The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

People keep saying the political landscape is changing. How, and where is the evidence?

I think the SNP holding the whole of scotland, 5 yrs of coalition government and the emergence of mass-appeal parties like UKIP is a fair bit of evidence that a change is under way from the old assumption that the options were either Labour or Conservative.

Hmmm maybe yes and maybe no. The SNP aren't getting many votes South of the Border and can't get many more North of it, UKIP have 2? seats...hardly mind blowing change.

Still a two party system...

[thebish]

People keep saying the political landscape is changing. How, and where is the evidence?

I think the SNP holding the whole of scotland, 5 yrs of coalition government and the emergence of mass-appeal parties like UKIP is a fair bit of evidence that a change is under way from the old assumption that the options were either Labour or Conservative.

Hmmm maybe yes and maybe no. The SNP aren't getting many votes South of the Border and can't get many more North of it, UKIP have 2? seats...hardly mind blowing change.

Still a two party system...

aye - mebbe so - but not as two-party as it used to be! It is not unthinkable that Corbyn (if he leads the labour party) could fashion a left-of-centre-type anti-austerity alliance/coalition...

that kind of thinking wasn't really on the agenda 20yrs ago - not prominently, anyway - and I think it could be now.

not saying it is going to happen - but that the electorate is willing to consider a wider array of options nowadays, and given that coaltion government is the norm in many places, it isn't unthinkable that that's a direction we may well be heading in...

[Bruce Rioja]

People keep saying the political landscape is changing. How, and where is the evidence?

I think the SNP holding the whole of scotland, 5 yrs of coalition government and the emergence of mass-appeal parties like UKIP is a fair bit of evidence that a change is under way from the old assumption that the options were either Labour or Conservative.

Hmmm maybe yes and maybe no. The SNP aren't getting many votes South of the Border and can't get many more North of it, UKIP have 2? seats...hardly mind blowing change.

Still a two party system...

Whilst I'm no supporter of either, doesn't that bring up the whole issue of proportional representation?

[Prufrock]

We have an electoral system designed to produce two-party politics. The last time a new party broke through properly into that was Labour, and in doing so brought about the destruction of the Liberal Party.

[Worthy4England]

People keep saying the political landscape is changing. How, and where is the evidence?

I think the SNP holding the whole of scotland, 5 yrs of coalition government and the emergence of mass-appeal parties like UKIP is a fair bit of evidence that a change is under way from the old assumption that the options were either Labour or Conservative.

Hmmm maybe yes and maybe no. The SNP aren't getting many votes South of the Border and can't get many more North of it, UKIP have 2? seats...hardly mind blowing change.

Still a two party system...

aye - mebbe so - but not as two-party as it used to be! It is not unthinkable that Corbyn (if he leads the labour party) could fashion a left-of-centre-type anti-austerity alliance/coalition...

that kind of thinking wasn't really on the agenda 20yrs ago - not prominently, anyway - and I think it could be now.

not saying it is going to happen - but that the electorate is willing to consider a wider array of options nowadays, and given that coaltion government is the norm in many places, it isn't unthinkable that that's a direction we may well be heading in...

Other than the electoral system isn't designed to support it, I'd agree. I'm fairly sure there'd be more coalitions, but the people didn't vote for that last time around...

[Zulus Thousand of em]

Corbyn is unelectable. That looks so nice in print.

[Worthy4England]

People keep saying the political landscape is changing. How, and where is the evidence?

I think the SNP holding the whole of scotland, 5 yrs of coalition government and the emergence of mass-appeal parties like UKIP is a fair bit of evidence that a change is under way from the old assumption that the options were either Labour or Conservative.

Hmmm maybe yes and maybe no. The SNP aren't getting many votes South of the Border and can't get many more North of it, UKIP have 2? seats...hardly mind blowing change.

Still a two party system...

Whilst I'm no supporter of either, doesn't that bring up the whole issue of proportional representation?

Yes indeed - but of course the people have spoken on that (or AV at any rate) fairly recently and fairly conclusively. I was surprised at the margin of victory to be honest, but maybe I shouldn't have been..

[bobo the clown]

...
and the emergence of mass-appeal parties like UKIP

Well, at least Jetemy's doing something to redress the mass appeal of Labour. Bless him.

[BWFC_Insane]

Some actual data to back up what I'm arguing here.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/17/le ... ht-labour/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Particularly note where Ed Miliband was perceived to be and where the voting public would like Labour to sit on the "political spectrum".

I know the whole "its a poll, look at the pre-election polls" hahahaha response will happen, but it is some data, showing the trend I was describing based broadly on my own experiences as something that is reflected more widely in some polling data.

[Bruce Rioja]

Some actual data to back up what I'm arguing here.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/17/le ... ht-labour/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Particularly note where Ed Miliband was perceived to be and where the voting public would like Labour to sit on the "political spectrum".

I know the whole "its a poll, look at the pre-election polls" hahahaha response will happen, but it is some data, showing the trend I was describing based broadly on my own experiences as something that is reflected more widely in some polling data.

Sorry mate, but I really can't buy in to that. And if it was the case then how come folk are turning out by the drove to listen to a guy who's seemingly left of Karl Marx?

[thebish]

...
and the emergence of mass-appeal parties like UKIP

Well, at least Jetemy's doing something to redress the mass appeal of Labour. Bless him.

aye - I agree there, Bobo - I imagine he will increase the mass appeal of labour. Currently there is pretty much NOTHING appealing about Labour...

[BWFC_Insane]

Some actual data to back up what I'm arguing here.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/17/le ... ht-labour/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Particularly note where Ed Miliband was perceived to be and where the voting public would like Labour to sit on the "political spectrum".

I know the whole "its a poll, look at the pre-election polls" hahahaha response will happen, but it is some data, showing the trend I was describing based broadly on my own experiences as something that is reflected more widely in some polling data.

Sorry mate, but I really can't buy in to that. And if it was the case then how come folk are turning out by the drove to listen to a guy who's seemingly left of Karl Marx?

Because as I keep saying there is a leftist bubble that exists in part of the North, North London, Universities and social media, there are loads of people who are happy to be "left of left".

It doesn't mean that a left wing party has any chance of a respectable election result. Russell Brand (tit) said he thought because he had millions of youtube followers who all said nice things about what he was saying that he could influence the election. Afterwards he said he realised he was mistaken. It is the same sort of reasoning.

There is, are and always has been a significant left wing population here. In Scotland for example the left usually, dominates. But when it comes down to it,just doesn't have the numbers or necessary spread required. It is shown in the election results time and time and time again.

And as you say Corbyn is totally different and saying totally different things. Of course he's the hot ticket, very different to actually securing votes in May 2020 though.

But lets try something else. You're a Tory voter, I don't know if you've always been and always will, but I'm guessing you're a fairly middle of the road typical Tory voter not in the middle and a flip flopper not on the right and a nutcase. So, given that, what would make you most likely to vote Labour? Would it be a lurch to the left? Or a something more centre ground?

It might be you'd never vote for them, but I'm simply asking as someone who (I assume) didn't vote for them last time what might make you change your mind....

[thebish]

I vote we just wait and see what happens...

[thebish]

In Scotland for example the left usually, dominates.

historically - that is simply not even close to being true... that is a recent phenomenon.

[freeindeed]

You can't dismiss the electoral system in this country, the one in which any Labour leader will have to win, as mere "psephology". It's not a dead topic. I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn sticks another 5,000 on the majorities of all the Labour London seats, I wouldn't be surprised if he fights off UKIP in the North and even if he has a reasonable do at fighting back in Scotland. But it's still not enough. Even if we accept there's a general swell of opinion for Corbyn, general appeal spread out doesn't translate to seats. Ask UKIP how far their 4m votes got them, or the Greens with their 1m.

Ideology (ideas) must come before policy. A breakdown of constituents and trying to target very specific votes is arse over tit thinking, and the very reason that Labour is in the state it is in. The abandonment of principle and direction in favour of the attempt to second guess voters and say whatever it is they think they want to hear.

Let's also for a second ignore the fact that Corbyn was speaking in the heart of North London, down the road from his constituency. Let's assume that every single person in that 2,000 crowd was someone who didn't vote Labour last time. Let's assume that you can go out of the metropolis to somewhere like Corby or Warrington South and attract the same sort of 2,000+ new Labour supporters. It *still* wouldn't be enough to win those seats, which are only the 25th and 27th smallest Tory majorities. We need to win 94 seats. The Tories only have 32 with a majority of less than 3,000. That's not mere psephology, that's the rules of the game. Middle England is the be-all and end-all.

The Tories victory was hardly convincing. They won 36.7% of the vote. Although I believe there are many swing voters who could vote for Corbyn, the route to a Labour victory would be much like Obama's path of engaging with the disenfranchised non-voters.

It's all just statistical blancmange anyway. The only question is can Corbyn inspire people to believe in the possibility of creating a better society. If he can - he can win, it's as simple as that.

