This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Before making my observation, I'd like to point out that my politics are neither left wing nor right.
I think Cameron & Osborne are slimy reptiles - along with the vast majority of the Cabinet - that John Smith was politics greatest loss, and that despite his drinking problems, Charles Kennedy was a good leader of the Lib Dems.
At the last election I voted Labour, not because I had any faith in Ed Milliband, but because I didn't want an unchecked Tory majority doing exactly what it is now doing.
I have no doubt that Corbyn has deep political conviction, and wants to create a fair and caring society.
However, until he can appeal to the crucial centre ground of voters, irrespective of the support he has within Labour, he has little chance of winning an election, and therefore no chance of putting any of his policies into practice.
So unless Labour want to spend the next 10 years in opposition, Corbyn and Labour are going to have to find a way of appealing to those voters, who rightly or wrongly, not only occupy the middle ground, but also hold the balance of power in an election.
This might mean compromising some of his more 'socialist' convictions in order to achieve this. But isn't it better to win an election and see some of them implemented, than lose and see all of them gathering dust in the same cupboard as Michael Foot's donkey jacket?
I think Cameron & Osborne are slimy reptiles - along with the vast majority of the Cabinet - that John Smith was politics greatest loss, and that despite his drinking problems, Charles Kennedy was a good leader of the Lib Dems.
At the last election I voted Labour, not because I had any faith in Ed Milliband, but because I didn't want an unchecked Tory majority doing exactly what it is now doing.
I have no doubt that Corbyn has deep political conviction, and wants to create a fair and caring society.
However, until he can appeal to the crucial centre ground of voters, irrespective of the support he has within Labour, he has little chance of winning an election, and therefore no chance of putting any of his policies into practice.
So unless Labour want to spend the next 10 years in opposition, Corbyn and Labour are going to have to find a way of appealing to those voters, who rightly or wrongly, not only occupy the middle ground, but also hold the balance of power in an election.
This might mean compromising some of his more 'socialist' convictions in order to achieve this. But isn't it better to win an election and see some of them implemented, than lose and see all of them gathering dust in the same cupboard as Michael Foot's donkey jacket?
10
7
In reply to Goucho:
Sure?
So because he talks from a completely unrealistic viewpoint that automatically makes him believable ?
I don't believe him any more than the rest and he has form.
> I have no doubt that Corbyn has deep political conviction, and wants to create a fair and caring society.
Sure?
So because he talks from a completely unrealistic viewpoint that automatically makes him believable ?
I don't believe him any more than the rest and he has form.
3
7
In reply to Goucho:
I don't think Corbyn has a hope in hell of winning an election he is not capable of being PM and never will be. But if he sticks to his principles and focuses on a few key issues he might make an excellent leader of the opposition. I'd like to see him really get stuck into constitutional nonsenses like the Privy Council, House of Lords and Monarchy and try move opinion to the point that modernisation becomes inevitable. I also don't have a problem with him sticking to his pacifist principles and trying to show there may be alternative ways of handling Syria and terrorism since there's no chance of him actually running things.
> This might mean compromising some of his more 'socialist' convictions in order to achieve this. But isn't it better to win an election and see some of them implemented, than lose and see all of them gathering dust in the same cupboard as Michael Foot's donkey jacket?
I don't think Corbyn has a hope in hell of winning an election he is not capable of being PM and never will be. But if he sticks to his principles and focuses on a few key issues he might make an excellent leader of the opposition. I'd like to see him really get stuck into constitutional nonsenses like the Privy Council, House of Lords and Monarchy and try move opinion to the point that modernisation becomes inevitable. I also don't have a problem with him sticking to his pacifist principles and trying to show there may be alternative ways of handling Syria and terrorism since there's no chance of him actually running things.
Post edited at 09:18
5
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
When I look at the issues Britain has, constitutional nonsenses such as the privy council are very near the bottom of the list.
I'd prefer him to concentrate on the issues which actually affect people such as poverty, homelessness and unemployment.
When I look at the issues Britain has, constitutional nonsenses such as the privy council are very near the bottom of the list.
