设为首页收藏本站

爱吱声

 找回密码
 注册
搜索
楼主: 晨枫
打印 上一主题 下一主题

英国左派:主流化还是边缘化?

[复制链接]
  • TA的每日心情
    奋斗
    3 小时前
  • 签到天数: 2954 天

    [LV.Master]无

    21#
    发表于 2015-9-13 23:21:59 | 只看该作者
    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?

    该用户从未签到

    22#
     楼主| 发表于 2015-9-13 23:26:48 | 只看该作者
    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。
  • TA的每日心情
    奋斗
    3 小时前
  • 签到天数: 2954 天

    [LV.Master]无

    23#
    发表于 2015-9-13 23:40:06 | 只看该作者
    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。

    该用户从未签到

    24#
     楼主| 发表于 2015-9-13 23:42:25 | 只看该作者
    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。
  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    25#
    发表于 2015-9-14 00:52:33 | 只看该作者
    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。



    评分

    参与人数 2爱元 +15 收起 理由
    MacArthur + 5
    老兵帅客 + 10

    查看全部评分

    该用户从未签到

    26#
     楼主| 发表于 2015-9-14 01:19:06 | 只看该作者
    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。
  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    27#
    发表于 2015-9-14 01:38:07 | 只看该作者
    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。

    该用户从未签到

    28#
     楼主| 发表于 2015-9-14 02:49:58 | 只看该作者
    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。
  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    29#
    发表于 2015-9-14 03:25:45 | 只看该作者
    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.
  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    30#
    发表于 2015-9-14 03:32:56 | 只看该作者
    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.



  • TA的每日心情
    慵懒
    2020-7-26 05:11
  • 签到天数: 1017 天

    [LV.10]大乘

    31#
    发表于 2015-9-14 03:41:58 | 只看该作者
    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.
  • TA的每日心情
    擦汗
    2023-2-28 12:05
  • 签到天数: 1972 天

    [LV.Master]无

    32#
    发表于 2015-9-14 06:08:44 | 只看该作者
    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?

    该用户从未签到

    33#
     楼主| 发表于 2015-9-14 06:37:51 | 只看该作者
    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。

    该用户从未签到

    34#
     楼主| 发表于 2015-9-14 06:55:50 | 只看该作者
    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。
  • TA的每日心情
    开心
    2023-1-5 00:48
  • 签到天数: 2591 天

    [LV.Master]无

    35#
    发表于 2015-9-14 08:24:05 | 只看该作者
    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。
  • TA的每日心情
    开心
    2023-1-5 00:48
  • 签到天数: 2591 天

    [LV.Master]无

    36#
    发表于 2015-9-14 08:26:15 | 只看该作者
    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。
  • TA的每日心情
    开心
    2023-1-5 00:48
  • 签到天数: 2591 天

    [LV.Master]无

    37#
    发表于 2015-9-14 08:28:11 | 只看该作者
    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。
  • TA的每日心情
    开心
    2023-1-5 00:48
  • 签到天数: 2591 天

    [LV.Master]无

    38#
    发表于 2015-9-14 08:33:01 | 只看该作者
    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。
  • TA的每日心情
    开心
    2023-1-5 00:48
  • 签到天数: 2591 天

    [LV.Master]无

    39#
    发表于 2015-9-14 08:34:20 | 只看该作者
    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!
  • TA的每日心情

    2020-11-20 06:24
  • 签到天数: 1618 天

    [LV.Master]无

    40#
    发表于 2015-9-14 09:15:16 | 只看该作者
    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~~~

    手机版|小黑屋|Archiver|网站错误报告|爱吱声   

    GMT+8, 2024-11-24 08:26 , Processed in 0.051958 second(s), 17 queries , Gzip On.

    Powered by Discuz! X3.2

    © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

    快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表