And, by the way, how do you think those floating voters who shift between Labour and the Conservatives but voted Tory last time are going to react to a leader whose campaign at its grass-roots has been throwing (to borrow your hyperbole) vitriolic abuse at the other candidates for being too "Tory" as if it's some sort of moral disease?

It's politics - people get heated and passionate. Floating voters will make their judgement from what Corbyn says and does, rather than from a minority of inarticulate haters.

You keep talking about a shift, about doing something different, well last-time round we elected the most left-wing candidate on the leadership ballot. Voting in Corbyn isn't a shift, it's repeating the mistakes of 83 onwards in assuming that the sort of people who paid to join the Labour party are fairly representative of the general population with regards to how much they like Labour!

It's relative. The most left wing out of a group of politicians with centre-right policies is still not left-wing regardless of how the right-wing media label him.
Voting Corbyn has zero to do with 1983. This is 2015 with a historically unique set of social and economic problems, amidst an entirely different political landscape and worldwide economic instability. Corbyn is the British manifestation of a worldwide phenomenon.
The people who are joining Labour to vote may just be the first in a new movement towards the politics of redistribution, which is the only way to get off the entirely unsustainable freight train of neoliberal inequality.

[freeindeed]

People keep saying the political landscape is changing. How, and where is the evidence? The way Labour elect leaders HAS changed. That does not mean the politics of the electorate as a whole is changing in the same way. We've had one recent coalition government where the smaller element of that coalition was roundly and squarely and wholly rejected at the last election. We had a campaign where all the way through every poll suggested a hung parliament. Yet the electorate voted for a majority right wing government.

We tend to be politically ethnocentric. When the Labour party abandoned socialism and became a centre-right party, this largely happened in the rest of the world; the whole of politics moved to the right due to a period of economic stability.

Now the political ideology of free market deregulation has shown itself to be highly unstable. Leading economists are shouting about the rapidly widening inequality produced by this system, and that if it's not addressed the instability will continue and likely worsen.
As people around the world begin to understand this truth, simultaneously left wing political parties have started to do very well in lots of different countries.
Nothing but a right-wing government could be elected last time because there were only right-wing governments to choose from!!

As soon as a left voice has emerged he has instant mass support. Where it will end is obviously highly unclear, but to try and write it off in it's infancy is simply absurd . All the statistical analysis, and looking back for historical precedents is largely meaningless. The future is unwritten.

[Prufrock]

You can't dismiss the electoral system in this country, the one in which any Labour leader will have to win, as mere "psephology". It's not a dead topic. I wouldn't be surprised if Corbyn sticks another 5,000 on the majorities of all the Labour London seats, I wouldn't be surprised if he fights off UKIP in the North and even if he has a reasonable do at fighting back in Scotland. But it's still not enough. Even if we accept there's a general swell of opinion for Corbyn, general appeal spread out doesn't translate to seats. Ask UKIP how far their 4m votes got them, or the Greens with their 1m.

Ideology (ideas) must come before policy. A breakdown of constituents and trying to target very specific votes is arse over tit thinking, and the very reason that Labour is in the state it is in. The abandonment of principle and direction in favour of the attempt to second guess voters and say whatever it is they think they want to hear.

Again, Corbyn-ites don't have a monopoly on ideas and principles. You keep saying it like the only decision is between people who believe in ideas and people who believe in winning. I'm saying you have to have both. Recognising middle-england is the ball-game doesn't mean do a poll to find out what they think now and then say it as policy, it means targeting the ideas you do have and selling them as that. As an example Ed got his Red Ed loonie leftie tag because he'd criticise the likes of Amazon for not paying tax in a way that focussed on the "leftist" ideas about fairness and distribution. If he'd had the savvy to aim for middle England, he'd have sold the same policy both in those terms, and because multi-nationals not paying tax means they get an advantage over British businesses who do pay tax and so it's bad for competition and bad for jobs and growth. Corbyn can't speak to middle England like that. Kendall can, and Cooper and Burnham have more of a shout.

Let's also for a second ignore the fact that Corbyn was speaking in the heart of North London, down the road from his constituency. Let's assume that every single person in that 2,000 crowd was someone who didn't vote Labour last time. Let's assume that you can go out of the metropolis to somewhere like Corby or Warrington South and attract the same sort of 2,000+ new Labour supporters. It *still* wouldn't be enough to win those seats, which are only the 25th and 27th smallest Tory majorities. We need to win 94 seats. The Tories only have 32 with a majority of less than 3,000. That's not mere psephology, that's the rules of the game. Middle England is the be-all and end-all.

