Could somebody explain why Corbyn shouldn't be voted for as Labour party leader?

claig you are repeating almost verbatim your pronouncements about how Farage was going to storm the citadel of power held by your favourite bogeymen 'the metropolitan elite/Oxbridge graduate politicians, etc., etc.' and applying them to Corbyn. Your pronouncements did not come to fruition in the recent General Election, yet you still believe you know what 'the people' want and who they will vote for, I certainly wouldn't bet 1p on your predictions as your ability to foretell the winners is somewhat lacking.

and in fact immigration is a great example of a problem that it's impossible for Britain to fix on its own, as with environmental issues, a world-wide, and at the very least an EU wide approach is needed. The single nation showing the financial markets who's boss - didn't work for Greece, did it? Similarly UK pols are pretty powerless to unilaterally end immigration unless we leave the EU and that has other wide-ranging implications.

They will vote for Corbyn because Corbyn is the only politician brave enough to solve the real probles facing most people

A few months ago you said almost exactly the same thing about Nigel Farage.

Pneumometer, the mistake you are making is that you seem to think that Tory and UKIP voters and non-voters will not change and vote for Corbyn.

They will vote for Corbyn because Corbyn is the only politician brave enough to solve the real probles facing most people. It is not the national debt (which Osborne nearly doubled), it is personal debt, job insecurity, low wages, high living costs, high housing costs, astronomical education costs and a precarious future with cuts to more and more services and greater privatisation. Corbyn will sort that out and the national debt will sort itself out as the country grows again with investment in manufacturing and production rather than in a capitalist casino of banking.

If we left everything to the markets, we would still be poorly educated without an NHS. Corbyn understands that his duty is to serve the people and provide a better life and better prospects for them and the bankers and the metropolitan elite are going to have to get used to it.

I remember 1983 - and how this allowed Mrs T to smash the post-WW2 social consensus and change our country permanently.

Michael Foot had genuine intellect and accomplishments, whereas JC managed to fail his trade union studies degree at North London Poly.
JC just looks good because of the pathetic pygmies he is up against - He'll win the leadership to the sound of Tories popping the champagne corks.

We should deal with the world as it is and the voters as they are, rather than as we think they both should be.

Labour's detailled investigation of their defeat is in their report "Listening to Labour’s Lost Voters," Guardian and was based on Focus Group interviews with those who voted Labour in 2010, but then didn't in 2015.

It found those voters substantially to the right of Labour on several key issues, including this (maybe explaining the Labour-UKIP swing) :
“Immigration is the topic that, left to their own devices, the respondents would have talked about all night. Their central arguments, across all groups and repeated frequently, were along the lines that our country is full, our country is broke and public services are creaking and cannot stand extra strain.”

Yes, but those London voters polled (not all Labour) preferred COrbyn by fa to the party elite's candidates

So what? Suppose it's true. That means that Labour pile up bigger majorities in London's Labour seats (which are votes that make no difference to government) and possibly win some Con-help Lab/Con marginals in London, of which there are about ten.

That's a hung parliament, assuming that all this socialist nirvana doesn't cause any losses in Lab-held Lab/Con marginals.

What next? The stage for the 2020 GE is not London.

'Anyone who thinks that with a £1,600,000,000,000 (£1.6 trillion) of National Debt '

Osborne almost doubled it in just 5 years. Corbyn will take back our industries, slash the waste on management salaries and bonuses and overcharging of the public and invest the profits back in the country.

'but poorly thought-out & badly implemented change, that's not going to do the poor any good.'

This is the message the Establishment politicians want to present about Corbyn. But what if they are lying just as they lied over weapons of mass destruction?

They will try everything they have got to stop Corbyn, just as they tried to stop Farage. It will depend what the people do and if Corbyn offers them a really radical positive future of a better Britain, then there will be a landslide for Corbyn and the entire game will be over.

Anyone who thinks that with a £1,600,000,000,000 (£1.6 trillion) of National Debt and a current £70 billion annual budget overspend, cutting that back is called "austerity" - and thinks that policies like ideologically raising a few £billion a year if lucky with 50% tax rates will solve all our problems - should be laughed out of responsible politics, especially if in a position to make UK laws.

You could put every rich/wealth creator up against the wall, shoot them, rob them, and it still won't sort that debt out.

But the far lefties have to keep that to themselves, right?

"It is because they have no faith in the current lot and are crying out for change,"

A change back to 2010 and Italian and French growth/unemployment rates, I can see the attraction. lol

all that's fine as far as it goes, current politics rotten, austerity bad - but poorly thought-out & badly implemented change, that's not going to do the poor any good. Economic uncertainty hurts the poor more than the rich. This is an old man with no experience of government. What do we think would happen to the stock market if Corbyn got into government? What would happen to the cost of Britain's debt? These things do matter.

And the reason this is terrible news for the Tories is that their Oxbridge chums in Labour (the Tory lites) with all the press and BBC and Jess Phillips, the Establishment's new favourite (who I predict we will be seeing lots more of on the BBC as things grow more despearte for the elites) behind them, have failed to convince Labour members and the public.

The failure of the Tory lites bodes bad news for the Tory heavies, they will sink even faster because they sing from the same hymnsheet as Blair and the band.

