The Politics Thread

[William the White]

"Those who think they are on the left"

Outstanding. From the same school of thought that brings you "Corbyn.. At least he stands up for what he believes in". Unlike the other three who are (literally) standing up for something other than they believe in, presumably.

The moral worthiness of the self proclaimed "real left" has been so depressing. Corbyn's candidacy was supposed to widen debate and its done nothing but narrow it.

Just to say I feel no moral worthiness at all because I recommended serious consideration of freeindeed's contribution to the debate - I just feel it's the one that has most clearly asked people to consider serious ideas rather than PR puffs.

I do think ideas are important on the left.

I recognise I am in a minority on this. I find this depressing.

There's that sneer again.

"Having ideas", "being on the *real* left" and "standing up for what you believe" are not synonyms for "agree with WtW".

I fail to see where I've sneered at anyone. I think David Harvey's critique of finance capital, as posted by freeindeed, is pretty much on the button and not easily dismissed. I don't expect agreement on this. What do you think of it?

[freeindeed]

But your scenario is predicated on things going wrong and opening the door for the opposition. Which is possible. But my suspicion is even with a wide open, gaping door, Corbyn wouldn't have enough support to get through it.

This is how it works. Things are hunky dory the show goes on. Create the poll tax, start an illegal war, finances collapse - the next lot come in.

There was a fairly open door for Labour this time round. But they blew it through an incompetent campaign, a leader few in the country felt credible and a confusing set of policies that seemed open ended enough to effectively mean nothing. People didn't know what they stood for and the only consistent reaction measured throughout the campaign was that some people worried about Ed's competence as a potential PM and there was concern he was a real, genuine leftie....

A combination of Milliband's lack of authenticity, and the Labour parties loss of direction into the no mans land of trying to please all voters with no ideology of it's own, plus the Tories ability to set and lead the agenda on mainly the economy, which they have actually completely fecked up. The potential 'leftie' angle is horseshit - simply because he was not - he espoused neo-liberal economics.

At the end of the day, and what Labour massively missed last time, it doesn't matter what you say, so long as it isn't stark raving bonkers, it is HOW you say it, how you package it and how you deliver it. The Tories did spectacularly well at making people believe they were the party for the "hard working Brit", whatever that means and people swallowed it hook line and sinker, irrespective of the fact that the actual meat on their policies didn't really back that up. Elections are won from the middle. Like it or not. Cameron has played a blinder, with his whole "I'm pumped up" speech. He came out as a man to make tough decisions but on the side of working class and middle class people. It is total bollocks of course but it is the game now. Labour couldn't escape the nonsense tag of being reckless socialist spenders just waiting to get in and spend all those hardworking people's money again. They made huge, huge mistakes not countering the argument earlier, in a credible way.

It is indeed how you say it. Personality, TV Debate politics. Style over substance. Corbyn is being likened to Farage as a straight talker. Thats a large part of his attraction, I think he'll handle himself just fine vs Cameron.

Corbyn will be savaged daily in an election battle, Milliband's treatment will seem a mere trifle in comparison. And as much as he may unite the left side of Labour, like it or not that won't help them win an election. The seats they need to take back are the ones they lost ground in middle and Southern England mainly. Believe me, whatever happens between now and 2020 the battle lines in the seats that make a difference won't be won by tempting the Green vote across. They'll be won by winning back Tory and dare I say it UKIP voters. And that simply won't happen with Corbyn there, like it or not. In addition the party would almost certainly fragment either physically or behind closed doors and would be an unelectable mess. I don't see any other scenario.

He will be savaged by the press, that is a fact. However media is changing, there are many different channels for people to tune into. The tabloids aren't as damaging as they were say for Kinnock in the eighties. But what will really get people to vote is how the economy is effecting their lives. As the Welfare cuts bite, funding is slashed further and the austerity policies continue to stall the economy - things are only going to get worse for ordinary people. Now add on to that a genuine alternative offering genuine hope and with a wave of youthful optimism and energy behind him - things can change.
I disagree with your electoral analysis. The large Tory majorities will unlikely change. Swing seats could well..swing. The green vote was 1 million, 5 times bigger than before - most of these will vote Corbyn. Many Ukip voters wanted an alternative where there was none. I believe many would vote for a straight talking Corbyn. Same with SNP, as their policies are broadly similair.

When a time for change arrives, things can snowball very quickly. Do not rule it out.