The Tories victory was hardly convincing. They won 36.7% of the vote. Although I believe there are many swing voters who could vote for Corbyn, the route to a Labour victory would be much like Obama's path of engaging with the disenfranchised non-voters.

It's all just statistical blancmange anyway. The only question is can Corbyn inspire people to believe in the possibility of creating a better society. If he can - he can win, it's as simple as that.

It's not statistical blancmange, it's electoral maths! Yes they only got 36.7% of the vote, but they got more than 50% of the seats, because that's how it works. Thousands of folk turning up in Camden doesn't mean anything. It's already a Labour seat. When they're turning up in Tunbridge Wells, then I'll get excited it means anything. UKIP had low level but wide support, with 4m votes. One seat. Seats win elections, not votes, nd certainly not "inspiring people to believe in the possibility of creating a better society". All filler, no killer.

And, by the way, how do you think those floating voters who shift between Labour and the Conservatives but voted Tory last time are going to react to a leader whose campaign at its grass-roots has been throwing (to borrow your hyperbole) vitriolic abuse at the other candidates for being too "Tory" as if it's some sort of moral disease?

It's politics - people get heated and passionate. Floating voters will make their judgement from what Corbyn says and does, rather than from a minority of inarticulate haters.

I wasn't the one bitching about "vitriol" to begin with. You can't have it both ways. As it happens, I don't think there's been much from any party so far, and that that there has been I think is wrong. Because people do take things personally. So if Corbyn's supporters get personally attacked, it's wrong, because we'll need them if he loses and vice-versa. Equally, given the election is Middle England, this constant sneer that Tory voters are somehow morally diseased isn't going to win over the people needed for a Labour majority, because by definition, lot's of them didn't vote Labour last time, but voted Tory.

You keep talking about a shift, about doing something different, well last-time round we elected the most left-wing candidate on the leadership ballot. Voting in Corbyn isn't a shift, it's repeating the mistakes of 83 onwards in assuming that the sort of people who paid to join the Labour party are fairly representative of the general population with regards to how much they like Labour!

It's relative. The most left wing out of a group of politicians with centre-right policies is still not left-wing regardless of how the right-wing media label him.
Voting Corbyn has zero to do with 1983. This is 2015 with a historically unique set of social and economic problems, amidst an entirely different political landscape and worldwide economic instability. Corbyn is the British manifestation of a worldwide phenomenon.
The people who are joining Labour to vote may just be the first in a new movement towards the politics of redistribution, which is the only way to get off the entirely unsustainable freight train of neoliberal inequality.

What worldwide phenomenon? Syriza got in and will promptly get chucked out. Podemos aren't in. The Socialists in France did get in, and are about to promptly be thrown out again.

Again you can't have it both ways. You can't argue that "Einstein said insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" and then say "this is a historically unique set of social and economic problems". This country has not voted for a radical left-wing PM in almost exactly 70 years. It won't happen. It doesn't happen.

[Bruce Rioja]

But lets try something else. You're a Tory voter, I don't know if you've always been and always will, but I'm guessing you're a fairly middle of the road typical Tory voter not in the middle and a flip flopper not on the right and a nutcase. So, given that, what would make you most likely to vote Labour? Would it be a lurch to the left? Or a something more centre ground?

It might be you'd never vote for them, but I'm simply asking as someone who (I assume) didn't vote for them last time what might make you change your mind....

Interesting. Yes, I have always voted Conservative, but it doesn't follow that I always will, and I don't do it in a sheep-like fashion either. It's just that through the years their policies have best matched my circumstances and general ideals. My golf buddy's dad is a Labour Councillor. Apparently, outside of his function, I'm the only Tory voter that he's prepared to discuss politics with as we truly aren't that far away from one and other - likewise my boss.
But I have to admit that my vote has regularly been to do with party leaders also. On a local basis the people of Bolton had the chance to depose the horrendously egregious Cliff Morris and his tenure over our moribund town. Amazingly he's still in office!
I listened to Ed Miliband's address to the Labour party conference, and whereas I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what he said I was constantly unimpressed by the bloke that was saying it. His staring-at-the-lens performance in the first TV debate gave me the shivers too. Now, I'm not the greatest fan of either Cameron or Osbourne, but, when it came to election time they earned my trust far more than Miliband and most certainly the fecking risible Ed Balls ever could.

[thebish]

All filler, no killer.

did you really type that or did I imagine it all in a weird dream??

