Jeremy Corbyn

Some of them on the public land they are currently giving away to developers of luxury flats.

Which will give no net increase in the amount of property built - the only change will be it will be funded by the taxpayer instead of the individuals.

Unless you're saying the public funded buildings will be much smaller, in which case why not just insist on smaller houses? (Which already happens incidentally, all of the recent developments near me had to increase density to get planning permission.)

Sound familiar?

LOL, all we need is JC to claim that Mexico is going to fund his spending spree and they'll be a perfect match.

LOL, all we need is JC to claim that Mexico is going to fund his spending spree and they'll be a perfect match.

Are you really comparing Jeremy Corbyn to Donald Trump? 😯

Some of them on the public land they are currently giving away to developers of luxury flats.

I haven't heard of any such stories. I am aware of Labour controlled London Boroughs flogging off council housing sites for development.

It's a nice tagline DrJ but the amount of housing required would be imense,I just don't know where and how they would build it all. Perhaps they are just going to buy exisitng private properties and rent them for half commercial rents ?

If you don't mind me saying it's another shoot from the hip soundbyte from Corbyn, it's nkt a policy with any real meat behind it.

Anti-Zionism means the Jewish people (a race and a religion) have no right to their own country anywhere.

Its perfectly fine to object to what Israel currently does it treatment of people, its illegally expansionist borders, its illegal collective punishment, its "secret" nukes, its assassinations abroad etc and still not wish to see the state destroyed. To claim otherwise is to just BS

The term [anti-zionism]is used to describe various religious, moral and political points of view, but their diversity of motivation and expression is sufficiently different that "anti-Zionism" cannot be seen as having a single ideology or source. According to many notable Jewish and non-Jewish sources, anti-Zionism has become a cover for modern-day antisemitism, a position that critics have challenged as a tactic to silence criticism of Israeli policies

I don't see a similar movement targetting any other race ?

Brexit. So there will be no official Brexit debate ... OOOOOO KKKKKKK AAAAAA YYYYYY 😯

The biggest issue in British Politics for 40 years and no discussion ?

I saw conference passed a motion calling for a second Referendum, non binding on the party and in any case Brexit will be done by 2020.

Lots of comment from MPs that party is still failing to confront immigration as an issue and that's the main reason there is no Brexit debate.

If you don't mind me saying it's another shoot from the hip soundbyte from Corbyn, it's nkt a policy with any real meat behind it.

Perhaps they are just going to buy exisitng private properties and rent them for half commercial rents ?

it's a good job that I'm not in charge..

I'd have all second homes repossessed with minimal compensation.. housing shortage solved

would leave a lot of stroppy crybabies, but at least they would be stroppy crybabies with the means to support themselves

Are you really comparing Jeremy Corbyn to Donald Trump?

Not just comparing, I'm saying they're incredibly similar:

- Both outsiders popular with people looking for non-establishment leaders.

- Both disliked by their own party.

- Both making endless deliberate Gaffes to keep themselves in the media and their message centre stage.

- Both mistrusted by the establishment.

- Both leading parties smarting after two defeats in a row.

- Both promising big infrastructure projects.

- Both completely unable to attract centrist voters in marginals.

That's off the top of my head. Google for the parallels, they're endless.

I'm saying they're incredibly similar:

The biggest issue in British Politics for 40 years and no discussion ?

Keeping the trend going then - no discussion is better than BS though and the last version was appalling

Lots of comment from MPs that party is still failing to confront immigration as an issue and that's the main reason there is no Brexit debate.

Perhaps they are embarrassed by the xenophobia and racism that has been uncovered by the vote and still working out what to do about it. Descent to that level and win votes or rise above and lose them?

So now he says "we should all unite and work together" and then "I don't agree with party policy on Trident so I'll carry on expressing my own opinions". Being re-elected as leader obviously hasn't given him any more understanding of what leadership means.

So now he says "we should all unite and work together" and then "I don't agree with party policy on Trident so I'll carry on expressing my own opinions".

What is it with this thread that stops people using a couple of braincells before they write something stupid? Being united as a party and working together does not require everyone to think exactly the same on every single issue. Corbyn's view on Trident is open and out there, he's never made a secret about it. So why on earth would you now expect him to now say the opposite? The fact that he's allowed it to be a non-issue at this conference and is no longer actively pursuing a policy change on it is direct evidence that he is making the effort to compromise and work together.

Where's he stand on directional speaker cables?

