Off Topic Political Debate

Pretty shameful of him to disclose that in a book really. I'm sure that many people will have stories in their adolescence that are quite repulsive - particularly if they ahve joined any organsiation where there uis some form of initiation ceremony. Thankfully these "activities" are rapidly becoming a thing of the apst. It distubs me that it's seen as acceptable to publish in what are supposed to be family newspapers. Standards huh?

 

Agreed, also surprised a tory rag would serialise this, probably think it can't do too much political damage due to the Corbyn appointment.

The quicker the Pozzo's can pay this odious man off the better.

 

That's what actually worries me Super - perhaps they think that by publishing this it gives them carte blanch to launch any number of personal attacks on Corbyn. By all means raise questions about policies and actions in paid public life (including who their "friends " are) but the rest of it? Nah, not for me to be honest.

 

I just think he may be telling porkies!

My last joke on the subject!

 

I can't see where you see any inconsistency here W_Y. None of the points, or countries, I mentioned are particularly hard left and nuclear power has no place on the left-right scale. It may be that Britain has moved so far to the right over the last 30 years that these appear to be hard left themes, but they are not, and that was my point - they are policies practised by normal, centrist, European states.

 

From what I read The Left in Germany receives most of it's support from the better paid who can afford to be idealists and little support from the poorer workers in the country. This suggests that things are not so different between the two countries, where well off people can support the theories of the left, but know that there are far more people who will prevent them ever coming to power.

 

Unfortunately Frenchie the lowest paid in German society have become estranged from mainstream politics. The middle classes are simply more active in politics - and that applies to all parties in Germany as in the UK. If the poorest elements of German society vote at all it would tend to be for 'Die Linke' (left of the SPD) or, occasionally, for radical right wing parties such as the NPD or AfD.

 

In the case of Nucleur Power your argument is very inconsistent - you stated that Nucleur Power was being phased out in Germany, my point is that in France, which has a very left leaning government, it is not. Therefore the context is different and cannot be compared to the UK when considering that to be Left-Right positioning. So I do not see the point in comparing some of Corbyn's policies to those in Europe which you consider to be more Centrist. Personally, I don't care if they are called Left-Right, Up-Down, Red-Blue or anything else - but in the UK, they are described as Left-Right and the vast majority of people understand that context. Trying to position Corbyn and centrist makes no sense in the UK,

 

W_Y, I don't know what you are driving at here. I have already said that nuclear power has no natural place on a left-right spectrum. My point is that Corbyn is being painted as a radical which he isn't - it may be that Britain has veered so far to the right that what is considered radical there is different to in other countries. However, Corbyn's politics would have been considered as mainstream also in the UK 20-30 years ago ie. before Thatcher. The way that Corbyn is being presented in the media, and also consistently misquoted, is also a major slander on so called British democracy.

 

W_Y is correct, Corbyn is considered way to the left in Britian because that is the position he takes compared to other politicians. He would have been well to the left at least back to the 60's when I first became interested in politics. There is no doubt the UK, under Thatcher and subsequently Blair, has permanently moved further to the right. The country has no appetite for industrial strikes, re-nationalisation, etc.

It will not be the fault of the press that will ensure Corbyn sinks like a stone, it will be the traditional Labour voter that abhors his views on the monarchy, IRA, terror groups and trident.

 

1) "Which" country ?
The "right-wing" media always bring scorn on those who exercise their right to withdraw their labour and demonise trade unions. Many people strike for what they consider good reason. ...and many people would support that right even if they don't agree the cause.

Re-nationalisation. Agree or not, like it or not, many people would support renationalisation of the railways for example. The whole concept of privatisation is political in any case.

2) Agreed. However his views have been mis-represented by the same print media. Am I right also in thinking that News International which was responsible for some major newspapers was owned by, also, a republican - Murdoch?

 

The public were sick of the politically motivated industrial strikes led by 'Red Robbo' Scargill etc that were more interested in overthrowing the government than their members. The public would not tolerate a return to such abuse.

On renationalisation, the railways would have support but the public do not yet have the financials to adequately make a decision.

It is also a slur on the intelligence of the typical Labour voter to suggest they are unable to see beyond political bias in the print.

My father in law is firmly in the left camp but reads the daily mail.

