Why leftist revolutions of the 2010s failed | The New Statesman podcast
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 лют 2024
- From tuition fee protests, the rise and fall of Jeremy Corbyn, and Russell Brand's shift from celebrity to activist to conspiracy theorist. What went wrong?
Subscribe here: / @newstatesman
The 2010s were a decade that many hoped would usher in a new era of leftist revolutions. Yet, as we look back, the question looms large: What went wrong?
In this episode of the podcast Alona Ferber, senior editor, is joined by William Davies, writer and Professor in Political Economy at Goldsmiths, University of London, to look back at the 2010s, the figures, events, and politics that defined this decade - and ask why did the left's aspirations for revolution during the 2010s fall short?
Read William Davies' essay here: www.newstatesman.com/ideas/20...
--
The New Statesman podcast is now on UA-cam. Anoosh Chakelian and New Statesman colleagues including political editor Andrew Marr discuss the latest in UK politics news, helping you understand the forces shaping British politics today.
Watch all the latest episodes of the New Statesman podcast here: • The New Statesman Podcast
--
The New Statesman brings you unrivalled analysis of of the latest UK and international politics. On our UA-cam channel you’ll find insight on the top news and global current affairs stories, as well as insightful interviews with politicians, advisers and leading political thinkers, to help you understand the political and economic forces shaping the world.
With regular contributions from our writers including Political Editor Andrew Marr and Anoosh Chakelian - host of the New Statesman podcast - we’ll help you understand the world of politics and global affairs from Westminster to Washington and beyond.
Subscribe on UA-cam: / @newstatesman
Sign up to Morning Call, the daily UK politics newsletter from the New Statesman: morningcall.substack.com
Subscribe to the New Statesman from just £1 per week: www.newstatesman.com/podcasto...
This made me realise something that is really obvious but, for whatever reason, I had completely overlooked. The 2008 financial crisis was caused by the banks/financial institutions taking stupid amounts of risk in the name of profit. Some collapsed, some needed to be bailed out. Yet if we look at who is suffering today, its the people, not them. They are fine. They recovered and are generating record profits. The recovery has been unequal.
You’re right this is really obvious 😂
they got bailed, subsidised and not prosecuted.
You mean, you didn’t realise it at the time? It was flagrantly obvious - the banks took risks on our behalf, but were shielded from the consequences of the risks they took. And, now, a banker is PM.
@@smashingturnips5353Hot take: I disagree.
Someone who was 8 years old when the financial crash happened - too young to really be paying attention to politics - would be 24 years old now. The Brexit referendum happened when they were 16. Now really is the first time that many of them will be taking stock of what was done to them, or what was taken from them.
It might be obvious to you or me, but there are thousands of people undergoing their political awakening *right now.* I think that's awesome, and I hope it means we've got a bright future ahead of us, with a generation that will be voting progressively for decades to come. Let's not spoil it for them.
@@cinderball1135 what a load of drivel...what was taken from them 😂 this is the exact sort of entitled attitude which has created a generation of whining cry babies
I mean this question is silly very few people wanted a revolution we wanted progressive social democratic reform and a return to systems we've already had in this country like free tuition, publicly run services, an end to austerity and a more Keynesian economic approach which are the policies Corbyn stood on, the fact that is considered revolutionary and radical is just a sad reflection of the rightward shift the uk has been on since 1979.
Well said. Those Corbyn policies scared the crap out of the Tories and they went on TV and said so, on progs such as Newsnight etc. Corbyn was destroyed because of the transformative policies. Once working people saw that we could have what we wanted and easily afford it the Tories knew they could never take us back to Neoliberalism. That's why there is the struggle to keep us in a Neoliberal system because once we leave it we're never going back!
Well said, I completely agree (fellow Lancastrian? ;) )
I love that you don't address any aspect of why the leftists movements failed and instead just lament about how supposedly 'reasonable' and 'not radical' they were.
Cope 101.
I dont believe tuition fees should be free. Sorry
@146mjs Exactly
Man, using Brand for any sort of figurehead or deconstruction is not painting a picture of reality.
@8bvg300 The person who urged people not to vote and then when it was too late, apologised. Gets more and more up his own chocolate whizzway with every utterance.
Indeed, I think he can only be selected as a tool to paint the left as both self-sabotaging AND somehow responsible for right-wing conspiracy. The actuall cause of left wing non revolution must starts with massive sabotage from the center left, that sabotage was most blatantly obvious in the UK where Labor overtly sabotaged it's own head in Corbin while in the US the Democratic party simply ran a standard smear campaign against Sanders before any comperable take over could be achived.
I don't think anyone on the left really saw brand as this.
@@SamHarrisonMusicBrand for a brief time in 2015 was talking the talk, but too reliant on where the wind is blowing had gambled on a plan to sweep in the algorithm to get the typical online right wing audience who are drawn in by reactionary rhetoric and obnoxious attention grabbing (as Cambridge analytics called highly emotive users).
Russel got overcooked while still trying to walk the tightrope, please both sides and have his cake and eat it in a sadly vain attempt to coalesce "both sides". I tried listening to him over COVID lockdowns and was just out off, even if Russel always dropped in an iota of reason (anti racism, necrocapitalism), the rest of his videos were all entertaintment for that reactionary audience who do not want to see anything change other than the disappearance of people of diversity.
Sure Russel should've known that the anti-woke bollocksology has always been artificial and he entertained those viewers' beliefs for years out of fear that they'll ditch him. Russel has also been rather feckless over Israel's genocidal intentions of Palestine
Russell has turned himself into grifter trapped in an algorithm relationship with an insidious conspiracy culture.
whatever you think about him and his grifting, he made a huge impact. Deconstructing that impact is definitely valid
this video really didn’t explain ‘why’ they failed (think using revolution is hyperbolic here). was it that the ideas didn’t resonate with enough people? was it that there were no new ideas or they weren’t deemed viable? was it that there were no compelling leaders? was it the influence of the media? asking genuinely and expected to hear an interesting perspective in this, but it was more a lite run through of the last 14 years of left leaning politics.
The failure was the inability of corbyn and those on the left to take people with them. Corbyn stance on nato and brexit were particularly flawed as was his arrogance. That's coming from someone wjo saw the writing on the wall and voted for him ✌
My personal belief is that the establishment had plenty of ground to give on social issues instead of material ones. The obsession with identity in this era and social performance of virtue took precedence over something like tax policy. We're now at the end of that and both the right and left outside the "mainstream" are demanding protectionism, demanding social funding, tax reform, and higher wages. During the 2010s though there was enough veneer of "social change" to keep the right and left at each others throats over these cultural divisions while the material conditions worsened. I think things were still too good for too many people for a revolution to have an actual chance. As things continue to get worse for more and more, the chance at actual change increases.
@@jacobjones630 agreed. there was very little systemic change, too much focus on window dressing. tax policy is one that would make a substantive difference. and personally i feel the failing of the 'left' in the last decade was their inability to make a compelling case to the wider populous as to why this would be beneficial for us all (even if it meant those who are doing ok, accumulate a little less).
the caliber of the politicians across the political spectrum was pretty poor imo, but in some ways those in opposition need to be ever better to conceive a clear and compelling manifesto and sell that to the country, and sadly they didn't.
@@samsicles_jr I'll also add the the "muscles" of political action on the left had atrophied after decades of US lead Neo-liberalism. People are out of practice in forming political blocks with high participation. You also have to start normalizing ideas that have been basically dead for decades and older people have had drilled into their heads as "bad". The actual policies that would bolster the economy have been demonized for this entire period of 50 years by both parties. I think it'll be a long road of building steam until the next economic crisis allows real political movement and change.
