Labour Party/government Watch

[Little John]

It depends really on how much you understand the rules for Universal Credit and the various working tax credits.

The problem with those is that they require a number of hours work for people to qualify.

I understand quite well enough how they work. Furthermore, I and everyone else on here can see you are evading addressing any of the points put by people to you. Frankly, it's pathetic to witness and, if you had any sense of f***ing shame, you'd crawl off back under the stone you crawled out from.

[biffvernon]

I see a great deal of public benefit in a society where income differences were limited to a factor of four. Why should some people be much much richer than others?

The question additionally is who decides what everyone gets paid. The Market economy has a large number of people whose rate of pay is not determined centrally.

That's an easy question. Government fixes a 100% tax rate at 4x minimum wage and the rest is left to what's left of the market economy.

It's not worth defending the market economy in its present form. Look where it's got us. On the brink of climate catastrophe and the end of civilisation.

[emordnilap]

BOT.

What's Corbyn's chances, people?

I see most media are against him, so he can't be all that bad.

Are they going to Varoufakis chances?

[Little John]

BOT.

What's Corbyn's chances, people?

I see most media are against him, so he can't be all that bad.

Are they going to Varoufakis chances?

I would have put the chances of someone like Corbyn at near zero a few years back or, even, as recently as a year or so ago. But, worldwide and particularly in Europe, the naked and unadulterated power now being employed by powerful forces to keep a facsimile of life going in an already dead system of capitalism are beginning to open the eyes of even the most somnambulistic of citizens. In other words, ordinary people both here and elsewhere are now beginning to wonder if we are all Greeks.

So, now, who bloody knows? Anything is possible.

[UndercoverElephant]

BOT.

What's Corbyn's chances, people?

Of winning the leadership election? He's now the bookies favourite. I think he's going to win, and not least because the competition are a bunch of talentless, coma-inducing nobodys.

Of winning a general election??

I think these two articles from the today's Torygraph are quite revealing:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... n-now.html

The best antidote to the allure of the radical Left is to see it in action. Then sanity will be restored.

[large snip]

Say Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper do win. They will make some incremental moves back to the centre (how dare they do more after the Corbyn insurgency?). And when those moves prove electorally ineffective, up the Left will jump with a cry of: “See, we told you!”

So victory must be handed to the traditionalists. It’s time to call the Left’s bluff. If the 7/5 Truthers genuinely think people voted for David Cameron because Ed Miliband’s Labour Party was too harsh on welfare, or too tough on public spending, or too interventionist on foreign affairs, fine. Let’s put it to the test. Let’s put the Left to the test.

The Left says Jeremy Corbyn is what the British people are looking for. OK. Let’s elect him Labour leader and see.

Blairites for Corbyn. Join me brothers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... -well.html

Labour being Labour, they’ll still have the same platform, no matter how bizarre their leader’s views. The only difference is Corbyn’s views will be more left-wing, so will shift the entire political debate to the left. Long-term, so long as Labour and the Conservatives remain the two major parties in the UK, the only way to make progress is to persuade Labour to accept our position. Our ideas don’t win just when our party does, but when the other party advocates our ideas, too.

Instead, a Corbyn victory would lend credibility to the far-left’s rejection of reality: giving a megaphone to their already over-blown and bombastic politics of fear and envy. Inevitably, this would skew the discourse, letting Corbyn’s ideas become the default alternative to the Conservatives. Corbyn’s brand of socialism would poison the groundwater of British politics for a generation: influencing people, particularly young people, across the political spectrum.

[snip]

Jeremy Corbyn – to say the least – is no Margaret Thatcher. But as Harold Macmillan said, governments can always be undermined by “Events, dear boy, events.” And if he were leader, it would take just one event – from the collapse of the Eurozone to a domestic political scandal – to put Jeremy Corbyn into Number 10. For the sake of the country and for the innumerable Conservative achievements he’d unwind, it is important that that option be taken off the table.

I don’t think Jeremy Corbyn would win the 2020 election – but then I don’t Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, or Liz Kendall would either. Their party – divided, in denial, and wholly owned by the unions – is no match for a competent Conservative government overseeing a growing economy. But there’s always that risk of the unexpected. So while Corbyn doesn’t reduce the risk of Labour winning, he does raise the stakes. And the danger of bringing socialism back to the UK under Jeremy Corbyn is all too real a threat for #ToriesAgainstCorbyn to risk.

What is absolutely clear is that the establishment, including both the entirety of the Tory party and the mainstream of Labour, don't know where a Corbyn victory would lead. They like to have control. They like to deny the public real choices. They like to know how the game is going to end. A Corbyn victory in September, which now looks very likely, puts a very large cat among the pigeons.