 

Sorry Cologne, I am probably not making myself very clear. My point is that in a UK context Corbyn's policies are considered hard left and thus radical and comparing them to the same policies in other countries in terms of where they sit in the political spectrum is not a good comparison. Plus there are inconsistencies in some of your examples i.e. Nucleur Power as in some countries it is being phased out and that you are considering as centrist and your argument seem to be that at as Corbyn would also phase out Nucleur Power he must actually be centrist as well. But that does not align to France.
As superhorns points out, without a doubt the UK has moved more to the right and so Corbyn appears more to the left and certainly many of his policies, especially around the role of the state in the management of the economy are seen as hard left.

 

Amazing that you appear to know the thoughts of the traditional Labour voter - apparently better than anyone else ! We know, for example, that 20%, or so, of the British are republican, a further 30% could not really give a monkeys either way and just under a half could be considered as consistently monarchist - and this last figure is likely to be considerably lower amongst Labour voters. Added to this is the fact that Corbyn, despite being republican in theory, has stated that this is not his battle.

In order to find the 'traditional' Labour voter it might be usefull to analyse the ranks of non voters in the UK. New Labour lost around 5 million voters between 1997 and 2010 (and half of their members) and there is no evidence to assume that more than a minority of them went to other parties - which means that the non voters include a very large number of ex labour voters. Did these people desert New Labour, and become non voters, because the party had lost contact to its traditional values ? Could this be the reason why a constituency like central Manchester had the lowest turnout at the last 2 elections (44% and 18% at one by election). The lowest turnout is amongst ethnic minorities, people in rented accomodation, and those on lower incomes. The more that Corbyn can galvanize politics the better, because we know that low turnouts only profit the Tories - in fact, if we had compulsory voting in the UK then Labour could be constantly in power, which makes a mockery of your claim that England is naturally Conservative. If Corbyn can win back Scotland (which is possible), win back the Green voters (which he is ideally suited for), can build on his status as the most Euro sceptic Labour leader in years, and, most importantly, can start to win back some of those 5 million stay at home Labour voters then he will be the next PM.

 

The UK has not moved more to the right, the political establishment has. What has happened in the country is the annihilation of the old industrial working class - those who have replaced them as the new poor, in what is now a 'status' society have no central organization or focus and have become estranged from active politics - the result is that politics have become more dominated by the middle classes.

 

He won't be the next PM.

Labour voters didn't all just stop voting at all. Of course a chunk of those people will have gone to other parties. The difference between voter numbers in 1997 compared to 2015 for example isn't a huge difference and in fact if the 4% difference all voted for labour the Tories still had more votes.

Also the move to UKIP being the third largest chunk of the vote would suggest movement to the right.

Corbyn won't win the middle ground unless he compromises on his ideas. He has already said labour won't campaign to leave the EU, labour won't try to get rid of trident and he will sing the national anthem. So it may well be that he just compromises and tries to win the middle ground, but then he loses his left wing appeal and his euro sceptic appeal.

I just don't see how he can keep his ideas and political leanings and win a general election.

 

If the United Kingdom were to become a republic the royal family would carry on in some way but not connected with politics or how the country is run. How would you chose the president and would he or she come from the existing political elite? Would there be one eye on moving the president into Buckingham Palace?

I would come to see the Queen/King and her/his palaces and castles, but I would not come to see President Blair/Cameron/whoever has the job. I would guess that as soon as the monarchy was abolished and the government took over the palaces for themselves getting in to see them would go from the current access to none at all.

 

I agree on this point......

Mind you the print media that support the Tory agenda may well decide to play a shrewd game... as if he is leader at the time of the next election they will then have a perfect foil to 'guarantee' another Tory Govt.

 

1) 'The public' is a generalisation. Come to Barnsley or many other Northern towns and 'The Public' there would most likely have a quite different view. It might be better to talk about the electorate as a whole. I would agree with you on that.

2) I believe the proposal from Corbyn was a no cost to the Govt run out of franchises.

3) Some voters sadly believe what they read in the press without realising the bias

4) I am a psychologist. I can help him

 

Labour voters in 1997 numbered 13.5 million, by 2010 (the end of the New Labour experiment) this had dwindled to 8.6 million. The increase for the Tories was around a million over this period and for the Lib Dems a little more than this. Allowing that the Green votes and the UKIP votes in 2010 were much less than now then this does indicate that over half of this lost 5 million joined the ranks of the non voters. The other factors such as which social groupings are the least politically active, which I cited, also indicate that the potential Labour vote amongst non voters is over proportionally high. So, it is this group which needs to be won and not necessarily the middle ground. It is possible to win an election from a very left wing position - but you have to be able to get people voting who have perhaps never voted before. Until you know exactly who the 35% of non voters are, and why they are not voting, you can make no prognosis for the future.