It's pretty obvious, a minority of activists latched hard onto Corbyn reasoning wrongly that Ed Milliband failed as he wasn't socialist enough, when most voters would have trusted David Milliband more as the talented successor seeing Ed as dubious inexperienced usurper beholden to a few Union bosses. Corbyn had serious baggage from his rebel MP days, so a large part of the traditional Labour vote were easily turned against him. Ed Milliband is a far more effective politician with more experience in recent years.
Practical politicians don't ignore the unlevel playing field created by the mostly Tory client press.
Take the lesson from the gradual approach begun by Sir Keith Joseph where the right patiently step by step made a case and won over enough people to roll back socialist ideas.
Few would have agreed at the destination we now see, but a serious Labour project needs patience not ultimately divisive magical revolutionary thinking when the population demographic is aging.
Liberalisation and progressive ideas were natural when a young growing optimistic population had numbers. The headwinds later, with international wealth dominating media and stoking fear gave right wing populism the space to screw the country with their counter factual divisive delusions.
Have we just completely forgotten about the Occupy movement? Surely this was significant and falls into this bucket.
am I the only one who feels none the wiser as to why these so-called (revolutions) failed, having heard this?
No one wanted a revolution. We were all too busy doing the ice bucket challenge and watching Game of Thrones.
Nobody wants a revolution regardless.
Because they neglected that many in the Uk who support economic leftism are socially conservative and instead chose the student vote, concentrated in a small number of seats
People who are left on the economy and socially Conservative are ridiculous. "I want fairer pay for the working class but because some of the working class are brown or trans or speak a different language I'll vote for the Eton Toff"
@@jamesarnold7253 the brown voters are the most small c conservative.
+ Immigration is just capitalism importing an OVER SUPPLY of labour in, which is a race to the bottom particularly for the working class. Oligarchs love immigration.
Capitalism will never invest in training, robotics or increase pay and conditions if it can just fly in labour.
Back in the day the Left understood this, even Bernie Sanders was anti immigration.
Try and think why the party of international finance, the Torys let 1.2 million in.
@@jamesarnold7253the Eton Toff was socially Liberal and pro immigration. Wake up.
@@jamesarnold7253this our ancestral homeland, not an economic zone open to the World in the interests of international finance capitalism.
@@jamesarnold7253 I agree it's ridiculous to change your vote for but I do think around that time a lot of people got sucked into arguing about 'culture war' topics which wasn't productive. I admit it was mainly the right pushing it but it still dragged a lot of the left into identity politics which the majority of the UK doesn't care about or atleast the 'identities' that the left were trying to promote weren't representitive of their traditional base. I think leaders on the left (and sometimes the left in general) would have been better to say something along the lines of this stuff doesn't matter right now instead of fighting every small group's battles on identities. Then again, I do think the right purposefully always brings up these topics in times like this or times where they know they are actively doing things that are against public interest because they know they can always win that argument. The average member of the public really needs journalistic training in schools so we can better see past this rubbish and focus on things that really effect us. The leaders on the left really need to call it out more and a devise a good strategy to nip it in the bud as soon as it appears. Keep the discussion in focus on the things that really matter.
The average age (and income) of voters.
Behind the 2010's revolutions were young people. This is the group that got screwed the most from the Great Recession and austerity. They have worse social mobility and both economic and living standard outcomes than any age cohort the country has seen in decades. However, there are relatively few of them compared to those older. People who benefitted from the days of good union jobs, the home ownership boom under Thatcher & Blair, and enjoyed healthy savings. They were not necessarily (as) hurt from the Recession and austerity.
Calling for renationalization of utilities, free tuition university, and more social housing turned out record levels of young people for Corbyn in 2017 and less but still healthily so in 2019. But they never landed when talking to those older, who make up a way greater % of the voting population.
Spot on, plus there's a class of 18-35 year olds who have become politically uneducated and detached from politics altogether, often never voting at all. Yes they'll take to streets to protest against the formation of a European superleague or know every name of Love Island contestants but are clueless as to who's running the country and often don't care.
Or
People actually alive by 1979 didn't vote for Corbyn's policies of "Wasn't the 70s better than today" because they KNOW it wasn't. But Children did vote for it because they..... read it in a book?
