Jeremy Corbyn

@dazh how about the fact that most large houses in central London once occupied by single families are now flats ?

Kind of proves the point that ordinary people can not now afford things that were once commonplace.

I haven't had the time to research this "GENI" ratio quoted earlier but it's got "smoke and mirrors" written all over it.

Well, that's them told, I suppose. The great jambalaya, without further research, pronounces then unreliable. Nothing more to be said!

Only 25 per cent of the population earns more than £30,000 a year. Most media commentators (including me) do. For people like me, the country basically works. Politics doesn't affect me. Politics, for me, is about how other people are treated. It's easy inside my echo-chamber to believe that I am the norm, or the middle. Easy to forget that there are voices outside.

To people in my position, austerity can be read as regrettable but pragmatic. But to my friends and family, who live outside the bubble, it's not regrettable, it's terrifying. It's also not pragmatic. The crackpot, gimcrack ideological nature of austerity becomes more apparent the closer you get to the point of delivery.

Outside the bubble, everyone knows that an economy in which you can work 50 hours a week and still need tax credit to make the rent is a broken economy. To those outside the bubble, a Parliament that knows the country does not have enough houses yet cannot bring itself to build any for fear of "interfering with the market", is not a Parliament at all. And a media that sees a 50p top tax-rate, public investment and re-nationalisation of the worst failures of privatisation (railways and energy) as politically dangerous is a media whose understanding of politics has shrivelled into mere gossip.

People keep comparing the Corbyn campaign to 1983. But surely the more apt comparison is with 2001. Back then, everyone in the country – apart a few hundred politicians – knew that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, that the invasion of Iraq was a harebrained folly that would end in tragedy. In 2015, everyone – except a few hundred politicians – can see that austerity is a harebrained folly that could end in tragedy.

We were right then. We're right now.

From [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-race-how-has-jeremy-corbyn-galvanised-so-many-people--both-young-and-old-10444194.html ]here[/url]

I've just cast my vote for Team Clown Shoes, otherwise known as:

[img] [/img]

On the maximum wage, you'll notice he's not suggesting an absolute maximum, but a relative maximum. The two are quite different.

Indeed. Heres a good stat for you. If the minimum wage had kept pace with average annual UK boardroom pay increases, since its introduction, it would now stand at over 21 quid an hour. Its 6.50.

If you think that pointing this out to people, and suggesting that maybe thats not really fair, and we could probably do with changing that, is a vote loser to the majority of the population, then I hope the Tory party do too.

Its the the various acts that allowed ordinary folk to vote Zulu 11,slowly but steadily the erosion of their right of exploitation of the working population stopped them being able to afford their stately piles.

I agree, in which case it would be fair to say that the rich really aren't [i]just as fantastically wealthy, entrenched and powerful as they were 4 centuries ago, [/i]wouldn't it?

the electorate rejected Ed as too left wing

No - the electorate rejected Ed because his policies were anonymous and the murdoch press (aided by the mail, telegraph, express) had their knives out from day one (even farage thought he was getting a rough deal from the press...)

it is correct that Blair and David Milliband are the same viewpoint and Ed Milliband was step to the left, no-one knows whether that step was too far or not far enough, every politician is busy crowding the centre ground so there is a paucity of political analysis

I agree, in which case it would be fair to say that the rich really aren't just as fantastically wealthy, entrenched and powerful as they were 4 centuries ago, wouldn't it?

[img] [/img]

“Why is it that bankers on massive salaries require bonuses to work while street-cleaners require threats to make them work?

Qiuestion of the thread so far. 🙂

the electorate rejected Ed as too left wing

They also rejected Brown.

Nonsense, you make stuff up on here all the time

I haven't had the time to research this "GENI" ratio quoted earlier but it's got "smoke and mirrors" written all over it.

You cannot even get its name correct, have not looked at it but despite this you are able to tell us about "smoke and mirrors".

I do so look forward to your inputs in these debates 😀
Illuminating and informed, as always

Paddy Power have Corbyn currently at 2/9 on, from 100/1 at the start...

“Why is it that bankers on massive salaries require bonuses to work while street-cleaners require threats to make them work?
Qiuestion of the thread so far.

And why aren't bankers prosecuted when they keep things secret and then crash the economy like street cleaners and bin lorry drivers woul.... Oh

New depths even for you Ninfan

even the torygraph are saying nice things about Corbyn now!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11810687/Jeremy-Corbyn-is-no-monster.-He-might-even-be-the-saviour-of-the-Labour-party.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11807685/Jeremy-Corbyn-Labour-election-I-was-a-political-slut-until-jezwecan.html

its quite amusing that all the right wing types that think Corbyn will be a disaster for labour,

will wake up on the 8th May 2020 and realise they had a hand in electing a properly socialist PM !!

[quote=kimbers said]
will wake up on the 8th May 2020 and realise they had a hand in electing a properly socialist PM !!

