UK Politics - hookers and blow edition

[mormont]

One of the unwritten rules of AV elections is, if you're publicly talking about your voters' second preferences, you're losing. On that note:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33921047

 

I actually find this a stronger signal than the polls that Corbyn is seriously being considered the front-runner.

 

I would also agree with this, with one qualification:

 

Lance price, former director of communications for Labour, told the BBC the leadership contest had been an "unedifying mess" and had "done nothing to reengage the Labour party with those millions of people who deserted it".

 

Clearly, the campaign has re-engaged some people with Labour - the ones that are voting for Mr Corbyn. But the other three candidates have utterly failed to inspire any sort of connection with voters, so far as I can see.

[DJDonegal]

If I had to put my money on someone who isn't Osborne, I'd probably risk it on Morgan or Soubry.

Soubry v Corbyn at PMQs would be the stuff of legends.

[HairBearHero]

Corbyn is both the literal and the metaphorical MP for Islington.

 

He's the MP for North Islington, which is probably somewhat different to the image of affluent, leafy, champagne-swilling Islington you've got in your head.

[Hereward]

You're no fun.

[HairBearHero]

You're no fun.

 

I've heard fun is dangerous, so avoid it wherever possible.

 

That said, there's shitloads to legitimately bash Corbyn on - his stated unwillingness to actually be PM, his foreign policy positions, his support of extremely dubious groups such as the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah as just a few examples - so it seems a little unnecessary to also falsely paint him as some sort of champagne socialist from an elitist constituency.

[Hereward]

Not my intention to so paint him. I'm attempting to paint his supporters as affluent, thoroughly middle class internationalists, with, despite all the rhetoric about returning the Labour Party to its roots, almost nothing in common with the working class, just like that other notable non-working class teetotaler, the Honorable Anthony Wedgwood Benn! 

[Liffguard]

 

 his support of extremely dubious groups such as the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah as just a few examples

 

I'm surprised this stuff hasn't been getting more traction. Maybe it has and I've just been reading the wrong sources but the vast majority of the criticisms I've seen have been focusing on his economic positions and leaving this alone. Whilst I appreciate some - maybe even most - of what Corbyn advocates, his past support for those groups is a pretty major dealbreaker for me and probably many others.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Not my intention to so paint him. I'm attempting to paint his supporters as affluent, thoroughly middle class internationalists, with, despite all the rhetoric about returning the Labour Party to its roots, almost nothing in common with the working class, just like that other notable non-working class teetotaler, the Honorable Anthony Wedgwood Benn! 

 

Like Clement Attlee, you mean?

[SeanF]

 

I'm surprised this stuff hasn't been getting more traction. Maybe it has and I've just been reading the wrong sources but the vast majority of the criticisms I've seen have been focusing on his economic positions and leaving this alone. Whilst I appreciate some - maybe even most - of what Corbyn advocates, his past support for those groups is a pretty major dealbreaker for me and probably many others.

 

I expect the Tories, UKIP, and their friends in the media are waiting to give him both barrels, when we gets elected leader.

[polishgenius]

 

I'm surprised this stuff hasn't been getting more traction. Maybe it has and I've just been reading the wrong sources but the vast majority of the criticisms I've seen have been focusing on his economic positions and leaving this alone. Whilst I appreciate some - maybe even most - of what Corbyn advocates, his past support for those groups is a pretty major dealbreaker for me and probably many others.

 

I think it's because, while at first glance those things seem more controversial than his economics and it certainly is questionable for example whether he should have been inviting Gerry Adams to tea in Westminster in 1984, his actual position is less 'I support these people' than 'I'll talk to anyone who I think can help the peace process', and it's difficult to run a really effective attack campaign based on that.

Whereas his economics are pretty easy to point at and just go LEFTY LOONY, although it's not really working either atm evidently.

[BigFatCoward]

 

I expect the Tories, UKIP, and their friends in the media are waiting to give him both barrels, when we gets elected leader.

the he says 'i had the lowest expenses claims out of 650 MPs' and nobody gives a shit anymore.  

[Slick Mongoose]

Whereas his economics are pretty easy to point at and just go LEFTY LOONY, although it's not really working either atm evidently.

