Your Corbyn/Sultana Party - Discussion thread - Part 2

[fromorbit]

The YP starting conference is in the ACC in Liverpool between 29-30 November so only three weeks off. With competing factions involving Islamic conservatives, every variety of Marxist/Communist, former Labour members, trade union activists, entryists from SWP and SPEW, splitters from the Scottish Greens, trans activists and actual left wing feminists [not the nice kind] it is difficult to underplay how much controversy there is likely to be. So we will need a second thread in advance.

Thus far following the internal drama of the UKs newest left party has taken a whole thread. It has been a wild ride and the party still does not have a name.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5394557-your-corbynsultana-party-discussion-thread

There are far more people unemployed or under employed in places like clacton who would prefer economic growth and better jobs than being dependent on benefits. Especial for their children.

Successive governments have forgotten about these places and have written the people off. If any party can show that they have a feasible plan to regenerate these areas, theyd do well with voters.

Moreover, the point re the royals is deeper than Epstein involvement. The point is how Andrew & probably Mountbatten's sexual abuse was covered up by the royals.

Obviously any other institution might well cover up, but the royals are uniquely hard to scrutinise

. Ditto the financial corruption of Andrew & Sarah, & the wider royal finances of the family that Dimbleby discussed.

Moreover, despite the monarch having no apparent role except a ceremonial one in politics, their conversations with the PM on political matters are kept far more secret than many other political documents. Eg. Harold Wilson's diary entries about his conversation with the queen are still expunged.

I'm talking about deeper level symbology and the collective unconscious, not about the politics of power and oppression etc

Did you watch the coronation of King Charles ( or Queen Elizabeth 11?)? Especially the part where he is undressed behind a screen and is then dressed in ceremonial robes by his attendents...when the cloak, the orb and the sceptre are introduced, and then the crown; you can see and feel the weight and burden of Kingship. The crown is very heavy. It represents an annointment before God ( beyond the confines of the ego and small personhood) and the call of public duty and service.

In our society we have become embroiled and embedded in every detail of everyone's life and everyone's misdeeds...broadcast 24/7.

Nobody is perfect, and some are certanly far from it. But without mystery, symbolism, magic and imagination human society is diminished and poorer. Looking for meaning in the mundane and prosaic is a soul diminishing pursuit.

The point isn't the 'misdeeds' per se. The point is how the royal status made them uniquely hard to scrutinise, and uniquely protected by the royal family.

I appreciate your symbology point - I'm not anti monarchy per se, but more the way they function at the moment, with the unique protection from justice system, lack of knowledge of discussions with PM, financial loopholes etc.

I would question though how far we get mystery & magic from the royals now. They are scrutinised as much as celebrities are - they are not mysterious remote figures. A mysterious monarch would be nice but the 1980s arguably put paid to that.

I see what you mean & recognise the value in ceremony. That does not diminish the other issues mentioned though.

Shortshrift, are you a big Walter Bagehot fan? He had good points but 'magic' is not the only thing we should take into account when discussing the monarchy

It's frankly disrespectful to so many Brits who'd like to have a life with the self respect that work brings, supporting their families as well.
Rather than say there's an underclass that is feckless.

Exactly. Labour could also do this regeneration- they need to galvanise themselves (Labour I mean)

They can't do it. Just the mere suggestion not even if actual benefit cuts, but a cut in the rate of rise, provoked a party-wide rebellion amongst backbenchers. Starmer folded.

“According to numerous on-the-street interviews, Brits across the United Kingdom have all come together in the last 36 hours to ask if there's any possible way that Trump could just once more do that thing where he sends in Delta Force commandos to arrest a tyrant.”
…

“I know Venezuela's got oil, but we have neat accents and Benedict Cumberbatch.” 😂

https://babylonbee.com/news/british-ask-if-trump-can-do-that-same-thing-with-keir-starmer/

Yes, lots of leaders try and mold themselves to a type, and in a way most people do this in settings like work to some extent. It flew alright in 2008 for Obama but people's sensitivity to cultural appropriation really went up in the following years. And that tendency to lecture people that a pp noted maybe made it seem worse.

