So which is worse ... President Trump or Prime Minister Corbyn?

[Lanky123]

So, Brown loses to a non-overall Tory win requiring LibDem support to get power. Labour tack a bit to the left with a (Union-backed) Ed Milliband, and the public are so disgusted that he isn't left-wing enough that they give the Tories an overall majority?

Labour respond to the public tacking to the right by going further left?

...

Hence the grand experiment .... in four year's time, will the British public be ready for a Corbynite left-wing agenda? Unless something radical changes in the meantime, I'd say the answer is pretty self-evident. And the result is likely to be the rise of other parties, or a whopping Tory win. Or both.

I'm not convinced that the only factor at play is a public shift to the right. I think part of that shift is simply down to who the public feel they can trust, even remotely. I think a large part of the Lib Dem vote in 2010 and the UKIP/Green/SNP results (at least in percentage terms) in 2015 was the perception of them being more trustworthy and less cynical vote chasing, baby-kissing career politicians. I think there are huge numbers of voters who would happily move their left/right allegiance to some degree in favour of something on the menu that seems genuinely fresh. Also, don't discount the numbers of disenfranchised voters who are often (and I think somewhat accurately) portrayed as young and left leaning who didn't bother voting. I think we are due a surprising election at some point where a party finally catches up with the internet age, uses social media intelligently and pulls a ton of young, easily impressionable, possibly naive voters out of nowhere. It would be ironic if that person ended up being the oldest PM for decades with policies harking back to the 1970's but I don't think it's impossible.

[Top_gun]

Labour respond to the public tacking to the right by going further left?

Or is it the case the public was never given a proper choice or given an alternative to austerity?

Where is the centre ground these days? Considering the Tories only gained seats in the South West, South coast of England and Wales. Mostly at the expense of the Lib Dems by the way.

Well in Scotland, Labour lost seats because they were seen as being another Tory lite party. Yet the SNP gained their seats with their left wing ideology. Scotland firmly rejecting the austerity rhetoric given by the two biggest political parties. On the other hand, London is a Labour stronghold and had increased their majority, bucking the national trend, during the last election. Some would argue that London has a better educated population to reject the message given by the Tories.

I certainly don't think Corbyn, for one moment, is a nut job as depicted by our right wing press. I think it's refreshing that someone like Corbyn is standing up to the status quo of a Tory government and a ring wing press.

In the next five years, I'd hazard a guess there'll be a lot less older Tory voters (many deluded over the phoney war with the unions) and more young people voting for Labour. I also think the power of the right wing press is waning thanks to the increasing influence of the internet. Young people are more into social media. I'd say Corbyn could become a serious contender for Prime Minister considering he was ranked as an outsider from the beginning of the Labour leader's election.

Are these the faces of the centre ground?

[Saracen]

Or is it the case the public was never given a proper choice or given an alternative to austerity?

Where is the centre ground these days? Considering the Tories only gained seats in the South West, South coast of England and Wales. Mostly at the expense of the Lib Dems by the way.

Well in Scotland, Labour lost seats because they were seen as being another Tory lite party. Yet the SNP gained their seats with their left wing ideology. Scotland firmly rejecting the austerity rhetoric given by the two biggest political parties. On the other hand, London is a Labour stronghold and had increased their majority, bucking the national trend, during the last election. Some would argue that London has a better educated population to reject the message given by the Tories.

I certainly don't think Corbyn, for one moment, is a nut job as depicted by our right wing press. I think it's refreshing that someone like Corbyn is standing up to the status quo of a Tory government and a ring wing press.

In the next five years, I'd hazard a guess there'll be a lot less older Tory voters (many deluded over the phoney war with the unions) and more young people voting for Labour. I also think the power of the right wing press is waning thanks to the increasing influence of the internet. Young people are more into social media. I'd say Corbyn could become a serious contender for Prime Minister considering he was ranked as an outsider from the beginning of the Labour leader's election.

it's not just right wing press that consider him a nut job. From what I can make out, most of the PLP considers him unelectable.

Whether there was a "true" alternative to austerity is hardly the point. If the majority wanted less austerity, why vote for about the one party certain, because they'd said so, to do more of it?

But if Labour voters really want to go into the next election with a hard left platform, on the basis that Milliband wasn't sufficiently anti-austerity so voters voted Tory in protest .... well I'd invite them to go right ahead and try it. We'll all see what happens.

