Corbyn announces Your Party

Yes, and that's a good thing.

There's a commonly held fallacy that the answer to every political question is moderation, that our political system somehow rewards that and that anybody challenging it is a deluded idealist.

This is of course weaponised highly selectively, and primarily against the left. Nobody denies Farage's effectiveness at getting his particular extremist talking points to the highest levels of government policy. And of course everybody ignores the fact that by far the most effective, history-changing politician over the longest timespan in living memory didn't give a toss about people hating her. She simply energised and motivated a consistent 30-40% of the electorate to keep voting for her and allowed our ridiculous sham of an electoral system to do the rest.

The right will always do whatever it needs to do to neuter the left. The left can compromise and be "grown up" till the cows come home, like Starmer, and it will never be enough. Or it can refuse to compromise and stand up for an alternative, like Corbyn, and it will be ridiculed. Both are just a way of saying that the right owns the narrative.

The whole reason we have such a useless nothingness of a government right now, that manages to please almost noone, is that it ran and was voted in on precisely that basis. Do nothing that will offend any vested interests, copy the right's rhetoric (eg on immigration) and hope that being less shamelessly corrupt than the Tories will be enough. The only real question is why anybody expected anything else.

Noone has to vote for this party if they don't like it, but I want to have a party to vote for that represents my views, not one that condescendingly tells me that those views (most of which are hardly extreme) have no place even in public debate because the billionaire press have deemed it so.

I will say one thing though: Anyone who thinks moderate, "grown up" cooperation and compromise with the powers that be is the answer to climate change, rising authoritarianism or snowballing wealth inequality, is far more deluded than Jeremy Corbyn ever was.

The claim that you called untrue was that he hadn't "condemned" them. Which he hasn't.

I'm sorry that you don't recognise an idiotically inconsistent argument based on willy nilly moving of goalposts when you make one.

OK, you win Mumsnet Non Sequitur Of The Year award.

You can put it on the shelf next to your Garbled Logic trophy for garden tax.

It’s also worth noting that Labour won the last general election under Starmer with 9,708,000 votes - 3 million fewer than Corbyn got in 2017.

That’s a non statement if ever I read one. He’s not stated the UK will stop arming Israel or any consequences for not allowing aid through.

Personally I’ll agree with the person condemning genocide and killing/starvation of children.

Amusing.

I am personally keen that Labour tax the granny out of everyone - I mean everyone. Bring it on.

The sooner this shower of shit go down, the better.

He's very popular with the Kurdish community in Islington apparently. I know a guy from that community and they do rate how he will always turn up at the community centre and the taxi drivers there think a lot of him

But the article doesn't say that being in a men's job meant people were "more than likely, almost guaranteed" to take home £50K. It simply says that SOME men were able to do that. It doesn't say how many, or in what jobs.
There was a radio 4 programme about this a few months ago that was interesting. Basically, its about getting rid on one layer of bin men (a small group of people in a role no other council uses) because the council were warned that that partilcular level breached equality legislation. The Union refused to allow that layer of management to be removed and those people to be redistributed so the council was then sued into bankrupcy. Now, these same group are striking because a bankrupt council has to try and get rid of them again. So UNITE, when they aren't defrauding their members by paying over the odds for conference suites are fighting against equality legislation designed to protect poorly paid women ( where have we heard that before?) and for well paid men.

2017 election

73% of his constituency voted for him. Are you suggesting that, whilst believing him to be either a "weirdo and undesirable ", they were all still happy to vote for him ? I think the truth may be that they regarded him as their best representative.

12.9 million voted for his labour party (13.6 million for the Conservatives.)
Were those 12.9 million also voting for what they saw as a "weirdo" or an "undesirable" ?

His constituents would agree with you. Those who have perhaps greater contact with him have consistently given him a sizeable majority, even when up against Labour. So yes, he gives his time and his voters remain pretty faithful.
Can they judge the man fairly or are they all just antisemites themselves, or possibly just antisemite-deniers ?

Be interesting to see what their immigration policy will be.

It's just going to be constant moaning about JC again on here isn't it?

So where there does he say he will not continue to arm Israel, or "condemn" the bombings and withholding of aid?

He mentions the need for both things to stop, but pointedly refrains from placing any blame or judgment upon Israel for doing them.

Labour don't need anyone to vote for it, they are in power and can just introduce a land tax for non agri properties and changes to council tax bandings.

Its actually quite funny because if he did so, he'd boost his popularity.... money raised could be ring fenced to provide NHS dentistry for all.

@Lalgarh

It doesn't specify which men, in which roles, could reach that figure.

The point was, by virtue of being in a "men's" job they were more than likely, almost guaranteed to get take home pay of upto £50k in a way that they couldn't if they were in care work, etc, which was a job of a comparable skill level, and this was known about at the time these parities were realised and the unions opted to keep the (mainly women) cleaners care workers etc in the dark. It's ironic really as the great anti capitalist organisations of the unions were applying free market levels of leverage to extract these advantages.

I'm not arguing with that general point of the article, or with the fact that it's right and proper to resolve the discrepancy.

But the article doesn't say that being in a men's job meant people were "more than likely, almost guaranteed" to take home £50K. It simply says that SOME men were able to do that. It doesn't say how many, or in what jobs.

What you actually said was that "BinMen... could take home salaries with bonuses of upto £50k". The article which you linked to, apparently to demonstrate that, doesn't in fact say anything of the sort.