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

[Saracen]

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

Both Labour and Tory numbers went up, but not by much. The really big gainers in that context were UKIP, for all the good it did them.

But looking at individual aspects of the vote are simplistic when trying to infer voter motivation from them, not least because of FPTP.

For a start, looking purely at Labour vote, it's not just the size of the vote, modestly up or not, but where it came from, that matters, in terms of the inferences we can draw for 2020. For instance, if that Labour increase in absolute numbers came from increases in seats where Labour already had a majority, then in terms of winning power, it's meaningless. A Labour icon increases their majority from 10,000 to 20,000 and it does nothing at all to put Labour in power.

If, for instance, Labour increase one majority as above, they gain no seats from that extea 10,000 votes. But in the next-door seat, the Tories get one tenth of that amount of extra vote, a mere 1000 more, and a 500 LD majority turns to a 500 Tory majority, they gain a seat. It's our rather screwy, out-dated and unrepresentative system at work.

But, short of (currently unlikely) large-scale change, it's the system wot we are stuck with.

And under that system, Labour not only has to get a LOT more votes than it did last time, but it has to get them in seats currently held by Tories. Given the Tories currently hold a (small) absolute majority, Labour could (if they stood in them all, which they don't) win every other seat in the House and we'd still have a Tory government.

Labour HAS to take seats from the Tories to win. If it doesn't, Tories win. Period.

Yet, the tories increased their vote share (marginally) AND did it primarily in historically Tory areas, which is mainly South, South East (excluding most of London), East and now, South West too. These are areas where Blair's New Labour won government because it took quite a few seats in historically Tory areas.

That's what I mean by centre-ground. Blair was, by explicit, cold, calculating deliberate intent, close enough to Tory policy to appeal to that non-ideological, centre-ground voter that was not politically blinkered by party, and fed up with the bicketing going on in late-Thatcher days, and the days of Major's "bastards". Despite Major's best efforts, the party was doing a good job of showing internal dissension, conflict and in-fighting. Though I have to say I think Labour's current antics are showing the Tories under Major up for rank amateurs in the in-fighting stakes, by comparison.

What was Blair's dumping of clause 4 about? It was part of a calculated attempt to position Labour in that centre-ground, precisely where it needed to be to win, precisely because to do so, he needed to take voters from the Tories in exactly the seats I'm talking about.

Given than Corbyn, however honest and integrity-stuffed he is, wants to go exactly in the opposite direction, how in the hell does he think that's going to appeal to precisely that same voter demographic, without whom, Labour CANNOT win.

As I said, I admire his idealism, his integrity in sticking to what he believes in. Sadly, in a sense, I think he's also in the process of redefining the meaning of "longest political suicide note in history".

Personally, I think the left-wing agenda is madness. It had some theoretical merit about 100 years ago, but the world's moved on, and so has the environment in which we all live. That's what Blair got, that the old class divides were weakened if not vanished, that the welfare state, employment protection laws, and especially ever-improving educational standards which, despite problems we still have, are VASTLY improved over where they were 50 years ago, never mind 100. And, ideologically, vastly more people see aspirationvas desirable, and even, more achievable, than it those overtly class-ridden days.

For instance, my family comes from a traditional mining area. And miners. Yet, after the strike, vast numbers of ex-miners have repositioned themselves, and LOTS started up small businesses, including insurance agencies, carpet shots, a couple of garages, a village post office, double-glazing installations, builders, carpenters, sparkies, and so on. Some even directly used existing skills, like sparkies.

In short, there's been a transition from miner ==> business owner, and with it, a transition in ideology. That's just an example, but that transition towards weekly-paid employee to aspiration is far from unique. Neither New Labour nor Tories preclude believing in social justice, but rsther, in how to get there, and the macro policies that'll do it. What won't, IMHO, happen, is appealing to a population where the old ideological divides have eroded and 'class war' is a phrase from history books, resulting in Tory held seats voting for a far-left candidate. Or government.

The left wingers in the Labour party throw "Blairite" around like as much of an insult as "Tory", and while Blair's unpopularity (with the country) is obvious, that's largely about Iraq. That doesn't take away from the cold, hard fact that he was, and remains, right about how to get elected. Which, in short, is to be where the centrist, floating voters are.

One more thing. There's almost nothing voters distrust more than a party bickering within itself. That kept the Tories out of even contention, let alone power, for nearly a decade and a half. And they didn't have anything like the bickering Labour are currently having. It's getting hard to watch Newsnight, or the BBC/Sky Paper reviews, or read a newspaper, with the Corbyn bandwagon and the pronouncements from most of the rest, bring front and centre, if not front page. Day, after day, week after week after week. It's becoming a farce. And I'll bet future books of political analysis hold it up as a perfect example of how-to-fall-apart. I'm surprised a single Tory can appear on camera with collapsing in giggles, if not hysterical laughter. I know it's summer, and a Commons recess, but honestly, Tories seem quite content to hide away and let Labour implode. I don't blame them. A politician, camera-shy? Who'd have thunk it?

[TheAnimus]

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....

Just one sub is enough to level all the important cities in Russia.....

It isn't about a deranged leader, it's about rational mutually assured destruction. Ensuring that the cost of aggression is too high to bear. I think Putin is a dangerous man, I don't think he is a nutter at all, far from it, it's hard to not admire his accomplishments in a Machiavellian manner.

People argued that closer economic integration would prevent the great war. People insisted that the German literary building up wasn't happening. Idealism does not prevent war.

[scaryjim]

Generally in agreement with that Saracen, except:

... Given than Corbyn, however honest and integrity-stuffed he is, wants to go exactly in the opposite direction, how in the hell does he think that's going to appeal to precisely that same voter demographic, without whom, Labour CANNOT win. ...

That assumes competing for a larger slice of the same small pie. Corbyn *could* motivate voters in those constituencies who didn't turn out previously. He may have to take seats off the Tories, but he doesn't have to take a single voter off the Tories. There's more than enough non-voters available...

OTOH:

One more thing. There's almost nothing voters distrust more than a party bickering within itself. ...

Couldn't agree more with this. Whoever wins the Labour leadership election, the party needs to rally round. If it's Corbyn, then the parliamentary party needs to get behind him and form the most unified opposition they can. I don't believe that Corbyn is a guarantee of ten more years of Tory rule, but I have no doubt that a divided Labour *is*.

[Zak33]

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. ..... Trident is just an expensive pond ornament....

it is a diversion .. a little.... but it's a very serious pond ornament and one that I agree needs to stay in the pond, fueled and ready to never be used...

that's how deterants work...always have I believe.

[The Hand]

Blair is getting in a real pickle over Corbyn possibly winning:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...dge-tony-blair

The article has only been up about 90 minutes but already has 2200+ comments!

[TheAnimus]

I do think it would be interesting to see what would happen to the UK in terms of capital flight if Corbyn was elected PM.

Sadly I don't think it would be a nice place to live for a while. But people's perception of 'nice' is thoroughly subjective, after a silly poll the many Greeks appear to still be in favour of their socialist government despite the capital controls and devastating PMI. I guess maybe it's more than just having a 'measurably good' life that matters, maybe you need to sell it to people as well, like the soviets did.

[Peter Parker]

...how to get elected. Which, in short, is to be where the centrist, floating voters are.

This is what disappoints me most, and probably why election turnouts are generally so much lower these days. The main parties seem to be run by marketing focus groups who engineer policies to get votes. The counter arguments are that they are trying to represent the people and need votes to get elected to be in a position to achieve ... whatever bland meaningless policies the research tells them people want.

At this point though, what's the point of a political party? Politics degenerates into a bit of theatre for the elections and PM's question time etc, and ... oh we're there already. Might as well create some jobs and just have one big bureaucracy (civil service) that organises a regular set of polls/referendums on everything to let the people decide on policies and then get one with implementing it. And then replace the lot with a set of Linux shell scripts.

So if you're in politics these days, especially Labour, it looks like there are just a few unattractive options:

1) Just exist to get votes, power and self-perpetuation. Smells like borderline mob rule to me.

2) Try to reframe the party around issues that are relevant for this century rather than last. This allowed the smaller parties to gain votes in the general election; SNP, UKIP and Green party based on independence, immigration and the environment respectively. But this "single issue" identity is also what stops these parties having broader appeal, limiting their success.

Which is worse? Trump. He should keep campaigning to provide material for comedians, but if he actually gets elected I'd worry about an American Civil War II. Still, could be a great computer game one day. Corbyn on the other hand would at least generate some more interesting discussion on his way to number 10.

Anyone want to redeploy the nuclear discussion to another thread? It's generating some heat. Sorry

[Saracen]

Generally in agreement with that Saracen, except:

That assumes competing for a larger slice of the same small pie. Corbyn *could* motivate voters in those constituencies who didn't turn out previously. He may have to take seats off the Tories, but he doesn't have to take a single voter off the Tories. There's more than enough non-voters around ....

Umm, no, it doesn't assume that. It also doesn't assume that all non-voters deciding to vote would vote Labour. Nor does it assume that existing Labour voters would continue to vote Labour if Labour was to move hard-left. Nor does it assume that young voters, who may start out idealistic, and naive, stay left as they age and see more. Some do, sure, but a fair percentage drift centre-ward ... and some, speaking from experience, end ip a bit further rignt than me. Though to be fair, I've drifted a bit left as I aged ..... honest, I have.

What it does assume, if you like, is that voting preferences follow an essentially "normal" probability distribution, and that the further away from the peak of the bell you get, the smaller the proportion of voters you'll find. So .... if Labour tacks left, they may pick up really left-leaning, but at the price of losing those on the right of the party.

That applies whatever the size of the cake, or pie, or whatever foodstuff you pick.

That's at the core of what blair realised and was behind "New" Labour, and dumping clause 4. It was the realisation that the country, and indeed the world, had moved into the 20th Century, nearly the 21st, and that the rationale behind clause 4 was still fighting 19th Century social issues. Putting that another way, the electorate had moved and if Labour didn't move with it, it was doomed to semi-permanent opposition, only getting power briefly when the electorate got sufficiently fed up with a tired, stale Tory government. That is, the centre ground is the where the peak of the bell is, which is where the bulk of the electorate are. And you drift too far way, whether left or right, at your electoral risk.

That was the whole point of New Labour. The principles, the ethos, hadn't changed, and it was still about equal opportunity, about protecting the poorest, about social justice, and so on. But to actually be able to affect any of that you have to be in power, and to be in power you have to be where the electirate are. So, you can either move to where the electorate are, and present policies in a Labour fashion, or you can position yourself out on the left, set out your sincerely held, ideologically driven left-wing tent, a la Corbyn, and wait for the electorate to come to you. My thesis is that it'll be a hell of a wait.

Maybe the electorate will move. Nobody can prove it either way until post the 2020 election.

That's why I called it a grand experiment.

And if Labour do do this, the Tories will be laughing for 5 years .... and very likely, 10 or more years.

Oh, by the way, not only can't Labour necessarily rely on keeping existing members of their bit of the pie among voters, but from noises stage-right, they can't necessarily even rely on keeping all MPs.

[pp05]

Would the SNP have been as successful had Corbyn been the leader?

Cameron as zero credibility.

[opel80uk]

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.

Well he has laid out an alternative. He has said that he would move away entirely from nuclear arms. His argument, that as signatories of the non-proliferation that's what we're obliged to do, and by continuing to maintain nuclear weapons we also encourage non-nuclear nations to try and develop them. He is, seemingly, saying that there is no need to have a nuclear deterrent, especially one that the US has a veto on anyway, and that conventional weaponry is enough in a world where, if he were leader, the UK would not engage in aggressive foreign policy. That is indeed the very definition of credible but where the problem lies is convincing people, including me, it is preferable. As for the MOD, whenever getting rid of Trident is mentioned, what is at the forefront of the commentary is not a 'deterrent', but a lack of 'influence' on the global scale, so what it actually is, barring the extremely unlikely & remote chance of a nuclear power deciding to target the UK because it doesn't have nuclear weapons, is a very expensive ego massage. You, rightfully, stated that we should be concerned that Russia blocked an investigation in to the shooting down of a commercial airliner, whilst it is actively supporting border re-drawing, and yet that's almost what the US done, in very similar circumstances, in 88 with Iran Air Flight 655. Moreover, that same US hold the codes to the UK's warheads, so the Prime Minister cannot fire them anyway without the real boss saying so. What that means, practically, is that the missiles will only be fired if it is deemed in the States interest, and if it isn't you can bet your life they won't be. Only 9 countries in the world have nuclear weapons – joining the other 186 odd that doesn't have them, even with big bad Russia around, is certainly a credible alternative.

But my point isn't about Trident. My point was about whether what Corbyn is saying credible or not. It appears, and in fairness your not the only the one to do it, there is a growing consensus that because one might not agree with a policy, then that policy automatically loses credibility, as opposed to being another valid, credible, viewpoint to their own. That is, of course, nonsense.

[TheAnimus]

But my point isn't about Trident. My point was about whether what Corbyn is saying credible or not. It appears, and in fairness your not the only the one to do it, there is a growing consensus that because one might not agree with a policy, then that policy automatically loses credibility, as opposed to being another valid, credible, viewpoint to their own. That is, of course, nonsense.

It's the different idea of what is credible. Perpetuity of the status quo to me is credible.

If you are changing something, such as scrapping our doomsday weaponry (which doesn't work how you describe in terms of US and codes) then we need to be told how the solution will work. How will we still get a seat at the big boy table is definitely another part of that.

Another great example is the human QE. This is emotive. Side note, at the moment I'm pissed off with the wippersnappers doing javascript because they are using the word isomorphic in a manner that is axiomatically incorrect, it bugs me more than it should, but this is another great example of it. If you don't know what QE is intended to do, don't understand the words used, sticking human in front makes it sound fluffy.

[SeriousSam]

One man's credible is another man's credulous... or something to that effect. If you don't agree with someone then what they say isn't going to sound credible, whereas if you do then it will. It ultimately has no bearing on whether they are in fact correct or in your words valid. However, to a "neutral" person if increasing numbers of "experts" on subjects criticise a persons policies then this will impinge on whether they appear credible or not. That is just a fact of life.

Now in the case of Corbyn the issue I have is that his policies and arguments suggest a world view which is woefully out of touch. Much like the rest of the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum. In his case (the left) it is the underlying perception of "bosses vs. workers" with the government* being the last bastion of defence for workers. The language and rhetoric may have adapted to modern times but it doesn't change the fact that such an outdated world view brings into question the logic behind any of his policies, even if there may be some merit lurking away in some of them.

*Setting aside that there is no "bosses vs workers", the government should never favour anything but the greater good. Admittedly most fall rather short of that, but then again we the electorate can't even agree on what is the greater good. So when in order to be able to achieve anything political parties have to be in power, which means votes, it's hardly surprising that it's all a mess.

Anyway in answer to the original question; Prime Minister Corbyn is worse hands down if just for the obtuse reason that if Trump starts WWIII that may be the catalyst for the human race to grow up. On the other hand Corbyn will drag us down to a point where the next sensible government will have an even bigger uphill struggle to sort things out.

[opel80uk]

It's the different idea of what is credible. Perpetuity of the status quo to me is credible.

If you are changing something, such as scrapping our doomsday weaponry (which doesn't work how you describe in terms of US and codes) then we need to be told how the solution will work. How will we still get a seat at the big boy table is definitely another part of that.

Another great example is the human QE. This is emotive. Side note, at the moment I'm pissed off with the wippersnappers doing javascript because they are using the word isomorphic in a manner that is axiomatically incorrect, it bugs me more than it should, but this is another great example of it. If you don't know what QE is intended to do, don't understand the words used, sticking human in front makes it sound fluffy.

Quite aside from the fact that if you think the US would lease, maintain and supervise testing of the UK nuclear deterrent, but not hold a veto then you are dreaming, if you think that it is only your point of view that can be defined as credible, even on this specific topic, then it more or less proves my original point. I see getting rid of Trident and keeping it as 2 credible options, but it might be that I prefer one to the other. So it's not the different ideas of what credible is, it's understanding what credible actually means. I mean, who would struggle to believe that joining the 95% of the world that doesn't have those capabilities isn't a viable or credible option for the UK?

But the continual dismissal of anything that deviates from the currently accepted convention as 'not credible' as opposed to undesirable, is very deliberate. It maintains the notion that, rather than being a valid or alternative viewpoint, it is a joke or something not remotely conceivable; something that doesn't even need to be entertained, as a way to shut down debate. Here, for example, is how you described what Corbyn is proposing: 'Even if the most cursory glance at the detail from them beggars belief'. Now you don't specifically mention what it is he's said that 'beggars belief', but I for one would be interested to know.

If you don't agree with someone then what they say isn't going to sound credible, whereas if you do then it will.

Only if you have a closed mind. And if a differing opinion or viewpoint to ones own is, by default, not credible then that is one definition of a closed mind.

[Saracen]

One man's credible is another man's credulous... or something to that effect. If you don't agree with someone then what they say isn't going to sound credible, whereas if you do then it will. It ultimately has no bearing on whether they are in fact correct or in your words valid. However, to a "neutral" person if increasing numbers of "experts" on subjects criticise a persons policies then this will impinge on whether they appear credible or not. That is just a fact of life.

....

Oh, I can't agree with that. It's just not credible.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

But seriously, I don't agree with that.

By training, I'm an economist. I think it's absolutely credible to look at a given situation, like our current economy, and believe that, for example, both mainstream Labour and mainstream Tory policies are credible. But that one or other is wrong. Or even, just not as effective.

It's a bit like picking a road route from, say, London to Stoke. I could be advised, M1 to midlands, then off on M6. Or go that way, but then sideroads through Coventry (did that when M6 was nose-to-tail stationary due to accident, and not keen to do it again), or forget the M6, stay on the M1 and turn off further up (A50???).

Personally, I wouldn't agree with the M6 route (partly due to my eventual destination) but both routes are credible.

The same is true of many political destinations. There are often multiple ways of achieving your aims, but it's quite possible to believe one route is better than another, even if both will get you there.

Then there's routes that have been tried in many countries, and failed everywhere. They're not credible. What's that old adage .... stupidity is repeateding the same mistakes over and over, and expecting different results?

I don't agree with a lot of, say, Andy Burnham's policies, but they're credible. Corbyn, to me anyway, isn't.

[peterb]

I'm quite enjoying the current Labour leadership debate, if only because of the comments of those coming out of the woodwork having been suppressed by the Blair/Brown spin machine. In much the same way that I enjoyed the UKIP election campaign - they said what they thought, not what they thought they ought to say.

My concern is that if Jeremy Corbyn (or JC, as some of his followers seem to believe him to be) became Labour leader, he could become PM by default, not because he specifically won, but because the other parties lost.

That could certainly be the case in a 2.5 party system (it happened to Neil Kinnock), but might be less likely in the multiplicity of vociferous parties we have now. But 4 years is a long time in politics, and the political scene could look very different in 2020.

[SeriousSam]

I think perhaps you missed the nature of my point in that "credibility is in the eye of the beholder".

That a multitude of solutions to modern complex problems exist or are in fact "credible" is not in question. Whether or not a person views them as credible is another matter entirely. Perhaps the fact that the majority of posters here are intelligent and open minded enough to see this, perhaps inures them somewhat to the reality that most people aren't like that. To some the mere fact a politician is defined as "left" will decide whether or not he is credible. In the case of Corbyn the added factor that he offers what appears to be genuine hope plays an important role due to the growing numbers of people disaffected by the modern world. To them the promise of hope is more important than the reality of it actually coming true.