Jeremy Corbyn

@doris, to me he seems much more credible than Ed, but i think you are right, the daily wail would send in the SAS on him

substantially increased spending on schools and hospitals.

You mean increased debt for schools and hosps using the Tory PFI system. Public risk, private profit. As Gordon Brown said with PFI, financiers would be investing in services which

“The government is statutorily bound to provide and for which demand is virtually insatiable. Your revenue stream is ultimately backed by the government. Where else can you get a business opportunity like that?”

http://www.dropnhsdebt.org.uk/history-of-pfi/

Socialist or middle of the road?

Minimum wage? That the Tories have promised to increase to £9 an hour.

One of the best things new labour did was squash the poll tax IMHO.

Lol (I'm genuinely assuming thats a joke?)

But yeah, Labour fracturing into the usual old boys club and a new party that people who genuinely want change can vote for would be the end of it, I mean look at what happened up here, SNWho?

Oh...

I think a lot of you underestimate the electorate, moreso those who don't vote because it's seen as pointless. Look at what the SNP did up here (I'm not getting into an argument about what SNP stand for, just using them as an illustration) by presenting a genuine alternative to the the usual stuck record. Time will tell what happens but if they make something of their time in opposition then I genuinely believe the more gifted of thinking who don't believe everything the press says will vote according to principles rather than abstaining or, even worse, habit.

realistically (hate to say this, but still) i suspect the 'best' option may be if Corbyn wins, leads the party for (say) 2 years, reminds the drones that principles, backbone and a social conscience can actually play well with voters, and then someone else takes the reins leading into 2020. Someone with slightly less toxic links to Sinn Fein / old school communism, perhaps.

But i definitely think Labour needs a big kick up the backside, and Corbyn is as well placed as anyone to administer it. Burnham/Cooper/Kendall would be pointless, and are only in contention (IMO) because they won't rock the boat. As someone said on here yesterday, no-one got fired for buying IBM...

IF he gets elected & IF the labour party rallied behind him & offered some genuine left leaning policies, he could be a force for change & offer the disenfranchised an alternative to the current status quo. Sadly even if he did get elected, the labour party would not rally behind him as so obviously demonstrated by Tony B****y Blair.

& +1 to what Doris above said

"Labour, as a centre-chasing tory-light party, is pointless".

Worked for Tony Bliar.

The Blair strategy was time limited in its affect. It completely relied on the supposition that traditional Labour voters would have nowhere else to go no matter how right-wing the Labour Party became.

That strategy certainly worked in 1997 but over Tony Blair's premiership the Labour Party lost about 4 million votes. Just like crying wolf can deliver the expected result eventually people grow weary.

And "centre-chasing tory-light" votes in 2015 in Scotland proved absolutely disastrous for the Labour Party, despite it being a very successful strategy in Scotland in 1997.

The obvious significance of the Scottish result is that it was the only area of the UK where voters had what was perceived to be a credible party to the left of Labour. People's enthusiasm for a party perceived to be to the left of Labour was in fact quite astounding.

I'm looking forward to receiving my vote- £3 well spent.

Do you know what made Britain great? It was having a functional democracy with oppositional politics.

So I hope you're are happy undermining the democratic process and contributing to a the formation of effectively a one party state.

People's enthusiasm for a party perceived to be to the left of Labour was in fact quite astounding.

The SNP got people who didn't do politics talking about politics. My impression though is that the SNP gained not because it was left wing but because the Labour Party is now perceived as being unionist. So former Labour voters who had voted "yes" in the referendum switched to the SNP.

The Scottish Labour party committed suicide by campaigning alongside the hated Tories for a "No" vote.

Do you know what made Britain great? It was having a functional democracy with oppositional politics.

Actually that's not strictly true universal suffrage is a fairly recent development in British history. By the time it had been introduced Britain's position as one of the most powerful and wealthy nations' on earth had already peaked.

universal suffrage wasn't mentioned.

'functional democracy' was.

meaning: votes were cast, they got counted, and a government formed accordingly.

LW v RW, RW v LW - all total bullshit that is of only relevance inside the narrow corridors of part of the Westminster Village and the Internet.