I do admire Corbyn for saying what he believes, not what he thinks is popular. It makes him a man of conviction, of pushing the ideological position he believes in. There's an integrity, an intellectual honesty in that that is sadly lacking in most politicians.

Still, personally, I don't think there's a snowball's change in hell that his ideology coincides with where voters are, and post-WW2 election results, up to and including 2015, would seem to support that. Still, if Labour want to plonk their entire 2020 stake on double-zero and spin the wheel .... go right ahead.

[TeePee]

I'd actually like to see Trump win the nomination, if only for the reality TV show 'The Vice', in which candidates are forced through a series of idiotic challenges in order to select his running mate.

[Top_gun]

But if Labour voters really want to go into the next election with a hard left platform, on the basis that Milliband wasn't sufficiently anti-austerity so voters voted Tory in protest .... well I'd invite them to go right ahead and try it. We'll all see what happens.

Well Scotland dismissed anti-austerity once they understood there was a credible alternative. Lets face it, austerity hasn't worked, the economy has largely flat lined and yet the poorest members of our society are taking the full brunt of these measures while those who caused the problem are partying big time.

Unfortunately many of the electors in England has bought into the Tory nonsense about maxing out the credit card without any real understanding of public finance whatsoever.

[TheAnimus]

Well Scotland dismissed anti-austerity once they understood there was a credible alternative.

Do you mean they dismissed austerity?

Have they actually done anything? I mean they get the same amount of money right? Despite a fail in commodities and the recession that's going to be hitting Aberdeen hard soon.

But also the economy hasn't really flat lined, seen the latest ONS figures? Not to bad at all.

[Top_gun]

But also the economy hasn't really flat lined, seen the latest ONS figures? Not to bad at all.

Yeap, prostitution and drug dealing has certainly boosted the economy!

[yamangman]

I'd rather see Corbyn leading the UK government rather than Cameron. For people who praise the Conservatives for the tiny improvements seen in the economy - more happenstance than any kind of corollary with their policies - they don't seem to fathom that those precariously balanced on the bottom rung of society are so deeply affected by their disgusting decisions.

[opel80uk]

Most people who say Corbyn is unelectable, whilst correct IMO, miss the point. What he is attempting to do is put a point across that there is a credible alternative to what is being offered, and has been since the late 70's/early 80's. The vote in Scotland shows that there is appetite for social progressive policies (whether it's delivered up there is another matter), and does anyone honestly think that there isn't a large, young, left leaning vote that is out there that isn't bothering at the moment? A million people voted for the Green party, and that was, presumably, whilst knowing that they would be woefully underrepresented anyway. If, and it's a big if, Corbyn can tap into that vote, then he'll be doing ok. As I said before, if Labour can only win by aping the Tories, then what is the rationale for them existing? If that's the price of power, then it is just power for powers sake.

It is correct that the UK is, electorally, historically a small c conservative country, but so was Greece, and Spain. In fact it is easy to argue that both of those countries have been, historically, far more conservative than the UK, but there the left have been successful in recent elections. Wilson won 4 elections from the left, and Corbyn's policies are not too dissimilar, but in the intervening years what previously constituted the centre ground has shifted, so Corbyn is now derided as a left wing loon, when in actual fact, whether you agree with them or not, his policies are fairly moderate and many do have public support. It's telling of how disjointed the UK electoral landscape is when, as far as I can see, policies such as getting corporations to pay their share of tax, rent controls and getting rid of Trident is considered a throwback to the Foot days. Bear in mind, as Milliband was derided as another loony left figure, over 30% of the vote, over 9million people voted for Labour. Whether Labour can increase that by the necessary number from the left who don't vote, rather from the centre, al la Blair, is unknown and past comparisons, in an age where information and news is readily available and has changed the social landscape, don't actually serve any purpose.

What makes it complicated for Labour is that, realistically, in a FPTP system and with the coming boundary changes, and with UKIP doing so well, a Labour Government will probably need to be supported by the SNP. That in itself shouldn't be a problem - they should policy wise be unnatural bedfellows, but in the bubble that is Scottish politics, it makes it incredibly difficult. Labour supporting FPTP is as a result, IMO, untenable if they ever want to get back into power from anywhere other than the centre-right. The figures for them just don't stack up. If the SNP are considered a good opposition this parliament, which I'll think we'll see, it's hard to imagine Scottish voters ditching them. But there will be opportunities. The Economy is not, despite what the Pro-Tory press say, in great shape, and we're only ever one financial crisis away from a Government finding itself in trouble, and if it happens now, the well worn comfort blanket of blaming Labour will start fraying. The EU vote could prove a disaster for the Tories, and that might be whichever way Cameron decides to lean, and will almost certainly provide Labour with a way to attack, if (big if) they get a convincing and coherent message across. There is also the, albeit distinct, possibility that you could have a Labour leader campaigning to leave and a Tory leader campaigning to stay. And, in the political world of spin and disingenuity, I think it unwise to dismiss anyone who, on appearances at least, is above that and genuinely not afraid to say whatever it is he really thinks. Transferring that into votes will be the fun part.

[TheAnimus]

that there is a credible alternative to what is being offered

I think this is the issue, many people do not believe the ideas being put-forward to be credible.

[opel80uk]

I think this is the issue, many people do not believe the ideas being put-forward to be credible.

Getting rid of Trident is patently credible, same for the re-nationalisation of the railways. In fact I'm not really sure what ideas that he is putting forward are deemed not credible. Seems to me that people are bandying the word 'credible', when what they actually mean is 'preferable'. It's Corbyn's job, and monumental challenge, if elected, to show the people why these things are preferable.

[TheAnimus]

Getting rid of Trident is patently credible

In what world? When you are dealing with an aggressively led world power which recently veto'd an investigation in to the shooting down of a commercial airliner, whilst it is actively supporting border re-drawing, you can't start dismantling such weapons.

[scaryjim]

... If the majority wanted less austerity, why vote for about the one party certain, because they'd said so, to do more of it? ...

In fact between 2010 and 2015 the Labour vote - both in terms of actual votes and in terms of share of vote - rose more than the Conservative. That's hardly a damning public indictment of left wing policies. We did see a huge right-wing protest movement to UKIP, but then we saw similar moves to the left, for SNP in Scotland and the Greens in England.

I honestly don't think Labour have a cat in hell's chance of winning in 2020 whoever they choose, but I think Corbyn would probably lead the most credible opposition for the next five years, by actually opposing Tory policy. If they can't be a credible opposition I don't see how they can possible hope to convinced anyone they'd be credible in government. And I don't think it'd hurt their chances in the long-term to realign their policies slightly more toward the expectation of the grass-roots party. They might even be able to swing some of the 4.4million voters who abandoned the Lib Dems last time round ... stranger things have happened

[opel80uk]

In what world? When you are dealing with an aggressively led world power which recently veto'd an investigation in to the shooting down of a commercial airliner, whilst it is actively supporting border re-drawing, you can't start dismantling such weapons.

In the same world where every other country bar 9 don't have them. But even then, you don't even need to dismantle the warheads, they could be permanently based somewhere and for much cheaper. Your statement above is a good example of the confusion between 'credible' and 'preferable'. It is perfectly credible to be of the opinion that it would be better not spending billions of pounds on missiles that the Prime Minister wouldn't be able to fire without the say so of the PotUS. It is perfectly credible to say, as you and others on here are so fond of telling us, that there is a finite pot of money and, as soldiers doing actual fighting just recently are going without equipment, it would be better spent on them. It is perfectly credible to be of the opinion that our biggest threat os from terrorist groups such as ISIS, and trident is useless in the fight against them. South Africa dismantled their nuclear arms, does anyone seriously think they are more or less concerned?

You prefer to keep them, I understand that, and in fact I myself am undecided, but the notion that it is not 'credible' as a policy betrays a lack of understanding of what the word credible means.

[TheAnimus]

No it's not credible because he hasn't layed out his alternative.

There is a terrible moral hazard in listening to what the professional warmakers say, but they generally recommend trident. Why should we be ignoring what the MOD believes is a best deterrent against a nuclear nation such as Russia?

ISIS might manage to kill a few hundred of us Brits. Maybe they'll even manage some machine gun attacks in London. It's not really the same scale as a powerful nut job who is currently destroying food as part of his you can't sanction me, I'll sanction you attitude. ISIS are just some idiots out at playing warlord in parts of the world we really don't care about much.

[scaryjim]

Discussing Trident specifically feels like a bit of a diversion to this thread, but I can't believe anyone truely thinks that our four submarine poses a credible deterrent against a nation with thousands of warheads standing by. If a deranged leader of a nuclear power wants to press the button, Trident isn't going to stop them. The best we'd be left with is a brief window for retaliation - and do you really think Cameron would give that order? 'Cause if you don't, Trident is just an expensive pond ornament....