Claig ... being 'in touch with the public' ltelling them what they want to hear and good governance is two different things - and as to 'no one saw it coming', its happening throughout Europe and in the UK we had a slippery, boggle eyed snake oil salesman called Farage, that the people will have no need for after an EU Referendum.

Politics are fickle, Farage today, Corbyn tomorrow, which you will understand having spent so much of your precious political time and energy 'bigging him up'.

'I prefer to vote for policy and tax changes I can understand not some nebulous idea of change for the better. It surprises me that so many people are prepared to vote for unclear policy offerings.'

It is because they have no faith in the current lot and are crying out for change, as Burnham himself has recognised and said. No one ever asks the public, they just take them for granted, but now the public are showing them what they really think of them and their policies.

Yes, but those London voters polled (not all Labour) preferred COrbyn by fa to the party elite's candidates who are rushing around calling Corbyn's policies not credible and a crazy throwback. The entire elite is out of touch with the public. Grandees are being wheeled out of retirement, and away from their holidays, to endorse the Establishment's chosen candidates and the public is thumbing their nose at the lot of them. The Emperor has no clothes, this is the biggest public swing in recent political history.

The caring, Sure Start progressives from Oxbridge are being abandoned by the public for a Marx reading left wing rebel who was against their wars and is against their neoliberal austerity consensus. No one saw it coming and it demonstrates what the public, who have never been asked but have only been preached to by the elite on the BBC, really think of them. And of course, they think the same of the Tory elite.

yes Miliband's problem was that he did not convince people outside of London. Can't see Corbyn persuading any swing voters either. Why shouldn't people fear the unknown? I prefer to vote for policy and tax changes I can understand not some nebulous idea of change for the better. It surprises me that so many people are prepared to vote for unclear policy offerings.

The London public aren't the metropolitan eiite which is why they prefer Corbyn to the party robots from Oxbridge.

The London public are already massive Labour voters. 45 seats out of 73, yes? So it doesn't matter what Corbyn does, Labour get a landslide in London anyway. If that were replicated over the whole country, Labour would have a majority of 150.

The problem is, the rest of the country doesn't vote Labour on anything like the same scale.

Corbyn offers what every far left and right wing politician/party across Europe offers; what 'the people' want to hear, with some painless but impractical ways to solving the financial and social problems of a country.

Syriza tried it, now said about to split. Nuff said.

The London public aren't the metropolitan eiite which is why they prefer Corbyn to the party robots from Oxbridge. The metropolitan elite is the Guardian editorial team, the BBC, the Westminster class and all the rest of the Oxbridge lot.

This shows that Corbyn is popular among the public in general.

Yes, because in so many ways - politically, economically, structurally - London is the perfect model for the rest of the country. By polling opinions in London, you will find almost no difference between what is expressed and what the rest of the country thinks.

Of the 73 parliamentary seats in London, Labour holds 45 (62%, and up from 38 in 2010) , the Tories, 27 (down from 28). Labour with a large and growing majority: just like the rest of the country. The read-across is obvious.

I thought your were against the metropolitan elite, claig, and how here you are claiming it represents the whole country.

This shows that Corbyn is popular among the public in general.

"Left-winger Jeremy Corbyn is 'first choice for Londoners'
Poll reveals he has more support among London public than nearest rivals, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper, put together"

www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/left-winger-jeremy-corbyn-is-first-choice-for-londoners-a2633546.html

Quiero .... Corbyn's policies are 1970's throwbacks that failed - and as for opposing the Tories, that is all Labour did for a whole parliament and based on the UK record versus the rest of Europe, lost every one of their economic argument,s and therefore looked stu-pid.

The problem for the other 3 candidates is that the Conservative on several main issues are moving closer to Labour - so assuming they understand the difference between "austerity" and good financial management - all there is left is no answers themselves individual policy knit-picking e.g. their typical pc 'mustn't call illegal migrants "swarms" or "marauding".

”Now it's gone too much the other way. Zero hour contracts, job insecurity and poor working conditions for many means that the interest in banding together to fight for jobs and rights is growing in popularity.”

”People are seeing that we aren't all in this together.”

Maybe it is still the Trade Unions and labour movement that has to get real, based on global trends.

There was an interesting article this month in the F.T. looking at the EU, looking at temp vs full time, worker rights stifling more full time employment etc – and the UK looked in much better full time shape, especially for younger workers – I wish I’ have kept it as a hard copy and can’t find it on-line now.

I found this though, which gives an indication of employment trends.

Temporary, casual and self-employed account for 75% of workers
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4f2e3516-fd67-11e4-b072-00144feabdc0.html

”Three-quarters of the world’s workers are temporary, casual or self-employed and this sort of employment is likely to become more prevalent, says the International Labour Organisation.”

”The ILO, a UN agency that specialises in work, analysed employment patterns in 180 countries and found that the “standard” model of permanent full-time employment was “less and less dominant” in rich, developed economies.”

What the fuck is all this harking back to the 80's about? Everything is entirely different now. And don't assume the majority remember the 1983 election. I certainly don't; being 5 years old . There are many politically active people under 50 you know.

Also, I'm not voting for Corbyn thinking about 2020, I'm voting for Corbyn so we can have a leader of the opposition who is actually in opposition to the Tories.

I'd take a minute to look at this article

www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142144/the-key-questions-jeremy-corbyn-must-answer