Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Corbyn is not an extremist. He's a centre-left politician with some kooky views on foreign policy which hopefully he'll stfu about well before the election.
    You don't really believe that, do you? Besides, I thought what you guys liked about him was his straight talking, honest politics?

    I don't think most of the country is with him on economic or social policy, but even if they were I don't think it would make that much difference. The Tory campaign will crucify him on foreign affairs and constitutional issues (I'm thinking particularly of the monarchy here, which is very popular). The fact that Labour is hopelessly divided won't help them either; even if there's Tory infighting over Europe, which will hopefully have quietened down by then anyway, they will close ranks on every other issue and present a united and orderly front, which will be effectively contrasted with the potential for Labour chaos. As long as things are ticking along vaguely tolerably for most people under the Tories in 2020, as now, even if there are certain issues which enrage particularly politically interested people on the left, there is no prospect of Corbyn's leading the Labour Party to a victory imho.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    You don't really believe that, do you? Besides, I thought what you guys liked about him was his straight talking, honest politics?

    I don't think most of the country is with him on economic or social policy, but even if they were I don't think it would make that much difference. The Tory campaign will crucify him on foreign affairs and constitutional issues (I'm thinking particularly of the monarchy here, which is very popular). The fact that Labour is hopelessly divided won't help them either; even if there's Tory infighting over Europe, which will hopefully have quietened down by then anyway, they will close ranks on every other issue and present a united and orderly front, which will be effectively contrasted with the potential for Labour chaos. As long as things are ticking along vaguely tolerably for most people under the Tories in 2020, as now, even if there are certain issues which enrage particularly politically interested people on the left, there is no prospect of Corbyn's leading the Labour Party to a victory imho.
    I can only see a Corbyn led labour party having a chance if there is a major recession or some huge scandals involving the tory party.

    That said I'll be very surprised if corbyn leads labour into 2020.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    You don't really believe that, do you? Besides, I thought what you guys liked about him was his straight talking, honest politics?

    I don't think most of the country is with him on economic or social policy, but even if they were I don't think it would make that much difference. The Tory campaign will crucify him on foreign affairs and constitutional issues (I'm thinking particularly of the monarchy here, which is very popular). The fact that Labour is hopelessly divided won't help them either; even if there's Tory infighting over Europe, which will hopefully have quietened down by then anyway, they will close ranks on every other issue and present a united and orderly front, which will be effectively contrasted with the potential for Labour chaos. As long as things are ticking along vaguely tolerably for most people under the Tories in 2020, as now, even if there are certain issues which enrage particularly politically interested people on the left, there is no prospect of Corbyn's leading the Labour Party to a victory imho.
    I'm not sure whether I believe it or not. I think Corbyn's a good man with some good convictions but ultimately quite a bad politician. I suppose it depends how much he ends up spending on advisors. I do think a Tory majority is the most likely result in 2020 (as it would be under any of the leadership candidates), but I think a) it's not certain and b) it's probably the case that that Corbyn being in charge will normalise candidates like Ed Miliband to the public.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    That's still less than the Tories even with trident.

    The £100bn figure is a misnomer since it's spread over 30 years. You would'nt go around claiming that Labour will spend £5 trillion on the NHS would you.
    No, I would say that they would (in the terms of Trident) spend nearly £3bn every year on strengthening our military with non-nuclear means.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I subscribe to democratic peace theory (and other factors) and think that continual support of dictatorships will do nothing but bring further chaos in the Middle East and continue as a risk to Europe. The Saudis demise is inevitable- prolonging it will only make things worse.

    Case in point- The support of the Iranian Shah.

    Obviously we need to end our reliance on crude oil and improve public transport. Where I differ from the greens is that I'm open to nuclear power and think intervention is neccessary in some states.


    Oh and I just found this too :http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a6909496.html
    In the long run I'd again agree with you; it is unlikely to do any favours to the region long term if we prop up dictatorships to try and gain some degree of stability in the short term. But the thing is, the middle east has no long term future. Once the oil runs out - which is only a matter of time - the fact is the middle east will be more or less done for. It's a hostile environment, so living costs per person will be incredibly high, and where exactly are the countries going to find there income?

    In the short term however, the middle east is critical as it supplies huge amounts of oil and is a hotbed for extremist nutjobs. So I think supporting saudi arabia is the right decision politically, because we need only concern ourselves with the short term prospects of the region.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MildredMalone)
    Why do we need allies over there? Better to just leave them to drown in their own piss.
    Whilst I - to some degree - share the sentiment, we aren't living in the 1700s. If the middle east collapses, we'll hardly go unscathed. Between the affect on oil supplies and the ever high risk of extremist attacks, if we leave them to 'drown in their own piss', I fear we'll get quite a lot of the splashback, so to speak.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    In the long run I'd again agree with you; it is unlikely to do any favours to the region long term if we prop up dictatorships to try and gain some degree of stability in the short term. But the thing is, the middle east has no long term future. Once the oil runs out - which is only a matter of time - the fact is the middle east will be more or less done for. It's a hostile environment, so living costs per person will be incredibly high, and where exactly are the countries going to find there income?