[freeindeed]

Again, Corbyn-ites don't have a monopoly on ideas and principles. You keep saying it like the only decision is between people who believe in ideas and people who believe in winning. I'm saying you have to have both. Recognising middle-england is the ball-game doesn't mean do a poll to find out what they think now and then say it as policy, it means targeting the ideas you do have and selling them as that. As an example Ed got his Red Ed loonie leftie tag because he'd criticise the likes of Amazon for not paying tax in a way that focussed on the "leftist" ideas about fairness and distribution. If he'd had the savvy to aim for middle England, he'd have sold the same policy both in those terms, and because multi-nationals not paying tax means they get an advantage over British businesses who do pay tax and so it's bad for competition and bad for jobs and growth. Corbyn can't speak to middle England like that. Kendall can, and Cooper and Burnham have more of a shout.

Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it, because parts of your ideology are opposed to what best suits a large part (middle England) of the electorate. When Labour became "New" Labour, Ideology and principle were flung out of the window, and quite clearly abandoned in order to win power. Their is a direct lineage to Kendall, Cooper & Burnham. It is very clear to see that they are devoid of vision, principle or ideas. They are so concerned with trying to please everybody they can't even answer a direct question ffs; people can see through it, and have had enough of the 'political class'.



This is a large reason that Farage did so well - he is direct and honest. So is Corbyn.

Not all of middle England are entirely self interested - http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 13325.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - I think a clearly enunciated strategy with consistent policies aimed at investing in people, jobs and society is actually more likely to win over swing voters than the muddled all things to all people mess that the party has become.

You are intent on defending modern labour as having equally good ideology and policies. Whereas the consensus in both the wider electorate (election disaster) and the labour party itself (Corbynmania) both strongly disagree.

It's not statistical blancmange, it's electoral maths! Yes they only got 36.7% of the vote, but they got more than 50% of the seats, because that's how it works. Thousands of folk turning up in Camden doesn't mean anything. It's already a Labour seat. When they're turning up in Tunbridge Wells, then I'll get excited it means anything. UKIP had low level but wide support, with 4m votes. One seat. Seats win elections, not votes, nd certainly not "inspiring people to believe in the possibility of creating a better society". All filler, no killer.

"Electoral maths" is retrospective. Statistical analysis of what occurred. It does not and cannot predict the future. Public opinion is not fixed. Political landscapes change. Economies stagnate and crash. New movements are created.
Nobody is saying that a large rally in London means a thing about a general election in 2020, but massive crowds the length and breadth of the country, the thousands of young volunteers, and the general buzz created does indicate something; especially in the wider international context.
You can deny it if you like, but unfortunately "New" labour has had it's time and is about to die a horrible death. It is an empty husk devoid of identity, manned by career politicians without conviction.

And you say "All filler, no killer" - which of the candidates has released detailed policies covering most issues?

Housing: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/j ... 1438782182

Northern Future (Yes that's THe North!) https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/j ... 1438626641

Economy: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/j ... 1437556345

National Education Service:
http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/jeremy_c ... on_service

Womens Equality: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/j ... 1438076296

Robin Hood Tax: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 29501.html

I wasn't the one bitching about "vitriol" to begin with. You can't have it both ways. As it happens, I don't think there's been much from any party so far, and that that there has been I think is wrong. Because people do take things personally. So if Corbyn's supporters get personally attacked, it's wrong, because we'll need them if he loses and vice-versa. Equally, given the election is Middle England, this constant sneer that Tory voters are somehow morally diseased isn't going to win over the people needed for a Labour majority, because by definition, lot's of them didn't vote Labour last time, but voted Tory.

'Bitching' isn't a nice phrase. Every labour man and his dog has been wheeled out in the press talking against every aspect of Corbynism, including the man himself. Corbyn has not even criticised his direct opponents. That is fact.
You are the one complaining about the conduct of Corbyn supporters. The general flow in the press has been overwhelmingly in the opposite direction.
Tory voters aren't morally diseased, but the policies they voted for are. They favour the few over the many. They attack the poorest in society whilst labelling them as benefit scroungers to justify their implementation. They favour corporations over people and are serving to rapidly increase inequality. Once this is clear, it's very hard to feel warmth towards the people behind them.

Again you can't have it both ways. You can't argue that "Einstein said insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" and then say "this is a historically unique set of social and economic problems". This country has not voted for a radical left-wing PM in almost exactly 70 years. It won't happen. It doesn't happen.

Why not? They are both perfectly valid. You just received a crystal clear verdict, yet you want to try it again...in this historically unique moment, we need to adapt to the circumstances at hand, rather than looking to the distant past for "what has proved to work".
Corbyn may or may not be the next prime minister. What is certain though is that the next prime minister will not be a Blairite