I think the right candidate in the US could be a culturally American black person, or a woman, or even a black woman, today, and I think that was true in 2008. The Democrats have been very poor in choosing candidates recently however, I tend to think that if nothing changes the Republicans might actually have the easier time fielding a good female or black, or for that matter just not white, candidate.

Exactly.

I get the discussion about the symbolism of Royalty, tradition vs the more egalitarian view. That is interesting.

Yet getting rid of the monarchy means elevating our current political class in practice. No-one actually wants to do that. That would be horrifically unpopular.

That is why the Greens generally down play their Republicanism. It isn't relevant or practical to voters who don't think much of politicians in general. Slagging off billionaires that is popular -make it about the Royal rather less so interestingly.

Because think through the implications of President Farage, Starmer, Blair, Corbyn, Boris, Polanski or Sultana. Who really wants that?

How can anything be mysterious when it is hyper analysed and probed 24 hours a day?I'm talking about the inner soul of 'a people', anyway, rathar than the qualities of any actual individual. It is not so much about the person but about their role and its meaning for a group.I'm not a monarchist ( nor a republican) but I don't automatically dismiss its value.

I've never heard of him?

I'd argue that the highlight of the Obama presidency was his actual appointment and the ceremony that accompanied it. Jessie Jackson in tears. The image and symbolism of a black family in the Whitehouse; that change was possible; that anyone could be anything they aspired to be in the U.S.A.

it doesn'thave to be a President Farage, a member of the political class at all. We could do what they do in Ireland.

I suppose, but Irish presidents are almost always superannuated members of the political class. And the last couple haven't been very shy about sticking their oar into political debates.

Importing the Irish system into the UK would mean having a presidency with mostly ceremonial functions, yes, and the president would be someone like Michael Heseltine.

That is a hugely optimistic take.

Our politics and our country are not like Ireland in many ways. We are way way bigger, richer with a large establishment of left and right etc. To get a change to the system requires Parliament to vote it through. They would go for a system that benefits political parties and politicians see how the "reform" of the House of Lords works right now. It makes the political system more powerful, less open to question.

We would end up with something like the French or US system with all its problems because they are countries way more similar to us. Why would anyone vote for that? No-one wants a Trump or Macron style figure in the UK.

Not that I think it is going to happen for that very reason. Because even the mainstream left parties know it is really unpopular and refuse to campaign for it. There are only one set of real political Republicans in the UK and they are in Northern Ireland. The Greens, SNP, Plaid all don't really believe in it.

I certainly don't think whether the UK has a President, and who it should be, is the most pressing questions facing the country.

I suppose it's possible that Sultana has fallen under the influence of the Revolutionary Democratic Group, which would be quite fun as I assumed the RDG was long defunct.

They were an odd little group who broke from the SWP in the early 1980s, and a key part of their critique of their former group was that it was too narrowly focused on trade union struggle, and was neglecting important democratic demands like votes for women, repeal of the Corn Laws, and opposition to the Divine Right of Kings.

They are very silent about the revolutionary movement in Iran to overthrow the Islamofascist regime which, lest we forget, the left supported to the hilt and still do. The reason being that even Ayatollahs are preferable to the evil West.

..and was neglecting important democratic demands like votes for women, repeal of the Corn Laws, and opposition to the Divine Right of Kings.

That relevant, eh? Why did they not have more success?

I agree : but otoh it seems quite a few black people now (as well as other Obama former voters) feel he was a letdown. I think that's a bit harsh but symbolism can't be the major legacy of a strong presidency. Ofc the US President is the leader so very different from simply a symbolic Head of State.

Fair to say plenty of genderwoo came in on Obama's watch?