    In the short term however, the middle east is critical as it supplies huge amounts of oil and is a hotbed for extremist nutjobs. So I think supporting saudi arabia is the right decision politically, because we need only concern ourselves with the short term prospects of the region.
    I have hopes for the middle east, and do belive in progress for the region- we are witnessing a huge development in Tunisia for one and I think that this can be mirrored. I strongly support the Kurdish people who have been a bastion of sanity in the region.

    Leaving the ME to its fate, if it is to go the way you think it will do, will lead only to the west having to deal with millions of islamist nutjobs resentful at the west and with nothing to lose at home.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I subscribe to democratic peace theory (and other factors)
    ]
    I've always found it too optimistic and naive. I do think that democracies are less warlike than dictatorships but that's largely because politicians slow things down rather than because populations are less war like per say. If Britain had her Empire still then i doubt many people would be calling for it to go, just as many Russians still wish to feel powerful.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I've always found it too optimistic and naive. I do think that democracies are less warlike than dictatorships but that's largely because politicians slow things down rather than because populations are less war like per say. If Britain had her Empire still then i doubt many people would be calling for it to go, just as many Russians still wish to feel powerful.
    Democracy alone is not enough (And democracy can also be reverted), but Liberal Democracies have never yet gone to war against each other- though they may aggressively invade other countries.

    I think the EU, although not fool proof has come the closest to realizing the full potential of DP theory.

    If Britain still had her empire, and it was bankrupting the country and causing tax to rise, I think that support would drop national pride be damned!

    Russia obviously doesnt have an empire, just a lot of empty territory, a rapidly declining birth rate, an abundance of natural resources and an inflated opinion of itself.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Democracy alone is not enough (And democracy can also be reverted), but Liberal Democracies have never yet gone to war against each other- though they may aggressively invade other countries.

    I think the EU, although not fool proof has come the closest to realizing the full potential of DP theory.

    If Britain still had her empire, and it was bankrupting the country and causing tax to rise, I think that support would drop national pride be damned!

    Russia obviously doesnt have an empire, just a lot of empty territory, a rapidly declining birth rate, an abundance of natural resources and an inflated opinion of itself.
    True but that's largely because liberal democracy in Europe and the Anglosphere is a result of cultural values which lend themselves to it (frankly we value money more than religion ect..), only developed Asia has come close to matching us and even then it was due to the west. We are not however willing to enforce our values on others (we should).

    Yes but again it's a continent full of variations upon on a theme and very similar route values. All it really proves is that the west is culturally superior.

    To be fair it was never bankrupting the country per say. It was like EU membership in the sense that there were direct costs and indirect benefits. For most of the late 1800's when the empire was at its height, even defense spending (the primary cost) was broadly at similar levels to today at a few percent of GDP.

    True but it did in recent memory for some.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    True but that's largely because liberal democracy in Europe and the Anglosphere is a result of cultural values which lend themselves to it (frankly we value money more than religion ect..), only developed Asia has come close to matching us and even then it was due to the west. We are not however willing to enforce our values on others (we should).

    Yes but again it's a continent full of variations upon on a theme and very similar route values. All it really proves is that the west is culturally superior.

    To be fair it was never bankrupting the country per say. It was like EU membership in the sense that there were direct costs and indirect benefits. For most of the late 1800's when the empire was at its height, even defense spending (the primary cost) was broadly at similar levels to today at a few percent of GDP.

    True but it did in recent memory for some.
    Agree with all of that. My point on the empire bankrupting the country was as an example, not a point of fact
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I have hopes for the middle east, and do belive in progress for the region- we are witnessing a huge development in Tunisia for one and I think that this can be mirrored. I strongly support the Kurdish people who have been a bastion of sanity in the region.

    Leaving the ME to its fate, if it is to go the way you think it will do, will lead only to the west having to deal with millions of islamist nutjobs resentful at the west and with nothing to lose at home.
    Culturally yes, we are seeing progress in the middle east. But even if every middle eastern country renounced islam, converted to secular governance, imposed democracy and in every other way took the lead from western democracies, I do not see a solution to the financial collapse that will befall them the moment that oil runs out or we find a viable alternative. I mean, I think oil works out at about 40-odd% of saudi arabia's GDP? That is not a drop in income that any country could survive.

    I quite agree, once the middle east collapses we'll see a massive influx of immigrants far exceeding the scale of the current crisis. It's one of the reasons I don't agree with this open-door policy. The numbers are only going to increase, and before long we will reach capacity in europe. I think the population crisis is the single biggest issue facing humanity right now, and that this current migration crisis is the start of a lot worse to come.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Culturally yes, we are seeing progress in the middle east. But even if every middle eastern country renounced islam, converted to secular governance, imposed democracy and in every other way took the lead from western democracies, I do not see a solution to the financial collapse that will befall them the moment that oil runs out or we find a viable alternative. I mean, I think oil works out at about 40-odd% of saudi arabia's GDP? That is not a drop in income that any country could survive.

    I quite agree, once the middle east collapses we'll see a massive influx of immigrants far exceeding the scale of the current crisis. It's one of the reasons I don't agree with this open-door policy. The numbers are only going to increase, and before long we will reach capacity in europe. I think the population crisis is the single biggest issue facing humanity right now, and that this current migration crisis is the start of a lot worse to come.
    That's why we better start working on an alternative form of economy pretty pronto

    I think such a crisis can only be addressed collectively, particularly in a federal Europe. Organizing numerous 'sovereign' european states to co operate to stop this crisis will be impossible, and will likely be seized upon by russia thus we should do everything in our power to protect both the EU and come to a long term plan for stability in the middle east.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    That's why we better start working on an alternative form of economy pretty pronto

    I think such a crisis can only be addressed collectively, particularly in a federal Europe. Organizing numerous 'sovereign' european states to co operate to stop this crisis will be impossible, and will likely be seized upon by russia thus we should do everything in our power to protect both the EU and come to a long term plan for stability in the middle east.
    Whereas I subscribe to a more dog-eat-dog kind of philosophy. There is no solution to that kind of crises that wouldn't have an incredibly negative effect on our own livelihoods so far as I can tell. I personally think what'll happen is as the money runs out, what resources are left will be fought for fiercely. Infighting between the arab nations will descend into chaos, the western powers will turn away the majority of the migrants (which I agree with) and eventually it'll burn itself out. It isn't pretty, but that's what I predict.

    I'm not really sure what alternative kind of economy you have in mind. And I quite agree that a federal, unified europe is a good thing. I just don't think Britain would be best served within it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I can only see a Corbyn led labour party having a chance if there is a major recession or some huge scandals involving the tory party.

    That said I'll be very surprised if corbyn leads labour into 2020.
    Certainly the party will stand a better chance if it manages to oust Corbyn, but it would then presumably alienate the large part of the membership that put him there, which wouldn't exactly be an ideal outcome either. It may be that the quickest, best, and longest lasting way for the labour party to make a return to electability would be to see it through, and to suffer a devastating loss under Corbyn's leadership, rather than fluff it and suffer a milder loss under a blairite. That way the party's moderates can forever turn away leftist insurgencies with the line, 'well, when you put Corbyn in charge, we got five more years of the Conservatives'.

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I'm not sure whether I believe it or not. I think Corbyn's a good man with some good convictions but ultimately quite a bad politician. I suppose it depends how much he ends up spending on advisors. I do think a Tory majority is the most likely result in 2020 (as it would be under any of the leadership candidates), but I think a) it's not certain and b) it's probably the case that that Corbyn being in charge will normalise candidates like Ed Miliband to the public.
    I broadly agree on the first part. I certainly think he's a sincere person, although I do think that part of what makes him a 'bad politician' is that his 'good' convictions are sometimes contrary to those of the electorate.

    I think point (a) is right, but (b) I don't find convincing. I'm not sure that 'well, he's not a radical, like the last guy' is a very strong motivation for people to vote for another Miliband. You need a positive message with wide appeal, which was what Miliband lacked. You also need to seem prime ministerial, and no amount of exposure to candidates who do not seem prime ministerial will change that imho.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I consider Jeremy Corbyn to be a Marmite populist more than anything else. He is not a conventional politician of the political 'left' or another Michael Foot or Clement Attlee. Whilst he may win masses of support from certain sections of society at the same time he is a turn off to other sections of society.

    The sticking point with Corbyn and the general public is less so his economic policies but more so his defence and foreign policy. Already the white English working class folk from places like Rotherham and Wigan are unhappy with Corbyn, so are choosing to throw their support behind UKIP for as long as Corbyn is leader. Can Corbyn afford to lose support from what was Labour's traditional vote base whilst he panders to the bottom 10% of society, who bear the brunt of austerity but don't care much about defence and foreign policy, and the ethnics and immigrants who support his defence and foreign policy?

    A nightmare scenario is that Labour under Corbyn increases its membership to around a million by 2020 by attracting hundreds of thousands of Old Labour, economic left, social justice, and anti war on terror types, but come to general election, Labour goes into meltdown in another 1983 style Conservative landslide victory and also loses around 10 to 15 white working class constituencies such as Hull, Barnsley, Rotherham, Grimsby, Sunderland, and a couple in south Wales to UKIP leaving Labour with fewer than 100 MPs. At the same time Labour manages to stack up huge majorities of over 80% of the vote in constituencies in heavily ethnic areas and inner London.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    i have a feeling that he won't even be leader come 2020....

    My dad said the same think with John Smith who was really liked and sadly passed away.

    If Corbyn is removed it will be interesting to see who would be their new leader going into the election.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Not with Corbyn.

    Maybe if you guys still had cheeky Ed it would be better
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It would be an interesting situation if Corbyn is deselected as leader then decides to join the Green Party. Will his supporters follow him or not? It will also conclude that old Labour or economic socialism in the Labour Party is dead, buried, finished, and never to return.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    the way the cuts are going if labour have/had a better leader they would have a chance imo
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.