Bourjwah frippery or solidly horny handed son of toil heroic?

Collective responsibility?
Representing party's interest?

Collective responsibility?
Representing party's interest?

If he's accepted the party policy and not seeking to change it then does that not demonstrate that he's putting the collective view, and the party's interest before his own?

I've never really understood the immense dislike for right to buy, if done properly (not the way Thatcher did it which criminal) it should help create a really sustainable social housing system. People often need state help when they're younger, as they get older many are fiscally able to buy their own property but often won't want to move from the home and community they've grown up in. They're now potentially blocking a home the next generation need. Let them buy at a little below market rate and reinvest the proceeds into new housing stock. I can't see a downside really, regular funded renewal of the social housing stock, you're allowing people who want to achieve their aspirations do so without kicking them out of their homes and with the added bonus that new social housing can be built where it's needed which may not be where it was previously. Should also help remove some of the stigma associated with some of the big 50s council house ghettos as the people living there are more mixed and we can avoid building the big estates with the new builds. Only downside I can see is it encourages social mobility, home ownership and taking responsibility for yourself, none of which really fits Corbyn's agenda (or the fact home owners are more likely to vote Tory).

I suspect he thinks CD's are a step too far and sticks to his vinyl collection (of Soviet male voice choir recordings) though, what with the face fuzz and allotment lifestyle and all...

stumpyjon - Member

I've never really understood the immense dislike for right to buy, if done properly (not the way Thatcher did it which criminal) it should help create a really sustainable social housing system.

It's got 3 big issues tbh and 2 of them are the history; it's a very poisoned idea obviously but also it comes with it an assumption of getting a house for a fraction of what it's worth. To be sustainable it either needs the price to be at market or replacement value, or to have a constant substantial cash injection from government. But if it doesn't come with a massive discount it'll disappoint people.

The 3rd, is that even if you set up a sustainable, funded, right to buy scheme on a 1-for-1 replacement structure, a future government is 100% guaranteed to **** it for short term gain. It'll always be an expensive and divisive policy for you today, that your opponents will turn into a bribe to voters tomorrow.

Oh, OK, 4th. It'll create another generation of total ****ers who will proudly tell you how clever they were to buy their house and make a fortune, and how they've always voted Tory since, then complain that their kids can't get a council house.

It'll always be an expensive and divisive policy for you today, that your opponents will turn into a bribe to voters tomorrow.

Really good insight that I'd never considered before.

Only downside I can see is it encourages social mobility, home ownership and taking responsibility for yourself, none of which really fits Corbyn's agenda (or the fact home owners are more likely to vote Tory).

'Tis ironic. Tories selling social housing to lift people up and create Tory voters while Labour need to create more people stuck renting who will vote Labour. I always think Defence is ironic in a similar way. Tories instinctively talk up defence but then they cut it to save cash. Labour talk down defence but then they realize there are blue collar jobs in defence in key constituencies and have to spend on it.

What is it with this thread that stops people using a couple of braincells before they write something stupid?

There's no problem with ordinary party members having opinions that differ from party policy, which JC has done from the backbenches for years. For a party leader to publicly disagree with policy is very poor leadership, and is not going to help bring the party together.

To be sustainable it either needs the price to be at market or replacement value, or to have a constant substantial cash injection from government. But if it doesn't come with a massive discount it'll disappoint people.

Yes, but in that 'price paid' calculation surely you have to include to some extent the payments they have already made over years as a tenant, almost a form of hire purchase

What is it about this thread that makes people decide they can abuse other posters because they disagree with what they wrote?

No idea but it's always the same sort of people. You just don't see people with a coherent point based on fact and reason resorting to abuse, or using any other logical fallacy.

What's the percentage of right to buy property now on the portfolios of private landlords?
Would perchance the biggest portfolio of ex council houses in greater London belong to the Son of Thatchers housing minister

ninfan - Member

Yes, but in that 'price paid' calculation surely you have to include to some extent the payments they have already made over years as a tenant, almost a form of hire purchase

No. Why would you? It's rent not HP.

"Why would you?"

To encourage the tenants to vote for you.

So in conclusion right to buy could work properly but previous politicians cocked it up and future politicians will cock it for short term gain. Sounds like politicians of all hues can't be trusted, shame the politicians are more interest ed in themselves rather than implementing policies properly that could make a genuine difference.

