Politics, politics, politics

[milo]

Well I do not think that Corbyn is the same as the ones that preceded him, he has beliefs ( and I do not agree with all of them to be honest) but I am sure he is being honest when he expresses them unlike the recent leaders of the three parties.

He has had to change on several positions already. How does that make him any different to any other politician who has to take a consensus/compromise position?

I would also question how he arrives at his views. He is a vocal supporter of homeopathy, which is clearly blatant gonad*s to anyone who takes five minutes looking into it. What does this say about other positions he takes?

 

[Richie]

The amazing thing that Corbyn is showing is that the British public is crying out for a conviction politician from either side of the aisle. Obviously someone as 'extreme' as Corbyn will never get the votes in a general election, but the right candidate for either major party doesn't need to cower in the center ground the way most politicians do.

 

[Richie]

He has had to change on several positions already. How does that make him any different to any other politician who has to take a consensus/compromise position?

I would also question how he arrives at his views. He is a vocal supporter of homeopathy, which is clearly blatant cobblers to anyone who takes five minutes looking into it. What does this say about other positions he takes?

Everybody has to compromise in some respect. It would be foolish to try to get elected with policies that are overwhelmingly against public opinion, like leaving NATO surely would be. He also needs to keep his MPs happy, that's just the reality of politics.

What most people hate isn't somebody who compromises pragmatically, it's those who don't believe in anything at all. The likes of Cameron and Blair who let focus groups and polls run everything, always chasing the good headline or beneficial sound byte.

A perfect example is the refugee crisis, a photo of a dead child comes out and suddenly the government is opening the doors. That's not leading, it's pandering to populist sentiment. If they felt they were right to not take refugees before, then a photograph shouldn't have changed their mind. In reality they just followed the polls, they didn't care if it was right or wrong to take refugees they just followed public opinion.

 

[parklane1]

He has had to change on several positions already. How does that make him any different to any other politician who has to take a consensus/compromise position?

I would also question how he arrives at his views. He is a vocal supporter of homeopathy, which is clearly blatant cobblers to anyone who takes five minutes looking into it. What does this say about other positions he takes?

The difference is ( and I am not saying he has done that much so far) is that he ( imo) believes in certain things and makes no secret of them, IF he changes his positions on anything then I believe he will do so because its for the best for the country and he will have to compromise to certain points.

Now I am sure there will be many who will slag him off for doing so, but the likes of Cameron and Blair have/will do so because they will say anything to keep themselves ( rather then the country) looking good.

You only have to look back at the 20 odd years Corbyn has been a MP to see he believes in what he says. Now I will say again I do not agree with all his thoughts but ( imo) its good to see a guy get the job who has some basic beliefs and has been honest in those beliefs. He has run this race by not saying things he does not believe in ( unlike most MP's do/have) which again imo is good to see. He obviously has made a impact on voters to win with such a big majority and its good to see a MP tell the truth and not wrap it up in sound bites and half truths.

 

[milo]

Everybody has to compromise in some respect. It would be foolish to try to get elected with policies that are overwhelmingly against public opinion, like leaving NATO surely would be. He also needs to keep his MPs happy, that's just the reality of politics.

What most people hate isn't somebody who compromises pragmatically, it's those who don't believe in anything at all. The likes of Cameron and Blair who let focus groups and polls run everything, always chasing the good headline or beneficial sound byte.

A perfect example is the refugee crisis, a photo of a dead child comes out and suddenly the government is opening the doors. That's not leading, it's pandering to populist sentiment. If they felt they were right to not take refugees before, then a photograph shouldn't have changed their mind. In reality they just followed the polls, they didn't care if it was right or wrong to take refugees they just followed public opinion.

Out of interest. Would you be against a government trialling policy initiatives with stated objectives before introducing them? Personally, I would like to see less dogma in politics and more concentration on what works.

 

[Richie]

Out of interest. Would you be against a government trialling policy initiatives with stated objectives before introducing them? Personally, I would like to see less dogma in politics and more concentration on what works.

I don't know exactly what you mean. Like general polling of policies before committing to them?

 

[milo]

The difference is ( and I am not saying he has done that much so far) is that he ( imo) believes in certain things and makes no secret of them, IF he changes his positions on anything then I believe he will do so because its for the best for the country and he will have to compromise to certain points.

Now I am sure there will be many who will slag him off for doing so, but the likes of Cameron and Blair have/will do so because they will say anything to keep themselves ( rather then the country) looking good.

You only have to look back at the 20 odd years Corbyn has been a MP to see he believes in what he says. Now I will say again I do not agree with all his thoughts but ( imo) its good to see a guy get the job who has some basic beliefs and has been honest in those beliefs. He has run this race by not saying things he does not believe in ( unlike most MP's do/have) which again imo is good to see. He obviously has made a impact on voters to win with such a big majority and its good to see a MP tell the truth and not wrap it up in sound bites and half truths.

The problem is that having principles in opposition does not change anything.

 

[milo]

I don't know exactly what you mean. Like general polling of policies before committing to them?

No. Testing policies in a similar manner to medical trials. Set out in advance what you hope to achieve, run in a part of the country, have them independently assessed/verified and publish the results in full before deciding whether to implement further.

 

[Richie]

No. Testing policies in a similar manner to medical trials. Set out in advance what you hope to achieve, run in a part of the country, have them independently assessed/verified and publish the results in full before deciding whether to implement further.

I think results are too complicated and too open to interpretation. Medicine is complicated but its much easier to identify cause and effect. Lock two economists in a room and you'll get three opinions.

 

[milo]

I think results are too complicated and too open to interpretation. Medicine is complicated but its much easier to identify cause and effect. Lock two economists in a room and you'll get three opinions.

I'm talking about specific policies with stated objectives.

 

[Richie]

I'm talking about specific policies with stated objectives.

But its impossible to control for all factors. How can you really say an outcome is as a direct result of a policy?

Take the economy, has austerity led to the economic bounce back or would we have more growth with less cuts in public spending? How can something like that ever be empirically tested?

Do you have an example of something you're thinking about?

 

[parklane1]

The problem is that having principles in opposition does not change anything.

Why is it a problem, do you think leaders of opposition partys should do anything to get power?, even lie in what they believe.

 

[milo]

But its impossible to control for all factors. How can you really say an outcome is as a direct result of a policy?

Take the economy, has austerity led to the economic bounce back or would we have more growth with less cuts in public spending? How can something like that ever be empirically tested?

Do you have an example of something you're thinking about?

I agree that economic policy is more difficult to test but welfare and public services would not be. The barrier would be time, governments have a year or two to implement policies if they want to get them through or show results at the next election. I think that this leads to British politics being inherently short termist rather than looking at what works.

 

[milo]

Why is it a problem, do you think leaders of opposition partys should do anything to get power?, even lie in what they believe.

No but I do think that they should have some awareness of where popular opinion is.

 

[parklane1]

No but I do think that they should have some awareness of where popular opinion is.

And I am sure he does, popular opinion has got him in the position he has stood for now we shall see where it takes him. As I said I am surprised he has won the vote but in some ways it has restored my faith in the system that it shows that a lot of people are voting for a change. We have been fed decades of spin, sound bites and false promises by our leaders and its good to see that many are sick of it.

 

[the dza]

He has had to change on several positions already. How does that make him any different to any other politician who has to take a consensus/compromise position?

I would also question how he arrives at his views. He is a vocal supporter of homeopathy, which is clearly blatant cobblers to anyone who takes five minutes looking into it. What does this say about other positions he takes?

He has his views, but he's not a dictator. He's made it clear that he wants a debate on policy and that he wants to empower the membership to decide on those debates. That makes him very different from the other mainstream leaders, imo. It's a big part of where his support (mine included) comes from. Hopefully he'll stay as true to that as he possibly can.

 

[milo]

And I am sure he does, popular opinion has got him in the position he has stood for now we shall see where it takes him. As I said I am surprised he has won the vote but in some ways it has restored my faith in the system that it shows that a lot of people are voting for a change. We have been fed decades of spin, sound bites and false promises by our leaders and its good to see that many are sick of it.

Even with the new members the Labour leadership electorate is small and by its nature, unrepresentative of the wider population.

I hope that Corbyn proves me wrong and he can form an effective opposition with policies that will appeal to the wider population but I really doubt that will be the case.

I fear that this is Labour looking inwards and seeking easy answers. Labour lost the election for three reasons; the public could not envisage Miliband as prime minister, they did not trust Labour on the economy and the vote Labour get SNP scare stories registered. Corbyn does nothing to address any of these issues.

 

[milo]

He has his views, but he's not a dictator. He's made it clear that he wants a debate on policy and that he wants to empower the membership to decide on those debates. That makes him very different from the other mainstream leaders, imo. It's a big part of where his support (mine included) comes from. Hopefully he'll stay as true to that as he possibly can.

If you let Conservative members write their manifesto they would be unelectable, the same is true of Labour.

 

[parklane1]

Even with the new members the Labour leadership electorate is small and by its nature, unrepresentative of the wider population.

I hope that Corbyn proves me wrong and he can form an effective opposition with policies that will appeal to the wider population but I really doubt that will be the case.

I fear that this is Labour looking inwards and seeking easy answers. Labour lost the election for three reasons; the public could not envisage Miliband as prime minister, they did not trust Labour on the economy and the vote Labour get SNP scare stories registered. Corbyn does nothing to address any of these issues.

Who knows what will happen, but there is a groundswell of people getting fed up being led by the nose. UKIP got 4 million votes in the last election and Corbyn got nearly 60% of the vote here, its still small but who knows if the government goes on like it is then come the next election it may have got bigger.

We shall wait and see.

 

[milo]

Who knows what will happen, but there is a groundswell of people getting fed up being led by the nose. UKIP got 4 million votes in the last election and Corbyn got nearly 60% of the vote here, its still small but who knows if the government goes on like it is then come the next election it may have got bigger.

We shall wait and see.

We will indeed.