爱吱声

标题: 英国左派：主流化还是边缘化？ [打印本页]

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-13 04:34
标题: 英国左派：主流化还是边缘化？
本帖最后由晨枫于 2015-9-12 16:32 编辑

英国工党选举结束，Jeremy Corbyn当选，成为英国的正式反对党领袖。这是英国100年来首次出现国家主流政治中的极左领袖。

Jeremy Corbyn

66岁的Jeremy Corbyn是英国政坛老将了，在工党内都是“永久牌搅屎棍”，从来没有进入主流。在历届工党政府里，他从来没有担任过任何职位，而且他在议会里投票反对工党政策至少500次，反对保守党政策就不用提了，差不多是一个“职业反对派”。但这次工党内部大选，Corbyn以60%的高票，很耐人寻味。Corbyn在左翼的工党里也是左翼，他的政治纲领主要有：

1、增加对富人的征税
2、重新对部分行业国有化，尤其是公共事业，如铁路、水电，不知道是不是包括电信
3、结束医卫的私人企业化
4、免费公共教育（不知道是否包括大学）
5、反对大资本，反对紧缩经济政策，主张“要增长，反紧缩”，用大规模公共投资拉动经济，增加就业
6、反对战争，尤其是强烈反对伊拉克战争
7、反对核武器，主张英国无核化
8、反对北约，主张改革北约，推动“去侵略性”，甚至英国退出北约
9、主张多接受难民
10、主张拥抱北爱、穆斯林、哈马斯、真主党等“异类”
11、反对欧盟过于倾向大资本，但主张英国留在欧盟
12、主张环保、绿色
13、反对君主立宪制，主张取消王室

Jeremy Corbyn的父亲是电气工程师，母亲是数学老师，两人在西班牙内战中相遇相爱而结婚。Jeremy Corbyn从小就坚信社会主义理念，1983年34岁时，当选英国议会议员，一直到现在。

BBC中文对他有一段介绍：

英国工党党内“长期反对派”，40余年如一日“反战，反对君主立宪制，主张国有化，主张社会主义”的杰雷米·科尔宾9月12日以近60%得票的压倒优势当选党魁，使他一跃成为英国选举历史上最大的“黑马”。

对于工党内外批评他的人来说，这个蓄须、不修边幅的66岁“老左派”当选党魁，必然会把中间左翼的工党拉回到1980年代的纯左翼意识形态时期，也因而将长期失去赢得大选的能力。可是对于那些以空前热情支持科尔宾当选的近50万工党支持者来说，这个表里如一的“老实人”将激发更多人对改变国家走向和改变未来的热情，将为英国人指引一条与主张自由市场经济的撒切尔主义截然不同的，主张社会主义的新道路。

在此次党魁大选前，工党议会议员中政策立场与科尔宾一致的左派代表人物已经所剩无几，只剩下戴安娜·阿博特和约翰·麦克唐纳。科尔宾和两三个“坚定的社会主义者”多年来一直在工党党内反对前首相布莱尔和布朗推行的更加贴近中间路线的“新工党”政策。年过花甲的科尔宾在党魁选举中出人意料地激发了大量左翼选民的热情。在参选初始，几乎没有人相信科尔宾可能当选。即使是科尔宾本人也在接受左翼报纸《卫报》采访时表示，他参选的目的是帮助“拓宽工党党内的政策辩论领域”。他当时还幽默地说：“阿博特和麦克唐纳都已经竞选过了，这次该轮到我了。”他还说：“都我这把年纪了，不大可能长期竞选吧？”

然而，谁也没有想到，这位最初被多数人视为“陪练”的左派老将，在竞选途中竟出人预料地激发了工党支持者的热情。他充满激情的讲演吸引了数以千计的听众；他反紧缩、反资本主义、反战的演说，竟然使他成为民调领先者。很多评论人比喻他这位年过花甲的政坛元老一夜间成为英国左翼政坛的“摇滚新星”。

熟悉科尔宾的工党人士介绍说，尽管他出身富庶，却因为秉信社会主义而成为英国政坛出了名的勤俭人物。他在所有议员中，公费报销的账单数目通常是最低的。以勤俭出名的科尔宾议员，不但素食不饮酒，还常年坚持骑车上班。他曾在接受《卫报》采访时解释说：“我不爱花钱。我生活很简单。我没汽车。我骑脚踏车上班。”特别是对于那些战后左翼“嬉皮士”一代来说，科尔宾是少数几个发誓从没有吸过大麻的人。

科尔宾从1966年起，一直是反核组织CND成员。1983年他首度代表工党当选为议会下院议员，但是从那时起就几乎很少在政策问题上与工党中央保持过一致。同年，他邀请曾被看作“恐怖主义者”的北爱新芬党领导人亚当斯到伦敦访问英国议会。科尔宾1983年与爱尔兰共和军领导人合影，1985年在煤矿工人大罢工高峰时期，邀请罢工工人进入议会大厦。1984年因领导在南非大使馆前的反种族隔离示威游行而一度被捕。他还长期高调反对伊拉克战争，支持包括哈马斯在内的巴勒斯坦人组织。他也长期高调参与同性恋、双性恋、变性者，以及几乎一切边缘社团权益的斗争。

科尔宾的多数政治立场即使在工党内部都是充满争议的。他多次公开批评工党前党魁布莱尔的伊拉克政策，指责布莱尔帮助布什发动了“非法战争”。
他还说：“他（布莱尔）是不是应该受审？很可能。”科尔宾长期反核、反战，并呼吁英国退出北约。在对四频道电视新闻谈到贫富差距时，他说：“富豪们真的为自己富有而感到高兴吗？我要让他们考虑到社会其他人的需要，让社会分享他们应该支付的那份财富。”当被BBC记者问到对卡尔·马克思的看法时，他说：“他（马克思）是个很有意思的人物；他博览广读，有很多值得我们学习的东西。”在国有化问题上，他在接受共产党报纸《晨星》采访时说：“没有例外，电力、煤气、铁路等英国主要的基础设施网络都是二战之后依靠公共资金建立起来的，后来都在撒切尔和马卓安（保守党政府）期间被廉价出卖给贪婪的追求利润的私营企业。”他还坚决反对英国继续保留核武器，君主立宪制，并多次对爱尔兰共和军、哈马斯等被多数西方政府看作恐怖主义武装的表示同情。

两次离婚的科尔宾，如今与第三任妻子一起生活；他与前二任妻子生有三个儿子。根据《卫报》记者报道称，科尔宾是个坚定不移的素食主义者，而且从不饮酒；他最喜欢的食品是阿拉伯鹰嘴豆泥（hummus）。
业余爱好：长跑、骑车、板球，和英超阿森纳足球俱乐部。
文艺喜好：喜欢爱尔兰诗人威廉·巴特勒·叶芝（WB Yeats），尼日利亚作家钦努阿·阿切比，经典老片《卡萨布兰卡》。
外语：纯熟西班牙语。

