Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?

[MikeG]

.....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 indeed. But I have seen no evidence that suggests this, and no commentators who support the notion. If you have, please feel free to share.........or indeed, to draw your own illustrative graph.

 

[angrysoba]

The Lenin cap Corbyn image appears to be approved by his campaign.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/18/jez-we-can-corbyn-middlesbrough

 

[shuttlt]

Perhaps indeed. But I have seen no evidence that suggests this, and no commentators who support the notion. If you have, please feel free to share.........or indeed, to draw your own illustrative graph.

But on the face of it, the graph must either be wrong, or there is little point in voting since it implies both parties must necessarily race towards the centre in their struggle for power.

 

[angrysoba]

Yvette Cooper now compares herself to the suffragettes because her hatchet-job antics have been compared to something her husband would do:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...truce-andy-burnham-ed-balls-labour-leadership

 

[The Atheist]

...But I have seen no evidence that suggests this...

Sounds suspiciously like your own claims, not one of which has any actual evidence to support it.
_________________________________

Mods!

Can we please change the thread title to "Jeremy Corby Has Actually Won"?

Paddy Power have already paid out.

Kudos to those who put a fiver on him at 100:1.

 

[The Don]

Sounds suspiciously like your own claims, not one of which has any actual evidence to support it.
_________________________________

Mods!

Can we please change the thread title to "Jeremy Corby Has Actually Won"?

Paddy Power have already paid out.

Kudos to those who put a fiver on him at 100:1.

tbh Paddy Power do this kind of thing regularly, I suspect that they consider it part of their advertising and promotional budget given column inches this will generate.

 

[ddt]

Well ... maybe. Here's wiki

Election gains of Nazi Party candidates in municipal, state and national elections in 1930 and 1932 were significant. Adenauer, as mayor of Cologne and president of the Prussian State Council, still believed that improvements in the national economy would make his strategy work: ignore the Nazis and concentrate on the Communist threat.​

Adenauer was 73 when he first became chancellor, 87 when he resigned (over the Spiegel affair).

ETA And this, which will interest you.

Starting in August 1950, Adenauer began to pressure the Western Allies to free all of the war criminals in their custody, especially those from the Wehrmacht, whose continued imprisonment Adenauer claimed made West German rearmament impossible as he maintained that Germans would not fight for the West against the Soviet Union as long as the Western nations imprisoned German officers for war crimes.​

Manstein was an important consultant in the construction of the Wehmracht. Adenauer was a big fan of West-German NATO membership and rearmament. And under his tenure, also many Gestapo officers found their ways into the various LKAs and the BKA, the German (state resp. federal) criminal police. You need experienced people to set up the new police force, see?

I meant we Brits, not we Europeans.

[ clinton mode on ]Indeed it all depends on your definition of "we", which you had not given.

 

[ddt]

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.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I just wanted to mock the notion there's any unifying concept of "Trotskyism". The only unifying concept is being anti-Moscow (when the Soviet Union still existed) and for the rest they're eternal splitters.

BTW, that numbering of Internationals stinks too. There's also been a "Second and a half International". And it doesn't count in the Anarchist International either, which may rightfully claim to be an heir to the First International too.

 

[Ambrosia]

And you end up with the USA two party system, with at best a cigarette paper between the two party and no choice.

That's a natural consequence of having 2 main parties, over time, especially when politicians care more about winning elections than they do about governing once they have won an election, both parties policies will tend to where they can get the most votes.

Over time the antiquated FPTP system locks us into 2 main parties which ends up with most of the electorate being poorly represented.

I'd love to see a more modern voting system put in place so that we could elect a much more representative parliament and keep the politicians on their toes.

Sadly that's not something I am likely to live to see. Turkeys and Christmas and all that.

 

[shuttlt]

That's a natural consequence of having 2 main parties, over time, especially when politicians care more about winning elections than they do about governing once they have won an election, both parties policies will tend to where they can get the most votes.

Over time the antiquated FPTP system locks us into 2 main parties which ends up with most of the electorate being poorly represented.

I'd love to see a more modern voting system put in place so that we could elect a much more representative parliament and keep the politicians on their toes.

Sadly that's not something I am likely to live to see. Turkeys and Christmas and all that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

 

[GlennB]

tbh Paddy Power do this kind of thing regularly, I suspect that they consider it part of their advertising and promotional budget given column inches this will generate.

