As an aside I note that Corbyn got 49.58% of the members’ vote if you discount the registered and affiliated supporters. I haven’t seen published anywhere a breakdown of what would have happened with 2nd and 3rd preference votes if it had just been a member only vote. Kendall would have been first out and you would imagine he wouldn’t have got a single one of her recast votes. The other two were neck and neck. You would imagine he would have got the thousand odd recast 2nd preference votes out of the 60 something thousand available he would have needed for a majority when Burnham or Cooper were knocked out (depending on which was 2nd by the time Kendall’s votes were reallocated).

It’s a small point but I think having got enough support that he would have won the vote without registered supporters or union members was really important for his credibility. The debate about vote rigging is now an irrelevance.

introduction of universal suffrage have politicians been held in such low esteem by the British public as they are today.
It is precisely because he appeared so different and so much at odds with the Westminster political elite that he appealed to so many. The more they lined up to denounce him the greater Corbyn’s credibility. Tony Blair helped enormously in that respect.

So as long as every election winner since the early 90’s has gauged what the electorate want incorrectly, he’s a shoe in.

What he said looks nothing like what you said

When popularism meets reality there’s only one winner. The electorate are well aware of that.

Which would be why they kicked his party out of office the first chance they got and he only held his seat due to sympathetic Tory voters supporting him

The electorate are well aware of that.

Erm, the electorate weren’t very forgiving……..the LibDems were completely hammered at the hands of the electorate.

.

When popularism meets reality ….

So Corbyn is a populist now ?

Well that’s a big change! I thought the biggest criticism of all was that Corbyn was a certain vote loser for Labour as his policies wouldn’t be popular with the electorate.

So what is it?……..there’s a huge difference with being a populist and being a certain vote loser, you can’t be both.

I thought a generation for you was less than 5 years ben?

Nope, I think a generation is around 30 years, isn’t it?

I know what you’re referring to, and I never signed up to the idea that Indyref1 was a once-in-a-generation thing. And polling shows a majority of Scots agree with me.

I presume Ben is optimistic about the price of oil.

I’d much prefer it if oil stopped flowing tomorrow. Oil isn’t vital for Scotland’s economy, it’s a useful bonus, but one I think we should do without for environmental reasons. But I accept that that’s not going to happen.

Anyway, Corbyn isn’t a fan of giving any more powers to Scotland, so I can’t see him winning over the majority of Scots who now want independence, never mind the large majority who do want more powers.

It’s a small point but I think having got enough support he would have won the vote without registered supporters or union members was really important for his credibility. The debate about vote rigging is now an irrelevance.

Yeah, I’m pleased about that. With UK parties finally having genuinely different policies for the first time in decades it would be a real shame if it was overshadowed by squabbles about legitimacy.

Popularism: Yep. He’s promising the moon on a stick. Labour members believe his ludicrous plan to pay for it. The electorate won’t.

In the same way the Liberal Party promised the moon on a stick, got in power and couldn’t find any cash to pay for it.

That’s my take on it.

Spending £10bn on grants:

Yep, and then in Government he couldn’t find any cash to pay for it.

I imagine if he doesn’t go for the trident update he could easily rustle up the readies about a 100 billion of them

bencooper – Member

Anyway, Corbyn isn’t a fan of giving any more powers to Scotland, so I can’t see him winning over the majority of Scots who now want independence, never mind the large majority who do want more powers.

Not that simple. For a lot of us, support for independence was broadly a vote against the direction the UK was going. Corbyn, possibly, changes that greatly.

I voted yes against a background of a choice between a **** and a **** in charge of 2 parties I couldn’t support. If Corbyn proves halfway electable- even if he’s in the running- that changes. It brings back hope for a better UK, essentially.

That is true, and it all comes down to whether Corbyn is actually electable in England. Depends on whether this is a sign that England is going to start moving leftwards again, or whether it’s a protest thing that won’t halt the generally rightwards drift of English politics.

I imagine if he doesn’t go for the trident update he could easily rustle up the readies about a 100 billion of them

Can he deliver that? The BBC are saying he won’t find a cabinet of anti-trident ministers and he may have to be the one who compromises.

Not that simple. For a lot of us, support for independence was broadly a vote against the direction the UK was going. Corbyn, possibly, changes that greatly.