This analysis completely ignores post war years and then gens that suffered under thatcher. Corbyn was too radical for many people and that's how we ended up with brexit and Boris.
Why not make voting mandatory? But with an additional box “none of the above” for those that can’t decide, or who choose not to vote for anyone.That way a younger voter’s voice would stand a better chance of being heard
@@mrsulzer66 yep definitely needs to happen 👍
One might be tempted to propose something the left don't want to hear, that on balance this is a centre right country. After all, our electorate has constantly voted that way. But then you look at how, when people are presented policies in the abstract, they very often tend left. So, for want of a better reading, either the majority are theoretically left, but practically right, because they believe the narrative that progressivism is unaffordable, or the electorate are genuinely manipulated by a radical media and politics - radical in the sense that it's not truly representative - into voting against their own interest. Given that most folk don't even seem to put a few minutes into reading the manifestos, the latter is certainly plausible.
the people are politically eclectic.. they support the Left on economic issues but the Right on immigration, law and order and many (not all) cultural issues
@@dolmen6613 agreed. I'm conservative on certain issues and progressive on others, in an ideal world there would be a party that accurately represented my views but alas..
@@thecrimsondragon9744 - Social Democrat Party
Becaue the majority of voters, despite education, turn up to vote for their own self interest, not society as a whole, so 'i'll let you keep all that inheritance and income and wont give it to some immigrant/hospital/school" keeps working...
Mass immigration is not and never has been in the interests of working people
What do you mean despite education. I don't want any money going to immigrants.
Using a picture of Corbyn next to Brand is low, even for the bloody NS
Both were highlights of the British political left wing in the two halves of the 2010s. Just because Brand is now on the far right doesn't diminish what he was before - just proves the horseshoe theory has merit
@@storm21410brand was never ‘left wing’ by todays definition. He was always anti-establishment, and he still is. The main thing that changed is that in the American political sphere, being anti-establishment changed from being viewed as a left wing position, to a right wing one. What’s amazing is that Brand’s beliefs haven’t actually changed if you compare what he is saying now to what he was saying then, it’s just viewed in a different light.
@@Spengleman2 whilst I agree, when Brand was speaking out initially between 2010-2015, he was associated with the left. His anti-establishment talking points were associated with left wing anger following the financial crisis, and he certainly leaned left by party when voting in 2015. He kept going on about not voting and railing against 'establishment', but he cowed by voting in the end. Brand's beliefs might not have changed itself, but fundamentally I think he's switched from voting for Labour in 2015 to voting for some Trump/Farage figure that is anti-NATO, anti-democratic, anti-vax. I don't think anything else really matters to him
@@storm21410 yeah I think that’s right, he associated with the left because his ideas were welcomed there, these days those same ideas are not welcomed by either party in the UK and there is a big movement in the American right that does welcome those ideas (libertarian, small government, free speech, personal freedom, question authority, ‘conspiracy theory’ ideas) despite tending not to agree with brands ideas about universal acceptance of lifestyle choices etc.
I highly doubt brand is voting for farage or any of that ilk because they completely disagree on social issues and more importantly brand is a revolutionary. He disagrees with the entire system of governance so voting for any party within that system goes against his beliefs. I imagine that he doesn’t vote at all, which checks out considering he has recommended that as a choice for many years.
@@Spengleman2 hmmm I'm unsure if he wouldn't vote for Farage. Other 'revolutionary'-leaning individuals such as Jimmy Dore and Tim Pool were so entrenched within the political left (less so with Tim Pool but his history with Occupy is well-documented), and now they're either eccentric Trump supporters or apologists. In their cases, they blamed the fault of Democrats for losing in 2016 and that blame turned into opposition. I really wouldn't be surprised if Brand did something similar
Because none of them advocated for reduced migration and protection of patriotic British values. These are still incredibly important issues to many people but no leftist movement wants to do them. It’s a shame because we so desperately need a proper left wing economic movement in the UK
Older people are far more likely to vote whereas young people have a bad habit of not voting consistently. Politicians know that the electorate is consistently older and wealthier and appeal to their interests.