If you'd asked me two weeks ago what Corbyn's chances of being Prime Minister in 2020 are, I'd have said nil. Now I am not so sure. They're still low, but they aren't nil, and perhaps more importantly I think there's some truth in that second Torygraph article: even if Corbyn can't win in 2020, he still might be able to drag the whole of the debates about British politics back towards the traditional left. And that is not what those on the right expected to happen. They thought they'd won the argument for all time.

[emordnilap]

'wholly owned by the unions' - what nonsense and a typical abuse of reporting language.

Members of unions are ordinary working people. And what about non-union-members who pay to join the Labour party?

[UndercoverElephant]

The more I think about this, the more possible I think a Corbyn victory in 2020 is. There's a whole bunch of factors playing together.

Ed Miliband wasn't Prime Minister material. There's something awkward about him, and some people will have been put off labour not because of policy but because they just couldn't see him as PM. Corbyn is very charismatic by contrast.

Less than a quarter of the electorate voted tory in May. The tories only won because the opposition was divided and the electoral system unfairly rewarded them. However, there is little doubt that this government is going to massively overplay its hand. They are going to spend the next 5 years on an ideological crusade, trampling the poor into the dirt, ruining public services, giving tax breaks to the rich and further alienating and disenfranchising almost everybody under the age of 30.

Between now and 2020, 5 years worth of old tory-voting pensioners will die off, and 5 years worth of disenfranchised youngsters will become old enough to vote. Meanwhile the tories will continue to stack the system against them and tell them they deserve it. People like Russell Brand will stop telling them to abstain, and start telling them to vote Labour. And in their hundreds of thousands, they will do so.

In Scotland, large numbers of people who aren't nationalists but are socialists would return from the SNP to Labour under Corbyn.

In England, UKIP will cease to be relevant and may well cease to exist. This will happen regardless of the result of the referendum, because there isn't going to be another one. If the result is "out", UKIP have no reason to exist, and if the result is "in" then they've lost the argument and have no reason to exist. A significant number of people who voted UKIP in May would return to Labour under Corbyn.

Meanwhile, the general situation in the world will deteriorate further and more people at the bottom will worry for their future.

The Liberal Democrats will go nowhere fast and are unlikely to win many more than 10 seats in 2020.

And the tories? I can't see where they are going to pick up any new support from. It is all too predictable what they are going to do for the next 5 years, and I can't see it winning them many more friends than they've already got. People in the centre of British politics aren't going to vote for an ever-more-right-wing tory party simply because Labour is being led by a socialist instead of a blairite. They are more likely to vote green, begrudgingly return to the libdems, take a chance on Corbyn or just abstain.

Put all that together and a Corbyn victory in 2020, albeit by a small margin, starts to look like a real possibility.

[biffvernon]

There's quite a, er, heated debate on Green Party chat websites as to the ethics, propriety and strategic wisdom of GP members paying their £3 and voting Corbyn.

Funnily enough, I've not seen anyone suggesting voting for one of the other candidates!

[johnhemming2]

The more I think about this, the more possible I think a Corbyn victory in 2020 is. There's a whole bunch of factors playing together.

In predicting outcomes of elections it is important to be aware that different people have different perspectives and not everyone thinks the way you do or indeed I do.

If you start with the Conservative vote being 36.8% and UKIP having 12.8% then that is arguably a right wing vote of 49.6%.

The Lib Dems had a vote of 7.9%. This could be argued to be neither left nor right.

Hence if you put the green, labour, snp, pc etc vote together there is a shortfall.

DUP one would not really consider to be a left wing vote although their views can be traditional left at times.

I don't think a change of Labour leadership would result in a substantially changed result in Scotland.

It is difficult with this as I see it having a Labour majority government.

[biffvernon]

If a week is a long time in politics how long is five years?

[UndercoverElephant]

The more I think about this, the more possible I think a Corbyn victory in 2020 is. There's a whole bunch of factors playing together.

In predicting outcomes of elections it is important to be aware that different people have different perspectives and not everyone thinks the way you do or indeed I do.

Do you think I was born yesterday?

I'm 46, have been following British politics since Margaret Thatcher won in 1979, and am not stupid. Obviously not everybody thinks the way I do. And elections are very hard to predict, as Paddy Ashdown demonstrated by refusing to believe the exit poll live on the BBC at the last one.

I am not predicting the outcome of the next election. I'm saying that I've changed my mind about what might happen if Corbyn wins. I spent the first two weeks of the leadership campaign pouring cold water on the evangelism of labour party activists I know, telling them this was Michael Foot all over again, and that it would end badly. Having watched what has happened since, and thought about it a bit more, I'm beginning to change my mind. This is not 1979, and history is not necessarily going to repeat itself.

If you start with the Conservative vote being 36.8% and UKIP having 12.8% then that is arguably a right wing vote of 49.6%.

You could argue that, but anyone who swallowed the argument would not be paying attention.