😆

Iagree, in which case it would be fair to say that the rich really aren't just as fantastically wealthy, entrenched and powerful as they were 4 centuries ago, wouldn't it?

Well I was referring to the ability to build houses on the scale that they used to,before industry was nationalised,let alone globalised. I suppose you would think that their inability to buldoze any village that affected their view is evidence that society is classless. So no,not at all
Can I have a pint of what you are on.

even the torygraph are saying nice things about Corbyn now!!

You do know that moderate papers like the Telegraph will have writers with different points of view and present these to the reader, don't you ?

will wake up on the 8th May 2020 and realise they had a hand in electing a properly socialist PM !!

Very funny- next you'll be saying that Comrade Corbyn's policies won't lead to a Venezuelan type economic collapse 🙂 🙂 🙂

Corbyn's coronation as leader of what will soon be known as the former Labour Party is akin to the Conservatives selecting Geoffrey Bloom to lead them - Utter madness, but very entertaining.

To expropriate terribly: "the next labour PM hasn't even been born yet"

🙂

jambalaya - Member
...the electorate rejected Ed as too left wing

edhornby - Member

the electorate rejected Ed because his policies were anonymous...

the electorate rejected Ed because he seems like a pillock.

1997 - centrist Labour gets elected
2001 - centrist Labour gets elected
2005 - centrist Labour gets elected
2010 - Labour moves decidedly to the left, fields a nutter candidate = fails
2015 - Labour moves decidedly to the left, fields a nutter candidate incapable of eating a bacon sandwich without help = fails
2015 - "Hang on comrades, I've got an idea: We need to move to the left" = Conservatives agree, giggling.

I can see no way , DM reading aside, that "Re ed " or Brown was a lurch to the left. it was even a slight wobble to the left.
They were centrists and hardly left wing radical "nutters" by anyones assement.
More importantly they were also charisma free zones and had very little personal appeal with the electorate. They inspired no one not even labour supporters.
Ed was awful for many reasons being too left wing was clearly not one of them

All get a little polemical and silly now and a little light on facts [ unless we mean jams meaning of the words facts]

2010 - Labour moves decidedly to the left, fields a nutter candidate = fails
2015 - Labour moves decidedly to the left, fields a nutter candidate incapable of eating a bacon sandwich without help = fails

Well I've heard Gordon Brown described as a few things but a left-wing "nutter" is new to me. Or perhaps you dismiss anyone who you disagree with as a left-wing nutter cranberry ?

And since cranberry you clearly attach so much importance in the ability to eat a badly made grease leaking bacon sandwich while being photographed close-up can we assume that you'll be backing Jeremy Corbyn to be Prime Minister should he reveal impressive sandwich eating skills?

Sandwich? In the peoples republic of Corbynistan?

I think not comrade. One slice of bread each is sufficient. Any more is downright Cameroonian running-dog greed!

And since cranberry you clearly attach so much importance in the ability to eat a badly made grease leaking bacon sandwich

the electorate rejected Ed because he seems like a pillock.

+1

And proven by inventing and endorsing these new rules for the Labour leader contest, while sodding off and leaving a leadership vacuum.

Current levels of inequality are not abnormal in a historical sense - the mid 20c was the exception to LT trends

There is little if any correlation between levels of inequality and economic model/political regime - either today or across time

There is little correlation between levels of inequality and economic growth - yes, there is an article in the FT today on that topic.

There is little if any "moral" justification for equality of "outcome"* - equality of opportunity, for sure. Rawls gives a way in which they could be linked that has merit

Wage determination is not the job of governments at either the minimum or maximum level

We have a highly progressive tax system - albeit an absurdly complex one - the fact that we still have unequal distributions of income and wealth suggests that tax is a blunt and largely ineffective tool in addressing this

We have seen a clear redistribution of income and wealth from developed to emerging markets - that has been a clear benefit of globalisation and liberalisation

What happened to Harrison Bergeron?

(IMO naturally)

And proven by inventing and endorsing these new rules for the Labour leader contest, while sodding off and leaving a leadership vacuum.

And what's the problem? Labour Party members and supporters seem to like the new rules.

In fact it's quite possible that the next Labour leader will have the greatest support among Labour Party members of any other leader in living memory.

Surely you can't slag off Ed Miliband for that ?

Current levels of inequality are not abnormal

No, some of us just think they're pretty unjust.

tax is a blunt and largely ineffective tool

Indeed, so let's tax wealth, as soon as we can find out where they're hiding it all.

Indeed DD, but there are alternative ways of addressing the issue. Education is the best starting point but that's another area buggered up by politicians. Sigh....

And obviously far too long term to be of relevance to voters - hence the appeal of gesture politics as panaceas/mirages.

Tax and intervene, tax and intervene..... 😯

AIn fact it's quite possible that the next Labour leader will have the greatest support among Labour Party members of any other leader in living memory.