We need ...
Right To Vote at 16
Fair (PR) Voting system
Automatic Voter Registration
Public funded political parties
Only a part of the older gens are wealthier
Only a part of the older gens are wealthier
This supposes that older people's interests aren't the same or similar to younger people's. Older people vote Tory because they fear for their pensions and they saw what Labour did to the country last time. Nevertheless, most Tory voters are to the Left of the parliamentary party on economics.
Older people have said to me for years "it's the young I worry about". The only reason we hear so much poison about the older generation is because a) they voted for Brexit and b) they've got pensions and property and the financial class are eyeing what remains of that capital in ordinary people's hands. Be in no doubt, they are not planning on letting this be passed onto to their kids and grandkids and plenty of people will fall for this rhetoric
As the Millennial left who is still concerned about government, i can say. Starmer is NOT getting my vote. I would vote Labour without Corbyn, but not this one. I'm not looking for Tory Lite, I'm voting green.
🤦🏼♂️
Excuse me, it wasn't a 'revolution' - it was the democratic will of the party membership. Democracy doing exactly what it should do, and presenting new ideas, which good god we wish now we'd run with.
2017 General Election Results: Theresa May vs Jeremy Corbin
Popular vote 13,636,684 12,877,918
Percentage 42.3% 40.0%
The narrative that the Tories won the 2017 general election with a landslide has to stop.
It is this narrative that set the wheels in motion for the coup d'état organized by Kier Starmer within Labour against Jeremy Corbin.
This coup d'état has well and truly been documented in the AJ documentary "The Labour Files" for those who have not seen it.
The reason that Labour today has a comfortable lead in the polls, has everything to do with the complete and utter failure of the Tories during the last 4 years and nothing with Kier Starmer.
@SamHarrisonMusic. That is a naive view of how the Party system works, even at local level. Anybody who has been involved with a political Party will soon know how much goes on below the surface.
@@belindamay8063 isn’t this commentary just a way to repackage and sell ideas that were very progressive at the time as dangerous and extreme? As a new party leadership packages supporting a genocide most British people oppose - isn’t that extremist politics?
@@belindamay8063for someone not involved in party politics, what are you referring to? Bureaucracy? Centrally controlled candidate lists? Big egos jostling for power?
Were still waiting for any charges, a shred of evidence, or even an accuser in respect of the rape allegations. That cripples the video immediately.
Funny to see Brand as a leftist considering what's paying his wages these days.
Hilarious to see left wingers shilling for big pharma
Thank you BAE systems for this broadcast
Because papers like yours did not take a stand at the 2017 or 2019 elections?
@menon.anirudh Exactly. There are still some decent journalists on the NS but they don't make enough noise. Peter Wilby's conviction was rather unfortunate for them too..... I liked the articles / columns by Mehdi Hasan and Stephen Bush the best.
I'm mindful that my question will sound facetious, I honestly don't intend it to be; but do you really believe that the words of New Statesman writers would have any impact on the voting habits of, for instance, the red wall voters? Never mind the wider working class vote, and, for want of a better term, the underclass?
Did I miss the bit as to why the revolutions didn’t materialise? Seemed a good synopsis of why people were agitating and disillusioned but not sure it really answered why the various protests did not materialise into something more transformative
Calling these revolutions is just offensive 😂
We need ...
Right To Vote at 16
Fair (PR) Voting system
Automatic Voter Registration
Public funded political parties
Why not the right to vote at age 6?
@algernonsidney8746 Because you can't join the military at 6.
This is bollocks
This was a good descriptive account, but there was not much in the way of analysis i.e. the 'Why' was largely absent. The main answer is: the super-rich, their political representatives (across both main parties), and the press successfully amplified the 'culture war' aspects (Brexit, BLM etc.), to stop us focusing on 'class war' aspects e.g. wealth taxes, redistribution etc.