I'd prefer him to concentrate on the issues which actually affect people such as poverty, homelessness and unemployment.
1
In reply to Goucho:
Err isn't that what the Tories are being criticised for ie deceiving the middle ground to win an election such as with stealth privatisation of the NHS?
> This might mean compromising some of his more 'socialist' convictions in order to achieve this. But isn't it better to win an election and see some of them implemented, than lose and see all of them gathering dust in the same cupboard as Michael Foot's donkey jacket?
Err isn't that what the Tories are being criticised for ie deceiving the middle ground to win an election such as with stealth privatisation of the NHS?
5
In reply to boriselbrus:
If you want to make large changes to the economic system, like taxing wealth rather than income, to address poverty, homelessness and unemployment or rebalance the economy away from London or towards industry instead of banking, or to make housing less expensive you have got no chance of achieving that unless you first reform the institutions which will seek to preserve things the way they are. All these things: Privy Council, Monarchy, House of Lord, City Rememberancer and a hundred other quaint historical throwbacks entrench power in a landowning and banking establishment based in London and give it the means to quietly but effectively resist change and further its own interests.
> When I look at the issues Britain has, constitutional nonsenses such as the privy council are very near the bottom of the list.
If you want to make large changes to the economic system, like taxing wealth rather than income, to address poverty, homelessness and unemployment or rebalance the economy away from London or towards industry instead of banking, or to make housing less expensive you have got no chance of achieving that unless you first reform the institutions which will seek to preserve things the way they are. All these things: Privy Council, Monarchy, House of Lord, City Rememberancer and a hundred other quaint historical throwbacks entrench power in a landowning and banking establishment based in London and give it the means to quietly but effectively resist change and further its own interests.
4
In reply to Morgan Woods:
I think I said 'compromise' in order to appeal to the electorate, not 'lie' to them.
> Err isn't that what the Tories are being criticised for ie deceiving the middle ground to win an election such as with stealth privatisation of the NHS?
I think I said 'compromise' in order to appeal to the electorate, not 'lie' to them.
2
In reply to Goucho:
As a member of the electorate I dislike being told someone is unelectable - that is up to us.
As a member of the electorate I dislike being told someone is unelectable - that is up to us.
8
1
In reply to pasbury:
I tell you what, if Corbyn gets elected as PM, I will pay for you and your family to go on a first class round the world cruise
> As a member of the electorate I dislike being told someone is unelectable - that is up to us.
I tell you what, if Corbyn gets elected as PM, I will pay for you and your family to go on a first class round the world cruise
2
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Well, I agree that institutional reform is at the basis of a democracy which is more reflective of broarder views and it would deliver more effective social justice, should people vote for this.
My interest is now in the Syrian question. I feel Corbyn is right and both wrong at the same time. We need a broad political endgame solution on the table. I believe it will be division { roughly Alawite and Kurdish territories with Cantons of Sunni produced through local peace agreements which have to be forged along the way.} The political/diplomatic groundwork necessary at this stage which Corbyn advocates. HOWEVER, we have passed the stage of Geneva 11 ( which Corbyn, in his his idealism, seems to not have recognised as an appalling and sad failure}. So, we have a position that I think concurs with the Russian point of view which states that we cannot let any more territory fall or the domino effect of Lebanon and Jordon and Israel will inevitably follow. This therefore also argues the case for military intervention parallel with the diplomatic scramble for a solution. The UK is no doubt best placed to negotiate a settlement since we have very strong diplomatic connections with the Middle East.
Well, I agree that institutional reform is at the basis of a democracy which is more reflective of broarder views and it would deliver more effective social justice, should people vote for this.
My interest is now in the Syrian question. I feel Corbyn is right and both wrong at the same time. We need a broad political endgame solution on the table. I believe it will be division { roughly Alawite and Kurdish territories with Cantons of Sunni produced through local peace agreements which have to be forged along the way.} The political/diplomatic groundwork necessary at this stage which Corbyn advocates. HOWEVER, we have passed the stage of Geneva 11 ( which Corbyn, in his his idealism, seems to not have recognised as an appalling and sad failure}. So, we have a position that I think concurs with the Russian point of view which states that we cannot let any more territory fall or the domino effect of Lebanon and Jordon and Israel will inevitably follow. This therefore also argues the case for military intervention parallel with the diplomatic scramble for a solution. The UK is no doubt best placed to negotiate a settlement since we have very strong diplomatic connections with the Middle East.