And no the sell off shouldn't be massively discounted, it's not intended to be a money making scheme, it should be about giving people a home, and no previously subdidised rent should not count, that should have been spent on the cost of running social housing and investing into new stock.

What is it about this thread that makes people decide they can abuse other posters because they disagree with what they wrote?

You just don't see people with a coherent point based on fact and reason resorting to abuse, or using any other logical fallacy.

The reality is we have three options here

1. he reverses his personal opinion
2. He does not and he opposes party policy
3. He accepts policy but disagrees

Whichever one he picks the bright logical folk will be having a dig.

TBH Dazh has been one of the most logical , reasonable and least personal contributors to this thread

What is it about this thread that makes people decide they can abuse other posters because they disagree with what they wrote?

The left (as you can see) cant handle dissent and often lack the tools to debate effectively. Hence either suppress others or abuse them. Its a tried and tested tactic. The right aren't anywhere near as good at it - here or in the real world.

Jezza might have his c**k in the custard over trident, but he talks sense on bombing in Syria at least relatively speaking

Looking forward to a barnstormer tomorrow and perhaps an answer to the new name....

@stumpy my issue with right to buy is that the proceeds where not reinvested into new housing (I believe that was actually forbidden at one stage), also as tennents where buying below market its a gift and one which they can realise by just selling on. Singapore's system is to build simple apartments and sell those to residents, various qualification requirements including being married, minimum holdong period and you can only ever buy one new one - interesting system and probably too controverisal for UK. We should just build more social housing and means test tenants also consider no lifetime tennets in certain areas. Where I loved in central London there where very many retired council tennents while perhaps those properties would be better rented by nurses, ambulance staff, firemen ?

it's a good job that I'm not in charge..

I'd have all second homes repossessed with minimal compensation.. housing shortage solved

would leave a lot of stroppy crybabies, but at least they would be stroppy crybabies with the means to support themselves

@yunki it wouldn't matter if you where in charge as Magna Carta wouldn't allow such theft !! BTW France (very lefty country) has more second homes than anywhere else in Europe I believe. They have a housing "crises" too.

What is it about this thread that makes people decide they can abuse other posters because they disagree with what they wrote?

Greybeard most political threads are like that and those dishing out the abuse are usually the same (even if they have more than one login). Best to have a thick skin and just skip read certain posters in my humble opinion. It is worth sticking with it though.

The left (as you can see) cant handle dissent and often lack the tools to debate effectively. Hence either suppress others or abuse them. Its a tried and tested tactic. The right aren't anywhere near as good at it - here or in the real world.

Plenty of folk have got personal on here attacking daz for it just highlights the paucity of evidence based debate we have on here as its just a vehicle for abuse for the usual RW trolling numbnuts. THe LW are holding their own to be fair but Daz is not really getting involved so attacking him is pretty harsh IMHO and based on the thread.

Greybeard most political threads are like that and those dishing out the abuse are usually the same (even if they have more than one login)

What are we meant to say to folk who just make things up ?

TBH if Corbyn started shitting gold bricks the RW On here would complain they were not big enough. Every issue is just a way to beat him up whatever option he chooses on trident

The left (as you can see) cant handle dissent and often lack the tools to debate effectively

That's bawlicks of the highest order.

I have a theory that the right are on the right because they lack the ability or experience to empathise with people they don't know. That has the knock-on effect that they don't listen to alternative points of view.

The left then eventually get annoyed with trying to explain and having their points ignored or trashed with all sorts of garbage arguments.

Don't forget ignoring the argument and throwing straw men about...

The reality is we have three options here

1. he reverses his personal opinion
2. He does not and he opposes party policy
3. He accepts policy but disagrees

As leader, he has to do (1) or (3) if he wants unity.

True, but

Otherwise, it's one rule for him and one for everyone else.

Seems to be how it works, so the outcome is most likely to be 2

To call for unity, while at the same time refusing to support a major democratically decided party policy (Trident) is just not credible. In fact its so inherently contradictory, particularly given his past voting record, its laughable

I'd imagine a lot of people at the conference are going to struggle to listen to that with a straight face.

It is going to be interesting to hear what he has to say on the subject of immigration. For a long time Its probably been the number one difference between the metropolitan, London-centric leaders of the party, and there supposed core vote.

Its good to see that he's done what no leader before has, and actually engage with the issue, or even acknowledge that its an issue.

