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

I don't think Corbyn is a pacifist. If someone attacked us, then we would go to war. But Corbyn would do his utmost to make it unlikely.

I don't however, think his stance on "no war, ever" would be all that helpful in a PM - if your allies and enemies alike know that war is never an option for the UK for political reasons, no matter what happens or what they do, it makes our level of influence in talks/negotiations harder.

The idea that we can just decide wars won't happen is rather over assuming our influence - all we can do is say we won't be involved - that doesn't mean other countries will do the same.

Both Farage and Corbyn are a threat to the Establishment and their banker bosses because they are both independent. Corbyn is the antithesis of Blair, Corbyn will not go to war like Blair, he will not do as the bankers tell him, he will not get a job in JP Morgan when he leaves politics, he will go back to his allotment. And that is why the bankers have to Stop Corbyn, he won't do as he is told.

Much as I like Farage's commonsense, he is not going to be Prime Minister ever. He hasn't got enough policies on all issues. But, inspite of what Labour's Establishment candidates say about Corbyn, there is a real chance that Corbyn could become Prime Minister. That is why the bankers are in panic and that is why every bigwig and has-been has been told to get on TV and Stop Corbyn.

you know, I'm coming round to the idea of Corbyn being the leader, I think the GM article has helped relax my view on him, I was thinking Labour needs a leader who can win in 2020, but if you accept it's unlikely that any of the 4 can win in 2020 no matter what (which is a depressing thing to accept) then Corbyn would a more interesting 'caretaker' than the others.

He's not likely to get much loyality from the party having completely ignored the whip so many times, but if he's not the PM, it doesn't really matter that much, he'll give the party a more defined position, and even if that's an unpopular one long term, it's worth a punt for a few years. He'll be 76 by the time of the 2025 general election, have turned 80 by the end of that term, so not as likely he'd still be party leader by then - it's only really 2020 he'd be leading the party for, and if we've mentally written that off, why not use this decade to try to redefine what the Labour party is about, and see if the public could be attracted to a more left wing opposition.

That said, I can't get over my disappointment that Labour - the main 'progressive' party - has never picked a female leader. We're more likely to have the country's second female PM from the Tories than Labour. That's very depressing.

Don't forget that Corby has been a leading figure in Stop the War for many years. With Corbyn, there will be no wars - in Syria, Libya or with Russia. The same with Farage, but I don't think the same can be said about the rest.

The Establishment are not independent on foreign policy or on domestic policy. They are beholden to international multinational clubs, as can be seen over Calais etc, and to bankers. If discussion of those issues was allowed on the BBC, their lack of indeendence would soon become apparent and then both Farage and Corbyn would gain popularity as it would be obvious that they were independent.

The next question would then be who would do better for the country and the people, and I think it would be Corbyn because he would offer solutions on housing, manufacturing, health, childcare, lifelong learning, tuition fees, fracking, GM food, employment, nationaliation etc that Farage would not be able to go anywhere near.

Foreign policy didn't even come upin our General Electionand foreign policy has not even come up really by the Establishment candidates against Corbyn because the Etsbalishment candidates have no real say over it and have to do as they are told.

Farage tried to bring Ukraine, EU expanionism, Isis and the immigration on boats from Libya up in our Genereal Election, but the BBC and the Etsbalishment didn't want to discuss it, because they have no real say over any of it. These are international and EU policies out of the hands of most of them. Farage is for indepedence, but they are not indeendent. Corbyn, of course, will also set an independent foreign policy, and discussion of it would highlight the Establishment's lack of independence which is why it s off the table.

I have said that I prefer commonsense Farage to left wing politically correct naive Corbyn on most issues. But, I have said that Corbyn has more courage and vision than Farage in changing things that will make life better for the people and the country as a whole. While Farage is right on most things, the ones he is wrong on are more important and while Corbyn is wrong on most things, the ones he is right on and more important.

Foreign policy and immigration are issues that are less significant to most eople than housing, employment, health and a better future and that is where Corbyn scores as he is prepared to change the game entirely and challenge the bankers' logic which te Establishment candidates all say is not credible. I think it will be shown to be credible - that TTIP, GM food, nationalisation of railways etc etc will all be credible and better for the people.

Scrapping of Trident is a popular policy as seen by the SNP's popularity and by polls in Scotland and elsewhere in the country. As far as I understand it, we are not allowed to use them unless the US agrees, so there is a question about how independent they really are.

As for NATO, I am not sure that COrbyn will be allowed to leave NATO so it may just be theoretical. However, NATO is a club like the EU is a club and club members are not truly independent and go along with NATO expansion and wars against Yugoslavia without really being able to say no.
I agree with Farage that NATO expansion is one cause of the crisis with Russia over Ukraine. I don't think Russia would attack the UK if we were not in NATO, but I think it is much more likely that NATO will attack Russia and drag us into a war with Russia.

