Corbyn did win, what's next?

[Lothian]

How will being in opposition ever achieve this? There is a good reason that political parties seek to win office.

The current Government adopts a largely populist position on many issues. Change the popular view and you will see the Tories shift.

As an example look at how Cameron has shifted in respect of the refugee crisis.

Last term there was not much between the parties. Both sides saw cost cutting as the way forward. Neither really proposed significant tax rises as an alternative. The debate was just which costs should be cut.

If (and I accept it is a big if) Corbyn can raise public awareness of the fact that it is the poor and middle earners who have been hardest hit by the crisis caused by the richest; if he can counter the demonising of those on benefits and can persuade the public that provision of a living wage is better than state provided woking credits; if he can point out that privatising once nationalised industries has benefited shareholders but not consumers, we are likely to see the Tories respond to that public opinion.

The alternative, as you point out, is that the ruling party will not be ruling much longer.

 

[Craig B]

Blair pushed Labour towards the centre ground and won, because New Labour offered the chance to have a government which wasn't committed to renationalisation, was friendly towards business and the aspirations of the majority while still socially concious about those in need within society.

Is there anything in that description that you would not apply to the Tories in their recent administrations? For example, which of these centrist things did the Conservative Lib Dem coalition not do?

 

[SusanB-M1]

Alternatively the tories will stay in power and move further to the right safe in the knowledge that there is no electable opposition.

Last week's BBC R4 'More or Less' programme had some interesting statistics about targeting non voters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd

If I recall correctly, the conclusion was that (at least for the UK) someone like Corbyn can galvanise non voters, but the problem is the majority of them are already within Labour constituencies, so he's unlikely to pick up any marginal constituencies, the labour candidates will just do better in the constituencies they already hold.

He has nothing for the aspirational and those who don't want left wing politics anymore than they want right wing politics.

That's interesting - I like the More or Less programme, but I missed that bit.
I'm a conservative voter and we have a good MP. Okay, Conservatives here have a massive majority anyway, and I hardly ever read political threads, but whatever the UK should or shouldn't be, or should or shouldn't be doing, I'd rather see David Cameron as leader dealing with international politics, Heads of State, etc than Corbyn.

No apologies if I've caused a few horrified splutterings!!

Edited: Thought I'd better spell Corbyn correctly!

 

[Giz]

I don't agree with lots of his policies, but fair play to the man. Can we have more politicians who stand up for what they believe in please.
.

Whether it's good or bad depends on whether his beliefs are good or bad. I can think of some horrible "conviction politicians" in history.

 

[Lothian]

Blair pushed Labour towards the centre ground and won, because New Labour offered the chance to have a government which wasn't committed to renationalisation, was friendly towards business and the aspirations of the majority while still socially concious about those in need within society.

Is there anything in that description that you would not apply to the Tories in their recent administrations? For example, which of these centrist things did the Conservative Lib Dem coalition not do?

I don't think the Tories took on board the text in red.


I also question the meaning of "addressing aspirations".

If you give a large tax cut to the richest in society (which the tories did) it does arguably make earning our £150k a year more aspirational.
I am not sure however that it does anything to make it achievable for the majority of society.

 

[uk_dave]

Blair recognised that the 'working class', devout Labour supporter was becoming a thing of the past as people no longer saw themselves as 'working class' but aspired to be middle class, and didn't want to have to sell their souls to the devil (sorry SusanB-M1) in order to achieve those aspirations.

We lost heavy industry and coal mining in the 80s. For better or for worse, we have become a service oriented economy.

Whether you think tuition fees are a good idea or not, we now have more young people going to university than we did in the 80s and you no longer need to be from a wealthy family to do so.

The country had moved on from the traditional working class/upper class left wing/right wing split.

 

[ddt]

But 25% of the general public is retarded...

If you can win all their votes then you could probably win an election as only about 60 per cent of people vote anyway. It depends upon how that 25% is distributed across constituencies.

The Tories won the last election with 36.9% of the votes, with a turnout of 66.1%. That's around 25% of the population. You guys may be on to something.

 

[Ambrosia]

Ridiculous. Corbyn's support will give the quacks credibility. How many people do you want to die before the quacks lies are exposed? Seriously, this is one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen in politics threads. And I've seen a lot.

You're misunderstanding what I wrote, how does homeopathy get wiped off the face of the planet, without it getting more exposure?

The whole skeptical, rational thinking segment of society is, sadly, a really small proportion.

We already have NHS homeopathic hospitals. They all need closing down.

There are a number of 'prominent' skeptics like Randi, or Simon Singh that loudly oppose homeopathy, and homeopathy is still around. There are well known comedians like Dara O'Briain who loudly oppose homeopathy, and still you can go to a chemists here and buy homeopathic 'medicine' or go to a homeopathic hospital.

People I talk to often think that there is some small amount of something in homeopathic 'medicine' some kind of active ingredient and that because you can go to a chemist and buy it, or because NHS Homeopathic hospitals exist that there must be something in it. Which is complete bollocks.

I think you're also overstating how much credibility Corbyn supporting a particular topic would give it.

In order to educate people about how bad homeopathy is, people need to be talking about it in the first place.

 

[Lothian]

Whether you think tuition fees are a good idea or not, we now have more young people going to university than we did in the 80s and you no longer need to be from a wealthy family to do so.

I went to university in the 1980s. At the time if you didn't come from a wealthy family you got a full grant to cover all living expenses (tuition was paid by your local council).

The reason more people go to university is not due to tuition fees or a movement from poor to rich. It is mainly down to the supply side of the equation not the demand.

 

[angrysoba]

That's missing the point entirely. The ONLY indicator of his appeal will be election results. It doesn't matter how many of the choir turn up to listen to the preacher.

I agree with that, so that means you have no way of knowing about Corbyn's electability until they are put to the test.

 

[Craig B]

Blair recognised that the 'working class', devout Labour supporter was becoming a thing of the past as people no longer saw themselves as 'working class' but aspired to be middle class, and didn't want to have to sell their souls to the devil (sorry SusanB-M1) in order to achieve those aspirations.

We lost heavy industry and coal mining in the 80s. For better or for worse, we have become a service oriented economy.

Whether you think tuition fees are a good idea or not, we now have more young people going to university than we did in the 80s and you no longer need to be from a wealthy family to do so.

The country had moved on from the traditional working class/upper class left wing/right wing split.

So you are saying that there is not and can not be any difference whatsoever between Labour and Tories. Fine. In that case there is no real point in having two parties, at least from any ideological point of view. They merely achieve a periodic change of personnel. But since both Blair and Cameron are vile people, even that doesn't work very well.

As it happens I don't think tuition fees are a good idea; I oppose renewal of Trident, want independence for Scotland, and wish to reduce the use of fossil fuels. I think that the railways, now receiving more taxpayers' cash than when they were nationalised, should return to public ownership.

I will vote for parties or people that I think might help to attain these goals. I'm not going to vote for a simulacrum of Toryism or Blairism. I may not succeed in persuading the majority of voters to side with me, but I'm not going to abandon these principles just so that some individuals acquire political power, because there would be no point in doing that.

 

[angrysoba]

The Tories won the last election with 36.9% of the votes, with a turnout of 66.1%. That's around 25% of the population. You guys may be on to something.

Exactly. That is precisely what I am talking about.

 

[dudalb]

Whether it's good or bad depends on whether his beliefs are good or bad. I can think of some horrible "conviction politicians" in history.

THIS.

In the US, you can across Trump supporters who main reason for supporting Trump is "He says what he thinks",and don't seem to care what Trump's ideas are worth. These people are idiots.

And you now have the Mickey Mouse Labor supporters in the UK coming forth;ie, people who if Mickey Mouse were the head of Labor they would support him.

 

[lionking]

You're misunderstanding what I wrote, how does homeopathy get wiped off the face of the planet, without it getting more exposure?

The whole skeptical, rational thinking segment of society is, sadly, a really small proportion.

We already have NHS homeopathic hospitals. They all need closing down.

There are a number of 'prominent' skeptics like Randi, or Simon Singh that loudly oppose homeopathy, and homeopathy is still around. There are well known comedians like Dara O'Briain who loudly oppose homeopathy, and still you can go to a chemists here and buy homeopathic 'medicine' or go to a homeopathic hospital.

People I talk to often think that there is some small amount of something in homeopathic 'medicine' some kind of active ingredient and that because you can go to a chemist and buy it, or because NHS Homeopathic hospitals exist that there must be something in it. Which is complete bollocks.

I think you're also overstating how much credibility Corbyn supporting a particular topic would give it.

In order to educate people about how bad homeopathy is, people need to be talking about it in the first place.

I got your point. You are rationalising Corbyn's support of homeopathy.

 

[MikeG]

So you are saying that there is not and can not be any difference whatsoever between Labour and Tories. ......

No, he/she quite clearly is not saying any such thing.

 

[MikeG]

I agree with that, so that means you have no way of knowing about Corbyn's electability until they are put to the test.

Well, that's almost right.....and any comment I have made about his electability are my (entirely mine) predictions. Only predictions, and not knowledge. However, there are clues from history, particularly that you don't win elections in the modern UK from the margins of extreme right or extreme left. So I don't "know" anything about his electability other than that a victory for him would be bucking some extremely well entrenched trends. I predict that he won't.

 

[WildCat]

Evidence? Or are you extrapolating from yourself?

And what does it mean anyways? Is democracy a good thing only as long as the outcome is what you prefer, others be damned?

Greetings,

Chris

Calm down, it was a South Park reference.

 

[WildCat]

Ridiculous. Corbyn's support will give the quacks credibility. How many people do you want to die before the quacks lies are exposed?

Hey, he's giving the people a fresh alternative to those medical yahoos who all sound the same.

 

[The Atheist]

Why would politics change? All you have is another twit in a suit. Same thing as on our side of the pond.

I don't think Corbyn's a suit-wearing guy.

As to changing politics, he already has.

Not just saying, but doing it.

What would be great though is if his support for homeopathy got the homeopaths on the front pages again. Lets get the quacks out front and centre and have their useless ******** ripped apart very publicly.

Isn't his "support for homeopathy" a little overdone?

It seems to be based on a single tweet 5 years ago and isn't that controversial, unless I'm missing something. He is pro science and not Prince Charles.

 

[Antony]

Well, that's almost right.....and any comment I have made about his electability are my (entirely mine) predictions. Only predictions, and not knowledge. However, there are clues from history, particularly that you don't win elections in the modern UK from the margins of extreme right or extreme left. So I don't "know" anything about his electability other than that a victory for him would be bucking some extremely well entrenched trends. I predict that he won't.

It's gracious of you to concede that your assertions are your opinion and your judgement, avoiding the idiotic style of much anti-Corbyn comment, of stating them as immutable facts. Yet you continue to use the concepts "extreme left" and "extreme right" as though they were objective terms with a precise meaning.

They're not. They're entirely a matter of perception. As an illustration, in the 1970s it would have been regarded as "extreme" to sell off state-run public services as private monopolies - yet this is exactly what happened under Margaret Thatcher, and now the "extreme" jibe is being used against Corbyn for suggesting the reverse.

In the other Corbyn thread you declined to offer a definition of "left" and "right", claiming they were well-understood terms. That doesn't make them precise or objective. Although I generally avoid using the terms altogether, I will agree that "the Left" can be used to describe a political grouping that favours collective interests, while conversely "the Right" is a grouping that favours the interests of property-holders. However, that doesn't mean that there is any meaningful scale of "leftness" in the way that the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" tend to be (mis)used.

What I object to is that they are used so as to avoid discussing any specific policies or programme. If you were to say what you think is wrong with Corbyn's policy on Trident, nationalisation, Israel-Palestine, etc, then we can have a discussion. If it's always going to come back to "nobody's going to elect a left-wing government" then all that does is shut down any kind of examination of the merits of what is being proposed. "He's too left-wing" is just a cheap substitute argument for "I don't agree with his policy on ... (insert theme here) ..."