Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Politics

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

710 replies

Myturnnow4 · 12/08/2015 15:53

I've listened to people argue this, but haven't heard a reasoned argument yet. The main criticism appears to be, "he's on the left" but don't go on to explain why that in itself is a bad thing.

OP posts:
claig · 24/08/2015 12:40

'Everyone's been talking about tax evasion, Claig.'

But there is aiffrence between talk and action. No one elieves a word the spinners say, but lots of people believe that Corbyn is for real.

Alyosha · 24/08/2015 12:22

Everyone's been talking about tax evasion, Claig. It's not exactly something new!

And no, immigration is a key concern and voters voting for him depend on them believing in his policies...which we know they don't because they just voted for full-fat austerity.

claig · 24/08/2015 10:40

'No electoral fraud' in Nigel Farage-contested Thanet South seat
...
'Postal vote problems'

The election result was not declared at the count at Margate's Winter Gardens until about 10.35 GMT on Friday, hours later than expected.

BBC reporters were told by officials at the time the delays were caused by the sheer volume of ballot papers and problems verifying the postal vote.

Turnout was 69%, up from 65% in 2010."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32725167

Corbyn's immigration policy is typical left wing folly, but it won't matter because Corbyn will make life better for ordinary working people.

When Corbyn stands up at Labour Conference, he will not be making a PPE written speech about meeting Gareth in the park and "forgetting" to mention the deficit, Corbyn will speak about meeting the taxman in his office and "remembering" to sort out corporate tax evasion. There will be a standing ovation and deafening applause from every ordinary Labour Party member in Conference, and in the front row, there will be the Oxbridge contingent, the PPEs, the Blairites, glued fast to their seats, glum-faced and despondent knowing that they will be receiving an almighty bollocking from the Establishment for not being able to stop Corbyn and the people.

Alyosha · 24/08/2015 10:28

Claig, IIRC you were predicting 10+ seats for UKIP and a win for Nigel Farage...

But anyway - Labour has been here before. In some ways I would like Corbyn to win, and for the Labour party to see that he is not electorally popular. That would then pave the way for an electable candidate in 2025. In the meantime we run the risk of giving the Tories a huge majority to wreck our country as they please (selling off Housing Association homes, stealth cuts to the NHS even greater than they already are, privatising the Tube or something stupid like that).

Re: immigration - I think there was a lot of discontent in 2006, actually. I think the fear over wages, infrastructure is a valid one. It's not so much about taking people's jobs, rather that the influx of labour prepared to work for less probably depresses wage rises. And it fuels the underground labour economy. Our black labour economy would only be further strengthened by an open border policy. A high minimum wage means nothing if it is not enforced.

Of course, this is all slightly academic, as those most opposed to immigration are those living in the areas with the smallest amount of it.

I think Corbyn's immigration policy would immediately lose us even more votes to UKIP in the North.

claig · 24/08/2015 09:42

Even Alan Johnson, the man the media built up as the "normal" reasonable person in Labour, has realised that the game is up. The Establishment had hoped that either Alan Johnson or David Miliband could save them from Corbyn, but Johnson can't do it and obviously Miliband couldn't either. Johnson knows (even if they don't) that it is all over, that he would be easily defeated by the popular surge for Corbyn.

This is what Aan Johnson says about the people's insurgency.

"Discussing why Corbyn had attracted such support, he went on: “There is something in the air, whether its about insurgency or a feeling that something needs to change or whether the fact that you have rebelled 500 times is something to commend you …”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11819663/Moderate-Labour-MPs-fear-Jeremy-Corbyn-purge.html

claig · 23/08/2015 22:06

Interesting tmes for Labour, the people and the whole country. Things are going to get better for the people and worse for the metropolitan elite. Goodnight. [smie]

claig · 23/08/2015 22:04

John Harris is a good left wing journalist, one of the few who tries to understand UKIP and the people instead of having a metropolitan kneejerk reaction that ignores what people are saying and thinking.

In this report on UKIP and immigration, you can see that the real underlying issue on immigration is mainly to do with jobs, prospects, wages and a future. Immigrants compete for work. There is a Polish guy who says "let the market sort it out", "the fittest will survive". That is the Tory and Labour Tory-lite philosophy but it is now definitely coming to a crashing end. The people have had enough.

First they voted UKIP in rebellion, next it will be Corbyn. Corbyn is the antithesis of "let the market decide". He will let the state and the people decide and that is what people - including UKIP voters will now want. Then when there are jobs and higher wages and good prospects, the people will no longer feel under competition for jobs from immigrants and there will no longer be any "let the fittest survive" and there will be less worry over immigration.

The fundamental thing is jobs, wages and a future without high education fees and being ripped off by this metropolitan elite class of rich luvvies who solve nothing serious, spout politically correct meaningless mantras and are "mesmerised" by charidees and waste taxpayer money on their own follies.

ironmaiden999 · 23/08/2015 22:00

Claig, interesting times ahead...particularly for the labour party! Goodnight!
Smile

claig · 23/08/2015 21:36

'but Corbyn wants 'open borders' and not immigration control, the one thing that does unite the 4 million who voted for UKIP at the last election was the need to control immigration, if Corbyn wants more mass immigration and no border controls surely he is the antipathy of what UKIP voters want? '

Yes, but you have to look at the immigration issue and ask why so much discontent now and not in 2006 when Blair and the band let in hundreds of thousands of EU citizens seeking work. What has happened is that the people - and specifically UKIP voters, 4 million - have had enough of how we are governed in many different ways. They are sick of this ruling class of out of touch metropolitan elite luvvies who are politically correct idiots and who are wasting public money on foreign aid and their own favourite charidees and are not solving housing, employment or anthying serious. So they have hit back at the metropolitan spinners in the most politically incorrect way they know how - complaining about immigration, which everyone knows is not allowed by the Establishment and the media. So the people have broken that barrier and the metropolitan elite had to listen. But of course they can't do anything, they can't change anything on housing, employment or immigration, but there will be more charidees and higher salaries for the metropolitan luvvies who work in the "third sector", funded to a large extent by the taxpayer.

The majority of the people think there iis too much immigration, but they thought that in 2005 and 2006 etc. What has changed is that now they are fed up of our governing class and that is why UKIP toppled the LibDems and became our 3rd largest party even though a lot of the UKIP spokespeople are not the sharpest tools in the box. People don't care, they have had enough - not just over immigration, but of our entire useless elite.

Now along comes Corbyn and if the Establishment is unable to stop him, then he will nationalise industries, lower prices, bring down housing costs, build more homes, provide more employment, scrap zero-hour contracts, bring in free childcare and improve the NHS. Millions of ordinary people will benefit and be very grateful. Immigration will slip down the list of their priorities. They will go back to 2005 and 2006.

Corbyn won't bring in open borders, because there will be some commonsense union types - the Len McCluskeys - who will advise against it.

UKIP voters say immigration is their main concern on the doorstep, but it isn't really, it is the lack of prospects, lack of a good future and disillusion at the class who are ruining our country. When those problems are fixed, immigration will recede as their main concern.

' IMO whoever gets in nothing changes, sorry it does, but only for the worse!'

This is where Corbyn is different. If he gets in, there will be huge changes. That is why all the PPEs, Blair, the great and the good are desperately trying to stop Corbyn. Corbyn is not a PPE, he is for real and he will change things and make thngs better for ordinary people.

If Corbyn loses the Labour leadership, then Labour really are finished and UKIP will grow. The Tories themselves are on borrowed time. The only thing that saved them is our unfair unrepresentative electoral system. PR voting will have to come in eventually because the people are not being properly represented. When it comes in, the Tories are finished and the battle will be betwenn UKIP and Corbyn.

Corbyn will win it because he does have a wider vision which has the courage to nationalise industry, tax the rich, tax the coorporations, hopefully tax the charidees and the luvvies in them, and provide employment and cheaper homes. Farage will go half way there, but he can't match Corbyn because he is a former Tory and has ex-Tory financial backers who won't let him compete with Corbyn and the unions.

I prefer Farage's commonsense, but Corbyn will solve more of the country's problems.

ironmaiden999 · 23/08/2015 21:09

Claig, I agree with you that Corbyn can be a threat to UKIP; but Corbyn wants 'open borders' and not immigration control, the one thing that does unite the 4 million who voted for UKIP at the last election was the need to control immigration, if Corbyn wants more mass immigration and no border controls surely he is the antipathy of what UKIP voters want?
As Claig suggests 'Dave' is not popular, he's introduced new planning laws, which have carved up the countryside and he's not popular because of this; in his own constituency he rarely meets the constituents, in case they give him a 'mouthful' he's been abused on the streets of Witney (his constituency). In many villages UKIP came second to the Tories in the last election. Young people want to vote for Corbyn because they don't remember what the past labour government's have been like! IMO whoever gets in nothing changes, sorry it does, but only for the worse!

claig · 23/08/2015 20:18

But what worries the Establishment and the PPEs is that they all know that Corbyn and McCluskey are serious. Now it is real, now there is no grinning and no laughing, just sheer utter panic.

claig · 23/08/2015 20:16

Dave was desperate, he was told by large financial backers to get serious and liven things up and put some "passion" into it because he was sinking fast. And so his Oxbridge spinners told him to take his jacket off, roll his sleeves up, start speaking mockney and try not to look like a laughing stock. Meanwhile Ed was as calm as a cucumber and just grinned at the wrong moment everytime. It was obvious Ed wasn't serious and the Edstone just confirmed it.

claig · 23/08/2015 20:11

Unlike Andrew Marr, I alos predicted that Labour would lose the election and Cameron would win. I even said that Miliband did not look serious in interviews. He was far too calm and relaxed and looked as if he didn't care. His grin when asked "are you ready?" to assume the responsibility of government gave the game away in my opinion and I said so on the boards and was asked what I was smoking?

claig · 23/08/2015 20:07

Did I not predict a landslide for UKIP in Clacton, and a UKIP victory in the EU elections?

What I am now seeing is Corbyn's Labour making UKIP irrelevant. If Corbyn loses, Labour are finished. Their Establishment Oxbridge robot-speak candidates can never win back UKIP voters and UKIP will only grow (unless the Establishment has its people inside it to sabotage it).

Alyosha · 23/08/2015 19:23

I think a key problem with state ownership of public utilities has been that it becomes too politicised, every decision that is unpopular is reversed, thereby leading to a situation where the utility becomes financially untenable. I.e. people don't want fare rises - no investment takes place - quality deteriorates - people complain.

I would be in favour of a majority state ownership with a minority private stake.

As to OP's original question...

What does Labour have to do to win the next election?

It must win over primarily Tory voters in the South.

(Even if Labour won every SNP seat we still wouldn't have had a majority).

What do we know about these voters?

We know they voted for full-fat, no holds barred austerity (the Conservatives). We know they don't trust Labour on the economy. We also know they are concerned about the NHS & immigration.

What does Corbyn offer these people?

Fuck all.

We will not win the election with Corbyn.

Quite apart from that, I also mistrust his positions on Putin, Syria, Milosevic & his tendency to pal around with anti-semites.

hurryupharry.org/2015/08/21/the-enemy-of-my-enemy/

Beware the endorsement of claig - she has a knack of predicting the exact opposite of actual events.

caroldecker · 21/08/2015 18:05

National express agreed to pay £1.4bn for the franchise over the term, but revenues did not increase, so they pulled out as unable to afford the £1.4bn, not because the line was unprofitable, but because they had bid too much for it. And the govt gave up £140 million payment from national express at the end because 'they do not renegotiate contracts'.

claig · 21/08/2015 17:31

Jeremy Corbyn and Polly Toynbee are on BBC Radio 4 Any Questions tonight at 8 pm

Redkite2015 · 21/08/2015 16:27

East Coast franchise is now operated by Virgin. Richard Branson is no fool.

Redkite2015 · 21/08/2015 16:23

Why would the company not invest ?
Perhaps lower profits than they expected. Or they wanted to get out of their commitments, so planned default. Only National Express can tell.

How was it made profitable?
Perhaps by removing fat cats and excessive bonuses. Only DfT could give more info, but since the franchise was later snapped by other private investors, State must have run it well.

The public only know 2 facts.

  1. National Express defaulted, so State had to take it over.
  2. State was able to sell the franchise again. It must be attractive enough to the new investors.
Isitmebut · 21/08/2015 15:51

Redkite .... "National Express announced it would not invest any further funds into the franchise, effectively declaring it planned on defaulting."

OK then, as I'm often accused of giving too much info/links, please finish the job as now I'm interested and depending on your answer, I can't be arsed to look it up..

Why would one company not invest, HOW was it made profitable, wage/staff cuts, government allowed investment cuts, how?

It seems to me that historically every State run company becomes a bit of a worker jollie, as the workers think it has loadsamoney, always wanting to sit around 'kin tables, especially with a Labour Party who gives in no matter how much money is being made..

Redkite2015 · 21/08/2015 15:38

National Express East Coast Line

On 1 July 2009, the Department for Transport announced that it would take the National Express East Coast franchise into public ownership at the end of the year after National Express announced it would not invest any further funds into the franchise, effectively declaring it planned on defaulting.[43] Further controversy ensued when, on 27 July 2009, the Commons Transport Committee said that ministers should consider operating the East Coast Main Line as a public railway after National Express announced they would walk away.[44] Directly Operated Railways took over the East Coast franchise on 14 November 2009.

Redkite2015 · 21/08/2015 15:31

You are forgetting. The private franchise was making losses and dumped it on State.

It was made profitable and re-privatised.

You often make good arguments. But please don't be selective.

Isitmebut · 21/08/2015 15:28

"Were not a franchise had to be taken over and run by the State and privatised again recently?"

If so, I'd suggest that it wasn't because it was keeping up with the investment/standards asked of it, and making truck loads of money doing it.

Isitmebut · 21/08/2015 15:25

Re railways etc I suggest you need to do more homework on _how much private sector investment there HAS been, and how much NET profit there is because of that investment the State/taxpayer historically wouldn't have put in.

British Gas is owned by a British consortium.

Royal Mail had an £11 bil Employee Pension Fund deficit that when addressed could have made it bankrupt.

Etc etc etc.

Redkite2015 · 21/08/2015 15:16

Were not a franchise had to be taken over and run by the State and privatised again recently?

Shareholders in railways and Utilities do not pay hugh salaries and bonuses. This is all charged back to the consumers - general public. That's is why the fuel bills keep going up, the train fares keep going up and the high profits go to Russian owners of British gas and railways profits to other investors.

Utilities, Railways and Postal Services should never have been privatised. That way either the cost is kept down or the profits go back to State.

These are monopolies. Public has no control on how much their charges go up and up.