I think Farage is right, as usual

"Ukip leader Nigel Farage however blamed the desire of Western governments to expand Nato and the European Union for triggering the latest instability.

"I've looked at what Michael Fallon said today. I have to say there's one missing part to everything that is being said and that is, actually, who was it that really started all this?" he said during a campaign visit in Kent.

"I'm not defending Putin's behaviour since, but we still aren't capable of actually admitting that it was us, through expansionism, through wanting Nato and the EU to expand to include the Ukraine, that actually began much of this instability."

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/russian-bombers-off-cornish-coast-ukips-farage-blames-west-and-eu-for-mounting-tensions-after-raf-jets-scambled-31005327.html

But on the really big issues such as providing a good future and good prospects for the ordinary people of this country, I think Corbyn has more courage than Farage and will appeal to more people than Farage because Corbyn has torn up the bankers' rules and changed the entire game which is why every bigwig and has-been has been told to get on our TV screens and turn the eople against Corbyn. Its Stop Corbyn and stop the people for the bankers.

Corbyn will do good for the country and the people overall.

Claig - I amazed that you wrote that.
You professed to be a Farage supporter and now you're supporting the very antithesis of his views. Corbyn wants us out of NATO, unilateral disarmament, etc struggle to see how that will be 'good'.

Brilliant article by George Monbiot Understands what is happening, but gets it wrong when he thinks that Corbyn cannot be elected PM.

Farage gave people hope - hope that we could have ordinary people in charge, an end of the backslapping Establishment metropolitan elites sneering at the people and imposing their crap consensus on us But Corbyn gives even more hope - that the country can be fixed, railways be nationalised, the rich can be taxed, manufacturing and jobs can return and that investment in infrastructure and the people will be prioritised above investment in bankers and cronies. It is the politics of hope, the politics of dreams rather than the Establishment Oxbridge candidates' politics of lies and despair. That is why Corbyn will win, because the people have optimism and never give up even though many feel like it when they look at and listen to the robotic party automatons from Oxbridge that the Establishment promotes.

"Only a disruptive political movement, that can ignite, mesmerise and mobilise, that can raise an army of volunteers – as the SNP did in Scotland – could smash the political concrete.

To imagine that Labour could overcome such odds by becoming bland, blurred and craven is to succumb to thinking that is simultaneously magical and despairing. Such dreamers argue that Labour has to recapture the middle ground. But there is no such place; no fixed political geography.
...
Labour’s inability to provide a loud and proud alternative to Conservative policies explains why so much of its base switched to Ukip at the last election. Corbyn’s political clarity explains why the same people are flocking back to him.

Are they returning because he has tailored his policies to appeal to the hard right? Certainly not. They are returning because he stands for something, something that could help them, something that was not devised by a row of spadbot mannikins in suits, consulting their clipboards on Douglas Alexander’s sofa.

Nothing was more politically inept than Labour’s attempt before the election to win back Ukip supporters by hardening its stance on immigration. Why vote for the echo when you can vote for the shout? What is attractive about a party prepared to abandon its core values for the prospect of electoral gain? What is inspiring about a party that grovels, offering itself as a political doormat for any powerful interest or passing fad to wipe its feet on?
...
Rebuilding a political movement means espousing what is desirable, then finding ways to make it feasible. The hopeless realists propose the opposite. They assemble a threadbare list of policies they consider feasible, then seek to persuade us that this package is desirable."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/18/jeremy-corbyn-rivals-chase-impossible-dream

mrsruffalo, you are right. I like Farage still, but Corbyn is even more radical and will solve many more important problems. I disagree with some of Corbyn's views, but the ones I agree with are more important. Corbyn will do good for the country and the people overall.

Hi Claig, nice to hear from you again. Always interesting and individual- that's why I like your style. I was also someone who liked what Nigel Farage did to the establishment- although I could never vote for him. Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand appeals to me more. Time for polished, bland politicians to wise up.

Paddy Power is already paying out on Corbyn. They say it is a done deal - the biggest upset in British political history.

"Describing the MP for Islington North’s success in the campaign as the “biggest upset in political betting history”, Paddy Power is so certain that Corbyn will win that it is paying out £100,000, even though polling closes on 10 September."

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-race-corbyn-win-is-done-deal-predicts-paddy-power-as-it-pays-out-on-bets-10461114.html

Apparently, Corbyn has signed up 10,000 volunteers, more than the number of "volunteers" for the Establishment candidates combined. Although who would want to "volunteer" for the others beats me. Are there really that many Oxbridge interns on less than minimum wage expecting to climb the greasy career pole in Labour?

10,000 volunteers - I doubt the others have 10,000 votes between them.