1984年的Corbyn就是左翼形象，保留至今。他的言行一致在如今政坛里少见

Corbyn常年骑自行车上下班，号称没有汽车

有人开玩笑，把Corbyn的头像弄到邮票上，看起来很像一回事，比所有已知英国政治家更有明星气质

工党是英国主要政党之一，在布莱尔到布朗时代曾连续13年当政，现在是议会主要反对党。Corbyn当选工党领袖，对英国政治的影响深远，如何解读是一个大问题。

从撒切尔以来，英国政治向右转。保守党自然是右派，但工党也转向中间路线，尤其以布莱尔和布朗为代表。右倾政治注重大资本利益，用国内社会经济结构的“雁行模式”拉动经济发展，但现在造成严重的贫富分化问题，而且中下层缺乏缺乏上升通道。2008年经济危机以来的经济政策进一步向大资本倾斜，平民生活日渐艰难，无法从表面的经济复苏中得益。但这是累计问题的爆发，而不是问题的开始。两党竞选纲领都向中间路线靠，但实际上谁都没有有效的办法，英国在眼睁睁地滑入二流国家。2014年卡梅伦访华期间，英国民间对中国把英国看成二流国家很是不满，但心里暗暗承认，很着急。Jeremy Corbyn是一个很有演说才能和号召力的人，个人操守方面也言行一致几十年如一日，只是多年来他的政纲得不到呼应。在中左、中右都不管用的现在，撒切尔的极右已经臭大街了，何不让极左试试？或许这是Jeremy Corbyn当选工党领袖的大背景。

在更大范围的欧洲，希腊的齐普拉斯当选和西班牙Pademos党的勃兴也反应了极左思潮的兴起。有意思的是，加拿大正在大选期间，极左的新民党NDP在民调中领先。如果当选，这将是加拿大历史上第一次。加拿大最红脖子的Alberta省已经选出NDP省政府，这是Alberta历史上第一次，以前从来不被认为根本存在这样的可能性，但现在发生了。各国的极左背景不同，但在政纲上出奇地相似，支持的族群构成也出奇地相似，都是草根、中低收入的大多数。

另一方面，在上次欧洲议会的大选中，右翼政党也是攻城略地，反欧盟力量夺取空前数量的席位。在叙利亚难民大潮的冲击下，欧洲政治不是在左右之间摇摆，而是在左右之间分化，双方冲撞可能会激烈化。

但Jeremy Corbyn只是当选英国工党领袖，不是当选英国首相。在上次大选中，工党遭到重挫，保守党得以组织多数党政府，而不是上一届卡梅伦的少数党联合政府。Corbyn当选代表工党向左转，但这是代表了英国政治大潮，还是工党在大选失败后绝望中的举动，现在还难说。Corbyn当选工党领袖后，甚至有工党高层辞去影子内阁（这是英国议会政治的特色，反对党组成影子内阁，指派各部对应的党内负责人，主管有关事务）职务的事情，表示工党内部对向左转还是继续中左路线也有争议。工党向左转也可能是英国政治流向的意外支流，在自我边缘化后最终放弃极左，这个可能性也是存在的。加拿大安大略省在90年代经济萧条中NDP曾经上台主政，结果用公共开支拉动经济的做法彻底失败，安大略经济全面滑坡，NDP从此在安大略政治中臭了大街，自我边缘化后，至今远离省政治中心。但英国工党是传统主流大党，代表英国政治的半壁江山，英国政治左右分裂看来是一个值得注意的动向。

上一次欧洲政治左右严重分化是在两次大战之间。那也是经济低迷、社会上充满迷茫的时代，左右分裂最终导致强力冲撞，爆发大战。相反，在经济强劲、社会安宁、人心稳定的时代，各国政治趋向于在中左、中右之间小幅振荡。欧洲经济在短时间内难以走出阴影。一方面欧洲经济结构性问题在2008年后没有解决（美国也一样），复苏乏力，希腊危机和难民危机也实质性地增加了以德国为首的传统经济火车头的负担，拉了欧洲经济的后腿，美国和中国现在也都遇到经济困难，无力从外部拉动欧洲经济复苏。经济低迷是政治动荡的土壤，欧洲向何处去，有待关注。

作者: 橡树村 时间: 2015-9-13 04:40
他这些观点，当反对派容易，执政了实行不了几个。工党这是打算长期党反对派了？

到下次大选估计就要换人了吧。

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-13 04:44

橡树村发表于 2015-9-12 14:40
他这些观点，当反对派容易，执政了实行不了几个。工党这是打算长期党反对派了？

到下次大选估计就要换人了 ...

这是一些评论家的观点。但工党内60%高票当选使得这种观点的可靠性成问题。

作者: 老兵帅客 时间: 2015-9-13 05:38
他的未来如何取决于两点，英国贫富两极分化有多严重，和外来亚非移民占选民比例如何。假如回答分别是严重和比较高的话，左翼是有机会的，其机会在于阶级对立。

作者: 王不留 时间: 2015-9-13 07:07
这个要支持。。看看他的政治倾向，如果工党执政，试试看的话，英国就真的会把以前欠的债都还了吧。。。哈哈哈哈哈。

作者: 龙血树 时间: 2015-9-13 07:20
确实很帅，颜应该也能帮助拉票吧

作者: 橡树村 时间: 2015-9-13 07:39

晨枫发表于 2015-9-13 04:44
这是一些评论家的观点。但工党内60%高票当选使得这种观点的可靠性成问题。 ...

现在是对中间派两边不得罪的政治正确反感的年代，普通选民这个情绪需要发泄，会倾向一些极端观点的。

但是极端观点的解决不了问题，有执政的机会就会现原形的。

作者: 燕庐敕 时间: 2015-9-13 08:30

橡树村发表于 2015-9-13 07:39
现在是对中间派两边不得罪的政治正确反感的年代，普通选民这个情绪需要发泄，会倾向一些极端观点的。

但 ...

他的这些政策课实施性都不高。

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-13 08:48

王不留发表于 2015-9-12 17:07
这个要支持。。看看他的政治倾向，如果工党执政，试试看的话，英国就真的会把以前欠的债都还了吧。。。哈哈 ...

如果工党能执政，那英国政治风向就真是大转了。

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-13 08:51

橡树村发表于 2015-9-12 17:39
现在是对中间派两边不得罪的政治正确反感的年代，普通选民这个情绪需要发泄，会倾向一些极端观点的。

但 ...

选民对政治正确、空洞承诺但什么实事也干不了的“传统政治”已经厌倦了，对政客的表里不一也厌倦了，Corbyn这样的理想主义者反而成了异类。但他的政见在很多方面都没有可实现性，问题是一旦有执政机会，或者有影响执政的机会，造成的危害不是“现原形”的问题，后遗症要很多年才能消化。安大略NDP的后遗症20年后还没有完全消化掉，现在Alberta还有一批当年因为NDP而“逃”出来的人。

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-13 08:52

燕庐敕发表于 2015-9-12 18:30
他的这些政策课实施性都不高。

关键要看英国选民是否给他一个实现的机会。台湾民进党不是上台了吗？当年人们也认为民进党的台独纲领太极端，执政无望。

作者: 燕庐敕 时间: 2015-9-13 09:52

晨枫发表于 2015-9-13 08:52
关键要看英国选民是否给他一个实现的机会。台湾民进党不是上台了吗？当年人们也认为民进党的台独纲领太极 ...

