How Much is a Corbyn?

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

Which is one of the reasons I think of them as a bunch of fanatics.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

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.

Here's the key quote from that article...

I’ve seen Corbyn supporters taking succour from polls showing, for example, that a majority of the public support rail nationalisation or much higher taxes on the rich and drawing the conclusion that there is a public appetite for much more left wing policies.

Be careful – look at this YouGov poll which shows a majority of people would support renationalisation of the utilities, increasing the minimum wage to £10 and the top rate of tax to 60%… but also a total ban on immigration and benefits for anyone who turns down a job, making life mean life with no parole in prison sentences and stopping all international aid.

There are some policies to the left of mainstream public debate that are popular and some to the right that are popular, it no more means that the public are aching for a far-left political party than for a far-right one.

They then go on to conclude exactly what many are saying on here...

Essentially you can pick a list of appealing sounding policies from almost any ideological stance, from far-left to far-right, and find the public agree with them. In reality though policies require trade-offs, they need to be paid for, they are attacked by opponents and the press. They are judged as a package.

Politics without compromise generally makes for poor politics and even worse governance.

Society is diverse and holds conflicting and often contradictory views, that change over time, and that are incapable of being represented fully by a party that sticks firmly to either a left or right wing set of 'principles'.

Hence why politicians are the way they are...

Most successful political leaders in modern times have been masters of the art of triangulation, picking popular and achievable ideas from both the left and right and building a consensus to get things done.

And I rather suspect that's actually a good thing for social cohesion, it's better to have everyone moan a little because the party in power does a few things they dislike, than to have half the country in rapture while the rest are ready to rebel...

Shakethedisease

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Here's the key quote from that article...

They then go on to conclude exactly what many are saying on here...

Politics without compromise generally makes for poor politics and even worse governance.

Society is diverse and holds conflicting and often contradictory views, that change over time, and that are incapable of being represented fully by a party that sticks firmly to either a left or right wing set of 'principles'.

Hence why politicians are the way they are...

Most successful political leaders in modern times have been masters of the art of triangulation, picking popular and achievable ideas from both the left and right and building a consensus to get things done.

And I rather suspect that's actually a good thing for social cohesion, it's better to have everyone moan a little because the party in power does a few things they dislike, than to have half the country in rapture while the rest are ready to rebel...

I get what you're saying. However, Labour needs to change. They've now lost 2 elections in a row and 'more of the same' isn't going to cut it. Burnham, Cooper and Kendal are completely uninspiring and though everyone keeps saying how 'bad' things will be under Corbyn... there's very little on what they'd do differently to him apart from a few vague noises on 'Surestart' and 'rail nationalisation, but not really'... Miliband in part lost the election not being able to get any real 'messages' across. In short because he didn't really have anything else to offer other than being a little bit 'nicer' or 'more slowly'. It all seemed a bit 'wishy-washy' for want of a better phrase to me.

There is little doubt that if Corbyn wins the Labour leadership that he'll have to compromise. But like most of the Labour grandee's keep endlessly pointing out... one needs to be in a position of power in order to change things. The same is true of the Labour party and who leads it. Something that seems to have passed a lot of 'anyone but Corbyn' Labour MP's by.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I get what you're saying. However, Labour needs to change. They've now lost 2 elections in a row and 'more of the same' isn't going to cut it.

The 2010 election was never going to be an easy one to win after the onset of the global financial crisis (and to be fair to Labour that certainly wasn't their fault, albeit you can argue about their response).

The 2015 election was a pretty clear cut thing.... Labour moved left while the electorate moved right... Resulting in a Tory majority.

David Miliband might just about have won that election for Labour, but Ed had no chance.

And not because of the lisp, or the bacon, or the Ed Stone, or the 'wishy washy' campaign.... but because he was just too far left for the nation.

You don't fix that by moving even further left and even further away from the mood of the electorate, Corbyn may well be good for Labour in Scotland, but not nationally.

There is little doubt that if Corbyn wins the Labour leadership that he'll have to compromise. But like most of the Labour grandee's keep endlessly pointing out... one needs to be in a position of power in order to change things. .

So either he has to compromise away the principles that get him the leadership in order to win elections, or he doesn't compromise the principles and loses elections, neither one seems like a good idea for anyone other than the media and Labour's opponents....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

And on this topic, Labour has a really, really big problem.

The core support base of Labour is essentially what would have historically been considered the working class, but that segment of society is shrinking rapidly, and being replaced by ever growing numbers of aspirational middle class voters.

Three decades ago a working class voter might drive a van for an employer and have the union create barriers to entry for his profession so as to protect terms and conditions, now that same van driving voter is more likely to be a self employed small-businessperson who owns his own vehicle and contracts his work out to a number of customers.

And that new breed of "White Van Man" voter increasingly thinks of himself as aspirational middle class no matter what his level of education and background may once have been, he cares more about lower taxes and economic growth than he does about benefits and workers rights.

That is a toxic situation for the traditional labour activist base trying to pull the party left again.... The votes just aren't there to win elections if they do so.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And on this topic, Labour has a really, really big problem.

The core support base of Labour is essentially what would have historically been considered the working class, but that segment of society is shrinking rapidly, and being replaced by ever growing numbers of aspirational middle class voters.

Three decades ago a working class voter might drive a van for an employer and have the union create barriers to entry for his profession so as to protect terms and conditions, now that same van driving voter is more likely to be a self employed small-businessperson who owns his own vehicle and contracts his work out to a number of customers.

And that new breed of "White Van Man" voter increasingly thinks of himself as aspirational middle class no matter what his level of education and background may once have been, he cares more about lower taxes and economic growth than he does about benefits and workers rights.

That is a toxic situation for the traditional labour activist base trying to pull the party left again.... The votes just aren't there to win elections if they do so.

Labour has one elections in the last 40 years under just one leader: Tony Blair, by far the most right wing in their history.

When you look at Mr Corbyn's policies they read like something a mainstream Labour Think Tank would have come up with in 1978, not in the C21st.

As time has gone on, people have simply dropped out of the working classes: they own houses, or would like to, rather than relying on the state to house them; they run small businesses or work for them rather than working for state-owned nationalised industries, monopolies that can bring the country to their knees. Thatcher won: the vast majority of voters are aspirational property owners rather than in thrall to the state for housing and work.

I suppose that this could be seen as the last cry of the left. Drag the country back to the conditions in which the left can hold power.

purch

The country could really do with a strong Liberal Democrat party to take the middle ground and give a sensible electable option.

As if that's going to happen in my lifetime :eek:

Generali

purch wrote: »

The country could really do with a strong Liberal Democrat party to take the middle ground and give a sensible electable option.

As if that's going to happen in my lifetime :eek:

I suspect that would be the case if workers didn't have money removed directly from their pay packets to prop up the Labour party. If it was made opt in rather than opt out the Labour party would be dead in a decade.

Generali

Boris's take on the Labour leadership campaign.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11806571/We-Tories-are-in-a-state-of-disbelief-about-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

Labour has won elections in the last 40 years under just one leader: Tony Blair, by far the most right wing in their history.

When you think about it like that it really does boggle the mind anyone in the Labour party is daft enough to want to veer to the left.

The people have moved to the right.

If you want to represent the people then you simply have to move with them.