The Establishment candidates are attacking each other and hurling more abuse than Donald Trump on his day off, and Corbyn just calmly repeats "we do not do personal abuse" which winds the Establishment candidates up even more as their teams of spinners go hammer and tongs at each others throats.

Some of the metropolitan elite may have possibly put large sums on their favourites to win - probably taxpayer funded salaries, expenses, the usual - and are now looking at losses that would make City traders like "the London Whale" blush. Of course, the public will be expected to bail them out, so no one should feel too sorry for them.

Historic times, historic stuff. The people are back.

Corbyn is so similar to the leftie SNP (and just as 1970's only with a pretend pro business icing on top) I agree Labour would not make inroads in Scotland.

But the current left vs right socialist bun fight in the Labour Party PROVES the pre 2015 General Election warning that a Labour-SNP coalition would have been an ego/policy nightmare for the UK, was SPOT ON.

Yeah, I can't say the thought of many more years of Tories in WM fills me with glee either. :( I expect some former Labour voters would return to the fold, but not in the numbers needed any time soon. Labour have ignored and ill-treated their voters for too long; many comment that they haven't left Labour, Labour left them.

As for LibDems coming back, I suspect the outcome of the Carmichael court case next month may have some bearing on that, in Scotland at least.

Hirples I am devastated at the prospect of 10-15 more years of Tory rule in the UK. I also think it's unlikely Corbyn will win back SNP voters solely as a result of his promises on Trident, pulling out of NATO, or Emglish tax policies to a devolved Scotland which may include putting NI up by 7% on higher earners to fund tuition fees for children schooled at Eton. I think Nicola Sturgon is much too clever to outgamed, and Scottish identity and the independence issue too much a part of the SNP's appeal for him to win those voters back in the short term. And by 2020 he will already have left the English scene in any case.

The LibDems will make a comeback though.

There is no panic in the SNP, and I doubt whether there's much panic in the other groups you listed either. Labour is far too dead in the water in Scotland to recover any time soon, though Kezia is doing a bit of twisting in the wind, to mix my metaphors.

It's fascinating watching the man engage with the electorate in a manner Labour never did - during the indyref in particular Labour were noted for not participating in hustings (or withdrawing speakers at the last minute, hoping to close the hustings as "unbalanced") and any "public meetings" were with carefully selected audiences. Jim Murphy's much-feted Irn Bru box campaign never attracted big audiences, and he mainly used them as opportunities to shout down little old ladies. Photos and video were very carefully shot close up etc, pure propaganda.

Corbyn certainly seems a lot more open, and he's said he's willing to work with the SNP, which are both positive. We shall see.

The Tories are absolutely delighted about Corybn. He is my best news since the election. If he wins that means 10 years of Tory rule - I am behind him all the way.

Corbyn in Scotland. Panic among the SNP?

"Strange things have been happening in Scottish politics of late, and Jeremy Corbyn’s speech in Glasgow on Friday was one of them. I’m a Labour supporter, and can safely say it was the most electrifying and energetic rally I have ever attended. Labour’s problem in England may well be a failure to win in the market towns, but its problem in Scotland was losing 40 of its 41 seats to a party that outflanked it on the left. I suspect that even before Jeremy Corbyn’s visit, he was the Labour candidate who worried Nicola Sturgeon most of all. Had she been in the audience, she’d have been more worried still.

Within two hours of tickets going on sale for Corbyn’s Glasgow event, they sold out. A frantic search for a larger venue began and the rally was moved to the Old Fruitmarket in the centre of Glasgow; capacity 1,500. Again, it sold out within a few hours. Corbyn could have filled a hall four times the size.
...
I witnessed this paradox when campaigning for Better Together. Most interventions that came from the high and mighty did us no favours – and instead created an immovable and growing mentality of resistance. All we need is oil bosses and banks warning against Corbyn. And if this does happen, all those Tories who have been smirking for the past month may be up against an invigorated grassroots Labour machine that could grow its membership above anything they have faced in modern politics.

CoffeeHousers may laugh at the very suggestion, but it’s an arithmetical fact that the surge in Labour Party membership follows the surge in SNP members. Over 600,000 have registered to vote and an unrivalled figure of 164,000 joined the party in one day. You read that right: in one day.

Nigel Farage has been trying to do to England what Nicola Sturgeon did to Scotland – trying to pose as an insurgent, gather voters, urging them to join his resistance. But he failed. He’s too much of a dictator, and it’s hard to rally around such a relentlessly negative agenda. But Corbyn is giving people what Nicola Sturgeon gave so many in Scotland: a reason to believe in politics again.

