Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?

[MikeG]

I agree with every single word, Glenn, other than your second last sentence. I think I said before something about talking heads and a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. However, just because the only human in the group of candidates is from the hard left, doesn't mean that the hard left is the answer for the Labour party. By the same argument, just because Blair was from the centre left, doesn't mean they shouldn't position themselves in the centre left.

If it is in a bad state now, just imagine what state the party will be in if it goes into the next election with a complete Corbyn manifesto, and gets a resounding thrashing. That's what is going to happen. Which direction do they go in then?

 

[baron]

I agree with every single word, Glenn, other than your second last sentence. I think I said before something about talking heads and a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. However, just because the only human in the group of candidates is from the hard left, doesn't mean that the hard left is the answer for the Labour party. By the same argument, just because Blair was from the centre left, doesn't mean they shouldn't position themselves in the centre left.

This kind of thinking (from Labour supporters in general, not necessarily you) puzzles me. How can people say they're Labour if the party doesn't know whether it's centre-right, centre-left or far left? If Labour are in the business of reconstructing their entire political outlook then there's nothing more to the the Labour Party than their title, it's just a bunch of people deciding how to get into power. Maybe I'm naive, but I thought political parties were broadly comprised of people with a shared vision who believe their policies would be best for the country. The only question everyone in Labour seems to be asking is, "What policies should we adopt to get ourselves into power?" Then they have the gall to state that UK politics needs something new. What's new in having no principles and blatant power-grabbing?

 

[MikeG]

So, if the hard left reduced over time to just 25 people in the entire country, the Labour Party should still stay exactly where it is?

The Lib Dems would then be the principle party of opposition, and occasionally of power. Is that what you want?

edit...........oh, and if you think the Labour party has ever been centre right, then it is difficult to take your arguments seriously.

 

[caveman1917]

edit...........oh, and if you think the Labour party has ever been centre right, then it is difficult to take your arguments seriously.

If you think Labour (ie neoliberalism) is left, then it is difficult to take your arguments as more than white noise.

 

[baron]

So, if the hard left reduced over time to just 25 people in the entire country, the Labour Party should still stay exactly where it is?

If my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle. How about addressing what's happening now, not some unlikely (but admittedly highly desirable) scenario of the far future.

The Lib Dems would then be the principle party of opposition, and occasionally of power. Is that what you want?

What I want is irrelevant to the question I asked.

edit...........oh, and if you think the Labour party has ever been centre right, then it is difficult to take your arguments seriously.

I didn't say they were centre-right, I said they don't know what they are. Plenty of supporters in the past have gone on record saying they thought the party was more towards centre-right, however.

 

[MikeG]

If you think Labour (ie neoliberalism) is left, then it is difficult to take your arguments as more than white noise.

Given the options of left, centre or right, where would you say Labour were situated on the political spectrum?

 

[MikeG]

.......How about addressing what's happening now, not some unlikely (but admittedly highly desirable) scenario of the far future........

But it IS addressing what is happening now, and in particular, your point.... which seemed to me to be that Labour should stay exactly where it was, irrespective of how unpopular that made it.

 

[baron]

But it IS addressing what is happening now, and in particular, your point.... which seemed to me to be that Labour should stay exactly where it was, irrespective of how unpopular that made it.

Which brings us right back the question I asked. Is that all there is to it, devise policies that are popular? Forget about principles, it's just a big old power-grab where all that matters is that Labour gain power. I'm not saying other parties are any better but there's so much talk in the Labour party about offering something different that the hypocrisy level skyrockets. Since when has a desperation for power at the price of principles been anything other than the norm?

 

[MikeG]

It is pointless holding views and representing people if you never have the chance to have power to enact those policies, is it not? Wouldn't that leave a large percentage of the British population completely unrepresented? You are talking as though Labour's policies are (or at least, should be) cast in stone, immutable and unchangeable, and 'twas ever thus. You also make it sound as though dealing with 21st century issues through a prism of the early 20th century is a good thing.

 

[The Atheist]

A balanced and sensible piece on Corbyn: http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-correct-electoral-anathema-renew-centre-left

 

[MikeG]

.......Is that all there is to it, devise policies that are popular? Forget about principles........
Since when has a desperation for power at the price of principles been anything other than the norm?

I'd skipped by this previously.

Why should devising popular policies require the forgetting of principles? I contend that it doesn't, and that this is therefore a false dichotomy.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It is pointless holding views and representing people if you never have the chance to have power to enact those policies, is it not? Wouldn't that leave a large percentage of the British population completely unrepresented? You are talking as though Labour's policies are (or at least, should be) cast in stone, immutable and unchangeable, and 'twas ever thus. You also make it sound as though dealing with 21st century issues through a prism of the early 20th century is a good thing.

Might it better to be represented by an opposition that reflects your views than a government that is indistinguishable from the party you oppose?

 

[MikeG]

Might it better to be represented by an opposition that reflects your views than a government that is indistinguishable from the party you oppose?

Maybe. Or maybe not. But yet again, this is a false dichotomy. There is no reason that Labour couldn't be centre left and still quite distinct from the Conservatives.

 

[caveman1917]

Given the options of left, centre or right, where would you say Labour were situated on the political spectrum?

Centre-right

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Maybe. Or maybe not. But yet again, this is a false dichotomy. There is no reason that Labour couldn't be centre left and still quite distinct from the Conservatives.

You introduced the dichotomy of being populist or irrelevant, I was pointing out the third position of being a representative opposition, what I said doesn't apply to any particular position on the political spectrum only to the idea that there is no point "holding views and representing people if you never have the chance to have power to enact those policies".

 

[Craig B]

So, if the hard left reduced over time to just 25 people in the entire country, the Labour Party should still stay exactly where it is?

The Lib Dems would then be the principle party of opposition, and occasionally of power. Is that what you want?

edit...........oh, and if you think the Labour party has ever been centre right, then it is difficult to take your arguments seriously.

Please explain the last sentence. In what sense was Blair in government, or in terms of his personal characteristics, a figure of the left?

 

[MikeG]

Centre-right

Righto. I'll re-calibrate all you posts mentally then.

 

[The Don]

Righto. I'll re-calibrate all you posts mentally then.

Well it kind-of is if Political Compass and similar sites are to be believed:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015


Just as right wing as 2010 but slightly less authoritarian

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

 

[Craig B]

Well it kind-of is if Political Compass and similar sites are to be believed:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015


Just as right wing as 2010 but slightly less authoritarian

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

It's interesting that with the exception of the tiny and idiosyncratic Respect, and the issue-oriented Greens, ALL the "left" of centre parties are indigenous to the Celtic countries. The dissimilarity of political culture of England and other components of the UK is becoming quite stark.

ETA The Labour - New Labour trajectory displayed in the "How the Parties Have Shifted" chart is quite astonishing, but sadly perfectly accurate.

 

[MikeG]

Well it kind-of is if Political Compass and similar sites are to be believed:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015


Just as right wing as 2010 but slightly less authoritarian

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

Well, that may be their opinion, but it looks like nonsense to me. They place the Conservatives way to the right of the BNP and UKIP, for instance, and they say that the only national party of the left is the Green party. It would be interesting to see how they came to those conclusions, and, just as importantly, who they are that compile charts like that.