The Commons Bar Mk IX - MHoC Chat Thread Watch

This discussion is closed.
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9601
Report 4 years ago
#9601
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Indeed, they're dead when he loses. True sign that they've lost their ways.
That problem was my concern with him being on the ballot.
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9602
Report 4 years ago
#9602
(Original post by RayApparently)
That problem was my concern with him being on the ballot.
Ahh, well he's got to be the best of the 4 though.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9603
Report 4 years ago
#9603
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Ahh, well he's got to be the best of the 4 though.
Best of the four fit what labour are "supposed" to stand for, not do much for an electoral win, nor fit the nation if he were to become PM.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9604
Report 4 years ago
#9604
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Best of the four fit what labour are "supposed" to stand for, not do much for an electoral win, nor fit the nation if he were to become PM.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Well hold your horses there, because I'd say that he's the best to attempt to win an election. If Kendall wins then Labour become "basically the tories", and Tories would rather vote Tory than some bird trying to emulate them. If Burnham/Cooper win then it's the same thing as Miliband, they might be better with the camera but the message will be pretty much the same, and that message wont win an election. If Corbyn wins however, then people will have an actual choice between Labour and the Conservatives, and the apathetic will have someone to cast their vote for. Aph's a bit silly where he said that if Corbyn won he wouldn't vote labour if his candidate were a blairite, because on a constituency level all candidates just want the same thing pretty much, but on a wider level (parliament level) they must all be loyal to their leader whether it be Corbyn (whom a blairite would be ideologically opposed to) or Kendall (whom the left would be ideologically opposed to). And with Corbyn as leader, Labour would offer all the things that the Greens would, it should be an easy 1m votes extra for Labour.
0
Tahret
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9605
Report 4 years ago
#9605
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Well hold your horses there, because I'd say that he's the best to attempt to win an election. If Kendall wins then Labour become "basically the tories", and Tories would rather vote Tory than some bird trying to emulate them. If Burnham/Cooper win then it's the same thing as Miliband, they might be better with the camera but the message will be pretty much the same, and that message wont win an election. If Corbyn wins however, then people will have an actual choice between Labour and the Conservatives, and the apathetic will have someone to cast their vote for. Aph's a bit silly where he said that if Corbyn won he wouldn't vote labour if his candidate were a blairite, because on a constituency level all candidates just want the same thing pretty much, but on a wider level (parliament level) they must all be loyal to their leader whether it be Corbyn (whom a blairite would be ideologically opposed to) or Kendall (whom the left would be ideologically opposed to). And with Corbyn as leader, Labour would offer all the things that the Greens would, it should be an easy 1m votes extra for Labour.
Labour wouldn't win a majority even with the Green vote. Not even a plurality.

That's assuming that 2015 Labour voters all stay with Labour despite them leaving the centre ground.

The last time Labour won on a left wing ticket was in 1974, which ended in disaster for the country...
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9606
Report 4 years ago
#9606
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Well hold your horses there, because I'd say that he's the best to attempt to win an election. If Kendall wins then Labour become "basically the tories", and Tories would rather vote Tory than some bird trying to emulate them. If Burnham/Cooper win then it's the same thing as Miliband, they might be better with the camera but the message will be pretty much the same, and that message wont win an election. If Corbyn wins however, then people will have an actual choice between Labour and the Conservatives, and the apathetic will have someone to cast their vote for. Aph's a bit silly where he said that if Corbyn won he wouldn't vote labour if his candidate were a blairite, because on a constituency level all candidates just want the same thing pretty much, but on a wider level (parliament level) they must all be loyal to their leader whether it be Corbyn (whom a blairite would be ideologically opposed to) or Kendall (whom the left would be ideologically opposed to). And with Corbyn as leader, Labour would offer all the things that the Greens would, it should be an easy 1m votes extra for Labour.
Were voter turn outs significantly higher when labour were far left? And if so, why in a two party system, which it was more back then, and with a much larger natural vote base, could labour not win when Labour were that far left?
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9607
Report 4 years ago
#9607
(Original post by Burford99)
Labour wouldn't win a majority even with the Green vote. Not even a plurality.

That's assuming that 2015 Labour voters all stay with Labour despite them leaving the centre ground.

The last time Labour won on a left wing ticket was in 1974, which ended in disaster for the country...
Nope, but there is a thrid of the population that doesn't vote, he could quite easily tap into that, there's also all the other socialist parties in Britain, whose members would quite happily vote for Corbyn.