 

It's working just fine for the Tories, I suspect.

 

The Labour people doing that are morons, the rule is to swing towards your base during leadership contests and towards the middle for general elections.

[Hereward]

 

Like Clement Attlee, you mean?

 

Attlee that took Britain to war in Korea, into NATO, developed nuclear weapons and encouraged Truman to confront Stalin? That internationalist?

 

Anyway, I was pointing out the essentially middle class support base of Corbyn and Benn. That's not an accusation you can make against Attlee.

[Liffguard]

 

I think it's because, while at first glance those things seem more controversial than his economics and it certainly is questionable for example whether he should have been inviting Gerry Adams to tea in Westminster in 1984, his actual position is less 'I support these people' than 'I'll talk to anyone who I think can help the peace process', and it's difficult to run a really effective attack campaign based on that.

 

I've done a bit more reading and it seems you're on the money here. His stance is definitely more nuanced than simply supporting these groups. As you say, he appears to advocate working in conjunction with unsavoury groups if it helps lead to peace in the long run.

[Maltaran]

It seems the warnings of doom are unfounded, at least according to this poll

 

Voters would be more likely to back Labour in a general election under Jeremy Corbyn than any of his rivals, a survey suggests.

 

[Slick Mongoose]

It seems the warnings of doom are unfounded, at least according to this poll

 

 

That's hardly an endorsement though.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

Some of Corbyn's policies (eg rail nationalisation, higher taxes for the rich) are indeed popular. Others (on unilateral nuclear disarmament, immigration) are very unpopular.

Blair and his followers are wildly unpopular, yet the current government is very Blairite.

 

Immigration is certainly a big issue, and will remain so for Labour, however opinions on nuclear disarmament are very dividing, with people polled generally turning against Trident when they are told how much it costs in relation to other government spending.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

 

I think it's because, while at first glance those things seem more controversial than his economics and it certainly is questionable for example whether he should have been inviting Gerry Adams to tea in Westminster in 1984, his actual position is less 'I support these people' than 'I'll talk to anyone who I think can help the peace process', and it's difficult to run a really effective attack campaign based on that.

Whereas his economics are pretty easy to point at and just go LEFTY LOONY, although it's not really working either atm evidently.

 

That would also involve calling much of the conservative party 1951-1979 "LEFTY LOONY" as well.

[Deedles]

I thought Yvette Cooper have a good speech last night.

[Veloknight]

Disclaimer: I tend to filter things through a US politics lens, since I'm more familiar with political dynamics here.

 

And it is the other way around. Those ideas where in the population all the time. Ukip exists because of those ideas. Yes, that the powers that be can ignore certain aspects for a time is certainly true, but they will not go away (unless the economical situation improves drastically for example through inovation). The best example for that would probably be the sexual abuse scandal of Rotherham. Ignored for over 10 years, untill it exploded. Just because you do not hear the voices, it does not mean they are not there. If you as some guy/girl living far off the problem start hearing them, it is most of the time too late.

It is actually much more so, that failing pushes the window in the opposite direction. Succeding with policies has (in my opinion) a far lesser impact. It just moves certain aspect from "lets try" to "accepted normality".

 

Okay, but I'm not convinced of this. To use your earlier example of President Obama: many of the issues that President Obama outflanked the GOP on, for example, were left-wing pushes where both parties were further to the right than the public. The broad majority of the American public likes things like higher minimum wage, but that's not a "moderate" position - that's a left-wing one! Much of the American public wants some form of comprehensive immigration reform - but at this point, it's now exclusively a left-wing issue. In fact, we can even see how the Overton Window has moved in this regard: 10 years ago, it was a Republican president pushing comprehensive immigration reform, with support from moderate business-oriented conservatives and opposition from nativists and conservative activists. Now, the entire Republican party opposes much smaller reforms like the DREAM proposal. What happened? Well, one party moved in a more nativist direction, making another party's proposals - even fairly tame ones, like "don't deport people who came here when they were little kids" suddenly seem bold and far-out. This energized the most active supporters of both sides of the argument, which - among other things - dramatically increased Democratic margins in the Hispanic community. Yet on this issue, the GOP - the party that instigated the movement - is clearly losing, so they can't be doing it because it's where the populace already was.