3 ms·

Polarization of the main parties is creating big democratic deficits in UK governance. The Tory party membership is heavily skewed towards Brexit despite it hav

Polarization of the main parties is creating big democratic deficits in UK governance. The Tory party membership is heavily skewed towards Brexit despite it having a razor thin majority in the country; while Labour is heavily skewed towards Marxists, despite Britain being roughly centre-right throughout its modern history, by European standards. As a result, neither parties have natural constituencies in the electorate to deliver a majority right now. And LibDem are a rounding error. And of course Corbyn is completely out of whack with his membership, being pro-Brexit while the party is heavily for Remain. Remain effectively doesn't have democratic representation, and nor does the business-focused middle ground.

crdoconnor 9y ago
The idea that Corbyn or his supporters are all Marxists because they want to nationalize a decrepit subsidized rail system used to suck profits out of commuters is on the batshit extreme end of right wing. This stuff is both extemely popular among Brits and common sense. By historical standards Corbyn is pretty soft left. It's the establishment and London media bubble that have moved into crazy town.
phatfish 9y ago
Sorry, I tune out when anyone mentions Marxism and the current Labour government. Considering their policies are in line with most other center ground European countries it just comes across as repeating Daily Mail taking points. No one is calling Merkel a Marxist yet Germany has free higher education and nationalised rail, and Germany is just one example.
vidarh 9y ago
The Marxists in Labour are few and far between and far to the left of Corbyn. The fantasy that Labour is heavily skewed towards Marxist is just that. Most Labour MPs are more opposed to Marxism than to the Tories, and unlike most social democratic parties in Europe, Labour has never had a tradition of Marxism (though it has been more left wing that today) - there has been a schism between Marxism and more methodist inspired socialism in the UK dating back to before Labour was founded. > And of course Corbyn is completely out of whack with his membership, being pro-Brexit while the party is heavily for Remain. He voted Remain, campaigned for Remain, and made it clear he'd vote Remain again (unlike May who "refuses to answer hypothetical questions" for fear of angering people). On what basis do you claim he is pro-Brexit? Brexit, however is official party policy that he does not have authority to alter on his own and is obliged by party rules to follow, for the simple reason that it'd be political suicide for Labour to oppose is as long as the majority of those Labour seats that are at risk are in Leave heavy areas. Labour has the choice between continuing down that route and try to moderate the Tories and hopefully get more room to maneuver and a shot at government, or start pushing a Remain line and lose rather than gain seats next election - Labours Remain-heavy constituencies are mostly seats that are safe. > Remain effectively doesn't have democratic representation, and nor does the business-focused middle ground. We agree on that, but that is the cost we pay for an undemocratic electoral system - if Labour where to go Remain, it would not make a difference - Labour would simply lose a ton of seats.
- barrkel 9y ago
  The man advocated buying houses for the homeless. How economically illiterate can you get beyond that? (Yes, this is a bit of a trick question. It's a test of whether you understand second order effects or not; whether you support policies to address problems, vs policies that change outcomes.) > On what basis do you claim he is pro-Brexit? Primarily because he has not attacked any pro-Brexit policies and he is not opposing the main political goal of the opposition. The country effectively doesn't have an opposition.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    > The man advocated buying houses for the homeless. How economically illiterate can you get beyond that? Homelessness in the UK is not a problem of lack of housing, but of lack of suitable council controlled housing with facilities suitable for caring for homeless people - the vast majority of homeless people are not homeless because they couldn't find a house, but because they have been unable to deal with a life situation that often include mental illness. But to your concern over changing outcomes: To bring people back out of homelessness on an ongoing basis, then yes, putting a roof over their head is on one hand treating symptoms, on the other hand it is also typically an essential first step: Getting people back into work and getting people mentally back on track is generally far easier once they have a stable living situation and a fixed address - a lot of homeless people get into a cycle where they become homeless and as a result of becoming homeless find it hard to hold down jobs and near impossible to get new ones, because finding a job without having a fixed address and without having somewhere to clean yourself and clean your clothes and so on is far harder. So my impression from the way you raised that question is that you don't understand the problem. Having a housing provision to offer is essential. > Primarily because he has not attacked any pro-Brexit policies and he is not opposing the main political goal of the opposition. The country effectively doesn't have an opposition. The Labour manifesto makes it clear carrying out Brexit is official policy. If he were to go against the manifesto, he'd be violating his duties. He's not a dictator, and his job is to push for the policies set by the party conference and the national policy forum., not to be a loose cannon pushing his own agenda. It's beyond ironic how many people want Corbyn to act like a dictator, especially after how much effort he spent on arguing for increasing party democracy. It sucks that it's official policy, but the political reality is that both the Tories and Labour would be guaranteed a loss if pushing Remain at this point given the number of marginals that are Leave heavy.

crdoconnor 9y ago

The idea that Corbyn or his supporters are all Marxists because they want to nationalize a decrepit subsidized rail system used to suck profits out of commuters is on the batshit extreme end of right wing. This stuff is both extemely popular among Brits and common sense. By historical standards Corbyn is pretty soft left. It's the establishment and London media bubble that have moved into crazy town.

phatfish 9y ago

Sorry, I tune out when anyone mentions Marxism and the current Labour government. Considering their policies are in line with most other center ground European countries it just comes across as repeating Daily Mail taking points. No one is calling Merkel a Marxist yet Germany has free higher education and nationalised rail, and Germany is just one example.

vidarh 9y ago

The Marxists in Labour are few and far between and far to the left of Corbyn. The fantasy that Labour is heavily skewed towards Marxist is just that. Most Labour MPs are more opposed to Marxism than to the Tories, and unlike most social democratic parties in Europe, Labour has never had a tradition of Marxism (though it has been more left wing that today) - there has been a schism between Marxism and more methodist inspired socialism in the UK dating back to before Labour was founded. > And of course Corbyn is completely out of whack with his membership, being pro-Brexit while the party is heavily for Remain. He voted Remain, campaigned for Remain, and made it clear he'd vote Remain again (unlike May who "refuses to answer hypothetical questions" for fear of angering people). On what basis do you claim he is pro-Brexit? Brexit, however is official party policy that he does not have authority to alter on his own and is obliged by party rules to follow, for the simple reason that it'd be political suicide for Labour to oppose is as long as the majority of those Labour seats that are at risk are in Leave heavy areas. Labour has the choice between continuing down that route and try to moderate the Tories and hopefully get more room to maneuver and a shot at government, or start pushing a Remain line and lose rather than gain seats next election - Labours Remain-heavy constituencies are mostly seats that are safe. > Remain effectively doesn't have democratic representation, and nor does the business-focused middle ground. We agree on that, but that is the cost we pay for an undemocratic electoral system - if Labour where to go Remain, it would not make a difference - Labour would simply lose a ton of seats.

barrkel 9y ago
The man advocated buying houses for the homeless. How economically illiterate can you get beyond that? (Yes, this is a bit of a trick question. It's a test of whether you understand second order effects or not; whether you support policies to address problems, vs policies that change outcomes.) > On what basis do you claim he is pro-Brexit? Primarily because he has not attacked any pro-Brexit policies and he is not opposing the main political goal of the opposition. The country effectively doesn't have an opposition.
- vidarh 9y ago
  > The man advocated buying houses for the homeless. How economically illiterate can you get beyond that? Homelessness in the UK is not a problem of lack of housing, but of lack of suitable council controlled housing with facilities suitable for caring for homeless people - the vast majority of homeless people are not homeless because they couldn't find a house, but because they have been unable to deal with a life situation that often include mental illness. But to your concern over changing outcomes: To bring people back out of homelessness on an ongoing basis, then yes, putting a roof over their head is on one hand treating symptoms, on the other hand it is also typically an essential first step: Getting people back into work and getting people mentally back on track is generally far easier once they have a stable living situation and a fixed address - a lot of homeless people get into a cycle where they become homeless and as a result of becoming homeless find it hard to hold down jobs and near impossible to get new ones, because finding a job without having a fixed address and without having somewhere to clean yourself and clean your clothes and so on is far harder. So my impression from the way you raised that question is that you don't understand the problem. Having a housing provision to offer is essential. > Primarily because he has not attacked any pro-Brexit policies and he is not opposing the main political goal of the opposition. The country effectively doesn't have an opposition. The Labour manifesto makes it clear carrying out Brexit is official policy. If he were to go against the manifesto, he'd be violating his duties. He's not a dictator, and his job is to push for the policies set by the party conference and the national policy forum., not to be a loose cannon pushing his own agenda. It's beyond ironic how many people want Corbyn to act like a dictator, especially after how much effort he spent on arguing for increasing party democracy. It sucks that it's official policy, but the political reality is that both the Tories and Labour would be guaranteed a loss if pushing Remain at this point given the number of marginals that are Leave heavy.