Uprisings tend to happen when people are at their lowest ebb.
Corbyn/ McDonell wanted to nationalise 10% of company profits on top of increased Corporation Tax and to have 1/3 of the boards as non executive workers. There was no point to this unless it ended up as 51%+ of boards to take control of them. Companies would flee or have secret meetings. I wonder what most workers would talk about on the board? Football, their holidays and whatever was on TV is most likely. Having 1-2 worker or union reps would be reasonable but the proposal would cause the loss of jobs, tax and earnings, as would cause company flight. People were afraid as to how far Corbyn might go and he openly supported Russian secret services from that brutal dictatorship over the UK's, as well as making foolish and damaging comments re Jewish people.
Alot of people are just not as engaged, just waiting to vote the tories out and then see.
It was a joint effort by the media and the establishment. End of video 😂
Labour were big favourites post-1997, the Conservatives were a shambles and everyone knew it. Of course an apparently economically competent Labour government were winning as the Conservatives were a discredited shambles. Guess what in FTP the consequence is low turnout, the fact is a small minority of votes count in elections. It's a mistake to draw conclusions from that, but there were protest movements who would stop traffic but were generally niche, though the fuel price protests did make an impact.
At the time opposition was generally marginalised, the large majorities and easy ride Blair had until after the Iraq war meant all opposition was stymied.
Convenient to forget that Brand changed his mind before the 2015 election and told everybody to vote Labour. So the premise of this entire interview is false. Brand said: “What I heard Ed Miliband say is that if we speak, he will listen. So on that basis, I think we’ve got no choice but to take decisive action to end the danger of the Conservative party."
Which is still the case.
I believe Brand thought that both main parties were basically the same because he is arrogant, lazy, babyish and poorly informed. Then, to his credit, he learnt a little and realised he was wrong. Then admitted it.
14 years of Tory destruction of our public life and the online anti democracy/anti government propaganda goes on and on. Anti Labour lies of both left and right continue even as they contradict each other. At the moment Labour leaders are said to be responsible for the actions of the IDF as well as being controlled by Muslim extremists. It's a flimsy logic.
Best to avoid online trendy twaddle, including the New Statesman, Hamas or Russian bias and follow reputed news outlets with professional journalists. Within mainstream politics there are credible genuine people with integrity. To say all politicians are the same or all bad equates with the ignorant outlook of blinkered racists.
Personally I blame online armchair revolutionary-anarchism for this Tory UK world we're suffering as much as Tory voters themselves.
Of course, the rightwing media, which is all of it, had nothing to do with undermining anything that challenged the status quo.
@hughwilson2219 Including the NS. Their utter lack of support for Labour is why I cancelled my sub in 2017.
2017 General Election Results: Theresa May vs Jeremy Corbin
Popular vote 13,636,684 12,877,918
Percentage 42.3% 40.0%
The narrative that the Tories won the 2017 general election with a landslide has to stop.
It is this narrative that set the wheels in motion for the coup d'état organized by Kier Starmer within Labour against Jeremy Corbin.
This coup d'état has well and truly been documented in the AJ documentary "The Labour Files" for those who have not seen it.
The reason that Labour today has a comfortable lead in the polls, has everything to do with the complete and utter failure of the Tories during the last 4 years and nothing with Kier Starmer.
William Davies giving a superior view on the 2010s
Looks at copy of the Jakarta project
Types, the CIA!
Looks at red dot on chest .
Dies
Very interesting
There were leftist revolutions in the 2010s?
I love how moderate centrism and neo-liberalism is now "leftism" 😂
Why start with this talk of the “allegations” they are just that nothing more. So get on with it
Many reasons such as plenty of Tory smear campaigns, not connecting to the working man and favouring posh students or multiculturalism. On the economy they should have got straight to the point like Max Keiser to gain the older or to appeal to the less reactionary vote. Nevertheless Jeremy would have been a great for the UK.
