Discussion
Thatcher was a chemist by training and worked in a research department, then trained as a lawyer.
What you seem to be saying is exactly the attitude I find a bit sad. That his image alone makes his candidacy beyond the pale. Only men in their 40s in sharp suits are to be taken seriously as a potential Prime Minister.
They might look like they were successful in business but they weren't. Blair was by most accounts a fairly ordinary lawyer, Cameron was a political adviser and speech writer.
Not that I think success in business is necessarily the best qualification for political leadership anyway, but does Richard Branson look like he's successful in business? Or Bernie Ecclestone? Branson looks like an old hippy to me, and Ecclestone, a successful businessman on any measure could be Corbyn's father. He was a bit of a scruff when he ran Brabham but everyone was in the 1970s.
Blair and Cameron look like a particular kind of successful person - perhaps charitably an executive in a large corporation, but I am still convinced it's the way the media treats them more than their snappy dress sense and corporate style which makes them "credible" where Corbyn isn't.
What are his policies anyway? I confess I haven't really followed the leadership contest closely not being likely to ever vote Labour, but the only one I know of was a requirement for offices to be kept below 30°C, which for a firebrand radical socialist hardly seems like a knife in the heart of free market capitalism.
What you seem to be saying is exactly the attitude I find a bit sad. That his image alone makes his candidacy beyond the pale. Only men in their 40s in sharp suits are to be taken seriously as a potential Prime Minister.
They might look like they were successful in business but they weren't. Blair was by most accounts a fairly ordinary lawyer, Cameron was a political adviser and speech writer.
Not that I think success in business is necessarily the best qualification for political leadership anyway, but does Richard Branson look like he's successful in business? Or Bernie Ecclestone? Branson looks like an old hippy to me, and Ecclestone, a successful businessman on any measure could be Corbyn's father. He was a bit of a scruff when he ran Brabham but everyone was in the 1970s.
Blair and Cameron look like a particular kind of successful person - perhaps charitably an executive in a large corporation, but I am still convinced it's the way the media treats them more than their snappy dress sense and corporate style which makes them "credible" where Corbyn isn't.
What are his policies anyway? I confess I haven't really followed the leadership contest closely not being likely to ever vote Labour, but the only one I know of was a requirement for offices to be kept below 30°C, which for a firebrand radical socialist hardly seems like a knife in the heart of free market capitalism.
AJS- said:
does Richard Branson look like he's successful in business? Or Bernie Ecclestone? Branson looks like an old hippy to me, and Ecclestone, a successful businessman on any measure could be Corbyn's father.
We know they're successful in business so their image isn't so important. Politicians require no qualifications or experience for the job so rely on their image more than others might. Bernie could wear a mankini to Monaco and he'd still be a billionaire. Put William Hague in a baseball cap and it f
ks his chances of being PM.I think it's short sighted personally, but we live in an age where youth is often favoured over experience. Corbyn looks different, dresses differently and I think he'll be seen as not up to the cut and thrust of being leader/PM. But I hope Labour are daft enough not to recognise this- at the minute it (unbelievably) seems possible.
AJS- said:
What are his policies anyway? I confess I haven't really followed the leadership contest closely not being likely to ever vote Labour, but the only one I know of was a requirement for offices to be kept below 30°C, which for a firebrand radical socialist hardly seems like a knife in the heart of free market capitalism.
The usual sort of thing. Higher public spending on services and welfare, higher taxes for businesses and better off individuals, nationalisation, unilateral nuclear disarmament, military non-intervention, etc.otolith said:
The usual sort of thing. Higher public spending on services and welfare, higher taxes for businesses and better off individuals, nationalisation, unilateral nuclear disarmament, military non-intervention, etc.
Apart from our disastrous interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan we have basically had all of that anyway. It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable that someone would actually stand for it.otolith said:
AJS- said:
What are his policies anyway? I confess I haven't really followed the leadership contest closely not being likely to ever vote Labour, but the only one I know of was a requirement for offices to be kept below 30°C, which for a firebrand radical socialist hardly seems like a knife in the heart of free market capitalism.
The usual sort of thing. Higher public spending on services and welfare, higher taxes for businesses and better off individuals, nationalisation, unilateral nuclear disarmament, military non-intervention, etc.For instance he wants to re-nationalise the railways and there are currently many, maybe millions of commuters that the centre of politics appeals to that would not be against that as they are paying astronomical amounts on season ticket just to get to work. Some could successfully argue that getting people to work is a very important part of government as that is where the taxes come from.
There are some leftist policies that could cross party lines and given that he is probably the only one of the potential leaders that could win back their Scottish seats.
I have said it from the start, while all the others try to look like a cuddly Cameron and there is no point voting for the fake Cameron when you can vote for the real thing, many many people might be tempted to try something different.
He is the biggest danger to Tory rule in my opinion.
AJS- said:
Apart from our disastrous interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan we have basically had all of that anyway. It doesn't seem entirely unreasonable that someone would actually stand for it.
I don't think we've had that since Thatcher, even from the Labour Party. He basically stands for the ideology that Labour leaders from Kinnock onwards kicked out of the party. He rejects the centrist consensus that Blair reached. Not at all unreasonable that someone should stand on that platform, there are still plenty of old school socialists around. Probably not enough to elect a government, but enough for Corbyn to piss on the chips of the Greens and SNP.
NoNeed said:
For instance he wants to re-nationalise the railways and there are currently many, maybe millions of commuters that the centre of politics appeals to that would not be against that as they are paying astronomical amounts on season ticket just to get to work. Some could successfully argue that getting people to work is a very important part of government as that is where the taxes come from.
I think the "renationalise rail" supporters have short memories, rose tinted spectacles or are too young to remember how st the trains used to be.otolith said:
NoNeed said:
For instance he wants to re-nationalise the railways and there are currently many, maybe millions of commuters that the centre of politics appeals to that would not be against that as they are paying astronomical amounts on season ticket just to get to work. Some could successfully argue that getting people to work is a very important part of government as that is where the taxes come from.
I think the "renationalise rail" supporters have short memories, rose tinted spectacles or are too young to remember how st the trains used to be.One of his most insidious policies is the introduction of a command economy.
We would be reduced to the levels of national prosperity enjoyed by the old USSR, Cuba, and North Korea.
We would be reduced to the levels of national prosperity enjoyed by the old USSR, Cuba, and North Korea.
If Corbyn were to lead a Government, he would like the liberals,discover very quickly how constrained he would be in bringing in his socialist utopia. Apart from the treaties with our trading partners, he would have to balance the very diverse opinions within his own party. He would almost certainly precipitate a Sterling crisis, along with a mass exodus of investment. Still having cheaper train fares would be worth all the above.
otolith said:
NoNeed said:
For instance he wants to re-nationalise the railways and there are currently many, maybe millions of commuters that the centre of politics appeals to that would not be against that as they are paying astronomical amounts on season ticket just to get to work. Some could successfully argue that getting people to work is a very important part of government as that is where the taxes come from.
I think the "renationalise rail" supporters have short memories, rose tinted spectacles or are too young to remember how st the trains used to be.otolith said:
I don't think we've had that since Thatcher, even from the Labour Party. He basically stands for the ideology that Labour leaders from Kinnock onwards kicked out of the party. He rejects the centrist consensus that Blair reached.
Not at all unreasonable that someone should stand on that platform, there are still plenty of old school socialists around. Probably not enough to elect a government, but enough for Corbyn to piss on the chips of the Greens and SNP.
We have though. A 50% top tax rate, and more with national insurance (which is by any reasonable measure a tax), 20% VAT, we've seen major banks nationalised along with whatever they did with the railways. The military has been run down to nothing and our nuclear deterrent is apparently largely dependent on US support. The only difference is that we've had all this under prime ministers who have huffed and puffed patriotic market rhetoric while doing it.Not at all unreasonable that someone should stand on that platform, there are still plenty of old school socialists around. Probably not enough to elect a government, but enough for Corbyn to piss on the chips of the Greens and SNP.
From today's Guardian, it looks as if whoever get voted in will loose.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/18/la...
Digging through the article the only way back for Labour is to prove over the life of a parliament that they're not going to be "loony lefty's", just the opposite of what Corbyn stands for.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/18/la...
Digging through the article the only way back for Labour is to prove over the life of a parliament that they're not going to be "loony lefty's", just the opposite of what Corbyn stands for.
If Labour vote in Jeremy Corbyn then they will win the next general election.
Not with him of course, he will be a disaster. But momentum and timing and the power of change is everything in politics. give him 3 years in opposition and then get rid of him when the next Tony Blair/David Miliband comes along.
Not with him of course, he will be a disaster. But momentum and timing and the power of change is everything in politics. give him 3 years in opposition and then get rid of him when the next Tony Blair/David Miliband comes along.
272BHP said:
give him 3 years in opposition and then get rid of him when the next Tony Blair/David Miliband comes along.
Where are they going to come from? They're not exactly blessed with talent, as can be seen with the current line-up, plus Chuka and Hunt.Labour have no chance of winning the next election unless something major happens to the Tories. Really major.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff