Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?

lionking said:
They lost badly because Miliband dragged Labour to the left.
Click to expand...

Err ... nope. That wasn't why Labour were wiped out in Scotland. It wasn't why the Green Party had their best ever showing. It wasn't why 33.9% of the electorate (more than the Tory vote) couldn't be bothered to turn out at all.
A more centrist leader, like his brother David, would have fared much better and may have won.
Click to expand...

Like the other anti-Corbyn types, making claims to know what would have happened, just like claiming to know what will happen in 2020. And your reasoning is fallacious, based as it is on labels, and not on specific policies. What policies would "centrist" David have followed that "dragging to the left" Ed didn't?

Labour lost because they had no genuine message. Why try to duplicate Tory policies, competing for the 24.3% of the total electorate who voted Tory (most of whom would never vote Labour under any circumstances), when there were 33.9% who didn't vote at all?
Corbyn, if he's still there in 2020, will lead the party to a more disasterous loss.
Click to expand...

Can't spell, either.
 
lionking said:
They lost badly because Miliband dragged Labour to the left. A more centrist leader, like his brother David, would have fared much better and may have won. Corbyn, if he's still there in 2020, will lead the party to a more disasterous loss.
Click to expand...

No, David's enthusiasm for the Iraq War would have been a major problem for him in the wake of ISIS's rise. Although if he had been leader of the opposition he probably would have supported the intervention in Syria that Ed opposed - airstrikes against Assad that would have helped ISIS take Damascus.

Why are you a supporter of giving military assistance to ISIS?
 
lionking said:
No. Socialist=unelectable. I can't see how this is beyond dispute.

Do you really think a socialist politician can win in the UK?
Click to expand...


He just did.

Corbyn is a socialist politician. (your definition)

He just won a leadership election, one where members of the public with £3 to burn could have a vote.

Could he win a general election? I don't see why not.

The thing about Corbyn is that he's not a 'modern politician'. All modern politicians seem to care about is how they look in the media, and how they are going to get themselves elected.

People want effective governments that enact policies they agree with. They probably don't care so much what the policies are described by the media as.

I don't agree with lots of Jeremy Corbyns policies myself. But I admire the guy, and I think that there's a good chance politics in the UK will be shaken up as a result, and we'll get less of the spin doctory/media polished 'modern politics' and more 'old school politics' (this is what I believe in and this is why I believe in it)

Politicians of all stripes pay too much attention on the getting elected bit, and are too scared of making a gaffe to actually do much of substance. I think that we need more 'old school politicians' in the world, and Corbyn is certainly one of those.
 
I disagree with most of what Corbyn stands for as well, but I think politics ought to be adversarial. There is no point having two parties "opposing" each other when they agree on all substantive issues.

I remember an amusing thing Christopher Hitchens said after the end of the Cold War when he was decrying the celebration of bipartisanship saying he expected to be told that if he wanted to live in a multi-party system then he should "go back to Russia".
 
p0lka said:
A lot of people in the Uk are a bit sick of career politicians,
this vote demonstrated that.
in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It's hilarious watching the career politicians bug out. Now they are trying to calculate whether they can simultaneously keep in with Corbyn to get some plum jobs and be ready to jettison him if Corbyn gets shot down, "yeah I was always against him. Served in his cabinet? Yeah, I did but you should have heard our blazing rows..."
 
angrysoba said:
I disagree with most of what Corbyn stands for as well, but I think politics ought to be adversarial. There is no point having two parties "opposing" each other when they agree on all substantive issues.
Click to expand...
I've often wondered why it doesn't really occur to people that within the set of "sane policies to adopt", there is actually relatively limited scope for differing perspectives.

Thank goodness for adversarial politics though, so we now have the choice between sane, and something adversarial to sane. I'm sure UK politics will be all the better for that ;) :boggled:

On the other hand, beforehand we had the tories (somewhat sceptical of the value of Europe), and on the other hand lib dems / labour (both strongly pro-Europe). But look at the diversity of choice we have now:

Tories under Cameron: somewhat sceptical about Europe, want to stay in but re-negotiate position
Labour under Corbyn: somewhat sceptical about Europe, want to stay in but re-negotiate position
Lib Dems: nobody cares

Thank goodness for adversarial politics! :cool: :thumbsup:
 
CoolSceptic said:
I've often wondered why it doesn't really occur to people that within the set of "sane policies to adopt", there is actually relatively limited scope for differing perspectives.
Click to expand...

Well, as an example is the replacement of Trident and the scrapping of Trident the same or different?

Is one of them sane and the other insane? Maybe, but which one?

The same goes for the privatization/nationalization of railways and electric companies. There are differences here, but which is sane and which insane?

How about joining Schengen? Not long ago it may have been seen as insane to be out of it and now insane to be in it. The same with the Euro, etc...

A comprehensive school system, one that selects for ability, or one that includes free schools and academies. Which ones are insane and which are sane?

CoolSceptic said:
Thank goodness for adversarial politics though, so we now have the choice between sane, and something adversarial to sane. I'm sure UK politics will be all the better for that ;) :boggled:
Click to expand...

Well, why don't you spell out which ones in the above are sane and which insane if things are as clear cut as you make them out to be?

And if the range of permissable sane options were as limited as you suggest then does that mean having elections is a big waste of time?

Or, and here's a revolutionary idea that you appear not to have thought of, could it be that some policies favour some people and other policies favour another set of people and that the choice is between who gets the lion's share rather than assuming - as you appear to be doing - that politics is about rationally calculating how all can benefit.