2017 General Election Results: Theresa May vs Jeremy Corbin
Popular vote 13,636,684 12,877,918
Percentage 42.3% 40.0%
The narrative that the Tories won the 2017 general election with a landslide has to stop.
It is this narrative that set the wheels in motion for the coup d'état organized by Kier Starmer within Labour against Jeremy Corbin.
This coup d'état has well and truly been documented in the AJ documentary "The Labour Files" for those who have not seen it.
The reason that Labour today has a comfortable lead in the polls, has everything to do with the complete and utter failure of the Tories during the last 4 years and nothing with Kier Starmer.
Brand…..seriously !!!
My take is: [1] Large corporate media outlets made a concerted effort to smear and crush staunch Leftist candidates. [2] They were too economically radical for the electorate. For example, most Brits don't want the nationalization of industry. [3] The Left embraced esoteric ideas of identity over material economic issues, which are electorally unpopular and lead to destructive in-fighting.
They don't want nationalization of industry. So they are happier with water and power and rail being run for profit? How's that working out?
Leaders are elected to lead. The good ones lead. Labour ought to try it.
@@richierich7609most people might agree with renationalisation of those industries. But Corbyn wanted too much change, too quickly. Couple that with his ridiculous position on nuclear weapons (keeping Trident system but having no missiles on them for example) and no wonder the electorate didn't want him
@@richierich7609 I actually think most Brits do want water, power, and rail re-nationalized. And I would agree. Because those are natural monopolies by virtue of geography.
But I remember Corbyn went beyond that and announced the nationalization of things like broadband for no good reason.
Public wanted nationalisation of water, power. rail & mail and they still do today.
90% of those "esoteric ideas" eg 'woke' are made up by right wing stenographers, in order to have a bogey man to beat the left with. Most people don't care about woke...they care about their bills, kids, family etc etc. Because Tories can't and won't fix these things they have to have a bogey man to distract people.
@@andybrice2711 I think nationalisation of broadband makes sense because it's a necessity (let's be honest, if you want to function in the 2020s it just is). Therefore, it makes sense to run it so that profits are invested in upgrading and maintaining connectivity rather than paying out to shareholders. But all people cared about was how much it would cost. After four and a half decades of Thatcherism, we understand the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
Corbyn was scuppered by the Labour right wing
@keithparker. Corbyn was unprepared and badly equipped. After all those years in politics too.!
@@belindamay8063 yes but he still had Starmerites battling him as well as the Tories
The two idiots you used in your thumbnail are a pretty good clue as to why "things failed."
They where really bad at politics
They were never going to be alowed to win.
Brand was never a clever person.
Brand wasn't a serious figure on the left, never voted and was clearly just playing a game so why the focus? Just a stand-up celeb, darling of the centre-left media for a short period and a known creep. A pseudo-revolutionary and these people know that but just love someone to partly hang their hairbrained headlines and book ideas on. Pretty lame but makes sense with Marr and his reliably gushing support for Starmer. New Labour. New Statesman. Old bs.
The media
I’d like to say that Corbyn neglected general policy, and bread and butter issues…..
Depends what you think 'bread and butter' issues are. Minimum wage, NHS/essential public services, curbing the power of corporate interests, could all be considered bread and butter issues.
Corbyn’s politics only represented around 10% of the electorate hence why he was never successful on both occasions (2017 and 2019).
I don't know how you came to a figure of 10%? Labours vote share in 2015 was 40%, and in 2019 is was 32% (give or take a 0.x of a percentage). I'd say there's more support for corbynism than you think. But as most Labour voters are in densely populated areas, they vote doesn't mean as much.
@@jamesclarke5331 I was referring specifically to Corbyn’s politics and not Labour as a whole. You could have still voted for Labour but not necessarily subscribed to Corbynism per say.
@@kayedal-haddad9294 but why would you vote for policies that you don't agree with?