Sounds like he's going to be talking about mitigating the impact of migration on certain areas, rather than doing the knee-jerk thing by trying to out-UKIP UKIP. Thats could go some way to getting back some of the voters they've been haemorrhaging in northern working class areas, where immigration means competition for scarce jobs and resources, rather than a Latvian au pair, and Polish builders to work on your new extension

1. he reverses his personal opinion
2. He does not and he opposes party policy
3. He accepts policy but disagrees

4. Achieve unity by deselecting all the MPs who have a different view to the new leader and the new members.

The CLPs have every right to do it & the party has pretty much said they're going to do it so that's the plan. No turning back now.

Corbyn has spent his entire political career opposing Labour policy. It should not be surprising he finds himself in the same position as leader. Changing his view on something as central to his political career as anti-nuke / Trident is not credible hence he finds himself in this mess. This was all foreseeabls.

The vast majorty of the agressive posting on STW comes from the left, in my view this is consistent with what happens in borader society. It's far left protestors who throw petrol bombs at police in Paris. It's anti-Capitals who seek to destroy property.

Anti-Semitism survery in the Independent. Approx 1,900 Jews asked "Is this party soft on anti-Semitism ?"

1) Labour 87%
2) Greens 49%
3) UKIP 43%
4) Lib Dems 37%
5) Conservative 13%

There is a clear transition here (for avoidance of doubt the transition isn't 100% from left to right but the trend is clear)

Anti-Capitalist -> Anti-US -> Anti-Israel -> Anti-Semitic

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/almost-nine-in-ten-british-jews-believe-labour-is-soft-on-anti-semitism-poll-finds-a7333676.html

As leader, he has to do (1) or (3) if he wants unity.

He's doing 3. How many times does he have to say 'That is the party policy, but I have my own views, which are on record' before people accept that is the case? My stupid comment (TBF I was saying the comment was stupid, not that you are stupid, there's a small but important difference, but apologies in any case) was addressing the fact that even though he's said this repeatedly, his opponents still say the opposite because they want to use the Trident issue to beat him with. It doesn't suit their agenda for it to be neutralised, so they continue presenting it as if it still is an issue, when in reality it's not apart from in their own minds. That's what's so frustrating about this debate, on this and many other issues (eg the anti-semitism fiction), his critics are happy to lie and misrepresent the truth to suit their own agenda, and people who should know better lap it up with absolutely no critical thinking whatsoever.

his critics are happy to lie and misrepresent the truth to suit their own agenda, and people who should know better lap it up with absolutely no critical thinking whatsoever.

So anyone who doesn't think that Jeremy's stance is a credible or coherent one for a party leader to take is just a gullible half-wit?

his critics are happy to lie and misrepresent the truth to suit their own agenda, and people who should know better lap it up with absolutely no critical thinking whatsoever

The thing is, there are a number of people who like things just the way they are..
For whatever reason, they don't see change and progression as a fundamental necessity and in some cases they have very fearful theories about what change may bring..
They also (rightly or wrongly) assume that the majority of people think just like them..
There are a number of very powerful and wealthy people around the globe who do very nicely indeed out of the current situation, and they also would prefer things to stay as they are..
There are further people who are unaware of the reality that exists outside of what they are spoonfed by the media and they too fear change as they are told that change is bad and they believe what they are told..

this group of people combine to create a kind of mass hysteria amongst themselves in which they have come to believe that they are involved in some kind of battle to save humanity..
It's pretty primal - Do we lead the tribe out across the river to fresh pasture and new hunting grounds, or do we stay put and fight amongst ourselves in the feudal dustbowl that we have created over the millenia?

these people are frightened and frightened people behave very irrationally.. I can understand their fear, cowardly people like to stay put and endure, they are happier to exist under unsatisfactory conditions rather than face their fears..

I'm not entirely sure that their collective trepidation is as widespread as they think though

Its good to see that he's done what no leader before has, and actually engage with the issue, or even acknowledge that its an issue.

I'm no doubt in a minority, but I think his stance on immigration, and by extension free movement, is potentially a huge vote winner. As I've previously said, IMO the knee-jerk racism immigration causes is borne of ignorance, not intention. Most people who are anti-immigration are not racists, or don't want to be labelled with racist views, and his stance gives them an opportunity approach the issue from a different angle, and the fact that by supporting free movement it also opens the door to remaining in the single market is a massive bonus.

So anyone who doesn't think that Jeremy's stance is a credible or coherent one for a party leader to take is just a gullible half-wit?

That's not what I said.