[Prufrock]

"Those who think they are on the left"

Outstanding. From the same school of thought that brings you "Corbyn.. At least he stands up for what he believes in". Unlike the other three who are (literally) standing up for something other than they believe in, presumably.

The moral worthiness of the self proclaimed "real left" has been so depressing. Corbyn's candidacy was supposed to widen debate and its done nothing but narrow it.

Just to say I feel no moral worthiness at all because I recommended serious consideration of freeindeed's contribution to the debate - I just feel it's the one that has most clearly asked people to consider serious ideas rather than PR puffs.

I do think ideas are important on the left.

I recognise I am in a minority on this. I find this depressing.

There's that sneer again.

"Having ideas", "being on the *real* left" and "standing up for what you believe" are not synonyms for "agree with WtW".

I fail to see where I've sneered at anyone. I think David Harvey's critique of finance capital, as posted by freeindeed, is pretty much on the button and not easily dismissed. I don't expect agreement on this. What do you think of it?

"Those who think they are on the left".

"I do think ideas are important on the left. I realise I am in a minority on this".

The condescension is palpable.

I haven't watched it yet (though I intend to). I'm less confident than you that I'll disagree with large parts of it. My own views on many issues are still pretty left of centre. I'd just rather have a left-of-centre Govt (slightly to the right of me) than a further-left opposition.

[BWFC_Insane]

He will be savaged by the press, that is a fact. However media is changing, there are many different channels for people to tune into. The tabloids aren't as damaging as they were say for Kinnock in the eighties. But what will really get people to vote is how the economy is effecting their lives. As the Welfare cuts bite, funding is slashed further and the austerity policies continue to stall the economy - things are only going to get worse for ordinary people. Now add on to that a genuine alternative offering genuine hope and with a wave of youthful optimism and energy behind him - things can change.
I disagree with your electoral analysis. The large Tory majorities will unlikely change. Swing seats could well..swing. The green vote was 1 million, 5 times bigger than before - most of these will vote Corbyn. Many Ukip voters wanted an alternative where there was none. I believe many would vote for a straight talking Corbyn. Same with SNP, as their policies are broadly similair.

When a time for change arrives, things can snowball very quickly. Do not rule it out.

You are right that the traditional tabloid press' influence on an election has diminished. But it is still significant. I agree Corbyn will handle himself but the projection to the public isn't in his or Labour's hands. It is in the hands of the media, and as you say not just traditional media, but still the figures back up the papers and TV hold the biggest sway.

My point is that the final analysis is that for Labour to get a majority it requires winning seats in England. Even if they regained most of Scotland they still need gains from the Tories in the midlands and South East. In those areas they lost votes to the Tories at the last election. I see it as incredibly unlikely that those voters would swing round and support the most left version of the Labour party since the 70's. The key battlegrounds in my view are dominated by whichever party is most convincing AND closest to the centre.

Finally you might be describing the "Obama" effect of mobilising unlikely voters, but I don't see it. He just doesn't have the pull for that. He's not exactly dynamic. I can't see the motivation. And critically even if he achieved that, those groups, have never traditionally been the key in deciding an election. One might argue that is because they've never mobilised en-masse but I just fail to see it. The other thing to consider is how many votes from the centre and right of the party supporters does he lose? And how many MPs walk away because several seem completely incompatible with a Corbyn style party?

[William the White]

"Those who think they are on the left"

Outstanding. From the same school of thought that brings you "Corbyn.. At least he stands up for what he believes in". Unlike the other three who are (literally) standing up for something other than they believe in, presumably.

The moral worthiness of the self proclaimed "real left" has been so depressing. Corbyn's candidacy was supposed to widen debate and its done nothing but narrow it.

Just to say I feel no moral worthiness at all because I recommended serious consideration of freeindeed's contribution to the debate - I just feel it's the one that has most clearly asked people to consider serious ideas rather than PR puffs.

I do think ideas are important on the left.

I recognise I am in a minority on this. I find this depressing.

There's that sneer again.

"Having ideas", "being on the *real* left" and "standing up for what you believe" are not synonyms for "agree with WtW".

I fail to see where I've sneered at anyone. I think David Harvey's critique of finance capital, as posted by freeindeed, is pretty much on the button and not easily dismissed. I don't expect agreement on this. What do you think of it?

"Those who think they are on the left".

"I do think ideas are important on the left. I realise I am in a minority on this".

The condescension is palpable.

I haven't watched it yet (though I intend to). I'm less confident than you that I'll disagree with large parts of it. My own views on many issues are still pretty left of centre. I'd just rather have a left-of-centre Govt (slightly to the right of me) than a further-left opposition.