If they wanted a centre ground party then they should have voted LibDem, Miliband made it clear he was centre-left.

I'm not saying that they'll win, I'm saying that he's their best chance.
0
Tahret
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9608
Report 4 years ago
#9608
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Nope, but there is a thrid of the population that doesn't vote, he could quite easily tap into that, there's also all the other socialist parties in Britain, whose members would quite happily vote for Corbyn.

If they wanted a centre ground party then they should have voted LibDem, Miliband made it clear he was centre-left.

I'm not saying that they'll win, I'm saying that he's their best chance.
1) The third of the population that doesn't vote is generally uneducated and is unlikely to anyway. Turnout in General Elections is never normally above 75%.
2) You're forgetting that the Tories are more efficient in marginal seats, and the loss of Scotland is unlikely to be a one off. Labour has to tap into Middle England to get a majority, which won't happen on a left wing front.
3) Vote for the Lib Dems? You're joking. Don't insult your own intelligence.
4) For Labour values? Yes. For electoral success? God no.
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9609
Report 4 years ago
#9609
(Original post by KingStannis)
Were voter turn outs significantly higher when labour were far left? And if so, why in a two party system, which it was more back then, and with a much larger natural vote base, could labour not win when Labour were that far left?
I think people over estimate how left wing Corbyn is. And it's important to note that times have changed in the last 40-50 years whereby we've had successive thatcherite governments that, it seems, 75% of the voting age population don't want.
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9610
Report 4 years ago
#9610
(Original post by Burford99)
1) The third of the population that doesn't vote is generally uneducated and is unlikely to anyway. Turnout in General Elections is never normally above 75%.
2) You're forgetting that the Tories are more efficient in marginal seats, and the loss of Scotland is unlikely to be a one off. Labour has to tap into Middle England to get a majority, which won't happen on a left wing front.
3) Vote for the Lib Dems? You're joking. Don't insult your own intelligence.
4) For Labour values? Yes. For electoral success? God no.
1) Well I know plenty of graduates who didn't vote, and plenty of highly respectable individuals who didn't vote because, well one person I met said he "couldn't find the time". In my point of view, a passionate and principled man like Corbyn is exactly the type of person to pull these people to the election booths.

2) At the last election yes, and maybe at a few before that, but you must note that this is a major turn in direction for the Labour party, and the last time Labour had a major turn in direction was Blair, and that worked out very well.

3) Haha, fair enough.

4) I still maintain that Corbyn is the person that will do best in an election out of the 4 candidates on offer, for the reasons I've mentioned before. The tories that are joining labour as supporters to get him in are really doing themselves a disservice as they should be getting Kendall in, she'd flop like a fish.
0
Tahret
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9611
Report 4 years ago
#9611
(Original post by James Milibanter)
1) Well I know plenty of graduates who didn't vote, and plenty of highly respectable individuals who didn't vote because, well one person I met said he "couldn't find the time". In my point of view, a passionate and principled man like Corbyn is exactly the type of person to pull these people to the election booths.

2) At the last election yes, and maybe at a few before that, but you must note that this is a major turn in direction for the Labour party, and the last time Labour had a major turn in direction was Blair, and that worked out very well.

3) Haha, fair enough.

4) I still maintain that Corbyn is the person that will do best in an election out of the 4 candidates on offer, for the reasons I've mentioned before. The tories that are joining labour as supporters to get him in are really doing themselves a disservice as they should be getting Kendall in, she'd flop like a fish.
1) Probably also applies to Tories as well. I said 'generally', not all. I know plenty of people who would vote Labour, me included, if they adopted a pro-business, fiscally responsible stance.

2) The difference is that was a turn towards the centre, which attracted the middle classes in the South East. Left wing policies don't work in the South East - Labour only have a few seats out of about 80.

4) All of the candidates stand no chance of winning 2020, or 2025 for that matter. Unless there is a massive recession or scandal, it is hard to see Labour getting a majority without;
a) winning a majority in England, which would need economically centrist policies, or
b) winning Scotland again and marginal seats in England.

Though b) is obviously the only way for a left-wing Labour government to form a majority, Scotland appears to be a lost cause, and will eventually become independent.