A significant proportion of the people who voted UKIP in May were "Red Kippers" - disgruntled people on the left who didn't like Miliband or New Labour, but agreed with UKIP's only relevant policies (on immigration and EU membership). Corybn is a euroskeptic, and will win those people back quite easily. Tories didn't have to vote for UKIP because Cameron was promising a referendum. Labour's failure to offer a referendum was a key strategic error, as has since been widely acknowledged.

Also, that 36.8% is of the people who actually voted. It does not include the 32% who didn't vote. Of those 32%, almost none would ever vote tory, but a significant proportion might well vote for a Corbyn-led labour party.

The Lib Dems had a vote of 7.9%. This could be argued to be neither left nor right.

Most of the people who voted libdem in 2010 did so because they saw it as the tactically best option for avoiding ending up with a tory MP, and therefore helping to avoid a Tory government. Clegg's betrayal destroyed that system, permanently. Nobody will ever trust the LibDems on this again.

This is not a simple matter of left and right. It's more complicated than that, as shown by the red kippers. I'm at the extreme end of the green party, you already know what sort of "leftist" economic policies I support, but I'd also clamp down very hard on immigration and will probably vote "out" in the coming referendum. The old left-right scale of politics doesn't work the way it once did.

Hence if you put the green, labour, snp, pc etc vote together there is a shortfall.

But if you add in the almost-voted-but-couldn't-be-bothereds, the Russell Brandites, the red kippers and 5 year's worth of disenfranchised youngsters, and also remove 5 year's worth of old people, then the shortfall disappears. An overall majority is seems unlikely, but sufficient labour gains to erase this tiny tory majority and leave labour as the largest party? Easy peasy lemon squeezy, John.

I don't think a change of Labour leadership would result in a substantially changed result in Scotland.

Really? We know from the result of the referendum that a significant proportion of SNP voters aren't actually nationalists. They're socialists, and if they thought voting Labour might put Corbyn in Downing Street, enough of them would do so for Labour to win back 10 or 20 seats in Scotland. And this bit of the equation isn't that important anyway, because Corbyn would be perfectly happy in a coalition with the SNP.

[UndercoverElephant]

If a week is a long time in politics how long is five years?

Indeed. A lot of relevant changes are going to occur in the next five years, and I can't see any of them helping the tories win more votes. But Corbyn can certainly win votes for Labour.

[johnhemming2]

Also, that 36.8% is of the people who actually voted. It does not include the 32% who didn't vote. Of those 32%, almost none would ever vote tory, but a significant proportion might well vote for a Corbyn-led labour party.

The primary factor on turnout is social capital. If you are going to argue that of the 32% "almost none" would ever vote Tory you should be using evidence for that.

I have been a candidate in every General Election since and including 1983. (in my view) If Corbyn wins he is likely to have a Michael Foot type impact on labour's electability.

[UndercoverElephant]

Also, that 36.8% is of the people who actually voted. It does not include the 32% who didn't vote. Of those 32%, almost none would ever vote tory, but a significant proportion might well vote for a Corbyn-led labour party.

The primary factor on turnout is social capital.

I have no idea what this statement is supposed to mean.

If you are going to argue that of the 32% "almost none" would ever vote Tory you should be using evidence for that.

Here are the stats for a Miliband-run Labour Party. Since most of the non-voters are people who've given up on politics because of cardboard cutouts who avoid questions and don't stand for anything (e.g. Burhnam and Cooper), it is reasonable to assume that a Corbyn-led labour party would boost Labour's stats considerably:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/her ... te-5647755

Labour: 32%
Don't Know: 22%
UKIP: 18%
Tory: 15%
LD: 5%

So 15% of non-voters could vote tory.

Corbyn's ability to motivate current non-voters, Brandite abstainers and first-time young voters is still enough to win Labour quite a few seats.

I think what I'm saying is that I no longer buy the "Corbyn will be an electoral catastrophe" theory, even though I was saying this myself about 3 weeks ago. I know exactly why people think this, but I now believe it is too easy to just assume that the left is unelectable like it was in 1983. I think if you dig a bit deeper then another picture emerges. The left was split in May, for a whole host of reasons. Corbyn could re-unite it in a way that Ed Miliband could not.

[UndercoverElephant]

The thing about those non-voters...

If Cameron couldn't motivate the 15% that said they would have voted tory this time, I don't see how he'll be able to motivate them next time either. The scare tactics were pretty full on, no? Salmond as puppetmaster, Red Ed as the puppet...

But the same does not apply to that 32% who would have voted labour. Quite a lot of those people didn't vote labour precisely because they think "they're all the same", that labour since Blair isn't much different to the tories anyway and that today's politicians don't believe in anything and can't be trusted. Could Corbyn motivate some of these people to get off their arses and vote Labour in 2020? I think he could, yes.