Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?

[Craig B]

Yes, and one organization in the US as well IIRC. The rest sticks with Trotsky himself who considered it a degenerated workers' state.

My view of such a state was that it was a society ruled by degenerated workers; but some of my Trotskyite acquaintances failed to appreciate the joke.

 

[shuttlt]

You have yet to give anyone any idea how two or more parties could enter a coalition with other parties and guarantee to deliver the entirety of each and every manifesto, even where they clash.

In this utopia it would probably be the case that people would only promise the things they thought that the could implement under reasonably foreseeable circumstances, like a coalition, and only say they will try to deliver the ones that are negotiable.

 

[caveman1917]

How that's representative democracy, I cannot see. The representative, as a politician, is not the one voted for.

Representative democracy always seemed like an oxymoron to me. But even so, what about a possibility of permanent recall? Come on, you got to do better than "let's have alternating one-party dictatorships"

 

[MikeG]

Then there should be no coalitions. We need a different system.

Any system that puts any MP into a governing coalition that forces them to vote against that which they advocted for in order to be elected is undemocratic.

It's like voting for Alan and getting Bob. Those who voted for this coalition politician are actually not getting the fellow advertised.

How that's representative democracy, I cannot see. The representative, as a politician, is not the one voted for.

OK, we're getting there: no coalitions. So, in the event of no party getting a majority, under whatever voting system you advocate, what happens?

 

[caveman1917]

My view of such a state was that it was a society ruled by degenerated workers; but some of my Trotskyite acquaintances failed to appreciate the joke.

That's a good one. Be careful they don't split over whether it's a good joke though

 

[Darat]

Run without a Government until one is elected. Belgium managed without a Government for over 500 days!

 

[caveman1917]

Run without a Government until one is elected. Belgium managed without a Government for over 500 days!

And it were the best 500 days we've had.

 

[3point14]

OK, we're getting there: no coalitions. So, in the event of no party getting a majority, under whatever voting system you advocate, what happens?

Try again.

If that doesn't work, accept the reality that we're working under a system designed only to deal with a two party system that is outdated, outmoded and inadequate for purpose.

Then do it again with a better system.

A coalition is a symptom of a problem within the system.

 

[MikeG]

Try again.

If that doesn't work, accept the reality that we're working under a system designed only to deal with a two party system that is outdated, outmoded and inadequate for purpose.

Then do it again with a better system.

A coalition is a symptom of a problem within the system.

How many times do I have to ask? What do we do as an alternative? What system would you like to see which precludes the possibility of coalition government?

 

[3point14]

How many times do I have to ask?

Esay tiger, I missed it.

What do we do as an alternative? What system would you like to see which precludes the possibility of coalition government?

Single transferrable vote, just off the top of my head.

Can I assume that you accept my points about a coalition government being deeply undemocratic within a representative system?

 

[MikeG]

Esay tiger, I missed it.





Single transferrable vote, just off the top of my head.

Can I assume that you accept my points about a coalition government being deeply undemocratic within a representative system?

No, I don't accept that coalitions are undemocratic at all. It can easily be argued that they are far more representative of the expressed preferences of a broader section of the public than any other form of government. That isn't to say that they are desirable, for other reasons, but they most certainly aren't undemocratic.

A single transferable vote system will still produce coalitions. In fact, I can't see why it wouldn't produce just as many hung parliaments/ minority governments/ coalitions as any other system other than proportional representation.

 

[3point14]

No, I don't accept that coalitions are undemocratic at all. It can easily be argued that they are far more representative of the expressed preferences of a broader section of the public than any other form of government. That isn't to say that they are desirable, for other reasons, but they most certainly aren't undemocratic.

A single transferable vote system will still produce coalitions. In fact, I can't see why it wouldn't produce just as many hung parliaments/ minority governments/ coalitions as any other system other than proportional representation.

Could you explain how a single transferable vote system fails to end in an outright winner?

 

[MikeG]

Yep. My pleasure. You're still voting for individual MPs. A party could still win the election (by getting the most MPs), and yet not get more than half of the total number of seats.

 

[GlennB]

There's Labour's problem. Three over-coached talking heads with no vision and no charisma, up against a plausible, kindly, experienced chap who is wrong on just about every issue. They're choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea.

In which case the Labour party would have needed to change course even before these candidates had come forward, an unlikely and unreasonable demand. Corbyn might be the one to change its course - he doesn't need to win the next election to prove the worth of that as a long-term goal.

But of the highlighted bit - A Nobel Laureate in economics very recently said: "Talking about the broader impact on the UK and elsewhere, it is very clear outside Germany that the view that austerity is bad is very widespread. I think it is the correct view. Its obviously going to lead to a stronger sentiment, people saying we have to fight austerity”, a view with which Corbyn broadly agrees. Osborne's qualifications? A degree in Modern History.

You still think Corbyn "is wrong on just about every issue" or shall we go through them one by one?

 

[MikeG]

........You still think Corbyn "is wrong on just about every issue" or shall we go through them one by one?

OK, OK.......that is clearly a figure of speech: I shall flagellate myself shortly, OK? He is wrong on almost all of the major issues, starting with the fundamental premise of spending far more money than we've got.

However, if you want to list his policies and go through them, I'll play. A bit.

 

[Darat]

OK, OK.......that is clearly a figure of speech: I shall flagellate myself shortly, OK? He is wrong on almost all of the major issues, starting with the fundamental premise of spending far more money than we've got.
...snip...

The current government was elected on that premise so why is it something that makes only Corbyn unelectable?

 

[MikeG]

Because he plans to do it in spades, whereas the current government is trying to reduce it. He thinks over-spending is a good thing, and the conservatives think it a bad thing.

 

[MCel58]

Because he plans to do it in spades, whereas the current government is trying to reduce it. He thinks over-spending is a good thing, and the conservatives think it a bad thing.

But Corbyn also believes in higher taxation particularly of the rich which the conservatives do not. So we are hardly comparing like for like. In Belgium for example taxation is much higher than the UK but they have high levels of education, if you are unemployed your state benefits are around 800 euros a month and the state pension is over 1000 euros. Their university fees are much lower than England at around 1000 euros a year for undergraduates, their standard of healthcare is high, and their transport and recycling policies are well thought out and paid for. So if we are going to look at spending we must also look at taxation policies.

 

[The Atheist]

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.

Only when the winner is certain, though. They've never been close to being wrong.

Yes, it's marketing, but it's also a bookie, so the maths comes first.

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

Score!

I think the restriction would be down to just low numbers of bets, They'd probably have only give you 15 if you wanted more.

 

[3point14]

Yep. My pleasure. You're still voting for individual MPs. A party could still win the election (by getting the most MPs), and yet not get more than half of the total number of seats.

I think that:-

i - That's really unlikely

ii - You've really had to stretch


Given that your scenario is possible, not plausible, then, under those circumstances, I'd be happy to do it all again.

I'd suggest it's almost an impossibility - has it ever happened under the current system when one party has had a majority?