I voted yes against a background of a choice between a **** and a **** in charge of 2 parties I couldn’t support. If Corbyn proves halfway electable- even if he’s in the running- that changes. It brings back hope for a better UK, essentially.

Very true. A UK government with the sort of ideals Corbyn is proposing is an entirely different, and far more enticing, proposition to the last run of governments. SNP can never form a UK government obviously so I can see a significant number of SNP voters at the last election voting labour next time if it got a Corbyn style government into downing street. I can also see the independence debate quietening down in that scenario too.

Not that simple. For a lot of us, support for independence was broadly a vote against the direction the UK was going. Corbyn, possibly, changes that greatly.

I wondered that. Maybe he could turn round Labour’s dire situation in Scotland overnight and that’s the next vote on the Horizon.

Apparently tuition fees funded by a 7% rise in NI contributions for those earning over £50k. Can’t see that being a big vote winner.

Anyone want to put money on Tom Watson as the next leader, then things might get interesting.

Yup. If your endgame is independence then I suppose the best case scenario is for Corbyn to give a good performance and for England to still vote for us all to be dry-bummed in the next election.

Yup – my endgame isn’t independence, but independence seemed the only way to change things. I still think that’s the case – Corbyn can’t bring in a better Westminster voting system or get rid of the Lords on his own.

<some sort of double post shenanigans>

Apparently tuition fees funded by a 7% rise in NI contributions for those earning over £50k. Can’t see that being a big vote winner.

As that effects about 6% of the UK population I can’t see the other 94% giving it a thought!

England to still vote for us all to be dry-bummed in the next election.

I didn’t know we could do that. Can I use lube?

Apparently tuition fees funded by a 7% rise in NI contributions for those earning over £50k. Can’t see that being a big vote winner.

50% of young people studying for degrees 7 % earning over that

Why would folk be put off ?

Seems a reasonable way for the [ rich] few to help the many.

What is the downside here?

outofbreath – Member

I didn’t know we could do that. Can I use lube?

Mr Cameron may promise to use lube, and the record shows you’d vote for that. But 1 minute after the election, he’s going in dry. And straight after he’s done, he’ll sell all public orifices to his mates for 50p.

Strangely, I’m aroused. 😀

Can he deliver that? The BBC are saying he won’t find a cabinet of anti-trident ministers and he may have to be the one who compromises.

Three out of four Labour candidates oppose renewal of Trident

That was the situation 6 months ago before the general election. I suspect that it gives a fair insight into the PLP’s views on Trident replacement.

To be in the Cabinet you just need to be an MP or member of the House of Lords. I can’t see a serious problem whatever someone at the BBC might have said.

Apparently tuition fees funded by a 7% rise in NI contributions for those earning over £50k. Can’t see that being a big vote winner.

If I’m a £50k+ earner and I’ve got two kids who both go to uni, how much does that cost me? Meaning – what’s seven years (let’s imagine one kid does a three year degree and the other does a four) of full fat tuition fees cost these days? And how much extra NI would I be paying?

As that effects about 6% of the UK population I can’t see the other 94% giving it a thought!

Yeah possibly but it’s the 6% that controls the mass media!

ninfan – Member
Definitely more fitting
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/modern-world-history-1918-to-1980/russia-1900-to-1939/the-purges-in-the-ussr/

Ohhh … Purges indeed. I think he also culled some knowing this all fearing Dear Leader … 😛

Sandwich – Member

@chewkw You do realise that Socialist?Communist? Don’t fall into the same trap as the folk across the Atlantic.

But … but … according to this website using big words … 😆

Communism_vs_Socialism

edit:

outofbreath – Member

400k is a tiny drop in the ocean of desperate human misery worldwide.

We’re taking 300k every 6 months from Europe so I imagine whatever number Corbyn is thinking would be way north of 2 million.

Probably the entire continent judging from their constant “humanity” cry …

I think there are as many ideological votes in the >50k bracket to be won as there are anywhere else. All it takes is for everyone else to realise that they’re the ones getting shafted by the Tories and you’ve got a landslide.

I know a load of people that earn c.30k and voted tory thinking that they would be better off.
The problem is convincing them that some sort of wealth redistribution is a good idea, even if they end up better off the like the idea that they’re better than that. Weird.