I seem to remember the same being said about the un-electable Hague and/or IDS. As has been pointed out many times you don't win elections by appealing to core support (they vote for you anyway), you win by appealing to the swing voters.

Hang on comrades, I've got an idea: We need to move to the left" = Conservatives agree, giggling

Hmm.. The thing that seems wrong to me is that people are all assuming that politics is a single left/right axis on which everyone's position is fixed, and the parties have to position themselves to include as many people as possible. Hence the swingometer on telly.

However it's more complicated than that. Just look at how UKIP poached labour voters. It's not unreasonable to think that Corbyn could attract votes from points other than the traditional far left, and I am sure he'll attract votes from previous non-voters.

Appealing to people who don't normally vote (a massive percentage of the population), and getting them out doing so in numbers, certainly worked for the SNP. Why wouldn't that work for labour then?

Current levels of inequality are not abnormal in a historical sense - the mid 20c was the exception to LT trends

Doesn't make it right though. The current system of judicial punishment is extremely mild, so perhaps that would justify going back to types of punishment involving mutilation, transportation & death?

Amid the fracas, no one has identified which evil genius is responsible for creating the Corbyn phenomenon. The answer is George Osborne, whose austerity laboratory brewed up the catalyst for the breakthrough.

Ooooh That's clever. Clever, clever George. Next Conservative leader. Brilliant strategist and sleight-of-hand political magician.

I don't get this whole Jeremy Corbyn issue. If the majority of Labour supports like him and his policies then they will vote him in, its called democracy. If you are a Labour supporter / MP / backer that does not like his policies then go off and start another party.

With all these old boy labour MPs complaining that the party will not be elected again, they should go off and create a new party and not try and manipulate a democratic election. Is the Labour party name and identity some sacred cow that they can not move away from. Personally it would be nice to see a party that is true to its roots and actually has some radically different policies.

With all these old boy labour MPs complaining that the party will not be elected again, they should go off and create a new party and not try and manipulate a democratic election.

The problem seems to be that they were in power so long that they developed the Tory 'born to rule' affliction, where they thought they were there by some divine right, not just because the other lot were hopeless.

Christ... can you imagine how electorally repellent it would be if they got the band back together? Blair, Brown, Blunkett, Straw, Campbell, Mandleson.... all those weighing in with their two-peneth at the moment. Yet they (unbelievably arrogantly) think that someone carrying on 'their legacy' would somehow be miraculously electable?

Tax and intervene, tax and intervene.

The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species.

we had to intervene because the rich, even the god fearing ones, were so greedy they would rather children died than machines were stopped.
they did not divide things fairly they took only for themselves and they always will unless we intervene and tax.

Just look at how UKIP poached labour voters

If you understand Labours support base then this isn't a surprise, simplifying a bit but essentially Labour have 2 types of core voter:

1) Middle class Guardian reading types
2) Working class Mirror/Sun/Star reading types

The number 2 types on the whole do not like Johnny Foreigner, and don't mix with foreigners on a regular basis. They feel their jobs are threatened by immigration and hence a move to UKIP is a perfectly sensible choice for them to make.

This is the thing winning elections isn't about simply posturing it is understanding the electorate and that means a lot of data analysis.

Its also why in my book people thinking that there are magic votes to won by Labour in finding these people who dropped out of voting are wrong. These people typically will be in areas that would vote for Labour anyway and there aren't masses of people missing anyway. The SNP only managed to get a return to 1997 levels of voting in Scotland, so the independence debate did re-energise Scottish voters a bit but not by the large amounts Labour would need to pull off a magic election win in 2020.

there are alternative ways of addressing the issue. Education is the best starting point but that's another area buggered up by politicians.

Education won't dig people in poverty out of poverty. Addressing the inequality must come first; a relatively equal society is what makes Finland's education so good.

jambalaya - Member
...the electorate rejected Ed as too left wing

As an aside - I think (I'm) Mandy (Fly Me) shot himself in the image and ruined his "Machiavellian Shadow Master" reputation by heavily promoting Chukkup Da Money only to see said smoothie resign at the first drop of exposure difficulty...

Carry on.

Did Jezza get voted in yet?

Carry on.

As an aside - I think (I'm) Mandy (Fly Me) shot himself in the image and ruined his "Machiavellian Shadow Master" reputation by heavily promoting Chukkup Da Money only to see said smoothie resign at the first drop of exposure difficulty...

Dave Millibean - remember him? - was bigging up chucky in yesterdays Guardian. Clearly he mustn't have got the memo after stropping off for his big sulk

Carry On Up The Leadership.

"Phwooaaaarr"
"Hya hya hya hya hya"
"Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!"

Etc...

Dave Millibean - remember him? - was bigging up chucky in yesterdays Guardian. Clearly he mustn't have got the memo after stropping off for his big sulk