Who is the Conservatives' Jeremy Corbyn?

[mistermack]

I'm racking my brains to think who, on the Conservative side, would be the equivalent of Jeremy Corybyn on the Labour side?

Corbyn is to the left of almost all of the other 212 Labour MPs. So who on the Tory side is to the right of almost all 250 other Tories?
I can't think of anyone who is that extreme except Bill Wiggin, but apart from him being professionally obnoxious at question time, and cheating on his expenses, I don't know much about him.

So is Bill Wiggin the Tory Jeremy Corbyn, or does anyone know a more suitable candidate?

[pErvinalia]

There's plenty in Merca.

[mistermack]

There's plenty in Merca.

There's plenty here. But they aren't Tory MPs. A lot of them are members of UKIP.

I have to admit, my knowledge of the extreme wings of both parties is pretty weak.
My sister is a Labour Party activist, and has actually met Jeremy Corbyn, when he was just a backbencher. But even she didn't know anything about him, till he won the leadership.
His face was familiar to me, as a left-wing rebel, but that was all I knew.

I suppose, if you wanted a mercan right-winger to compare him to, it would have to be Donald Trump. But actually, when you look at Corbyn's policies, he's more left-wing than Trump is right-wing.

[MrJonno]

The Tory leader is sensibly only a MP that is acceptable to MP's ie they nominate the candidates even if their more extreme non-politicans get a vote (ie 'ordinary' members), you aren't ever going to get the equilvaent of Corbyn in that systeme

[mistermack]

The Tory leader is sensibly only a MP that is acceptable to MP's ie they nominate the candidates even if their more extreme non-politicans get a vote (ie 'ordinary' members), you aren't ever going to get the equilvaent of Corbyn in that systeme

I didn't mean equivalent in that sense. I meant equivalent in the extremeness of their positions.
Of course the Conservatives won't elect someone that far right. They do have a bit more common sense in that regard. At least, the MPs have.
As you say, the Conservative leadership election only goes to the party members when there has been an election elimination process by MPs only. So the party members only get a choice of two, who were the two most popular to the MPs.

Corbyn would never have been elected, if Labour had the same system.
I would personally have it that the MPs elect the leader, and that's it.
They have all the experience, of standing for election and winning. Where's the logic in allowing party members to vote? You're including all sorts of loonies.
You don't let them vote on policies. Why give them a vote on the Leader?
It's too much democracy.

[MrJonno]

The Tory leader is sensibly only a MP that is acceptable to MP's ie they nominate the candidates even if their more extreme non-politicans get a vote (ie 'ordinary' members), you aren't ever going to get the equilvaent of Corbyn in that systeme

I didn't mean equivalent in that sense. I meant equivalent in the extremeness of their positions.
Of course the Conservatives won't elect someone that far right. They do have a bit more common sense in that regard. At least, the MPs have.
As you say, the Conservative leadership election only goes to the party members when there has been an election elimination process by MPs only. So the party members only get a choice of two, who were the two most popular to the MPs.

Corbyn would never have been elected, if Labour had the same system.
I would personally have it that the MPs elect the leader, and that's it.
They have all the experience, of standing for election and winning. Where's the logic in allowing party members to vote? You're including all sorts of loonies.
You don't let them vote on policies. Why give them a vote on the Leader?
It's too much democracy.

Correct normal as in average voters do not join political parties, therefore you get an electorate full of loons (Tories are the same , filled with 80 year olds so senile they don't even realise the British empire has fallen). The difference is the Tories have sensible controls on such people. It's theq equivalent of getting the general public to vote for the board of Mcdonalds, the public do get a say in Mcdonalds in that they get to choose whether to buy a Big Mac or go to Burger King but they know bugger all about running a corporation. Political parties are absolutely not democracies they exist merely to win control of them

[JimC]

The Tory leader is sensibly only a MP that is acceptable to MP's ie they nominate the candidates even if their more extreme non-politicans get a vote (ie 'ordinary' members), you aren't ever going to get the equilvaent of Corbyn in that systeme

I didn't mean equivalent in that sense. I meant equivalent in the extremeness of their positions.
Of course the Conservatives won't elect someone that far right. They do have a bit more common sense in that regard. At least, the MPs have.
As you say, the Conservative leadership election only goes to the party members when there has been an election elimination process by MPs only. So the party members only get a choice of two, who were the two most popular to the MPs.

Corbyn would never have been elected, if Labour had the same system.
I would personally have it that the MPs elect the leader, and that's it.
They have all the experience, of standing for election and winning. Where's the logic in allowing party members to vote? You're including all sorts of loonies.
You don't let them vote on policies. Why give them a vote on the Leader?
It's too much democracy.

That is pretty much the system for both major parties in Oz as well. The MPs have had a tendency in recent years (on both sides of politics) to dump existing leaders, whether Prime Ministers or leaders of the opposition for someone else if the polls start to worry them. Looks a bit funny from the outside, but doesn't worry me at all...

[Strontium Dog]

Hardline Thatcherite Iain Duncan Smith's popularity with the Tory activist base got him elected to the leadership but after a disastrous and short spell as leader, he was deposed in a vote of no confidence by his MPs.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[MrJonno]

Wasn't Cameron the boring compromise candidate, hasn't done him any harm?

[pErvinalia]

There's plenty in Merca.

There's plenty here. But they aren't Tory MPs. A lot of them are members of UKIP.

There's parties to the left of Labour, surely?

I suppose, if you wanted a mercan right-winger to compare him to, it would have to be Donald Trump. But actually, when you look at Corbyn's policies, he's more left-wing than Trump is right-wing.

In reality he (Corbyn) isn't. His policies align with what people say they actually want, outside of election times. I guess, Trump is the same in Merka, as 50% of the voting population are apparently pretty insane and actually like his policies. But Trump would be a fascist if he was in Australia or the UK. Corbyn isn't really a socialist, as he will run a capitalist system. He's just a very strong social democrat.

[pErvinalia]

The Tory leader is sensibly only a MP that is acceptable to MP's ie they nominate the candidates even if their more extreme non-politicans get a vote (ie 'ordinary' members), you aren't ever going to get the equilvaent of Corbyn in that systeme

Austerity and neoliberalism is a far more extreme policy than anything Corbyn is suggesting. Have you missed the last 35 years??

[pErvinalia]

The Tory leader is sensibly only a MP that is acceptable to MP's ie they nominate the candidates even if their more extreme non-politicans get a vote (ie 'ordinary' members), you aren't ever going to get the equilvaent of Corbyn in that systeme

I didn't mean equivalent in that sense. I meant equivalent in the extremeness of their positions.
Of course the Conservatives won't elect someone that far right. They do have a bit more common sense in that regard. At least, the MPs have.
As you say, the Conservative leadership election only goes to the party members when there has been an election elimination process by MPs only. So the party members only get a choice of two, who were the two most popular to the MPs.

Corbyn would never have been elected, if Labour had the same system.
I would personally have it that the MPs elect the leader, and that's it.
They have all the experience, of standing for election and winning. Where's the logic in allowing party members to vote? You're including all sorts of loonies.
You don't let them vote on policies. Why give them a vote on the Leader?
It's too much democracy.

That is pretty much the system for both major parties in Oz as well. The MPs have had a tendency in recent years (on both sides of politics) to dump existing leaders, whether Prime Ministers or leaders of the opposition for someone else if the polls start to worry them. Looks a bit funny from the outside, but doesn't worry me at all...

Labor vote the leader in via 50% membership and 50% MPs.

[pErvinalia]

He's about to eat that cat.

535353_993466997399001_2456652032043816545_n.jpg (37.99 KiB) Viewed 1100 times

[pErvinalia]

Wasn't Cameron the boring compromise candidate, hasn't done him any harm?

The Conservatives are rewriting the constitution to create a one-party state
British democracy itself is under threat, warns Chris Bryant.

In the end a government can always get its way in the Commons, where, by definition, it enjoys a majority. But every government for the last century has stayed its hand from bringing in nakedly partisan changes to the constitution. But under this Prime Minister we have a a situation where when there is dissent, they crush it. Where a body opposes them, they neuter it. That is not a Conservative government, respectful of the constitution, dutiful in their dealings with their opponents, cautious in advancing radical change and determined to govern for the whole nation. It is not a Conservative government; in the words of one of their former leaders, Disraeli, it is an “organised hypocrisy”.

Only this week we hear he remains so angry about the House of Lords overturning his plans to cut working tax credits that he’s stamping his little foot and demanding the abolition of the Lords’ right to vote on or veto secondary legislation. This could be his most draconian decision yet. Secondary legislation is unamendable and can only get 90 minutes debate at best. When you combine this with the fact that secondary legislation was only intended for tidying up measures like annual up-ratings and a Tory aide has now admitted that they are trying to get as much legislation in through the backdoor secondary route as possible, you can see that yet again the government seems intent on dismantling any inconvenient piece of the constitution.

That’s not all. He’s now decided to slash the support provided to all the opposition parties by 19 per cent. This is bare-faced hypocrisy. When he was in Opposition he and the Tories happily claimed £45.7 million in Short Money. Cameron’s own office got through millions of pounds. But Labour stuck to the belief that a properly-resourced Opposition was an intrinsic part of the British constitution and a vital part of scrutinising the government and helping keep it on its toes.

Outside parliament too Cameron has moved to stifle dissent. He’s already passed a law gagging charities, trades unions and think tanks from all sides of the political spectrum from taking part in political debate.

[pErvinalia]

The Tory leader is sensibly only a MP that is acceptable to MP's ie they nominate the candidates even if their more extreme non-politicans get a vote (ie 'ordinary' members), you aren't ever going to get the equilvaent of Corbyn in that systeme

I didn't mean equivalent in that sense. I meant equivalent in the extremeness of their positions.
Of course the Conservatives won't elect someone that far right. They do have a bit more common sense in that regard. At least, the MPs have.
As you say, the Conservative leadership election only goes to the party members when there has been an election elimination process by MPs only. So the party members only get a choice of two, who were the two most popular to the MPs.

Corbyn would never have been elected, if Labour had the same system.
I would personally have it that the MPs elect the leader, and that's it.
They have all the experience, of standing for election and winning. Where's the logic in allowing party members to vote? You're including all sorts of loonies.
You don't let them vote on policies. Why give them a vote on the Leader?
It's too much democracy.

That is pretty much the system for both major parties in Oz as well. The MPs have had a tendency in recent years (on both sides of politics) to dump existing leaders, whether Prime Ministers or leaders of the opposition for someone else if the polls start to worry them. Looks a bit funny from the outside, but doesn't worry me at all...

Labor vote the leader in via 50% membership and 50% MPs.

Maybe that's a decent compromise. I think I agree that 100% members vote is not totally sensible.