-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?
- Thread starter Giz
- Start date
That means he'll be 71 in 2020. That's older in real terms than the previous oldest PM, as seen here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_longevity
But in terms of current lengthened life expectancy its in line with these earlier examples.
I said that he would be 70+ by the time of the next election in my post at least 3 days ago but that I thought he might be the best option at present for a leader of the opposition to provide real options which are anti-tory and to improve the labour party's chances in the Scottish and Welsh elections next year by giving traditional voters in Scotland and Wales an acceptable left of centre alternative to Plaid Cymru and the SNP. (but I should have guessed that would have been ignored.)
Last edited:
As always XKCD are there first:
https://xkcd.com/1122/
https://xkcd.com/1122/
And you end up with the USA two party system, with at best a cigarette paper between the two party and no choice.
Thanks for that, LOL
You think that there is nothing to choose between the Democrats and the Republicans? Really?
Isn't it kind of a subjective question without defining some linear scale of political leftness and rightness? Does such a scale exist?
Incidentally, if there is much to choose between them, and your graphic is a good model, I wonder why they would chose to reduce their chances of winning by moving away from the centre.
Last edited:
Don't ask me. I didn't make the claim. Ask Darat.
It's implicit in your graph, surely?
My graph shows nothing of the Democrats and Republicans.
It shows a scale of leftness and rightness, no? Free from any kind of scale it strikes me as kind of meaningless. You want labour and the conservatives to be some equal, but unknown, distance from a political centre that it isn't obvious to me how one would go about measuring. Absent of scale, one persons cigarette paper closeness is another persons wide gulf.
Going back to your model. If they aren't close together, then surely one or both of them are sabotaging their chances by choosing a suboptimal strategy?
Last edited:
Honestly, it strikes me as a highly unstable equilibrium this balanced model where each party is approximately equally far from the centre. All it would take is for one of them to decide that being in power was important enough for them to move a bit closer to the centre and they'd be bound to win. Both parties would creep towards the middle, surely?
The only way I can see it working right now is if there was a limit on how accurately you could determine where the centre was and both parties moved about within this uncertain region. Given that both in the UK and US, things tend to move back and forth between the parties, surely something like that is going on?
The only way I can see it working right now is if there was a limit on how accurately you could determine where the centre was and both parties moved about within this uncertain region. Given that both in the UK and US, things tend to move back and forth between the parties, surely something like that is going on?
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
(*) I think the term "Fourth International" for a Trotskyist international mainly refers to the fact that there are four different contenders for the title of "true Trotskyist".
The fourth international is called "fourth international" because there have been three others before it, namely the first international, the second international and the third international.
Certainly. But that just makes the point that fighting over the centre ground, whatever their own members want, is the only way to win elections in the UK. As soon as one party veers off to an extreme, the other party simply has to become more centrist to claim the bulk of the population.
Remember this is an illustration only, and excludes the other parties. Its main point was about the centre of gravity of the Labour party.
In terms of "right" and "left" I see no meaningful differences.
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 38,069
A couple of good points from a couple of good journalists:
Margaret Thatcher was also unelectable.
And as always, some supreme sense from George Monbiot.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/18/jeremy-corbyn-rivals-chase-impossible-dream
Margaret Thatcher was also unelectable.
And as always, some supreme sense from George Monbiot.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/18/jeremy-corbyn-rivals-chase-impossible-dream
Interesting. I see huge differences. Maybe it's about an attachment to the idea that left = socialist? I don't make such a link.
Of course, in our terms, both their parties are right wing, but in their terms, both our main parties are left wing pinko commies......or something. They would probably have as much difficulty determining a difference between Labour and Tory as some here do between Democrat and Republican.
This assumes your model is correct.
Why do you think the political leftness and rightness of the public fits a bell curve? Perhaps there are two peaks corresponding to the influence of leftwing and rightwing media? Perhaps there is a longer tail on one side or the other....
Perhaps other factors are at least as important, like whether the party leader comes across as a winner?
CORBYN could be a useful Scrabble word if you can position the C or Y right on a bonus square and hit a double-word score. Unfortunately, I don't think it has a plural. CORBYNISE? Doubt it's legal.
eta: Of course Corbyn is bound to lose on the 'dress code' test. All I want to see - as a voter - is the cut of their suit factored by the reputation of their tailor (this rules out women, pretty much)
Last edited: