At The Financial Times: Chris Giles advises Jeremy Corbyn, a comment by Political Reporter

It isn’t readily apparent to the Financial Times editors and writers that the age of the Neo-Liberal ascendancy is at an end, and in political answer to that death, or at least it’s coma, Mr. Giles offers his extensive comments about what a ‘hard left’ might do, in policy terms, as a rejoinder to Mr. Corbyn’s scattered, unfocused and ineffective policies. All of these postulations a product of Mr. Giles and his own, and the FT’s, political agenda

The salient question might be why would Mr. Corbyn seek the advice of Mr. Giles on any question? The raison d’être of this essay is to appeal to conservative readership of the FT, and to hew to the left hysteria mongering, that is the party line. Mr. Corbyn is a Democratic Socialist or even a Left Wing Social Democrat certainly not a ‘hard leftist’. Who might just take Labour back to it’s Socialist roots, which within the politics utterly reshaped by Thatcher, and her addiction to Hayek’s political romanticism passing itself off as the ‘wisdom of the market’, by now a demonstrably failed epistemology: this economic theology has failed in the most dramatic fashion. 1929 remains the touchstone of economic/political failure, followed by the kind of political chaos that Mr. Giles fears will be the fate of Britain tied to the future of Labour, as led by Mr. Corbyn. But that economic failure remains off stage as it is a political inconvenience to both Mr. Giles and the FT. The scapegoating of Mr. Corbyn is the first order of business, the first line in defense of a moribund  Neo-Liberalism. For the proof of that see the rise all over Europe: Syriza, Podemos,  Farage, La Pen of both Left and Right: our future is a chaotic, irrational Populism as conjured by Mr. Giles.

Political Reporter

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.