How Much is a Corbyn?

Generali

I think the point is that politics is the art of the possible.

As only one person, outside of fanatical groups, has exactly the same set of beliefs and exactly the same view about what is important and what isn't, comprise is always going to be a precondition of power in a democracy. You can only follow your beliefs absolutely in an absolute state, a dictatorship.

I can't think of a single democratic leader who has managed to get their beliefs enacted entirely without compromise. It's impossible.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

I think the point is that politics is the art of the possible.

As only one person, outside of fanatical groups, has exactly the same set of beliefs and exactly the same view about what is important and what isn't, comprise is always going to be a precondition of power in a democracy. You can only follow your beliefs absolutely in an absolute state, a dictatorship.

I can't think of a single democratic leader who has managed to get their beliefs enacted entirely without compromise. It's impossible.

what about the SNP, the acolytes seem to accept any old rubbish

Fella

Generali wrote: »

I think the point is that politics is the art of the possible.

As only one person, outside of fanatical groups, has exactly the same set of beliefs and exactly the same view about what is important and what isn't, comprise is always going to be a precondition of power in a democracy. You can only follow your beliefs absolutely in an absolute state, a dictatorship.

That's a generalisation though. Principals on key issues are entirely possible and also desirable. And without them what's the point of anything.

Going back to the original point, Brown clearly had none of any kind on any issue. He'd have done literally anything to win the 2010 election if it polled well. As would Miliband in 2015.

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

I think the point is that politics is the art of the possible.

As only one person, outside of fanatical groups, has exactly the same set of beliefs and exactly the same view about what is important and what isn't, comprise is always going to be a precondition of power in a democracy. You can only follow your beliefs absolutely in an absolute state, a dictatorship.

I can't think of a single democratic leader who has managed to get their beliefs enacted entirely without compromise. It's impossible.

There is a difference between being prepared to compromise and simply starting with the objective of becoming prime minister and just doing and saying whatever focus groups / spin doctors tell you to say in order to get to your objective. I rather suspect that someone like Andy "renationalise the railways" Burnham falls into the later category. Just don't mention his privatisation of that hospital five years back...

I think it's quite likely that many of the current Labour Party MPs would happily have joined any other political party if it looked like it would be easier to make it into parliament by doing so. I expect that applies equally to many of the identikit career politicians in other parties: get a Desmond in PPE from Oxford and then latch onto any opening you can as a researcher/special advisor and start thinking up vote winners...

CLAPTON

chewmylegoff wrote: »

There is a difference between being prepared to compromise and simply starting with the objective of becoming prime minister and just doing and saying whatever focus groups / spin doctors tell you to say in order to get to your objective. I rather suspect that someone like Andy "renationalise the railways" Burnham falls into the later category. Just don't mention his privatisation of that hospital five years back...

I think it's quite likely that many of the current Labour Party MPs would happily have joined any other political party if it looked like it would be easier to make it into parliament by doing so. I expect that applies equally to many of the identikit career politicians in other parties: get a Desmond in PPE from Oxford and then latch onto any opening you can as a researcher/special advisor and start thinking up vote winners...

the best people to government are those without strong principles as these are by definition extreme (the Hitlers, Mao, Pol Pot, ISIL, Inquisition etc)

Much better to have people who see specific problems (e.g. shortage of housing, global warming, water shortages etc ) and want to solve whatever are the most important problems of the day.

How many people today would give a penny for the men of principle of 1000 years ago?

Dansmam

Oh dear. Haven't read back but you guys on this last page are so boring with your bickering. Can you get back to having ideas please. I really don't care what ideas but anything's better than squabbling x

MS1950

Corbyn's first wife's view:

• Jeremy Corbyn didn't take first wife on a date during five years of marriage
• Prof Jane Chapman said he preferred doing photocopying at Labour HQ
• She also revealed that he would often eat just cold baked beans for dinner
• But Prof Chapman said she would still back Corbyn for party leadership

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3199550/Take-No-Jeremy-liked-night-eating-cold-beans-cat-called-Harold-Wilson-Corbyn-s-wife-reveals.html#ixzz3j192Equ9

Mistermeaner

MS1950 wrote: »

Corbyn's first wife's view:

• Jeremy Corbyn didn't take first wife on a date during five years of marriage
• Prof Jane Chapman said he preferred doing photocopying at Labour HQ
• She also revealed that he would often eat just cold baked beans for dinner
• But Prof Chapman said she would still back Corbyn for party leadership

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3199550/Take-No-Jeremy-liked-night-eating-cold-beans-cat-called-Harold-Wilson-Corbyn-s-wife-reveals.html#ixzz3j192Equ9

That could be more to do with her than him.

michaels

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I think it's quite likely that many of the current Labour Party MPs would happily have joined any other political party if it looked like it would be easier to make it into parliament by doing so. I expect that applies equally to many of the identikit career politicians in other parties: get a Desmond in PPE from Oxford and then latch onto any opening you can as a researcher/special advisor and start thinking up vote winners...

I don't think that is quite right.

I think some join Labour as they see the capitalist model that has done well for them and their parents but think that it should be possible to stick with this model and still 'be nicer' to those who appear to be losers under capitalism.

Others become Tories because either they are less worried about the losers or they think that the losers will do better through their own hard work than by the state making up for their disadvantage.

Of course naked ambition then needs to come into the picture. Just like all other walks of life, merely having one's heart in the right place won't see one rise up the party hierarchy.

Generali

Fella wrote: »

That's a generalisation though. Principals on key issues are entirely possible and also desirable. And without them what's the point of anything.

Going back to the original point, Brown clearly had none of any kind on any issue. He'd have done literally anything to win the 2010 election if it polled well. As would Miliband in 2015.

My point is that different people have different key issues. Fox hunting is a very good example. Most people if you asked them would say that they were against fox hunting. If you asked most people what is important, very few people would mention fox hunting. Faced with a raft of competing policies to enact we can assume that most individuals would have kept fox hunting in place so they could have longer prison sentences in place (most people don't think that life sentences should come with any parole).

Your statement about principles is great in an undergraduate debate but when it comes to the reality of rule, it's about what you can actually get done.


http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9468
On another note, an interesting piece here about polling who would do best, electorally speaking, as Labour leader.