Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[lionking]

What differentiates them?

Social justice/welfare and environmental action in general. One of the Coalition's main economic policies this election is to cut company tax by 5% over time while Labor is committed to spending more on hospitals and schools, and re-introduce a carbon tax (they never use the "t" word, but it is). Labor will also introduce a Bill to legalise same-sex marriage, while the Coalition has bowed to it's rural rump and will hold an expensive and divisive plebiscite.

Both parties have fairly extreme factions, from old-guard unionists on the Labor side, to troglodyte bible bashers on the Coalition's. But these factions, while getting minor concessions, do not control the policy direction. Few people see both parties as identical, and can see and evaluate the differences. They can be different without one being far left and the other far right (and I know you didn't exactly say this).

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Why? We in Australia have two major parties jostling just either side of the centre, but with enough room to differentiate. The good part about this is a change of government, while causing discomfort to some, does not cause major turmoil. Why must there be polar opposites fighting for office?

Why bother with political parties at all then? Just let everyone stand as independents and work together in the government to make the best decisions they can. Sounds pretty good to me.

If the only goal of political parties is to do what the public want then as I said before we don't really need them

 

[MikeG]

Social justice/welfare and environmental action in general. One of the Coalition's main economic policies this election is to cut company tax by 5% over time while Labor is committed to spending more on hospitals and schools, and re-introduce a carbon tax (they never use the "t" word, but it is). Labor will also introduce a Bill to legalise same-sex marriage, while the Coalition has bowed to it's rural rump and will hold an expensive and divisive plebiscite.

Both parties have fairly extreme factions, from old-guard unionists on the Labor side, to troglodyte bible bashers on the Coalition's. But these factions, while getting minor concessions, do not control the policy direction. Few people see both parties as identical, and can see and evaluate the differences. They can be different without one being far left and the other far right (and I know you didn't exactly say this).

Oh, that's all far too sensible for us. We've got to have out and out socialism somewhere in the mix, because...........reasons. We have a separate party for the troglodytes: UKIP.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Like the Liberal Democrats?

Maybe SDP 2: Electric Boogaloo.

 

[CapelDodger]

With the Tories seemingly about to not so much lurch as sprint as fast as possible to the right a centre party could make sense.

Making sense is no way to win elections.

 

[CapelDodger]

If the only goal of political parties is to do what the public want then as I said before we don't really need them

Aux armes, citoyens! Let's cut to the chase.

 

[GlennB]

I see that Lab has signed up 60,000 new members in the past week. Maybe a lot of them are aiming to vote against him?

 

[The Don]

I see that Lab has signed up 60,000 new members in the past week. Maybe a lot of them are aiming to vote against him?

My neighbour has and does...

 

[lionking]

If the only goal of political parties is to do what the public want then as I said before we don't really need them

I said nothing like that. If you look at my later post you will see that parties can be significantly different while still straddling the middle ground.

 

[GlennB]

My neighbour has and does...

I had a quick look at the Conservative website and you have to be a member for 3 months before you can vote. Strikes me as a very sensible way to avoid opportunistic signups.

 

[MikeG]

I had a quick look at the Conservative website and you have to be a member for 3 months before you can vote. Strikes me as a very sensible way to avoid opportunistic signups.

Indeed. And £25 rather than £3 would help too. I think in the old days you may have had to be nominated and seconded to get in to the Conservative Party. I may be wrong.

 

[The Don]

Indeed. And £25 rather than £3 would help too. I think in the old days you may have had to be nominated and seconded to get in to the Conservative Party. I may be wrong.

It may but there are a lot of people out there for whom even £25 is a significant sum and who you wouldn't want excluded from the party (not least because those are the people the Labour Party is supposed to be there for).

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I said nothing like that. If you look at my later post you will see that parties can be significantly different while still straddling the middle ground.

I guess it depends what you mean by significantly different. From a UK perspective it seems like there is more difference within the Tory and Labour parties than there are between them at times.

In fact the recent big issues such as the EU and Scottish independence and even things like immigration either seem to cut across the parties or there is no real difference in their position.

If both parties are just adopting the middle ground then what's the point in them?

 

[Darat]

Like the Liberal Democrats?

As the great Avon once said "Who?"


If you were going back 30 years then I'd say yes like them but since the orange book the libs became as right wing if not more so than the Tories.

 

[lionking]

If both parties are just adopting the middle ground then what's the point in them?

They are both electable (most elections are close, and today's will be too), stable and yet have different policies. Often markedly different.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

They are both electable (most elections are close, and today's will be too), stable and yet have different policies. Often markedly different.

But you could say the same about Theresa May and Michael Gove even though they are in the same party.

 

[lionking]

But you could say the same about Theresa May and Michael Gove even though they are in the same party.

I really don't understand your posts. Of course parties have broad opinions. I haven't suggested otherwise. The Liberals have Cory Bernardi, who would be right at home beside Trump, and Turnbull, who, despite his move to the right, has progressive views. Same with Labor. But the parties policies can differ markedly.

You seemed to be arguing that the UK needs parties fairly wide apart on the political spectrum. Fair enough. I'm simply pointing out that this need not be necessary. That even parties which are not so far from the centre can have different policies and voters a real choice.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I really don't understand your posts. Of course parties have broad opinions. I haven't suggested otherwise. The Liberals have Cory Bernardi, who would be right at home beside Trump, and Turnbull, who, despite his move to the right, has progressive views. Same with Labor. But the parties policies can differ markedly.

You seemed to be arguing that the UK needs parties fairly wide apart on the political spectrum. Fair enough. I'm simply pointing out that this need not be necessary. That even parties which are not so far from the centre can have different policies and voters a real choice.

All I'm saying is that if you have more diversity within parties than you have between them it seems like something is awry. So I'm questioning exactly what purpose the party structure is playing now.

'I'm a Tory' for example doesn't seem to really tell you too much about their political views any more. Ditto I'm a Labour voter. So why are the 'teams' still the be all and end all of the way we view politics?

 

[jimbob]

Text of an MP's open lette to COrbyn:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jamie-reeds-letter-poisonous-jeremy-8314882

Dear Jeremy,

At Prime Minister’s Questions today, an inexplicable development occurred whereby David Cameron spoke for the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs and Labour voters everywhere: ‘… it might be in my party’s interests for him to sit there; it is not in the national interest. I would say: for heaven’s sake man, go! ’

In the short time you have been Leader, along with the Shadow Chancellor, you have sought to inject an unprecedented poison into our party. You have actively worked to divide Labour MPs from the Labour Party membership. This objective was laid bare when you chose to take to the airwaves in advance of the Syria vote to tell the country that Labour MPs would "have nowhere to hide" if they chose to follow their consciences with regard to that vote. You have repeatedly incited your supporters on social media to confront Labour MPs; without doubt you are not fit to lead our great party.

The Labour Party stands for a moral purpose that you do not share. We exist to redistribute power, wealth and opportunity through parliamentary democracy. Your actions have repeatedly shown that you do not believe that.

continues

 

[angrysoba]

Text of an MP's open lette to COrbyn:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jamie-reeds-letter-poisonous-jeremy-8314882



continues

Has it occurred to people like Jamie Reed that while Corbyn may be rubbish, that is what his party wants. If he doesn't like it then maybe he is in the wrong party. Strangely enough he had reached the conclusion that the parliamentary Labour Party is out of step with its voters because Corbyn has poisoned them. It's actually not true. Most Labour Party members prefer Corbyn to the people he is most like.