So let the Westminster classes laugh and sneer. They laughed at the SNP, before realising the momentum was real and then asking: when will it stop? They may soon be asking the same about Jeremy Corbyn. I suspect that Nicola Sturgeon will have recognised the threat that he poses from the very start. And remember, she has an election to fight next May: Corbyn has arrived at a deeply inconvenient time for her."

blogs.spectator.co.uk/robertmcgregor/2015/08/jeremy-corbyn-can-fill-a-glasgow-hall-quicker-than-nicola-sturgeon-its-time-for-her-to-worry/

Panic among the SNP, panic among the Tories, panic among the Blairites, panic among the Tory lites and sheer panic among the metropolitan elite. A sense of calm among UKIP and the Corbynites who have set politics alight.

The QE idea would also mean overriding the independence of the Bank of England, which as Isitmebut says, only consented to QE as an extraordinary measure and in view of the globalised consequences of the banking crisis. It means vulnerability to large-scale currency and interest rate fluctuations (e.g. interest rate was 20% in 1979).

The National Investment bank idea - to oversee this mass nationalisation - is lifted straight out of the 1983 manifesto when Labour won its worst share of the vote and needed 14 years to recover. So it's not a new or credible idea, unfortunately.

Everyone feels like they have the finger on the pulse but if I'm not convinced and feel an impending sense of doom - after proudly voting Labour at the election for the first time after flouncing off to the LibDems with my protest vote after Iraq - what about the 10 million who voted Tory?

So all this Uk 'growf' and work will be provided by the UK State right - as we can't trust any capitalist business/corporations?

So as "one of the wealthiest nations" with £1.6 tril national debt, we will pay a small army of someones, an annual salary of say £30,0000 out of taxpayers money, and get back say £12,000 of taxes from each, which will pay for the annual private sector/pensions/welfare/benefits etc. Marvellous.

Clearly you don't see the problem with that economic model, which needs global investors currently financing our national Debt to believe in the same economic feckwittery, and have the same faith in our economic ability to pay them back.

Are you aware Quantitative Easing (QE) was designed as an emergency measure and done via the Bank of England to indeed 'create' money by BUYING BACK already issued UK government bonds, with the view of unwinding it at some point in the future - in which case they sell back to the market the UK government/Gilt bonds they bought, getting money back in, to cancel that QE policy.

Are you or JC aware that unwinding the QE, takes money out of the banking/money supply system possibly at the wrong time, and if trying to flog government bonds previously bought via QE into a bond market already crashing due to newly perceived economic incompetence - it will make matter far worse, driving up UK interest rates even further?

Market/investors understand the reasons for QE as a relatively short term measure to add money into the Money Supply when banks weren't functioning, if ANY country tried new 'smoke and mirrors' QE to finance its economy during the good times rather than issue government bonds to borrow - they would not HAVE any global investors, having first become a global laughing stock for even trying it on.

God give me strength.

Labour is staying out of government, I'm afraid, if this opinion poll is true.

How ironic that David Milliband is the person best placed to win the election and Corbyn the least. My DH is excited about Corbyn and hasn't voted Labour for the last two elections - think it was Green last time. Yet he despised Ed Milliband and really thought the wrong brother won - that David was strong, clear, a statesman, and Ed was full of cliches and weak. It sounds inconsistent and ironic, but I just know that if Corbyn is elected but his shadow cabinet is full of people who sound less persuasive, bright or convincing - people like Michael Meacher, Diane Abbott, Jon Trickett - he will quickly lose interest and probably not bother to vote again.

If you do have time, please watch that speech by Yvette. She talks of populist movements in Europe that have sprung up to challenge existing social democratic parties, mostly right wing - but still populist bandwagons which are largely insular and nationalist. Whether right or left they are being exploited by Russia who has given funding to the National Front in France and was talking behind the scenes to Syriza during the bailout crisis. Why? So they could make more countries dependent on their oil and weaken the EU, for trade and security reasons. We really need a strong united Europe to counter that. But as I've said before, Corbyn's reforms (and those of Len McCluskey) are the polar opposite of Tory reforms in the EU and they are playing a dangerous game of double or quits. Reform of EU is desired long term but cannot be achieved short term (in 9 months!): it requires agreement by negotiations all 28 countries, and should not complicate issues as a bargaining chip by right or left pitted against each other - too dangerous and confusing.

So if Corbyn wins the best I can hope for is strong, unequivocal, unqualified support for a Yes vote in the referendum. And I probably won't want to talk politics much again because it will be too depressing.

Society generates wealth. Centrists seem convinced that shareholders and corporates generate it which they don't they just move it into their own pocket.

JC recognises the overarching problems in a world with such accelerating wealth divide. His solutions are credible.

Corrupt crook corporates that should be.

The EU lean IN personally, JC is IN With negotiable terms so same as me basically.

1. Who's staying out of government?

1. Q.E. takes the pressure off the most vulnerable in society and with regards to investment that will never be a problem as we are one of the wealthiest nations with an overflowing population of people who want to work can work and can and will generate wealth for not just shareholders and corrupt crook bankers but for themselves too.