I think social democracy throughout Europe is in crisis precisely because it has ceded the ideological terrain to the right. It does not have ideas that challenge that hegemony. It replaces them with your argument - we win only by moving to the centre. If you congregate there where is the 'left'?

This is the reason for Syriza, Podemos and, in a different form, SNP and UKIP.

Is it really condescending to lament the lack of genuine political debate? Even the intervention of corbyn hasn't stirred much of this. The other three respond not with ideas but with psephology.

[freeindeed]

My point is that the final analysis is that for Labour to get a majority it requires winning seats in England. Even if they regained most of Scotland they still need gains from the Tories in the midlands and South East. In those areas they lost votes to the Tories at the last election. I see it as incredibly unlikely that those voters would swing round and support the most left version of the Labour party since the 70's. The key battlegrounds in my view are dominated by whichever party is most convincing AND closest to the centre.

Firstly a majority is not needed, as with many European countries coalitions are the norm. In the current climate where the opposition has been split - Corbyn's policies would clearly be allied with the smaller parties.

The media truism that middle England will not vote for a left party is not a fact. sure there are a minority who will only vote Tories. There are many who vote in the context of the current political climate.

There hasn't been a true left wing option to vote for since 1983, so we can't really say for sure they would not have been voted for!!

You say the electorate will vote for who is the most convincing. I believe that the worlds economical system is deeply imbalanced and getting worse. This countries economy and societal safety nets are screwed. I think they will get worse. As this becomes increasingly apparent to the wider electorate, who is gonna be the most convincing? The evidently failing model or a clear alternative?

Finally you might be describing the "Obama" effect of mobilising unlikely voters, but I don't see it. He just doesn't have the pull for that. He's not exactly dynamic. I can't see the motivation. And critically even if he achieved that, those groups, have never traditionally been the key in deciding an election. One might argue that is because they've never mobilised en-masse but I just fail to see it. The other thing to consider is how many votes from the centre and right of the party supporters does he lose? And how many MPs walk away because several seem completely incompatible with a Corbyn style party?

Policies not personality. Do you think his attraction to the young is his appearance or his 1970's associations? It's because of his clear and engaging ideas.
The whole thing about euphoria and buzz is that it engages people who were unengaged. it's infectious and unpredictable. It does and can happen. People are disenfranchised and want change.
The Labour career politicians will slide to the left. The next intake will be full of inspired socialists, much like Mhairi Black of the SNP. The debate will change. Umuna, Hunt & Kendall can leave if they so choose.

[BWFC_Insane]

Firstly a majority is not needed, as with many European countries coalitions are the norm. In the current climate where the opposition has been split - Corbyn's policies would clearly be allied with the smaller parties.

The media truism that middle England will not vote for a left party is not a fact. sure there are a minority who will only vote Tories. There are many who vote in the context of the current political climate.

There hasn't been a true left wing option to vote for since 1983, so we can't really say for sure they would not have been voted for!!

You say the electorate will vote for who is the most convincing. I believe that the worlds economical system is deeply imbalanced and getting worse. This countries economy and societal safety nets are screwed. I think they will get worse. As this becomes increasingly apparent to the wider electorate, who is gonna be the most

Policies not personality. Do you think his attraction to the young is his appearance or his 1970's associations? It's because of his clear and engaging ideas.
The whole thing about euphoria and buzz is that it engages people who were unengaged. it's infectious and unpredictable. It does and can happen. People are disenfranchised and want change.
The Labour career politicians will slide to the left. The next intake will be full of inspired socialists, much like Mhairi Black of the SNP. The debate will change. Umuna, Hunt & Kendall can leave if they so choose.

I fear you are making the mistake Labour made during the last election campaign. Getting caught up in an online bubble of socialism that sadly (and regrettably) no longer exists in real numbers amongst our society. I think you're asking for huge events to trigger a move en masse from austerity and right of centre to a position on the left that has widely been discredited (in terms of a media driven debate and public mindshare) for nearly 4 decades now. There is a very, very different thing between you and I and others who have an interest in politics discussing the possibility of mobilisation of disenfranchised voters and the voting public at large.

The last election was won, and beyond what any pre-election poll suggested, because the public believed the tripe they were fed about austerity, reckless spending and welfare dependency. The battle on that has been lost. The mindshare will not return short of an absolute calamity. Whilst you and I know the score really, there is little point fighting battles that were either lost in 79 or 2010 or 2015. Re-treading arguments the public feel have been put to bed will not imo work. It will have the opposite effect.