民进党是上台了，但是台独还是可实施性不高---只能嘴炮，不能真的做。当然，玩点小伎俩总还是能的。

工党极左翼也是类似。

作者: holycow 时间: 2015-9-13 12:09

晨枫发表于 2015-9-12 12:44
这是一些评论家的观点。但工党内60%高票当选使得这种观点的可靠性成问题。 ...

这次新加入工党投票的人占选票的差不多2/3，基本是冲着支持这老头去的。而议会党团里支持他的只有1/10。

你可以说工党议员和草根脱节，可是议会大选才是几个月前的事情，这些议员怎么选上去的？其实只能说明他的支持者到了大选的选区里马上会被沉默的大多数淹没，只有党内选举才能发力搞出这种惊奇来。

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-13 12:45

holycow 发表于 2015-9-12 22:09
这次新加入工党投票的人占选票的差不多2/3，基本是冲着支持这老头去的。而议会党团里支持他的只有1/10。
...

这也是完全可能的。所以这件事还真费点解读呢。英国现在新移民也不少，他们的投票力量不可忽视。另外，英国年轻人中间就业也成问题，前几年查尔斯王子和卡米拉的座车被人丢鸡蛋，也是撞上了年轻人在示威，也是99% vs 1%。Corbyn在这方面并不是没有号召力的。

作者: 楚天 时间: 2015-9-13 12:46
最后一条纲领把俺吓了一跳

作者: 橡树村 时间: 2015-9-13 16:33

晨枫发表于 2015-9-13 08:51
选民对政治正确、空洞承诺但什么实事也干不了的“传统政治”已经厌倦了，对政客的表里不一也厌倦了，Corb ...

有一些教训，不自己体会一下是不知道厉害的。了解教训的那一代人已经老了，要轮到新一代重新接受教训了。

现在整个欧洲都有极左倾向，不是个别国家的问题。

作者: Dracula 时间: 2015-9-13 17:27
Jeremy Corbyn的政治主张还包括退出欧盟。他主张大幅度增加政府开支及福利，按他的规划仅仅增加富人的税收上来的钱根本不够用，他又不主张对中产阶级增税，他的解决方案是People's QE，也就是取消英格兰银行的独立地位，通过印钱、通货膨胀来支付政府开支。仅仅就是这一项我估计就会吓跑很多普通选民。

我在网上看了一下，英国的媒体不管左中右，都一致认为2020年大选工党会惨败。就是Jeremy Corbyn的支持者都不认为他能在2020年成为首相。因此只要未来几年英国经济不遭到希腊那样的毁灭性打击，他的这套马克思主义的政治理念能被实施的可能性几乎为零。Corbyn的支持者明知他领导的工党会输还对他那么有热情，是因为布莱尔派将工党大幅度向右移，基本上是英国政治中间的位置，对工党的左派来说这么做即使能取得权力，也和保守党没有多少差别，是Tory Lite。现在选择意识形态上纯洁的Corbyn，就是不能取得权力，通过他们的讨论能把英国的政治中心向左移。我读到的就是英国中间偏左的媒体都对这很怀疑。

Corbyn当选对英国政治的负面影响是工党议员本来普遍支持欧盟，而Corbyn则反欧盟，接下来英国对欧盟投票时工党的立场变得不确定，英国离开欧盟的可能性增加。另外工党不再是credible opposition，会让保守党失去外部监督的压力，说不定会往右转，而且没了工党的威胁，保守党内可能会因为争权夺利，出现内斗。

作者: 鳕鱼邪恶 时间: 2015-9-13 20:11
耳等这些右派~

社会矛盾上升则左派上升，自然规律吖~

支持左派~

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-13 21:18

橡树村发表于 2015-9-13 02:33
有一些教训，不自己体会一下是不知道厉害的。了解教训的那一代人已经老了，要轮到新一代重新接受教训了。 ...

感觉是极左和极右都在增长。正是这种分化才是最可怕的。民主碰到高度分裂的社会也是一筹莫展。

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-13 21:30

Dracula 发表于 2015-9-13 03:27
Jeremy Corbyn的政治主张还包括退出欧盟。他主张大幅度增加政府开支及福利，按他的规划仅仅增加富人的税收 ...

十分同意这些理性的分析，要我也是这么认为，只是有一个但是……工党作为主流政党，做出这样非理性的选择，这到底是代表了英国的民意，还是只是工党内的“党意”？作为主流政党，主动选择边缘化（而且是很远的边缘化）是很不可思议的事情。英国媒体的这种解读到底是出于对英国民意的理解，还是处于习惯思维？值得注意的是，英国媒体在工党竞选期间对于Corbyn出任工党领袖的分析和预测也是错误的。

工党在理念上或许不再是credible opposition，但在议会席位上还是毫无疑问的official opposition。对保守党的压力到底是增加，还是减少，还要观察。可以肯定的是，Corbyn的工党会把英国的政治斗争推到新的层次，而不再是Miliband兄弟那种温吞水opposition。

Corbyn的激进政见在英国主流民众中的呼应也有待观察。年轻人未必不会投他的票，前几年学费示威时就有左转倾向。另外，传统上比工党更左的自由民主党（上一届和Cameron组成联合政府的那个）有可能会与工党靠拢甚至吸收，大大加强左翼的影响。

个人不认为Corbyn上台的影响可以轻易被write off。

作者: 走南闯北 时间: 2015-9-13 23:21

晨枫发表于 2015-9-13 21:18
感觉是极左和极右都在增长。正是这种分化才是最可怕的。民主碰到高度分裂的社会也是一筹莫展。 ...

说道这个，以前在米国学校里上课，一教线性规划的教授不知怎么发了句感慨，说俺们的社会正在polarize。那还是小布什当政的时候。现在看看，政客们为了自己的选票和党内支持，左的越左，右的越右。

说是民主，其实是专制啊。左派上台对右派（和中间派）专制。右派上台反之。

沉默的大多数还真的是“大多数”吗？

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-13 23:26

走南闯北发表于 2015-9-13 09:21
说道这个，以前在米国学校里上课，一教线性规划的教授不知怎么发了句感慨，说俺们的社会正在polarize。那 ...

还记得我说过的民主三要素吗？

- 主流民意不存在根本分歧
- 少数服从多数，不暗地捣乱破坏
- 执政的多数尊重少数利益，不侵害少数利益

这三点做不到的话，民主就难以成功。主流民意polarized而且entrenched就破坏了民主得以成功的基本条件。西方正在走这条道路。

作者: 走南闯北 时间: 2015-9-13 23:40

晨枫发表于 2015-9-13 23:26
还记得我说过的民主三要素吗？

- 主流民意不存在根本分歧

不说焦头烂额的欧洲，就说美国，这三条哪条符合？！ ObamaCare就一典型例子。

不过你这三要素难啊，就第一条估计都要等到帝国成立以后啦。话说科幻小说里不都是民主联盟崩溃然后帝国建立吗。

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-13 23:42

走南闯北发表于 2015-9-13 09:40
不说焦头烂额的欧洲，就说美国，这三条哪条符合？！ ObamaCare就一典型例子。

不过你这三要素难啊，就第 ...