@@jamesclarke5331 because you would rather vote for a party that you have say been a lifelong member of (despite disagreeing with the leader), than vote for another party like the Tories - having said that though, that happened in 2019 in the so-called Red Wall seats: when millions of Labour voters switched to the Conservatives.
@kayedal-haddad9294 Wrong - as a constituency MP has held a large majority most of the time since 1983 when he was first elected there, as party leader won by landslide majority votes in all attempts to dislodge him 2015+ and in the 2017 election (40% of the vote as opposed to 42% for the Tories) Corbyn garnered more votes since the Attlee Govt of 1945 when returning soldiers from WW2 and their families booted Churchill out. The daily smear campaigns for the years leading up to both elections didn't help - some carried out by part of the current Labour party (Reeves, Starmer etc). The 'establishment' was scared stiff of him and that is why they made sure he didn't win. Our loss, we won't get another chance for a long time, if ever. I voted Labour and was a Party Member, but left after Starmer kicked RLB as I could see where it was headed. I'll be voting to keep the Tories out, but the parliamentary constituency I now live in was one of the safest Tory seats for years. I'll be voting for the encumbent Lib-Dem who is centre-left.
Scotland Wales and England are welcome to join the EU 🎉😂❤ to improve economy 😮😅😊
This is bullshit propaganda, what a surprise 😮
Cause people are dumb.
Except that antisemitism was not any more prevalent in Corbyns party than any other party. Perhaps you could explain this to the audience. The evidence is there. To hear you describe socially progressive policies expoused by Corbyns party as "populist" is insulting and indicates your cynacism.
cynicism, Corbyn's
That has been debunked sooo many times.
Older ppl are more right wing.
@terrancehall9762 Depends where you look. I'm 77 soon and have never been right-wing. Generalisations like yours don't help.
@@secondtimearound2539Indeed he should have said that old people are conceted and hostile to the youth, then he would have INCLUDED you too a tee.
@@secondtimearound2539 it is still a fact whether you like it or not. Deal with reality instead of being mad when someone calls it out.
@@kennethferland5579Did you mean 'conceited'? I'm not, neither am I hostile to 'the youth', although I get disappointed by them when they don't protest more than they do. You are both hostile and rude in your comment btw :)
@@terrancehall9762 The tone of my comment was hardly 'being mad'. Deal with reality? Nah, I'd rather help to change it for all instead of accept 2nd or 3rd best thanks.
They failed because they're often full of cranks.
Hats off for referencing Novara as a media oulet with a straight face
They failed in part due to your awful reporting. Traitors.
Because liberal media outlets like this one kicked it to death
What left are you on about? There never been a real left in the UK.
I think the best we can hope for is a return to Atlee-esque pro-investment politics that nationalise essential public functions and keep a tighter reign on the excesses of the private sector. Not that I think we'll get that under New-New Labour.
@@DanKeatis for a very long time, I paid a subscription for the Newstatesman, and if was informative, but they didn't like my comments, because I shot holes in them. Bremmer who still scribbles for the Fail and some drivel in the NS just after the August 2007 market wobble. I commented, and told Bremmer, to own up, and tell the truth about what's really coming, because I knew they were going to crash the financial system, by design. There were other run ins, so the banned me, a paying reader. This was not long after that tw@t Robinson took over. What a bent customer he was. I even contacted the EDITOR, and he had no idea why I had been banned.
Now we are many, many years down the sh!t pipe, and everything is much worse. If fact, so bad, this country will be as poor as Portugal. The UK is literally sliding down the pan. This channel asks for questions, but they can't tackle a relevant question if their fat arses depended on it.
Back to 2008, and the designed financial collapse. The UK deep state was hacking traders screens, with false falling prices, so traders followed the trend, and more fake prices were loaded into the trading systems. On one Monday morning, a bank was ruined by midday, and Brown tried illegally to sell this bank. The previous week, the weekend, and on that Monday morning, there had been zero stories about this bank, good, or bad.
💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤💤
Boring academic lefty interviewed by woke lefty about something that never happened! Terrific!