Option a) requires a 12% Con-Lab swing, just to highlight the scope of the task ahead. That is without boundary reforms.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9612
Report 4 years ago
#9612
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Well hold your horses there, because I'd say that he's the best to attempt to win an election. If Kendall wins then Labour become "basically the tories", and Tories would rather vote Tory than some bird trying to emulate them. If Burnham/Cooper win then it's the same thing as Miliband, they might be better with the camera but the message will be pretty much the same, and that message wont win an election. If Corbyn wins however, then people will have an actual choice between Labour and the Conservatives, and the apathetic will have someone to cast their vote for. Aph's a bit silly where he said that if Corbyn won he wouldn't vote labour if his candidate were a blairite, because on a constituency level all candidates just want the same thing pretty much, but on a wider level (parliament level) they must all be loyal to their leader whether it be Corbyn (whom a blairite would be ideologically opposed to) or Kendall (whom the left would be ideologically opposed to). And with Corbyn as leader, Labour would offer all the things that the Greens would, it should be an easy 1m votes extra for Labour.
If Burnham and Cooper are just Miliband again then why are they trying to distance themselves from him? And being better for the camera can do a great deal. I'm working from three bottom up here, so the way I'm writing it, again, you assume that all other lefties would vote labour with Corbyn and nobody would stop voting labour, both statement being absolutely ludicrous.

(Original post by James Milibanter)
Nope, but there is a thrid of the population that doesn't vote, he could quite easily tap into that, there's also all the other socialist parties in Britain, whose members would quite happily vote for Corbyn.

If they wanted a centre ground party then they should have voted LibDem, Miliband made it clear he was centre-left.

I'm not saying that they'll win, I'm saying that he's their best chance.
You're making the rather bold assumption that nobody would stop voting for the party and that those who do not vote are inherently left wing, both of which are completely false.
Which is better for labour? Gain 1m votes by losing 2m or not gaining any to retain the two?

(Original post by James Milibanter)
I think people over estimate how left wing Corbyn is. And it's important to note that times have changed in the last 40-50 years whereby we've had successive thatcherite governments that, it seems, 75% of the voting age population don't want.
Ah, this is great, you have done exactly what most people who oppose a particular government do and make two false assumptions:
1) All people who vote for a party would approve of that party being in government;
2) only people who voted for a particular party would approve of it in government.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9613
Report 4 years ago
#9613
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
If Burnham and Cooper are just Miliband again then why are they trying to distance themselves from him? And being better for the camera can do a great deal. I'm working from three bottom up here, so the way I'm writing it, again, you assume that all other lefties would vote labour with Corbyn and nobody would stop voting labour, both statement being absolutely ludicrous.
I've not said that. But I maintain that they'll gain more votes than they'll lose because if people want conservative politics they vote conservative, not labour. Yes there'll be soft tories, but in the event they feel labour are too left wing they'll vote lib dem, again, I've seen this.

You're making the rather bold assumption that nobody would stop voting for the party and that those who do not vote are inherently left wing, both of which are completely false.
Which is better for labour? Gain 1m votes by losing 2m or not gaining any to retain the two?
Again, I'm just speculating, and I'm not saying that people who don't vote are left wing. I'm saying that there are those who don't vote because they feel there's no passion in politics and they don't see any difference in a labour/conservative government. Corbyn is the only candidate that can remedy that, and pick up a few votes from the disenfranchised.

Ah, this is great, you have done exactly what most people who oppose a particular government do and make two false assumptions:
1) All people who vote for a party would approve of that party being in government;
2) only people who voted for a particular party would approve of it in government.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Again, not what I'm doing. I'm just using the figures I have at my disposal, and doing the best that I can with them. I doubt that you can really say that any of the other candidates would do any better than Corbyn, and if so, what's your
reasoning?

I somewhat agree with Burford that for Labour to win an election is a really big ask, and I am not sure if Corbyn could do it, but he'd give it as good a go as the other three, and come much closer to it than them.
0
Tahret
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9614
Report 4 years ago
#9614
(Original post by James Milibanter)
I've not said that. But I maintain that they'll gain more votes than they'll lose because if people want conservative politics they vote conservative, not labour. Yes there'll be soft tories, but in the event they feel labour are too left wing they'll vote lib dem, again, I've seen this.



Again, I'm just speculating, and I'm not saying that people who don't vote are left wing. I'm saying that there are those who don't vote because they feel there's no passion in politics and they don't see any difference in a labour/conservative government. Corbyn is the only candidate that can remedy that, and pick up a few votes from the disenfranchised.



Again, not what I'm doing. I'm just using the figures I have at my disposal, and doing the best that I can with them. I doubt that you can really say that any of the other candidates would do any better than Corbyn, and if so, what's your
reasoning?

I somewhat agree with Burford that for Labour to win an election is a really big ask, and I am not sure if Corbyn could do it, but he'd give it as good a go as the other three, and come much closer to it than them.
Pretty simple. Here is a list of unpopular left wing policies:

1) Trade union support.
2) Large welfare state.
3) Keynesian economics.
4) Scrappage of Trident.
5) High taxation.

Without these, Labour could win a majority comfortably. That's why Blairism was so popular - it was a pragmatic version of socialism that should've worked, had it not been for dodgy economic management.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9615
Report 4 years ago
#9615
(Original post by James Milibanter)
I've not said that. But I maintain that they'll gain more votes than they'll lose because if people want conservative politics they vote conservative, not labour. Yes there'll be soft tories, but in the event they feel labour are too left wing they'll vote lib dem, again, I've seen this.



Again, I'm just speculating, and I'm not saying that people who don't vote are left wing. I'm saying that there are those who don't vote because they feel there's no passion in politics and they don't see any difference in a labour/conservative government. Corbyn is the only candidate that can remedy that, and pick up a few votes from the disenfranchised.



Again, not what I'm doing. I'm just using the figures I have at my disposal, and doing the best that I can with them. I doubt that you can really say that any of the other candidates would do any better than Corbyn, and if so, what's your
reasoning?

I somewhat agree with Burford that for Labour to win an election is a really big ask, and I am not sure if Corbyn could do it, but he'd give it as good a go as the other three, and come much closer to it than them.
To compress things right down, how is he going to do better on a less popular platform? And if this is such a great platform that so many people like, then how come his support is so weak?

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9616
Report 4 years ago
#9616
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
To compress things right down, how is he going to do better on a less popular platform? And if this is such a great platform that so many people like, then how come his support is so weak?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Because for Labour to have any other leader is for them to admit that they are no longer socialist, Kendall would destroy Labour. If you see my signature, even Blair called himself a socialist, and in many ways he was. There isn't much to say that the platform is less popular, and there's a lot of influence that the media has.

(Original post by Burford99)
Pretty simple. Here is a list of unpopular left wing policies:

1) Trade union support.
2) Large welfare state.
3) Keynesian economics.
4) Scrappage of Trident.
5) High taxation.

Without these, Labour could win a majority comfortably. That's why Blairism was so popular - it was a pragmatic version of socialism that should've worked, had it not been for dodgy economic management.
Well they'd be just like the conservatives then, and why vote for a party like the conservatives when you can vote conservative?
0
Tahret
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#9617
Report 4 years ago
#9617
(Original post by James Milibanter)
Because for Labour to have any other leader is for them to admit that they are no longer socialist, Kendall would destroy Labour. If you see my signature, even Blair called himself a socialist, and in many ways he was. There isn't much to say that the platform is less popular, and there's a lot of influence that the media has.



Well they'd be just like the conservatives then, and why vote for a party like the conservatives when you can vote conservative?
But is there appetite for strong minded socialism in the UK anymore?
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9618
Report 4 years ago
#9618
The whole "labour and the Tories ae the same" belief I think comes after apathy, not a cause of it. People just repeat this becuase other people say it an it allows them to not have to form an opinion.
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9619
Report 4 years ago
#9619
(Original post by Burford99)
But is there appetite for strong minded socialism in the UK anymore?
Well even the current conservative party are slightly socialist. To abandon socialism is to sign a party's death warrant. Even UKIP need to have the NHS in public hands. Corporatism is very unpopular in Britain, Corbyn opposes that, Capitalism is seen as necessary in Britain, Corbyn won't deny that, but the British people need a public sector and a welfare state to fall back on, and Corbyn will fight for that relentlessly. So there's definitely an appetite for socialism, we just have to see the extent of it.
0
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9620
Report 4 years ago
#9620
(Original post by KingStannis)
The whole "labour and the Tories ae the same" belief I think comes after apathy, not a cause of it. People just repeat this becuase other people say it an it allows them to not have to form an opinion.
Well, yes I agree that they're not the same, but there just isn't enough of a difference between them at the moment to make it worthwhile for some people to vote for them, hence why the greens and UKIP have been gaining support. The USA does fine with 2 party politics because the both of them are significantly ideologically opposed
1
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (129)
64.82%
No I haven't decided yet (41)
20.6%
Yes but I might change my mind (29)
14.57%

Watched Threads

View All