是啊，主流民意的分裂和固化是当前民主的大难，而民主和凝聚民意的失败导致民意的进一步分裂和固化。这是危险的循环。

作者: Dracula 时间: 2015-9-14 00:52
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2015-9-14 00:59 编辑

晨枫发表于 2015-9-13 21:30
十分同意这些理性的分析，要我也是这么认为，只是有一个但是……工党作为主流政党，做出这样非理性的选择 ...

绝大多数的工党议员都反对Corbyn上台。他们是搞职业政治的，要现实的多，最重要的是保住自己的席位，然后是获得权力，原则其次。要是Corbyn的那一套能在大选里拉到选票的话，会有好多人去支持的。而不是象现在shadow cabinet纷纷辞职，他连组成一个新的班子都有困难。辞职的那些人（包括我读的那本恩格斯传记的作者Tristram Hunt）是爱惜羽毛，留在他的shadow cabinet的话，就要在公开采访的时候支持他的各项决定，象他的政策提议退出北约，放弃核武器，people's QE，沾上边的话会彻底毁了政治声誉，即使Corbyn下台后工党改变政策，进入他的shadow cabinet的这些人在政治上也可以说会永世不得翻身。

英国今年5月的大选，Ed Milliband领导的工党意外惨败，Ed Milliband的政策在英国已经挺左的了，但大多数的英格兰选民就是对左派天生不信任。大选后，大多数的评论分析是工党要想夺回权力必须要回到中间，但是工党内左派的看法是这一次失利不是因为太左，而是左的不够，即使是Ed Milliband也还是Tory Lite，选民既然能选Tory（保守党），为什么要选Tory Lite呢？因此必须要跟保守党完全不一样，完全回到工党的原则。我读到的就是偏左的媒体象Guardian，Independent都认为这一说法是fantasyland。Corbyn的当选对保守党来说是不可思议的好的消息，估计现在在唐宁街里庆祝呢。工党中几乎所有的重要人物，像以前的领袖Blair，Brown，Michael Foote，都认为Corbyn当选对工党来说会是毁灭性的灾难，至少未来10年估计翻不了身。他们都试图干预，但是没能成功。布莱尔是英国历史上唯一连续3次赢得大选的工党领袖，他对英国政治、选民想要什么的理解，我觉得现在的英国没有几个人能超过。不过因为伊拉克战争，他在工党内名声很不好，他的干预很可能还起了副作用。

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-14 01:19
本帖最后由晨枫于 2015-9-13 11:21 编辑

Dracula 发表于 2015-9-13 10:52
绝大多数的工党议员都反对Corbyn上台。他们是搞职业政治的，要现实的多，最重要的是保住自己的席位，然后 ...

问题也正在这里：选Corbyn上台是anti-establishment的guesture，而这些工党议员代表的正是establishment，是选Corbyn上台的人所不屑的。这是ideology vs politics的争斗，而人们对politics厌倦了。工党回到中间路线确实有Tory Lite的问题，但Tory不是没有问题的，因为Tory对英国的困境也没有解决的办法，否则早就没有工党什么事了。现在很多西方国家政党都一样，往中间靠，争取更多的选民，但在执政理念上不光趋同，而且都没有恢复可持续发展的有效策略，都只是在开阿司匹林的短期处方，而且谁都知道这一点。

这就是民主的纠结了。一方面，人民做主；另一方面，人民需要“有远见、有执行力的领袖”的点拨，而西方现在缺乏这样的领袖。人民需要political leader，not political manager。后者在“已经在路上”的时候最合适，而前者是十字路口最需要的。西方各国都不同程度地正在十字路口上。布莱尔的干预效果不仅与他的名声有关，还与你说的“既然能选Tory（保守党），为什么要选Tory Lite”有关，关键还是在于没有清晰的政治路线。布莱尔战略是有效的选举战略，但现在选民对选举战略已经厌倦，他们需要的是实质内容。在没有其他政治领袖能提供这样的实质内容的时候，就是Corbyn了。

作者: Dracula 时间: 2015-9-14 01:38

晨枫发表于 2015-9-14 01:19
问题也正在这里：选Corbyn上台是anti-establishment的guesture，而这些工党议员代表的正是establishment ...

会在工党领导人选举里投票的，都是在政治上特别积极的，有些还是托派分子，不是普通英国人的样本。

David Cameron的选举战略其实跟布莱尔差不多，都是占领中间。因此选民谈不上厌倦这一策略。英格兰的主流民意就是中间偏右，左派要想得到权力就必须要接受这个现实。

关于Tory，Tory Lite的指责，我读到的好多评论都指出，Corbyn要是想团结工党里的温和派的话，就必须要在很多原则问题上妥协，比如他要是坚持将退出北约变为工党政策的话，工党很可能会分裂。但是他妥协的话，他那些意识形态纯洁的支持者很可能也会指责他是Tory Lite。因此大多数评论认为他干不到2020年。但是即使就是2，3年他对工党这个brand带来的损害很可能让工党在10几年内都会翻不过身来。

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-14 02:49

Dracula 发表于 2015-9-13 11:38
会在工党领导人选举里投票的，都是在政治上特别积极的，有些还是托派分子，不是普通英国人的样本。

Davi ...

大概我基本上算中右或者较右（应该还不算极右），我也不喜欢Corbyn的极左政策。但我不认为Corbyn的当选可以被轻易write off。现在很多都只是猜想，2020年不遥远，到时候再看吧。我也不希望欧洲政治走向极左或者极右，两者都是危害很大，但有时候不由我们喜欢或者不喜欢而决定。我还不喜欢Alberta的NDP呢，但他们上台了，现在联邦NDP都领先，说不定加拿大会出现第一个联邦级NDP政府。

作者: Dracula 时间: 2015-9-14 03:25

晨枫发表于 2015-9-14 02:49
大概我基本上算中右或者较右（应该还不算极右），我也不喜欢Corbyn的极左政策。但我不认为Corbyn的当选可 ...

这篇评论来自Daily Telegraph，Telegraph 属于中间偏右的报纸。

The day the Labour Party died

Labour members didn't want to keep the flame alive and fight. They wanted to see their party go out in a final blaze of uncompromising glory

By Dan Hodges 11:44AM BST 12 Sep 2015

In affectionate remembrance of the Labour Party, which died at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, Westminster, on 12 September, 2015. Deeply lamented by a large circle of sorrowing friends and acquaintances. R.I.P. The body will be cremated, and the ashes taken to Islington.