Post edited at 12:32
1
In reply to Goucho:
It's hardly a new observation, Gouch: the same discussion was endlessly had in the media both during and after the recent Labour leadership election.
> Before making my observation ...
It's hardly a new observation, Gouch: the same discussion was endlessly had in the media both during and after the recent Labour leadership election.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I'm often a bit slow on the uptake
> It's hardly a new observation, Gouch: the same discussion was endlessly had in the media both during and after the recent Labour leadership election.
I'm often a bit slow on the uptake
1
In reply to MargieB:
The problem with Daesh is who do you negotiate with? They are uncompromisingly not interested in dialogue unless you are prepared to renounce any other belief or non belief other than embracing their twisted version of Islam, just murder.
How do you "negotiate" with such an organisation?
> The UK is no doubt best placed to negotiate a settlement since we have very strong diplomatic connections with the Middle East.
The problem with Daesh is who do you negotiate with? They are uncompromisingly not interested in dialogue unless you are prepared to renounce any other belief or non belief other than embracing their twisted version of Islam, just murder.
How do you "negotiate" with such an organisation?
Post edited at 13:20
2
In reply to Goucho:
I have let the jury out on Corbyn but am slowly starting to form an opinion of someone I didn't really know much about.
I like his outspokenness and I like the fact that he is not inhibited by the media or any form of social convention. I find that very refreshing. I also find a lot of what he says resonates with me and for the last 10 years I have been very much a Lib Dem kind of guy so it is nice to see a compassionate politics coming from elsewhere.
However, the things that worry me are his past. He has used the word "comrade" once or twice which I know was very much a part of the old labour union movement. That and the supposed internal bickering of the labour party.
I have let the jury out on Corbyn but am slowly starting to form an opinion of someone I didn't really know much about.
I like his outspokenness and I like the fact that he is not inhibited by the media or any form of social convention. I find that very refreshing. I also find a lot of what he says resonates with me and for the last 10 years I have been very much a Lib Dem kind of guy so it is nice to see a compassionate politics coming from elsewhere.
However, the things that worry me are his past. He has used the word "comrade" once or twice which I know was very much a part of the old labour union movement. That and the supposed internal bickering of the labour party.
1
1
In reply to Skyfall:
Jeremy Corbyn "talks from a completely unrealistic viewpoint". Could you give us an example?
Jeremy Corbyn "talks from a completely unrealistic viewpoint". Could you give us an example?
Post edited at 13:28
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Leaving the Tories to provide the other position without any rational opposition to the detail...
> I also don't have a problem with him sticking to his pacifist principles and trying to show there may be alternative ways of handling Syria and terrorism since there's no chance of him actually running things.
Leaving the Tories to provide the other position without any rational opposition to the detail...
1
In reply to Trangia:
Well, the south of the country is different form north. The Southern towns of the country are already engaging in local peace agreements.
The North, I agree is a very different political expression. One has to look at the local discontent that originally made that part of the world firstly anti-Assad and then find expression in the way it now is. The two are different. The north of thre country may very well be our first climate change crisis since it was land and Assad land reforms and lack of a government that was sympathetic to the plight of the area that lay the foundations for upheaval and susceptibility to extremism.
This may be a very long shot, but should not the prospect of autonomy be held out by the West as an appropriate structure for the north of the country? We need a credible alternative governmental option , SNC, and when the stronghold of Islamic fundamentalism looks on the way out , I believe local tribal defections will emerge and agreements can be forged. But that option has to be held out for the North of the country.
I'm trying to think of the converse of the situation. That Russia, which seems to be confining itself to the Euphrates as a border, tries to impose further into the North. Can't really see that as an effective strategy for the basis for peace. And they are not currently doing that cause they know Assad is anathema there and it would be "their Afganistan " again. Or there could be joint action but you still need a political endgame.