And dismissing a very large section of the Labour party with "they can go if they want to" is highly idealistic. We're talking a considerable number of MPs who I think will really struggle to convincingly fall under Corbyn. You are left with a party that either doesn't wholly buy into their leader OR one where half it's MPs walk away and form a splinter party. Labour simply cannot afford this. I strongly, strongly want to see a more socialist party in charge. But the first priority has to be having a credible opposition who can challenge the government in opposition and unite to prepare for the next election. I'd rather have someone who realistically can achieve those two things than someone who requires some sort of massive economic meltdown in order to stand half a chance.

For me ideology has to be discarded. It went as soon as the Tories realised that being pragmatic rather than dogmatic was the way forward. See how it has benefitted them after they moved away from their traditional positions in tone if not practice.

[Bijou Bob]

Commenting on the risk of Entryism, Harriet Harman said,

"The new system is more robust because registered supporters have to make a declaration that they are committed to the values of the Labour party. They have to sign, or agree verbally to, the following statement: “I support the aims and values of the Labour party, and I am not a supporter of any organisation opposed to it.”

Ah. That's Ok then, problem sorted. Feck me.

[bobo the clown]

The Labour career politicians will slide to the left. The next intake will be full of inspired socialists, much like Mhairi Black of the SNP. The debate will change. Umuna, Hunt & Kendall can leave if they so choose.

... and there, ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case, without having had to make it.

[Prufrock]

I think social democracy throughout Europe is in crisis precisely because it has ceded the ideological terrain to the right. It does not have ideas that challenge that hegemony. It replaces them with your argument - we win only by moving to the centre. If you congregate there where is the 'left'?

This is the reason for Syriza, Podemos and, in a different form, SNP and UKIP.

Is it really condescending to lament the lack of genuine political debate? Even the intervention of corbyn hasn't stirred much of this. The other three respond not with ideas but with psephology.

In the way you "lamented" it, yes. There's an arrogant assumption than only the far left have "ideas". Ideas that propose altering rather than throwing out "the hegemony" are still ideas. Centrist views aren't just watered down far left views because their holders don't have the courage to defend them. The reason I don't advocate for a command economy is not because I'd like it but think Little England won't buy it, but because it would be a disaster. Not all business is bad, and markets are brilliant things in the right areas. It doesn't make you a Tory to recognise that, nor does it mean you're devoid of ideas.

That's a separate issue to the psephology, but strategy to get elected is important too, because if you can't do that, we might as well pack up and go home. The point of the parliamentary Labour Party is to win seats and wield power, not to be a protest group. If Corbyn was standing to lead the Coalition Against the Cuts, his electability would be irrelevant, but he isn't.

Both policy and "electability" are important in this election. If I agreed with Corbyn 100% but thought he had a 1% chance of being elected, and agreed with Burnham 90% but thought he had a 90% chance of being elected, I'd clearly give weight to the fact Burnham had far more chance of of putting into practice what I believed in than Corbyn and back Burnham. If I agreed with Corbyn 100% and thought he had a 20% chance of being elected, and agreed with Cooper 20% of the time but thought she had a 21% chance of winning, then clearly her greater "electability" wouldn't be enough.

Both are important. Kendall is the only who understands the psephology as set out by BWFCi. Middle England is the ball-game. If you can't present your ideas so they're attractive to them, you can't win.

As it is, Kendall is to the right of me, and Corbyn to the left, probably by similar distances. But one has a chance of putting into practice the bits I agree with her on, the other doesn't.

[Prufrock]

The right wing media will have you believe that a left-wing win being impossible is some kind of truism, but we have had left wing governments before. Don't believe it is impossible again.

Apart from in 1945 after a World War, when? Ramsay MacDonald led a minority Govt after everyone else had had their go, and Harold Wilson and Tony Blair would be in Cooper, Burnham and Kendall's centrist, moderate group, not Corbyn's.

When a time for change arrives, things can snowball very quickly. Do not rule it out.

So we say every time. I'm calling it now: In five years' time we'll be being told that the reason we lost in 2020 was that Jeremy Corbyn in fact wasn't left-wing enough, and if we really want to connect with the electorate with a "clear message" then we need to re-animate the corpse of Karl Marx.