It’s possible to look at the positives, because there are positives. Change has come to one of the two great establishment parties. Real change, not that plastic “hopey, changed stuff” so beloved of spin doctors, politicians and commentators. A genuine buzz and excitement has surrounded the election of a British political leader. OK, it may have been confined to people who already take a close interest in politics. But they have chosen to become active participants, rather than mute observers. And this is a genuinely historic moment. A watershed event. What happened here today will have an impact on our national life for years, probably decades, to come.

Enough of the positives. The election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party is a catastrophe. A catastrophe for the Labour Party. A catastrophe for our political system. A catastrophe for the country.

Let us close our ears for a moment to the cheers of the Labour diehards, and those gushing about a new period of hope, and Left-wing renewal. And instead, let’s just open our eyes.

The Labour Party has again managed to elect a leader who is unelectable. Who before he has even uttered a word, or announced a single new policy, has robbed his party of any prospect of victory at the next general election. Yes, it’s true Labour already had a mountain to climb in 2020. But what it has just done is effectively say to its Sherpa: “we’d like you to take us to the top of Everest. And we’d like you to do it whilst wearing this hood, and carrying this grand piano on your back”. And then, for good measure, they’ve broken both of his legs.

To know just how unelectable Jeremy Corbyn is, don’t listen to his critics, but listen to his supporters. Yesterday I did the Daily Politics program with the Guardian’s Zoe Williams.

Could Jeremy Corbyn be elected prime minister, she was asked. This was her instinctive, verbatim, response: “Look … this whole idea that there’s a solid mass of the general public who sit in the centre and that’s where they always sit, this is completely fallacious I think. I mean, all these people who … the kind of Blairite Labour should be able to appeal to … if they are so multiple why did none of them join as supporters to vote for the person they wanted? So the idea we’ve got this very centre right country that can be drawn to the left by the right kind of cosmetic person … the idea that that exists is wrong. People respond to strong arguments. Now, whether or not Jeremy Corbyn is going to make the right arguments, whether or not he can be the person who can make those strong arguments remains to be seen.”

Actually, never mind Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters. Just listen to Jeremy Corbyn himself. Asked on an LBC debate by Yvette Cooper, “are you doing this because you want to be prime minister”, he responded: “I’m doing this because I want our party to change. I’m doing this because I’m putting myself forward to do the job to bring about that change, but I believe in a coherent party, I believe in greater democracy in our party, and if I am elected to that position I would want to promote fundamental changes to bring about a collective approach to the way we do things.”

Jeremy Corbyn’s opponents can’t begin to picture Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister. Jeremy Corbyn’s own cheerleaders can’t begin to picture Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister. Even Jeremy Corbyn can’t begin to picture Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister. How in God’s name are the voters supposed to picture it?

They aren’t, of course. The voters were the last people under consideration when Labour’s new army of £3 activists pumped out their fusillade of electronic ballots.

Labour has not just relinquished any prospect of being a party of government. It has just relinquished any prospect of being a party of opposition. Earlier in the week David Cameron called his ministers together for their political cabinet. It opened with some concerned analysis about the potential political consequences of a Corbyn victory. One minister pointed to the size of Labour’s potential activist base. Another noted how the enthusiasm for Corbyn amongst Labour supporters reminded him of the first stirrings of the SNP surge in Scotland. Then there was a pause. And then everyone started laughing. It was, they all agreed, a result beyond their wildest dreams.

This is what the Labour Party has become. Literally, a laughing stock.

Over the coming hours we will hear a new mantra. How Labour must “unite and take the fight to the Tories”. Fight them with what? Almost half of Labour’s senior front rank politicians have already stated they cannot in all conscience even sit in the same shadow cabinet room as their new leader. There are doubts about whether Jeremy Corbyn will even attempt to enforce a parliamentary whipping system. Even if he does, how effective can it hope to be given his own record of opposing his own party over 500 times? Despite all the hype surrounding this election, trade union participation has collapsed. When the new trade union bill is passed a similar collapse in the party’s union funding will follow. The last private sector donors are already walking away. Leaving Labour a party without a credible prime minister, a credible cabinet, a credible policy programme or a credible funding stream. In other words, it has ceased to be a political party at all.

And that has implications for everyone. Those who confidently predicted the 2015 election would herald the end of two party politics were right. We have now entered the era of one party politics.

There is only one way an official opposition can put pressure on a government. That is by making itself a potential government. And with the election of Jeremy Corbyn Labour is no longer even capable of fulfilling that basic political and constitutional obligation.

This the great irony of what Labour Party has just done. In fact it’s not an irony, it’s actually a minor obscenity. Sole responsibility for protecting the country from the excesses of Conservatism has now been handed to moderate elements within the Conservative Party. They are all that’s left now. Only Iain Duncan-Smith can prevent further cuts to disability benefit. Whoever is appointed Labour’s shadow welfare minister can save his or her breath. Worried about more public service cuts? George Osborne is your only hope now. Scared about what may happen to your beloved NHS? Better start sending your prayers in the direction of Jeremy Hunt.

Sorry, what’s that? You don’t like the idea of your precious public services being left to their tender mercies? Well, you could always march down Whitehall chanting “Jez We Can”.

Over the next few weeks the inquest will begin. The debate Labour should have had before hurling itself into the abyss. Blair. Iraq. Brown’s dead hand. Mrs Duffy. Bacon sandwiches. The 35 per cent strategy. All the old tropes will be paraded. Some of them significant, some of them not.

But in the end it all boils down to this. Political parties die because they want to die. None of this had to happen. Labour could have elected a solid but unremarkable interim leader. Yvette Cooper’s steel. Liz Kendall’s courage. Whatever it is that’s left of Andy Burnham after three months of remorseless self-abasement. They would not have enthused or energised anyone. But at least they would have kept the flame alive.

But that’s not what Labour Party members wanted. They wanted to see their party go out in a final blaze of uncompromising glory.

And so it has. Something may still emerge from the ashes. But the Labour Party as we know it – and as some people once loved it – died today. Each and every one of us will be touched by its passing.

作者: Dracula 时间: 2015-9-14 03:32

晨枫发表于 2015-9-14 02:49
大概我基本上算中右或者较右（应该还不算极右），我也不喜欢Corbyn的极左政策。但我不认为Corbyn的当选可 ...

这篇评论来自Guardian，Guardian属于左派，它对Corbyn都没有什么信心。

The Guardian view on Jeremy Corbyn’s victory: now judge him by results

No Labour leader since Tony Blair has been given a more decisive mandate to take the party in a new direction than Jeremy Corbyn received on Saturday. But whereas Mr Blair’s win in 1994 was widely foreseen and supported by Labour MPs following the death of John Smith, Mr Corbyn’s victory was not widely backed or expected by anyone at Westminster when Ed Miliband stepped down in May. From today, the great question is the direction in which Mr Corbyn decides to take Labour, and the wisdom with which he approaches that task.