For the wider (real) world, it's an irrelevance that is why the parties in power typical occupy the middle ground - why? Because that is what those they represent broadly want.

Thatcherism was a myth - she was hardly radical in practice.
SNP - anti austerity, left wing. Yea right!?! Go an look what they do not what they say
Austerity George - running one of the most expansionary fiscal policies in the advanced world and this is RW austerity. What a crock...

This outdated framework needs to be abandoned. Yes the whole Corbyn debacle is amusing for the twists that are getting worse in Labours knickers. But for most people it doesn't make a jot of difference.

The UK prefers centre politics and that is what they vote for. They are conservative with a little c. Governments respond to events, so there perceived politics are largely irrelevant. That is why parties often do the exact opposite of what they say and what they're are accused/praised for. They are not the ones in control of events.

Go compare the actual policies of perceived socialists versus perceived RW parties with what they are supposed to stand for, and you quickly realise how silly the whole LW v RW debate really is.

My impression though is that the SNP gained not because it was left wing but because the Labour Party is now perceived as being unionist.

I'm surprised that anti-unionist feelings are so strong in Scotland that it effectively wiped out a long established party, but yet isn't strong enough to have resulted in a vote in favour of the dissolution of the union.

I see a flaw in your analysis.

universal suffrage wasn't mentioned.

'functional democracy' was.

meaning: votes were cast, they got counted, and a government formed accordingly.

If that's the primitive standard we're working to, Rotten Boroughs and all, then I guess we can hold up the current 'votes for sale' Labour fandango as a paragon of democratic function.

Do you know what made Britain great?

teamhurtmore - Member

SNP - anti austerity, left wing. Yea right!?! Go an look what they do not what they say

You obviously don't understand the term [i]"a party perceived to be to the left of Labour"[/i].

Have a think about it.

ahwiles - Member

universal suffrage wasn't mentioned.

'functional democracy' was.

I didn't realise that you could have 'functional democracy' without universal suffrage.

Does that mean that Saudi Arabia has 'functional democracy' if all the members of the Saudi Royal family get together and have a vote on something ?

martinhutch - Member

If that's the primitive standard we're working to...

by and large, it seems we're still working to that, yes.

No I am thick obviously. So no point thinking about it further.

ernie, you're missing the 'oppositional' bit too.

you seem to be looking for an argument?

[img] [/img]

(there were only 2 clauses in the original post, 'functional' and 'oppositional' you've successfully ignored both, for little more than point scoring)

you seem to be looking for an argument?

I don't think politely correcting someone with [i]"Actually that's not strictly true...."[/i] suggests looking for an argument anymore than you challenging me does.

I assume the "looking for an argument" fallback is because you realised how silly your comment was ?

Do you know what made Britain great?

I was under the impression it was something to do with baking.

ernie_lynch - Member

I assume the "looking for an argument" fallback is because you realised how silly your comment was ?

er, no. it was a genuine question.

i think the statement 'we had functional democracy before we had universal suffrage' is not without merit. I may well be wrong, but it's certainly a topic worthy of debate.

not an ideal democracy, granted. But 'functional' nonetheless.

Do you know what made Britain great?

I thought it was tea. That and the brutal military oppression of large chunks of the planet

Innovative finance was a major player in Britain becoming great.

Opium was too, wasn't it?

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-jeremy-corbyn-policies-that-most-people-actually-agree-with-10407148.html ]The 9 charts that show the 'left-wing' policies of Jeremy Corbyn the public actually agrees with[/url]

[i]Putting railways back into public sector ownership has cross-party support, with even Conservative supporters.

There's a public appetite for a 75% top rate of tax on incomes over £1m.

Two thirds of Brits want to see an international convention on banning nuclear weapons.

Six out of ten people want to see rents controls on landlords.

The public support a mandatory living wage.

Jeremy Corbyn wants to cut tuition fees and so does the public.

The public were on the same side as Jeremy Corbyn in Iraq War debate.

The public were also in sync with Corbyn when it came to bombing Syria.[/i]

I didn't realise that you could have 'functional democracy' without universal suffrage.

Even without universal suffrage, our parliamentary system made sure that no single dynasty/clan had too much power. If you think Britain would be as rosey as it is now under some 18th century version of the CCP then you're deluded. Competent opposition is the most important tenant of any vaguely democratic system, universal suffrage is secondary to this.