[thebish]

but they have his supporters... calls being made to postpone the election because of the influx of new members wanting to vote corbyn - dismissed as entryist trotskyites who want to destroy the party...

could it not simply be the return of many who were driven out by the lurch rightwards in the 80s?

there is PLENTY from the anti-corbyn lobby about people not having a place in this discussion - so much so that they want to stop the election and rewrite the rules...

also - I don't think "we need to believe this because it's what middle england like" is "policy" - that's strategy... I have heard the other three talk lots of strategy - and hardly any policy...

No arguments with the first part of that, other than I haven't actually seen much of it at a (awful phrase alert) "grass-roots level". I've no time either for those people such as they exist. If Corbyn wins, he wins. Fair enough - with the caveat that I'd change my mind if there was any evidence a significant part of Jezza's support was in fact these "mischievous Tories" rather than one or two *hilarious* jokers. If they're new Labour supporters, whether returning members driven away, or people who've never been members but won over by JC's message then it's totally right that they're welcomed and allowed to vote.

On the second part, firstly and crucially, it's not "we need to believe this because it's what middle england like", it's "we need to sell what we believe this way because it addresses the concerns middle england has". And yes, you're right that is strategy not policy. But strategy is important. For me the two important questions in this election are: 1) would this candidate be better for the country than Osbourne, Johnson or May? 2) can this candidate actually win? Policy is relevant to question 1), strategy (and to an extent policy too) to question 2).

Kendall and Cooper (not so much in this contest so far, but certainly in the past) have said enough about policy for me to be totally convinced that either would be better for the country than the Tories. And my dislike of Burnham probably means I'm being unfair to him too.

but neither kendall nor cooper fit your "could win an election" test! they don't even look as if they can win this little one..
neither could burnham... cooper?????? really????

why dismiss Corbyn on the basis that he couldn't win but not the other three?

[thebish]

... and there, ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case, without having had to make it.

is that a promise??

[bobo the clown]

... and there, ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case, without having had to make it.

is that a promise??

There's little to add to that nonsense, but I'm sure you'd fight to the death for my right to add it.

[thebish]

and if we really want to connect with the electorate with a "clear message" then we need to re-animate the corpse of Karl Marx.

bollox! Marx was far too verbose to win a popular vote! now I know you are in la-la land!

[bobo the clown]

but neither kendall nor cooper fit your "could win an election" test! they don't even look as if they can win this little one.

neither could burnham... cooper?????? really????

why dismiss Corbyn on the basis that he couldn't win but not the other three?

Because, although you're correct that they are a poor bunch, none of those will scare the horses maybe ?

You're welcome.

[BWFC_Insane]

but neither kendall nor cooper fit your "could win an election" test! they don't even look as if they can win this little one..
neither could burnham... cooper?????? really????

why dismiss Corbyn on the basis that he couldn't win but not the other three?

Because Corbyn has by far the least chance out of the candidates of winning a general election?

[thebish]

but neither kendall nor cooper fit your "could win an election" test! they don't even look as if they can win this little one.

neither could burnham... cooper?????? really????

why dismiss Corbyn on the basis that he couldn't win but not the other three?

Because, although you're correct that they are a poor bunch, none of those will scare the horses maybe ?

You're welcome.

I hate horses - they deserve to be scared! so there!

[thebish]

but neither kendall nor cooper fit your "could win an election" test! they don't even look as if they can win this little one..
neither could burnham... cooper?????? really????

why dismiss Corbyn on the basis that he couldn't win but not the other three?

Because Corbyn has by far the least chance out of the candidates of winning a general election?

none of them have any chance!!!

1) you have to become party leader
2) you have to win the election

cooper? kendall? burnham?? nahh - not buying it!

it'd be like voting for our next manager... candidates:

little sammy lee
megson
coyle
freedman


OK - I know who you'd vote for!

[BWFC_Insane]

but neither kendall nor cooper fit your "could win an election" test! they don't even look as if they can win this little one..
neither could burnham... cooper?????? really????

why dismiss Corbyn on the basis that he couldn't win but not the other three?

Because Corbyn has by far the least chance out of the candidates of winning a general election?

none of them have any chance!!!

1) you have to become party leader
2) you have to win the election

cooper? kendall? burnham?? nahh - not buying it!

it'd be like voting for our next manager... candidates:

little sammy lee
megson
coyle
freedman


OK - I know who you'd vote for!

You're probably right. But Corbyn splits the party in my view doing future damage in the process.

I also think against Osborne that Burnham might have half a chance. Nobody likes Osborne, even many Tories....