CoolSceptic said:
On the other hand, beforehand we had the tories (somewhat sceptical of the value of Europe), and on the other hand lib dems / labour (both strongly pro-Europe). But look at the diversity of choice we have now:

Tories under Cameron: somewhat sceptical about Europe, want to stay in but re-negotiate position
Labour under Corbyn: somewhat sceptical about Europe, want to stay in but re-negotiate position
Lib Dems: nobody cares

Thank goodness for adversarial politics! :cool: :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Please let us know what the sane option is.
 
Craig B said:
I want, and actively campaign for, the destruction of the United Kingdom, the country in which I was born, and of which I am a citizen. Most of my fellow citizens in my native city voted for that in a referendum almost exactly a year ago. Suicidal self-haters?
Click to expand...

The uk ceasing to exist in its current form would not result in the genocide or ethnic cleansing of Scottish people. If Israel gave the right of return, that is exactly what would happen. (The two situations are not at all comparable).
 
angrysoba said:
Well, as an example is the replacement of Trident and the scrapping of Trident the same or different?

Is one of them sane and the other insane? Maybe, but which one?
Click to expand...
Trident is probably one that I could accept is less than clear cut. Leaving NATO, on the other hand, is insane.

angrysoba said:
The same goes for the privatization/nationalization of railways and electric companies. There are differences here, but which is sane and which insane?
Click to expand...
But this one is easier. Staying in the EU and trying to nationalise major industries is just daft, because it would almost certainly breach several EU regulations. A joined up thinking would be: leave EU first, then nationalise major industries. That would be less insane, but still fairly insane, since it would destroy trust in private investment in the UK (which is why we'd have to leave the EU to do it in the first place). In other words, it's about as sane as Syriza trying to tell the Germans that German taxpayers should pay Greece lots of money with no conditions because (a) the Greeks voted for it and (b) who won the war anyway. So sane / insane pretty clear cut here.

angrysoba said:
How about joining Schengen? Not long ago it may have been seen as insane to be out of it and now insane to be in it. The same with the Euro, etc...
Click to expand...
Easy again. Always "insane" for the UK to join the euro under its present guise, the ERM was a clear indicator of that. Neither a labour or tory government was likely to have joined the euro. Not even an independent Scotland wanted to join the euro, and that's saying something. Schengen for an island nation is a waste of time. The only place it would have any value would be Gibraltar, and guess what, Spain won't have it there anyway...

angrysoba said:
Well, why don't you spell out which ones in the above are sane and which insane if things are as clear cut as you make them out to be?
Click to expand...
See above.

angrysoba said:
And if the range of permissable sane options were as limited as you suggest then does that mean having elections is a big waste of time?
Click to expand...
No, because you misrepresent my original argument. I didn't say there was only one option. I just said the viable options are typically not adversarial, but represent small variations within a limited set of options. That's still worth voting on. But thanks for the strawman anyway, it amused me momentarily.

angrysoba said:
Or, and here's a revolutionary idea that you appear not to have thought of, could it be that some policies favour some people and other policies favour another set of people and that the choice is between who gets the lion's share rather than assuming - as you appear to be doing - that politics is about rationally calculating how all can benefit.
Click to expand...
None of that has anything to do with what I originally claimed. You could have tried to understand what I originally said, but I guess that would have been expecting too much...

angrysoba said:
Please let us know what the sane option is.
Click to expand...
Trying to understand what I actually said would have been sane, I see you opted for a different approach.
 
CoolSceptic said:
[Y]ou misrepresent my original argument. I didn't say there was only one option. I just said the viable options are typically not adversarial, but represent small variations within a limited set of options. That's still worth voting on. But thanks for the strawman anyway, it amused me momentarily.


None of that has anything to do with what I originally claimed. You could have tried to understand what I originally said, but I guess that would have been expecting too much...


Trying to understand what I actually said would have been sane, I see you opted for a different approach.
Click to expand...

What you are arguing then is that adversarial politics will involve, in almost all cases, only one sane option. Is that correct?

Even though it is the case that a lot of legislation (maybe the majority) passed by Parliament is uncontentious, I disagree that this is the case with most of the important issues (I disagree with some of your characterization of the issues you see as clear-cut as well), including on NATO, the EU, immigration, education and healthcare.
 
angrysoba said:
It's not code, but it would result in the UK not having any nuclear weapons, yes.
Click to expand...

Perhaps euphemism would be a more appropriate word?

Interesting. I suppose it's not so necessary for Britain to have them, but as long as countries like Russia, China, North Korea and Pakistan have them, then somebody in NATO needs to have them.
 
Puppycow said:
Perhaps euphemism would be a more appropriate word?



Interesting. I suppose it's not so necessary for Britain to have them, but as long as countries like Russia, China, North Korea and Pakistan have them, then somebody in NATO needs to have them.
Click to expand...


Its not a euphemism. Trident is the name of our missiles.

And yes... We should have them or a more modern version. But that's a different argument ;)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Trident_programme
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
Perhaps euphemism would be a more appropriate word?

Interesting. I suppose it's not so necessary for Britain to have them, but as long as countries like Russia, China, North Korea and Pakistan have them, then somebody in NATO needs to have them.
Click to expand...

Trident is sometimes referred to as Britain's "independent nuclear deterrent" which its detractors also consider to be a euphemism claiming that it is neither independent nor a deterrent, and that the nuclear bit is too expensive anyway.

There are also some people who have very silly pacifistic ideas about unilateral disarmament leading to global brotherly love or something, but I think those arguments are far less persuasive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom