there are certain people/ organisations in the world that get so ridiculous it becomes a challenge to satirize them. Due to people been unable to tell the Satire from the actual supporters.

Corbyn fits into this camp, what flabbergasts me is that so many people can actually think him been pm would be a good idea.

No it isn't.

Another possibility is Labour has most MPs but Lib Dems hold the balance of power and do a deal with Labour with Burnham (or someone else) as PM.

[and if you want to be nitty about it, it's quite possible Cameron will stand down a year before the election and another Tory will be the next PM before we even have a general election.].

I think the last bit is the most likely and JC's price takes that into account.

This is going to create a super interesting balance of power within the Labour party. Everyone talks of coups like it'll be easy but JC's mandate is the biggest of any party leader I can remember. The grassroots supporters will never forgive any would-be putsch if it's not timed incredibly carefully.

His first big hurdle is making sure we stay in Europe. Britain votes to leave in May and he is out by June.

The flip side of that is that the conservative party may completely implode regardless of the referendum result, leaving JC to pick up the pieces.

Yes on the odds that sounds correct. I was getting confused by focusing on it not being a 2 horse race even if we assume its Corbyn vs <some Tory> as party leaders at the next GE.

What are the rules for changing the rules for electing their leader?

Sounds ridiculous but if they want rid of JC before the GE then they need to change those rules.

Here is an article comparing Corbyn and Sanders. Thoughts? http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...ba2_story.html

Some thoughts:

Corbyn has the advantage of a sizable part of the electorate who always supported more left wing socialist policies. That plus enthusiasm from younger voters might be enough to make him a serious contender. Sanders has to build from scratch in a country that has long thought of socialism as a term of abuse.

Corbyn can also draw on the remaining successes of socialism in the uk, notably the NHS and he isn't having to build a movement from scratch as there are plenty of experienced socialist minded political activists about, including himself.

I assume that If you compare Corbyn's domestic agenda with Sander's he is quite a bit to the left. Decent assumption?

Not sure. It's the center ground that defines where the left and right wing politicians are and it might look that way because the political ground in the USA is generally more right wing to start with. It could also be that Sanders is equally or further to the left of the USA center than Corbyn is to the UK center.

That's not much help

I googled a bit and found a couple of distinctions. Corbyn advocates for leaving the EU but I have not seen bernie advocate leaving NAFTA. Corbyn advocates leaving NATO and Bernie has not.

Sorry but you need to do more than googling a bit. JC is ambivalent on leaving the EU and has only said he won't rule out campaigning to leave.

He's also said that while he doesn't believe in NATO, it's unlikely to be part of his manifesto. I think the extent of it would be Britain reducing its defence budget by far less than the 2% NATO requires.

Thanks for your input.

Lol he may campaign to leave the EU and he still won the labour leadership? Amazing.

I thought I knew how the EU debate would play out next year, I realise I'm off on a few points.

You can also expect the Tories to be split over the EU vote - it almost broke them in the 1990s and helped bring about Major's downfall.

The only parties that seem to be totally united on the EU membership question are the Lib Dems and UKIP. EU scepticism is one of the very few things that the "non-soggy" Left and Right have traditionally agreed with each other about.

I can't imagine Cameron will give up power only four years into one-party, no-coalition rule.

Tony Blair dragged his feet before leaving and it's been decades since another voluntary exit.

Cameron said he wouldn't seek re-election, so with the EU vote and a new Labour leader who could hardly be more different to his predecessors (he reminds me more of Attlee than any Labour leader since), and possibly another Scottish independence referendum too, the next few years should be anything but dull.

He's said he won't be running again so there's a fair chance he will go before the election. Especially if he's choice for successor is a shoe in.

I don't think there's much chance of him, or many more than a few labour supporters, voting to leave.

iirc, most of this came in a radio debate and JC was basically just showing support for Greece. I think when push comes to shove, they'll vote together.

What's Britain's plan for going forward in case there is no Brexit?

Continental Europe seems to trend towards more integration (eg common foreign and fiscal policy etc). Right now the UK population barely supports the status quo, is tighter integration even a realistic option?

Lol no PM will give Scotland another vote for at least a decade (and I think it'll be closer to two if ever). Its instant political suicide if you lose and you can't win anything you don't already have. Scotland decided pretty overwhelmingly to stay with Britain no matter what that means.

Fwiw I don't understand the mechanics of how DC can remain in power whilst someone else campaigns for the election in five years, this isn't like America.

So functionally he has already announced his resignation 6-12 months before the next general in a smooth handover to whoever the party chooses to replace him with. Or something disastrous happens and it is sooner than that, but personally I can't see it happening whilst Corbyn is a scarecrow.

No it didn't: 55/45 is not by any stretch of the imagination overwhelming.

What certainly is overwhelming is the representation of the SNP in Scottish constituencies: 56 out of 59 seats. It's a game changer. The result makes it hard to justify Scotland being ruled from Westminster by a government that represents hardly anyone north of the border (and hasn't for many decades) - and that's why Sturgeon is considering a second referendum. People who speak about political certainties often end up regretting their rashness.

What's hard to understand? He resigns at some point during this Parliament, there's a leadership election and the winner assumes the mantle of PM and campaigns for the next election. It wouldn't be the first time.

She can consider all she wants, she doesn't have the power to do anything but ask nicely. Threre won't be another referendum.

The government represents everyone including people who don't vote for them , that is how democracy works.

Re resigning, yeah that's exactly what I said. In that post.

Democracy is horribly flawed but it's better than the alternatives.

However, I think it's clear that one of its major flaws is when significant geographical areas vote strongly one way but persistently get a government of the opposite hue, and in this case this huge flaw is fixable.

I don't care much one way or the other if Scotland go independent (though I think it would be an economic mistake for them), but as I said I think the GE result is potentially a game changer and the pledge that the last referendum was a once-in-a-generation event was made under a different set of circumstances. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see another referendum, if not in this Parliament then in the next.