most closely with Johnson. But I think I am leaning pretty heavily towards the crook. The crook and the clown were close in my score.

  7. All the social-democrat Keynesian members of Jeremy Corbyn's economic advisory council are starting to resign. Danny Blanchflower has gone. And then Richard Murphy, author of the peoples QE (money direct to households) and now the big star, Thomas Piketty.

    Apparently Piketty thinks Corbyn did not fight hard enough to get a Remain vote to stay in the EU. So that is one more Keynesian social-democratic economist that has left the ship.

    Just as the right-wing in the parliamentary Labour Party mount a coup to remove Corbyn, previously overwhelmingly elected leader, these 'advisers' drop Corbyn because they think staying in the EU is the most important thing of all. What about austerity and the upcoming global economic recession - don't they matter even more?

    Anyway, the irony is that any new Labour leader they want to advise will probably back Brexit because of the referendum vote and because they back immigration controls to stop UKIp taking their seats.

    Michael Roberts on FB.

    Some comments:

    Corbyn has no choice. He must take on socialist militancy now. The social democrats will always pull out when it matters. If Labour does not become militant soon we might see a resurgence in fascism.

    Yes it is incredible to think of what kind of "post-Keynesian" alternative they hope to promote by jumping on the anti-Corbyn bandwagon! Then again it shows how short-sighted McDonnell was in appointing these advisers!

    Seems to me these people are the victims of the same middle class leftist bubble you were talking about. It also shows the disconnect from and the disregard they have of the working classes and the "lumpenproles."

  8. Dear Lk,

    Congrats for the Brexit and for supporting it.
    I hope it will inspire other people to do the same (which is unlikely for the rulers will not allow them to vote at all).

    I had a question : could you advise me some goood piece of scholarship about the Wilson economic "failure" and the Labour turn toward more centrist economic policies even before thatcherism etc.
    It feels like every time a left of the centre government happens to be elected on a pretty hard voluntarist keynesian program it stumbles on "international constraints" (allegedly enforced by the IMF or even the markets etc.) or "money wall" and turns his back on most of his electoral promises (Wilson, Mitterrand, and now Tsipras etc.).
    Do you think there are common causes to that phenomenon ? Has the subject been investigated ?

  9. As to Piketty, do not mistake him for a true keynesian, even less a social democrat. His empirical findings are important to prove that something went wrong lately. And he is probably sincerely advocating more social justice. Nonetheless aside from an utopian international income and asset tax is kind of clueless as to how the rising tide of inequalities is to be opposed and the social power underlying it.
    For example he does not even admit of the importance of free trade as a cause of soaring unemployment and inequalities.