I reckon so. I bet €5 on Corbyn @ 17-1, but my stake was restricted, for no obvious reason, to that small amount.

 

[Francesca R]

parties policies will tend to where they can get the most votes.

What a weird concept. Compared to, say, letting the king tell everyone what to do.

Over time the antiquated FPTP system locks us into 2 main parties which ends up with most of the electorate being poorly represented.

I agree. But the UK electorate seems, unfortunately, to like it that way. (AV referendum lost badly, and the only recent coalition government was resoundingly spanked, or at least the Lib Dems were. Folks would need to get used to realities such as breaking manifesto promises as being the price to pay for being represented in other ways)

 

[caveman1917]

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I just wanted to mock the notion there's any unifying concept of "Trotskyism". The only unifying concept is being anti-Moscow (when the Soviet Union still existed) and for the rest they're eternal splitters.

Isn't something defining about Trotskyists that they view the USSR as a degenerated workers' state? As opposed to state capitalism (as per the libertarians) or socialism (as per the Stalinists).

BTW, that numbering of Internationals stinks too. There's also been a "Second and a half International".

True, but it is what it is.

And it doesn't count in the Anarchist International either, which may rightfully claim to be an heir to the First International too.

They may have a better claim even, after the expulsion of Bakunin most of the trade unions and rank-and-file joined his tendency, but most of the leadership and political parties joined with Marx.

 

[3point14]

What a weird concept. Compared to, say, letting the king tell everyone what to do.

I agree. But the UK electorate seems, unfortunately, to like it that way. (AV referendum lost badly, and the only recent coalition government was resoundingly spanked, or at least the Lib Dems were. Folks would need to get used to realities such as breaking manifesto promises as being the price to pay for being represented in other ways)

The bolded concerns me. If it's a reality that such promises will be broken, how the hell do I know what I'm voting for?

Indeed, if it's standard that such promises are worthless (which would be the indication of having to get used to them) then why have a manifesto in the first place. As it can be safely disregarded once elected, why bother?

 

[MikeG]

The bolded concerns me. If it's a reality that such promises will be broken, how the hell do I know what I'm voting for?

Indeed, if it's standard that such promises are worthless (which would be the indication of having to get used to them) then why have a manifesto in the first place. As it can be safely disregarded once elected, why bother?

If there is PR, there will be (almost always) coalitions. If there are coalitions, there will be compromises between the manifestos of the parties involved. Necessarily. It can't be any other way. Therefore, it would be naiive to think that any one party would be able to deliver its entire manifesto, including not doing things it promises not to do. Hence tuition fees and the associated Lib Dem problems.

This is one reason why I prefer FPTP, albeit I would like to see a change to some form of preferential voting.

 

[Darat]

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.

If it comes up in another thread I'll follow it up but we are drifting off topic so I'll leave it with your last words.

 

[Darat]

I'm wondering what will happen to all these apparently "new" Labour supporters if Corbyn doesn't win - will they fade away or now their appetite for the political has been (again?) whetted stick around?

 

[The Don]

I'm wondering what will happen to all these apparently "new" Labour supporters if Corbyn doesn't win - will they fade away or now their appetite for the political has been (again?) whetted stick around?

If they get involved with their local branch of the Labour Party, I hope their experience is more enjoyable than mine between 1985 and 2006. Instead of the cut and thrust of political debate it was mostly the interminable minutae of constituency politics and inter and intra-clique based infighting.

At least it was less dire than student politics I suppose.

 

[Darat]

If they get involved with their local branch of the Labour Party, I hope their experience is more enjoyable than mine between 1985 and 2006. Instead of the cut and thrust of political debate it was mostly the interminable minutae of constituency politics and inter and intra-clique based infighting.

At least it was less dire than student politics I suppose.

Sounds like all political activism I've ever been involved in.

 

[ddt]

Isn't something defining about Trotskyists that they view the USSR as a degenerated workers' state? As opposed to state capitalism (as per the libertarians) or socialism (as per the Stalinists).

Except then for Tony Cliff who also viewed the USSR as state capitalism. And who went on to found the British SWP.

They may have a better claim even, after the expulsion of Bakunin most of the trade unions and rank-and-file joined his tendency, but most of the leadership and political parties joined with Marx.

Initially, yes, but in the end anarchism, or anarcho-syndicalism withered away there too. Spain was the major exception, until Franco.