The tuition fees real world cost is very complicated- because at the moment, the fees are paid with student loans, but a huge amount of those will have to be written off. The current estimate is that 60% of all of today’s loans will be partially or wholly written off. Though these estimates have almost always proved to be optimistic, in the past- for example in 2010 it was supposed to be 32%, that was revised to 45%.

Headline numbers- the OBR says £20bn per year will be written off by 2048, under the current system. An additional £2.1bn was set aside this year to cover the increase in write-offs and write-downs. (I don’t know how much the normal amount is; this is an additional sum). A further 2bn was set aside to underwrite the predicted increase in management costs alone.

So the funding gap between free-at-point-of-sale and loans, is far smaller than it appears. It’s just that the cost is largely being punted off into the future under the current model.

Yeah possibly but it’s the 6% that controls the mass media!

It’s telling that pretty much the only way that Corbyn supporters differ from the UK average is how many of them get their news from social media.

So probably the young vote then that swung it Mike?

If I’m a £50k+ earner and I’ve got two kids who both go to uni, how much does that cost me? Meaning – what’s seven years (let’s imagine one kid does a three year degree and the other does a four) of full fat tuition fees cost these days? And how much extra NI would I be paying?

At a conservative estimate a little while back I worked out that if I wanted to put my two kids through uni without them graduating with any debt it’d cost somewhere in the region of 60k. Even if I earned 50k a year (I don’t, and probably won’t for a long time, if ever), and considering the extra 7% would only apply to earning above the 50k threshold, it sounds like a pretty damn good deal to me, and something the middle classes will lap up once the sums are made clear.

scaled – Member
I know a load of people that earn c.30k and voted tory thinking that they would be better off.

I earn much lesser (for the moment but hopefully one day I will be rich beyond my imagination) than any of all you communists so does that mean I am much more of a communist now then you lot. Ya, let’s share …

If you earn as little as I do now you lot will probably cry … I kid you not. 😯

Billy Bragg singing The Red Flag at the Corbyn rally, and the Tories saying he’s a threat to national security.

It’s a long way from New Labour, isn’t it? No matter what, I think politics at Westminster will get a lot more interesting.

bencooper – Member
It’s a long way from New Labour, isn’t it? No matter what, I think politics at Westminster will get a lot more interesting.

The entertainment value has certainly increased many folds hopefully none of them get a free ride and need to work hard for a living … 😛

Being poorer than before shouldn’t be a surprise to people. The whole point of the economic meltdown was that we were all living beyond our means. The lower earners were subsidizing a lifestyle they couldn’t afford on a Bonaza of benefits handouts that only grew if they had more kids, and the middle classes subsidized lifestyles they can’t afford by gorging on cheap credit and an incorrect sense of their worth due to inflatining house prices. Middle earners are worse off and will be hit very hard when interest rates start to rise, and we deserve to be. Those on lower incomes also need to be weaned off benefits – they’re a safety net and not a mechanism for redistributing wealth or subsidising lifestyles they can’t afford.

The top 1% did well of course. But they always will. They are where they are because they have a knack of making the best out of any situation they find themselves is. That will never change. That is why they’re the top 1%.

Could someone explain to me why a public transport system has to be run for profit?

wobbliscott – Member

Being poorer than before shouldn’t be a surprise to people. The whole point of the economic meltdown was that we were all living beyond our means. The lower earners were subsidizing a lifestyle they couldn’t afford on a Bonaza of benefits handouts that only grew if they had more kids, and the middle classes subsidized lifestyles they can’t afford by gorging on cheap credit and an incorrect sense of their worth due to inflatining house prices. Middle earners are worse off and will be hit very hard when interest rates start to rise, and we deserve to be. Those on lower incomes also need to be weaned off benefits – they’re a safety net and not a mechanism for redistributing wealth or subsidising lifestyles they can’t afford.

The top 1% did well of course. But they always will. They are where they are because they have a knack of making the best out of any situation they find themselves is. That will never change. That is why they’re the top 1%.

Hey … he talks sense … Stone him! Stone him! How dare he! 😆

Rusty Spanner – Member
Could someone explain to me why a public transport system has to be run for profit?

Ohh … a can of worm. 😯

Nah, just use others’ profits to pay for it instead.

And then scrap fees so that those who don’t go/can’t go to Uni pay for others to benefit (earn more) instead – and other progressive (sic) policies like this.

What do you think a public transport system is for?

Transporting the public?

Well, it’s a start.
🙂

So why does it need to make a profit?