Well, the south of the country is different form north. The Southern towns of the country are already engaging in local peace agreements.
The North, I agree is a very different political expression. One has to look at the local discontent that originally made that part of the world firstly anti-Assad and then find expression in the way it now is. The two are different. The north of thre country may very well be our first climate change crisis since it was land and Assad land reforms and lack of a government that was sympathetic to the plight of the area that lay the foundations for upheaval and susceptibility to extremism.
This may be a very long shot, but should not the prospect of autonomy be held out by the West as an appropriate structure for the north of the country? We need a credible alternative governmental option , SNC, and when the stronghold of Islamic fundamentalism looks on the way out , I believe local tribal defections will emerge and agreements can be forged. But that option has to be held out for the North of the country.
I'm trying to think of the converse of the situation. That Russia, which seems to be confining itself to the Euphrates as a border, tries to impose further into the North. Can't really see that as an effective strategy for the basis for peace. And they are not currently doing that cause they know Assad is anathema there and it would be "their Afganistan " again. Or there could be joint action but you still need a political endgame.
Post edited at 14:17
In reply to Trangia: Well you're going to have to negotiate with someone to make a governement else your options are a) kill everyone
b) run it as a colony for the next 1000 years
So you need to make a government , or at least create the situation where a government can develop. It also has to be a government that's reasonably decent else you're going to be back to square one in 10 years time, with a new IS/Daesh/whatever
To make that space for a functioning government you need to effectively remove IS tho'. At the moment they are the governemt, and clearly any local dissent is suicide and not going to succeed.
b) run it as a colony for the next 1000 years
So you need to make a government , or at least create the situation where a government can develop. It also has to be a government that's reasonably decent else you're going to be back to square one in 10 years time, with a new IS/Daesh/whatever
To make that space for a functioning government you need to effectively remove IS tho'. At the moment they are the governemt, and clearly any local dissent is suicide and not going to succeed.
In reply to ByEek:
I'm not really bothered by the occasional 'keep the red flag flying' vocabulary, and I too would like to see a more inclusive and caring political landscape, so have given him the benefit of the doubt so far.
However, being PM is about more than just domestic policy, and includes being a credible statesman on the world stage, which at present I think he is woefully poor at.
To think you can solve a problem like IS purely by negotiation is either staggeringly naive or utterly clueless.
> I have let the jury out on Corbyn but am slowly starting to form an opinion of someone I didn't really know much about.
> I like his outspokenness and I like the fact that he is not inhibited by the media or any form of social convention. I find that very refreshing. I also find a lot of what he says resonates with me and for the last 10 years I have been very much a Lib Dem kind of guy so it is nice to see a compassionate politics coming from elsewhere.
> However, the things that worry me are his past. He has used the word "comrade" once or twice which I know was very much a part of the old labour union movement. That and the supposed internal bickering of the labour party.
I'm not really bothered by the occasional 'keep the red flag flying' vocabulary, and I too would like to see a more inclusive and caring political landscape, so have given him the benefit of the doubt so far.
However, being PM is about more than just domestic policy, and includes being a credible statesman on the world stage, which at present I think he is woefully poor at.
To think you can solve a problem like IS purely by negotiation is either staggeringly naive or utterly clueless.
5
1
In reply to Goucho:
Would Corbyn ever have fought Hitler?
I suppose I'm thinking of conversations my father {who did engage in the war with Hitler} had with a professor friend who was the eternal pacifist and said there was never a justififcation, just or otherwise, for war. I can't fathom Corbyn on this one.
Would Corbyn ever have fought Hitler?
I suppose I'm thinking of conversations my father {who did engage in the war with Hitler} had with a professor friend who was the eternal pacifist and said there was never a justififcation, just or otherwise, for war. I can't fathom Corbyn on this one.
Post edited at 15:07
In reply to MargieB:
I'd say he's more of a George Lansbury than a Clement Atlee.
I'd say he's more of a George Lansbury than a Clement Atlee.