Mr Corbyn’s win speaks to many things. The biggest is the extraordinary excitement which was fired by his campaign and of which he was in some ways an improbable beneficiary. But his victory also reflects lack of enthusiasm for the other candidates and their offers, the failings of the New Labour project, the catalytic effect of radical political change in Scotland and elsewhere following the financial crash, and the impatience felt widely towards what is summed up in the phrase “the Westminster bubble”. It is a grassroots revolt against politics-as-usual, and not just in the Labour party. It is the most astonishing leadership victory in any major British political party in modern times.

For that reason alone, it is a result which should be accepted with genuine humility by those who are anxious about it. In the campaign, Mr Corbyn said clearly what he believed and what he wants to do; nearly 60% of Labour members and supporters then voted for it. Labour’s internal voting system is not perfect, any more than Britain’s electoral system is. It is a failing that neither the new leader nor the new deputy is a woman. But the voters’ hopes, fears and choices must be respected, in the Labour election just as in the general election.

The political consequences of Mr Corbyn’s win will be enormous and unpredictable. There has never been a Labour leader, not even Michael Foot, so explicitly of the traditional left. What that means in 21st-century conditions is far from clear. But the uncertainty should mean that this is a time for all to reflect and weigh the outcome with care and humility. The Conservatives would be wise to do this too, for Mr Corbyn may even enjoy an electoral honeymoon.

The reasons why the other three candidates failed are at least as significant for Labour as the reasons why Mr Corbyn succeeded. But the idea that disappointed Labour moderates should even be thinking about deposing Mr Corbyn any time in the foreseeable future is an offence to democracy. It is also stupid. He won. They lost. Forget it.

The Labour moderates are not the only ones who should show respect and watch their steps. Four months ago, according to all the available data, Labour was battered in the general election for two main reasons: because the voters did not have confidence in Labour’s economic policies; and because they did not have confidence in the party leader as prime minister. Those questions will face Mr Corbyn too. They cannot be evaded or long deferred. Mr Miliband never recovered from his inability to challenge the Tory narrative about Labour’s financial crisis. The equivalent choices for 2020 are already being framed. Mr Corbyn is playing in a ruthless league now.

For Labour under Jeremy Corbyn, effective opposition and unity are priorities

Some of Mr Corbyn’s supporters, including some in the unions, may see his triumph as an opportunity to recast the party to their own advantage. But the last thing that Labour needs is a civil war with any resemblance to the terrible internal battles of the late 1970s and early 80s. Those battles split the party and helped cause four successive Labour defeats. They might do that again. So, just as there should be no putsch against Mr Corbyn, so there should be no reselection purges of MPs or a return to the trade union block vote. Mr Corbyn is entitled to look again, carefully and inclusively, at the workings of the Labour party to make it more participatory than New Labour ever permitted. But he should give higher priority to wider electoral and democratic reform. His voters have been fired by a wish for new politics, not old politics.

A lot could go wrong. Mr Corbyn will face some very big battles very soon. In his first remarks as leader on Saturday he stuck to the ethical messages that made his candidacy successful and attractive – fairness, equality, decency, openness to others. So far, so good. These things matter and will take him some of the way. But big political choices lie ahead on defining issues such as taxation, Britain’s position in the European Union, the future of the United Kingdom, defence and our membership of Nato, and the practical challenges of migration. Here and elsewhere, Mr Corbyn will be profoundly tested. He must be judged by what he says and does on those and other issues of similar size. And judged, for sure, he will be.

作者: Dracula 时间: 2015-9-14 03:41

晨枫发表于 2015-9-14 02:49
大概我基本上算中右或者较右（应该还不算极右），我也不喜欢Corbyn的极左政策。但我不认为Corbyn的当选可 ...

这一篇来自Economist

The Labour Party
Cor, blimey

One of Britain’s most outlandish MPs wins the leadership of its second-largest party

AS THE result came through on the speakers, the crowd at Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park let out a giant cheer. Corks were released from bottles of fizz. Many had gathered there for a pro-refugee rally due to take place this afternoon. But many, too, had come to this traditional site of protest, debate and dissent purely in anticipation of one of the most remarkable upsets in British political history: the election of Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps the most left-wing MP in the House of Commons, as leader of the Labour Party and thus as the official leader of Britain’s parliamentary opposition. The announcement, when it came, was even more dramatic than most had expected: not only had Mr Corbyn won, but he had done so resoundingly; taking 59% of first preference-voters and thus becoming leader without needing any second-preference votes in Labour’s round-by-round electoral system.

The result illustrates two things. First is the sheer scale of the influx of new left-wing members and affiliated supporters who joined the party after the May election to back Mr Corbyn. Until the final days of the contest there had been some doubt about their propensity to use their votes. This, clearly, was misplaced. Second is the poor quality of the other candidates, most notably Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham (Liz Kendall, the fourth and final one, deserves credit for fighting a gutsy campaign despite possessing little experience of front-bench politics). Mr Burnham, the one-time frontrunner who styled himself as the man to beat Mr Corbyn but fought an abysmal and drably sentimental campaign, came second with just 19% of first preferences.

In his acceptance speech the new Labour leader paid dignified tribute to his leadership rivals and called on the party to come together. MPs who had previously lambasted him and grimaced at the prospect of his leadership issued nice words about unity and collaboration. But the fact remains that Britain’s largest opposition party is now led by a man whose parliamentary colleagues barely know him, let alone share his politics. It convulses British politics by raising to the leadership of one of the country’s two main parties of government—one that, a decade ago, commanded the centre ground and possessed one of the most formidable election-fighting machines in the democratic world—a politician who would exist, as he has in Westminster for the past decades, as a hard-line oddball on the fringes of any Western political arena.

Immediate questions proliferate. Will Mr Corbyn bring back shadow cabinet elections, or appoint his own top team? Will the party’s conference, which takes place in two weeks, be beset by infighting or will the calls for unity translate into genuine forbearance? Will Mr Corbyn, a man with links to unsavoury governments and international groups (he calls Hamas “friends”, presented a programme for Iran’s state television and recommends Russia Today, Vladimir Putin’s international propaganda network) be made privy to sensitive information about national security, as was his predecessor as leader of the opposition, Ed Miliband?

Indubitable is that the governing Conservative party, an entire section of whose headquarters has been given over to monitoring Mr Corbyn’s statements and positions, is about to unleash the mother of all political onslaughts. At a recent summit at Chequers, his country residence, the prime minister, David Cameron, and his advisers pondered whether to let Mr Corbyn’s leadership implode organically, or whether to help it on its way.

Their conclusion was a three-part strategy. The Tories will leak negative stories to the newspapers (which are almost universally hostile to the new Labour leader) but will keep their own tone dignified in the coming days. They will, however, announce and attempt to legislate for a series of policies designed both to smoke out the new Labour leader’s opposition to popular measures and to split his party: investing in Britain’s nuclear submarine base, expanding the programme of autonomous “free schools”, tightening strike rules, clamping down on welfare payments and devolving power to the regions. Finally, they will seek to appropriate the moderate ground that Labour has vacated: already Mr Cameron has sought to use the moment to kill his party’s reputation for nastiness and antipathy to the poor by, for example, cracking down on employers who pay staff less than the minimum wage. This tripartite strategy is encompassed in the word that will pepper every Tory announcement and speech in the coming days: “security”. Tried and tested in focus groups, the term sums up everything that Conservative strategists want voters to think about the politics of defence, the economy and public services. Labour, they will parrot, is the party of national and personal insecurity.