If he gets elected then he is going to have to answer a lot of questions on his love of terrorist organisations like the IRA and Hamas, he'd better have some good, snappy answers.

Yes, he advocated negotiating with the IRA, and then everyone else came to realise he was right. He is also right about the need to negotiate with the democratically elected Hamas.

You mean increased debt for schools and hosps using the Tory PFI system. Public risk, private profit. As Gordon Brown said with PFI, financiers would be investing in services which

Some of that is spin by the Independent, take the below for instance where they have taken a result to one question and then wildly extrapolated to get an answer to a completely different question.

It appears the public share his opposition to renewing Britain's nuclear deterrent - a poll for ComRes last year found 64 per cent of the public wanted to see an international convention on banning nuclear weapons.

Some of that is spin......

You mean some of that isn't spin - the public actually agrees with some of Jeremy Corbyn's fundamental principles which completely differentiates him from the other 3 leadership candidates ?

So in a matter of just a few days we've gone from claiming that Jeremy Corbyn is guaranteed loser who the British public could never support to talking about precisely how much of his fundamental principles the public agrees actually with.

They say that one week is a long time in politics.

I'm surprised that anti-unionist feelings are so strong in Scotland that it effectively wiped out a long established party, but yet isn't strong enough to have resulted in a vote in favour of the dissolution of the union.
I see a flaw in your analysis.

Where? The SNP went from 20% of the Scottish vote in 2010 to 50% of the vote in 2011. In a FPTP system anywhere over 40% is likely to result in a landslide. Minor parties like Labour will get very few seats because off FPTP even where there isn't a majority for independence.

When Labour in Scotland are widely referred to as red Tories they are in deep trouble. Working people don't think of Labour as their party any more.

Putting railways back into public sector ownership has cross-party support, with even Conservative supporters.

There's a public appetite for a 75% top rate of tax on incomes over £1m.

Two thirds of Brits want to see an international convention on banning nuclear weapons.

Six out of ten people want to see rents controls on landlords.

The public support a mandatory living wage.

Jeremy Corbyn wants to cut tuition fees and so does the public.

The public were on the same side as Jeremy Corbyn in Iraq War debate.

The public were also in sync with Corbyn when it came to bombing Syria.

Sounds like the 2020 election is a done deal for labour then with Jezza at the helm.

Fairly predictable at this stage of the contest. You can't beat a good bit of desperate Labour smearing.

[url=

see Kendall the tory has now piped up[/url]. It's hilarious really, you can smell the panic. What's most revealing from all these 'labour' MPs and former MPs going on about a return to the 1980s, is that the labour party has for a long time simply been a vehicle for their own personal ambitions, and now someone has come along who threatens that, they're all running around like headless chickens. There's a very simple solution if they don't like it, they could join the conservative party.

When Labour in Scotland are widely referred to as red Tories they are in deep trouble. Working people don't think of Labour as their party any more.

Well make your mind up! I agree with that ^ and I said basically the same thing and yet you responded by contradicting me and claiming that it was "because the Labour Party is now perceived as being unionist".

Here :

My impression though is that the SNP gained not because it was left wing but because the Labour Party is now perceived as being unionist.

Sounds like the 2020 election is a done deal for labour then with Jezza at the helm.

No, it sounds like the Blairite and media hysteria that Corbyn's views are completely at odds with the British public, as opposed to those of Liz Kendall, are false.

Well make your mind up! I agree with that ^ and I said basically the same thing and yet you responded by contradicting me and claiming that it was "because the Labour Party is now perceived as being unionist".

But that is why Scottish Labour are perceived as red Tories. Because they campaigned with the Tories for the referendum. Their other policies (whether left or right) don't have much to do with it. I'm not saying it's logical but that's just what I hear people say.

Scottish Labour had been perceived as 'Red Tories' for a while. Their referendum campaign merely cemented/confirmed this perception.

Fairly predictable at this stage of the contest. You can't beat a good bit of desperate Labour smearing.

TELEGRAPH.CO.UK "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11758612/Jeremy-Corbyn-accused-of-inaction-over-paedophile-scandal.html