Post edited at 14:50
In reply to Goucho:
It is funny really. Before Cameron got elected I felt he came across as rather wet. It is only since he has settled into his premiership that he has started coming across as more statesman-like. I guess it comes down to coaching and practice?
That said though - wouldn't it be nice to have a leader you could say was one of us? Call it going against social convention.
> However, being PM is about more than just domestic policy, and includes being a credible statesman on the world stage, which at present I think he is woefully poor at.
It is funny really. Before Cameron got elected I felt he came across as rather wet. It is only since he has settled into his premiership that he has started coming across as more statesman-like. I guess it comes down to coaching and practice?
That said though - wouldn't it be nice to have a leader you could say was one of us? Call it going against social convention.
2
2
In reply to Goucho:
I don't want the country led by someone who could only muster A level grades of E and E. Eton is certainly not a prerequisite but some intellectual ability may just help grasp issues and come up with plausible solutions.
I don't want the country led by someone who could only muster A level grades of E and E. Eton is certainly not a prerequisite but some intellectual ability may just help grasp issues and come up with plausible solutions.
7
3
In reply to Goucho:
Given you and your families belief that it is ok to take the law into your own hands and use violence as a solution dare I suggest you're more right wing than you think?
> Before making my observation, I'd like to point out that my politics are neither left wing nor right.
Given you and your families belief that it is ok to take the law into your own hands and use violence as a solution dare I suggest you're more right wing than you think?
3
In reply to earlsdonwhu:
Some of the best politicians in Germany had only minor or no school degrees (Holger Börner, prime minister of Hesse, and Joschka Fischer, the first foreign secretary and vice chancellor from the Green party).
Would you really argue that Cameron is intellectually superior to Corbyn? Not by a long way, degree or not.
CB
Some of the best politicians in Germany had only minor or no school degrees (Holger Börner, prime minister of Hesse, and Joschka Fischer, the first foreign secretary and vice chancellor from the Green party).
Would you really argue that Cameron is intellectually superior to Corbyn? Not by a long way, degree or not.
CB
1
3
In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
You don't half talk a load of bollocks!
> Given you and your families belief that it is ok to take the law into your own hands and use violence as a solution dare I suggest you're more right wing than you think?
You don't half talk a load of bollocks!
2
1
In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
If you can't see the idiocy of your comment, I certainly can't be arsed explaining it to you.
> Merely a suggestion. No need to be so defensive.
If you can't see the idiocy of your comment, I certainly can't be arsed explaining it to you.
2
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Well look at Corbyn's stance on aggression ie he's generally for dialogue as opposed to direction action. I would suggest the left generally don't believe in going into a fight. Goucho has shared a previous story where clearly indicated he does believe in direct action through violence. I'm merely suggesting he's nowhere near as middle ground as he thinks he is.
Happy to be cited any left wing leaders who advocate violence as a solution? PS Blair clearly doesn't count.
Well look at Corbyn's stance on aggression ie he's generally for dialogue as opposed to direction action. I would suggest the left generally don't believe in going into a fight. Goucho has shared a previous story where clearly indicated he does believe in direct action through violence. I'm merely suggesting he's nowhere near as middle ground as he thinks he is.
Happy to be cited any left wing leaders who advocate violence as a solution? PS Blair clearly doesn't count.
1
In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao,...
> Happy to be cited any left wing leaders who advocate violence as a solution?
Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao,...
6
In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot...do you want me to go on?
As I said, you don't half talk bollocks.
> Happy to be cited any left wing leaders who advocate violence as a solution? PS Blair clearly doesn't count.
Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot...do you want me to go on?
As I said, you don't half talk bollocks.
Post edited at 17:16
3
1
In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
They may well be dictators, but that doesn't mean they aren't left wing.
It is true that there is a pacifist tradition on the left, but equally many socialists / communists went to fight in the Spanish Civil War and many who were anti violence due to political and often religious principles volunteered during the Second World War, my Grandfather included.
> Wouldn't them in the camp of 'left wing'. More dictatorship.
They may well be dictators, but that doesn't mean they aren't left wing.
It is true that there is a pacifist tradition on the left, but equally many socialists / communists went to fight in the Spanish Civil War and many who were anti violence due to political and often religious principles volunteered during the Second World War, my Grandfather included.
Post edited at 17:35
1
1
In reply to EarlyBird:
Well, all this recent stuff about the supposed shoot to kill policy more or less proves the point. It sounds principled in a hand wringing sort of way but he is, in fact, merely acting as an apologist for terrorists and trying to get in the way of people who are trying to do something to safeguard the public. It is intended to appeal to a relatively small element of the political spectrum, I am sure he knows what he's doing, very much doubt it is truly out of deeply held principles (or why would he do u-turns when his own MP's feel forced to take issue with him), and is frankly dangerous nonsense. He's not fit to hold any sort of high office, nor to be leader of the Labour Party.
> Jeremy Corbyn "talks from a completely unrealistic viewpoint". Could you give us an example?
Well, all this recent stuff about the supposed shoot to kill policy more or less proves the point. It sounds principled in a hand wringing sort of way but he is, in fact, merely acting as an apologist for terrorists and trying to get in the way of people who are trying to do something to safeguard the public. It is intended to appeal to a relatively small element of the political spectrum, I am sure he knows what he's doing, very much doubt it is truly out of deeply held principles (or why would he do u-turns when his own MP's feel forced to take issue with him), and is frankly dangerous nonsense. He's not fit to hold any sort of high office, nor to be leader of the Labour Party.
6
3
In reply to cb294:
Yes, unquestionably.
This completely non-political figure :
https://www.gov.uk/government/people/sally-davies
Had to give an hour-long briefing to him about the dangers of increasing antibiotic resistance. She was interviewed about this by the usual sneering BBC woman reporter, who came out with the gem : "you explained it, but was he capable of understanding it?"
Dame Sally (who has no political axe to grind and had come to talk about a serious and real problem, not to be used as someone else's cannon fodder) responded with audible irritation and impatience "Yes, he understood it very well, he is very intelligent".
> Would you really argue that Cameron is intellectually superior to Corbyn? Not by a long way, degree or not.
Yes, unquestionably.
This completely non-political figure :
https://www.gov.uk/government/people/sally-davies
Had to give an hour-long briefing to him about the dangers of increasing antibiotic resistance. She was interviewed about this by the usual sneering BBC woman reporter, who came out with the gem : "you explained it, but was he capable of understanding it?"
Dame Sally (who has no political axe to grind and had come to talk about a serious and real problem, not to be used as someone else's cannon fodder) responded with audible irritation and impatience "Yes, he understood it very well, he is very intelligent".
2
2
In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
No True Scotsman.......
> Wouldn't them in the camp of 'left wing'. More dictatorship.
No True Scotsman.......
1
1
More Corbyn Labour comedy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34853430
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34853430
1
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I was tired and looking for a get out of jail card...,,gimme a break.
Think I should give UKC a break for a while, I'm getting far too kranky for my own good.
> No True Scotsman.......
I was tired and looking for a get out of jail card...,,gimme a break.
Think I should give UKC a break for a while, I'm getting far too kranky for my own good.
In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
I think we all should and are..
> I was tired and looking for a get out of jail card...,,gimme a break.
> Think I should give UKC a break for a while, I'm getting far too kranky for my own good.
I think we all should and are..
In reply to Simon4:
That's not a completely non-political figure: she's the Chief Medical Officer and has already been made a 'Dame'. Obviously she is not going to play along when the BBC woman implies the Prime Minister is thick because laughing at your boss is career limiting.
> Yes, unquestionably.
> This completely non-political figure :
That's not a completely non-political figure: she's the Chief Medical Officer and has already been made a 'Dame'. Obviously she is not going to play along when the BBC woman implies the Prime Minister is thick because laughing at your boss is career limiting.
In reply to Simon4:
Terry F*ckwit with half an 'O' level in domestic science could understand rudimentary epidemiology, infection control and the life cycle of germs. Doctors still don't wash there hands before or after examining patients.