What of Mr Corbyn’s prospects? It is just about imaginable that the new Labour leader will survive until the next general election, due in 2020. The party is tribal and bad at getting rid of sub-par leaders. Afraid of being seen as wreckers in any future leadership election, its moderates are determined not to wield the knife (at least, not soon). The scale of Mr Corbyn’s victory gives him an enormous mandate and puts to bed talk of a quick defenestration (a measure firmly in MPs’ power, if they choose to wield it) and another leadership election. Meanwhile the early indications are that he will prove realistic enough at least to try to reconcile a largely sceptical parliamentary party to his leadership: the tone of his acceptance speech was strikingly conciliatory, and there are already rumours that he will appoint a figure from Labour’s soft left (perhaps Angela Eagle or Mr Burnham), to the crucial role of shadow chancellor.

Still, it is more likely that he will quit before then. First, for all the nice words in the immediate aftermath of his appointment, chaos seems likely in the medium term. It will often prove impossible for him to reconcile a majority of his MPs and the left-wing movement that elevated him to his new post. Team Corbyn insiders concede that the greatest threat to him could come from the left, which will cry betrayal at the first compromise (it is only a matter of time until one former supporter calls him a “Tory”, the epithet applied throughout the just-finished leadership contest to those suspected of ideological impurity). Meanwhile many in the new leader’s inner circle lack both experience and influence in the wider party. Some in his shadow cabinet, like Mr Burnham, will be biding their time until he loses his footing. Many of the party’s strongest media performers will be reluctant to defend their new leader’s policies on air. The number of upcoming policy debates capable of dividing the party is substantial. They include Syria, Europe, airport expansion, government spending and immigration.

The question, then, is: how long will he last? Expect the first murmurs of mutiny to be heard this coming week, then grow through the party’s conference (though the pretence of collegiality and unity will probably last longer). But the first obvious moment of peril for Mr Corbyn will be the London, Welsh, Scottish and local elections due next May. The European election in 2019 marks another moment when he will be judged by a quantifiable performance. But the real test is this: when enough Labour MPs fear they will lose their seats at the next election and have an obvious alternative candidate around whom to rally, Labour’s new leader will be toast.

Tom Watson, the formidable party fixer and machine politician whose victory in Labour’s deputy leadership race was announced minutes before Mr Corbyn became leader, will be a crucial figure; a mediator between the leadership, the new grass roots, the party right and the dogged, long-time members on whom its ability to fight elections still rests. If your columnist had to venture a guess, he would predict that after a short-lived spike in Labour's polling numbers in the coming weeks, Mr Corbyn will be weakened by their deterioration over the following months, then by poor results in next year’s elections; he will stumble into 2017 when he will be ousted in favour of a figure from the party’s soft left (perhaps Mr Watson or Ms Eagle) capable of reconciling its different wings. Nonetheless, little store should be set by that rough forecast. British politics has seemed remarkably unpredictable, fragmentary and volatile in recent years. Never more so than today.

作者: qyangroo 时间: 2015-9-14 06:08
英国政治传统上是保守稳健的，但是，移民和贫困固化的人数的增长是不是正在改变它的政治光谱？多大程度上改变了？有没有统计数据显示贫困人口和移民的比例？

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-14 06:37

qyangroo 发表于 2015-9-13 16:08
英国政治传统上是保守稳健的，但是，移民和贫困固化的人数的增长是不是正在改变它的政治光谱？多大程度上改 ...

贫富分化的问题在英国一点不小。英国40%的经济来自伦敦的金融，这就决定了贫富分化的程度和趋势。伦敦之外的英国人很多还有老本可吃，但吃老本是有时间限制的。未来是否能继续稳健、保守的政治传统，我有点疑问。稳健、保守的政治传统的社会基础是壮大的中产阶级。

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-14 06:55

Dracula 发表于 2015-9-13 13:41
这一篇来自Economist

The Labour Party

多谢转载，太长了，没有都看完，但是他们似乎都没有回答一个最关键的问题：为什么工党决定性地选择了Corbyn？不理解这一点，就会和其他针对极端主义的评论（比如ISIS）一样不靠谱。

作者: 老兵帅客 时间: 2015-9-14 08:24

橡树村发表于 2015-9-12 18:39
现在是对中间派两边不得罪的政治正确反感的年代，普通选民这个情绪需要发泄，会倾向一些极端观点的。

但 ...

能否解决问题与是否有机会执政是两回事。

作者: 老兵帅客 时间: 2015-9-14 08:26

晨枫发表于 2015-9-12 19:51
选民对政治正确、空洞承诺但什么实事也干不了的“传统政治”已经厌倦了，对政客的表里不一也厌倦了，Corb ...

你们阿尔伯塔那些人现在是不是又要再次逃亡了？

其实消化倒不是什么不得了的问题，民主政治的换党派执政干的不就是互相消化嘛。

作者: 老兵帅客 时间: 2015-9-14 08:28

燕庐敕发表于 2015-9-12 20:52
民进党是上台了，但是台独还是可实施性不高---只能嘴炮，不能真的做。当然，玩点小伎俩总还是能的。

工 ...

歪一下楼，台湾民进党的台独进展其实很大，倒不是什么公开宣布独立，而是民间，特别是年轻人，彻底的倾向台独了，这是它最彻底的胜利。

歪楼结束，你们接着政治正确吧。

作者: 老兵帅客 时间: 2015-9-14 08:33

晨枫发表于 2015-9-13 10:26
还记得我说过的民主三要素吗？

- 主流民意不存在根本分歧

你这三条太理想化了，现实中的民主政治，不管是英国还是美国，都没有存在过。

作者: 老兵帅客 时间: 2015-9-14 08:34

走南闯北发表于 2015-9-13 10:40
不说焦头烂额的欧洲，就说美国，这三条哪条符合？！ ObamaCare就一典型例子。

不过你这三要素难啊，就第 ...

期待奥古斯都-凯撒，好让元老院成为摆设！

作者: 燕庐敕 时间: 2015-9-14 09:15

老兵帅客发表于 2015-9-14 08:28
歪一下楼，台湾民进党的台独进展其实很大，倒不是什么公开宣布独立，而是民间，特别是年轻人，彻底的倾向 ...

可惜没几个愿意为之奋斗终生的烈士～～～

作者: 老兵帅客 时间: 2015-9-14 09:31

燕庐敕发表于 2015-9-13 20:15
可惜没几个愿意为之奋斗终生的烈士～～～

民主政治不需要烈士，只需要演员。

作者: 燕庐敕 时间: 2015-9-14 09:34

老兵帅客发表于 2015-9-14 09:31
民主政治不需要烈士，只需要演员。

所以演完了，脸一抹回家该干啥干啥了～～

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-14 10:11

老兵帅客发表于 2015-9-13 18:26
你们阿尔伯塔那些人现在是不是又要再次逃亡了？

其实消化倒不是什么不得了的问题，民主政治的换党派执政 ...

看Rachel Notley是否和Bob Rae一样damaging了。今年赤子有可能涨到60-90亿，这么来两次，Albertan大逃亡也就不远了。不过往哪里逃呢？总不能往Newfoundland逃啊。

作者: holycow 时间: 2015-9-14 10:52

晨枫发表于 2015-9-13 18:11
看Rachel Notley是否和Bob Rae一样damaging了。今年赤子有可能涨到60-90亿，这么来两次，Albertan大逃亡 ...

南下！攻下蒙大拿！

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-14 10:55

holycow 发表于 2015-9-13 20:52
南下！攻下蒙大拿！

蒙大拿没劲，要南下，就一路南下到佛罗里达、亚利桑那、南加州，那里有偶们加拿大人的家外之家……

作者: 老兵帅客 时间: 2015-9-14 11:36

晨枫发表于 2015-9-13 21:11
看Rachel Notley是否和Bob Rae一样damaging了。今年赤子有可能涨到60-90亿，这么来两次，Albertan大逃亡 ...

那点赤字你就闹啊，看看俺们安省，那么多的赤字，自由党还自觉良好呢。

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-14 11:41

老兵帅客发表于 2015-9-13 21:36
那点赤字你就闹啊，看看俺们安省，那么多的赤字，自由党还自觉良好呢。 ...

安大略现在赤字有多少了？Alberta前几年已经做到无赤字了。

作者: 老兵帅客 时间: 2015-9-14 12:00

晨枫发表于 2015-9-13 22:41
安大略现在赤字有多少了？Alberta前几年已经做到无赤字了。

那是啊，你们有石油收入，是全加拿大最富有的省份，你们要是还有赤字的话，加拿大就只能玩QE了。不过现在呢，呵呵，呵呵，呵呵呵呵。

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-14 12:12

老兵帅客发表于 2015-9-13 22:00
那是啊，你们有石油收入，是全加拿大最富有的省份，你们要是还有赤字的话，加拿大就只能玩QE了。不过现在 ...

Alberta的PC把Alberta沙特化了，这是NDP的机会，如果能发展Alberta以石油为基础的制造业（不光炼油，还要发展下游石化），NDP在Alberta就站住脚了。这不光是GDP，更是就业机会。Notley在竞选的时候就承诺要发展heavy oil upgrader，这是一个好的开端。为了这个赤字，那是比增发福利“拉动经济”的赤字要强百倍。

石油价格会低迷很长一段时间，但石油化工不会。

作者: 老兵帅客 时间: 2015-9-14 12:15

晨枫发表于 2015-9-13 23:12
Alberta的PC把Alberta沙特化了，这是NDP的机会，如果能发展Alberta以石油为基础的制造业（不光炼油，还要 ...

PC的做法是资本家的最佳选择，但不是政府的最佳选择。但是问题是发展你所说的那些需要相当的资金与时间，有一段时间的投入期，以民主制度的选民短视和任期制度，这个会很困难的。

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-14 12:26

老兵帅客发表于 2015-9-13 22:15
PC的做法是资本家的最佳选择，但不是政府的最佳选择。但是问题是发展你所说的那些需要相当的资金与时间， ...

这就是“民主集中制”了。

NDP对royalty review的坚持，正是来自于Alberta的民意，而不是大资本的。但在发展石油化工方面，民众利益与大资本的长期利益并不冲突。在大资本短期利益反正报销的情况下，这对他们反而是一个帮助，Alberta石油的长远出路是符合他们利益的。

另外，你“呵呵”什么啊，Alberta上交联邦的钱少了，Ontario就从Have Not Province变成Have Province了，今年要上交equalizaiton transfer支援maritimes了，你得多交税，你还“呵呵”？

作者: 老兵帅客 时间: 2015-9-14 12:28

晨枫发表于 2015-9-13 23:26
这就是“民主集中制”了。

NDP对royalty review的坚持，正是来自于Alberta的民意，而不是大资本 ...

这就是为什么我坚决只做合同工的缘故了，坚决不支援那个倒霉政府，不管是哪个党都一样。

作者: Dracula 时间: 2015-9-15 18:45
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2015-9-15 20:47 编辑

Dracula 发表于 2015-9-13 17:27
Jeremy Corbyn的政治主张还包括退出欧盟。他主张大幅度增加政府开支及福利，按他的规划仅仅增加富人的税收 ...

@库布其

写了一点，发在这儿。

http://www.aswetalk.org/bbs/foru ... id=38438&extra=

作者: 洗心 时间: 2015-9-15 20:46
让作死来得更猛烈一些吧。

@英国那些事儿
自从周六激进左翼人士科尔宾当选英国工党党魁之后.....这两天英国媒体上一直风波不断......号召公会准备好罢工提高他在国会卡梅伦面前的话语权.. 不怕通胀也要印更多的钱发给穷人... 归还北爱.. 退出北约.. 跟阿根廷分治马岛... 铁路和能源收归国有.. 重开煤矿... 感觉每一项都在卧槽....

作者: 晨枫 时间: 2015-9-15 21:25

洗心发表于 2015-9-15 06:46
让作死来得更猛烈一些吧。

@英国那些事儿

霍霍，他这是与天斗、与地斗、与人斗、其乐无穷的节奏啊

他要英国工人罢工，英国还有几个产业工人？public sector的工人罢工，受苦的是老百姓，而且没有资本家，应该这是国家所有的。

作者: qyangroo 时间: 2015-9-15 21:45

洗心发表于 2015-9-15 20:46
让作死来得更猛烈一些吧。

@英国那些事儿

看了第六条强制学习乐器或者舞蹈，真是笑喷了，让我想起了爱画画的元首。

作者: 洗心 时间: 2015-9-16 00:05

晨枫发表于 2015-9-15 21:25
霍霍，他这是与天斗、与地斗、与人斗、其乐无穷的节奏啊

他要英国工人罢工，英国还有几个产业工 ...

不能默大娘一个人作死，大家都来花样作死吧。

作者: mingxiaot 时间: 2015-9-16 01:25
感觉经济这玩艺儿就应该在市场经济和计划经济之间存在一个最佳点，太计划经济已经被证明失败，太市场化了似乎也有问题。现在在美国，人权倒是保障得好，ＤＣ修条地铁闹十多年下不来，这样效率如何和中国竞争？个人觉得美国应该加强总统的权力，削弱国会的权力;中国应该削弱共产党的权力，建设真正独立的司法体系。

作者: 将进酒 时间: 2015-10-7 10:05

洗心发表于 2015-9-15 20:46
让作死来得更猛烈一些吧。

@英国那些事儿

这是英国特色的社会主义？？？？？？

欢迎光临爱吱声 (http://129.226.69.186/bbs/)