Hardly a glowing report on the capacity for nuanced reasoning of taxing details for a man that runs the country. But if it gives you a warm glow about Iggle Piggle carry on.
D
Terry F*ckwit with half an 'O' level in domestic science could understand rudimentary epidemiology, infection control and the life cycle of germs. Doctors still don't wash there hands before or after examining patients.
Hardly a glowing report on the capacity for nuanced reasoning of taxing details for a man that runs the country. But if it gives you a warm glow about Iggle Piggle carry on.
D
In reply to Goucho:
My feeling is that Corbyn will probably step down before the next election, if indeed he isn't ousted before then anyway.
A couple of points though:
1) I think people think he's a lot more left wing/socialist than he is. A lot of his policies could appeal to a centre ground electorate if communicated properly, which between Labour's current in-fighting, his miscommunications and a very biased press probably aren't going to happen any time soon.
2) The result of New Labour seems to have been that the 'centre ground' has shifted rightwards. If that could be shifted leftwards again he could gain a lot more support.
3) Austerity is the very foundation of the Tory government. It seems to be an assumption that austerity is the only way forwards, yet there's never really been any public dialogue around this, and for some reason Miliband's Labour never challenged this, which pretty much handed election victory to the Tories. I voted for Corbyn because I felt the number one priority was to have a Labour leader who would oppose austerity. If the question is brought back into the public consciousness then a lot could change.
My feeling is that Corbyn will probably step down before the next election, if indeed he isn't ousted before then anyway.
A couple of points though:
1) I think people think he's a lot more left wing/socialist than he is. A lot of his policies could appeal to a centre ground electorate if communicated properly, which between Labour's current in-fighting, his miscommunications and a very biased press probably aren't going to happen any time soon.
2) The result of New Labour seems to have been that the 'centre ground' has shifted rightwards. If that could be shifted leftwards again he could gain a lot more support.
3) Austerity is the very foundation of the Tory government. It seems to be an assumption that austerity is the only way forwards, yet there's never really been any public dialogue around this, and for some reason Miliband's Labour never challenged this, which pretty much handed election victory to the Tories. I voted for Corbyn because I felt the number one priority was to have a Labour leader who would oppose austerity. If the question is brought back into the public consciousness then a lot could change.
In reply to Trevers:
That remains the mystery about him. He was on the left of the party in the 1980s when its centre of gravity was way to the left of where it (the PLP) is now. Has he drifted rightwards, or is he hiding his true positions and what will be the influence of his hard line associates?
"New Labour" was the result of the centre ground moving rightwards.
Some truth in this but Corbyn doesn't seem to have enough understanding of or even the interest in the economics to make a case beyond saying that it's unfair on the poor. If the Wren Lewis/Krugman/MMT view is going to gain traction it has a huge amount of ground to make up and will need a very articulate spokesman.
> My feeling is that Corbyn will probably step down before the next election, if indeed he isn't ousted before then anyway.
> A couple of points though:
> 1) I think people think he's a lot more left wing/socialist than he is. >
That remains the mystery about him. He was on the left of the party in the 1980s when its centre of gravity was way to the left of where it (the PLP) is now. Has he drifted rightwards, or is he hiding his true positions and what will be the influence of his hard line associates?
> 2) The result of New Labour seems to have been that the 'centre ground' has shifted rightwards. If that could be shifted leftwards again he could gain a lot more support.
"New Labour" was the result of the centre ground moving rightwards.
> 3) Austerity is the very foundation of the Tory government. It seems to be an assumption that austerity is the only way forwards, yet there's never really been any public dialogue around this, and for some reason Miliband's Labour never challenged this, which pretty much handed election victory to the Tories. I voted for Corbyn because I felt the number one priority was to have a Labour leader who would oppose austerity. If the question is brought back into the public consciousness then a lot could change.
Some truth in this but Corbyn doesn't seem to have enough understanding of or even the interest in the economics to make a case beyond saying that it's unfair on the poor. If the Wren Lewis/Krugman/MMT view is going to gain traction it has a huge amount of ground to make up and will need a very articulate spokesman.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...