Corbyn and feminism - is this guy for real?

This is a joke, yes?

worth contacting him re prostituton with some abolitionist arguments

I was not a supporter of Blair. But anyone who doesn't see the difference between the Blair Government and the present one, has their eyes closed.

But what is the point of being elected to do almost exactly the same as the party you just replaced? Answer: the salary comes in handy. Oh, you meant the point to the electorate. Er... pass.

Burnham of course is now switching sides and coming out with left-wing policies now that he sees which way the wind is blowing. Vote for him if you want another shape shifter lusting after power and no idea what should be done with it. Stereotypical hypocritical professional politician.

I think it's hard to predict what would have become of Michael Foot if it hadn't been for the Limehouse declaration and the Falklands war. It's a bit like comparing apples and oranges, or at least apples and apples in two completely different circumstances.

I hate Andy Burnham, but then I work in the NHS. I think it is a bit rich to call Corbyn weak and conservative when Burnham trots along behind the Tories, voting for their policies after saying we shouldn't vote for their policies.

Of course, then I'll have the problem that in a democracy most people aren't going to agree with me that we need to put sustaining the environment that sustains us first, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it

Yes it can. In a working democratic parliament. Ours ain't working.

As Prime Minister. It reminds me of Michael Foot all over again. And a political party can't achieve anything if it is not elected.

Our governing system was not originally set up as a system of two opposing parties: it was set up as a place where representatives of the people (well, then, of course, the well-off) could come together and talk, debate the common good, hammer out a consensus for the public domain. I'd like to see a wider range of views represented and some real debates, rather than the formal squabbling over just two 'party lines' that are basically much the same and neither of them benefitting the majority of the people in this country.

Do you mean as Labour leader or as prime minister? If the former I'd say it's looking pretty realistic. If the latter, I'm not entirely convinced of that: but even if so, do you think being elected is more important than what you're being elected to do? Even if not we would once again at long last have a voice for the ordinary working people, not just the well-off and privileged, one that is also concerned about the lack of representation for ordinary people, in the heart of politics. It's about time Parliament started working again.

He doesn't have a realistic chance of being elected.

I do not like the decriminalisation arguments myself. I'm going to fall foul of comments elsewhere about lefty types who think other things are important - I think the prostitution is one issue, which I'm not happy about, but will accept temporarily because of all the other issues which will benefit women: rebuilding the public sector will help women, as women have been disproportionately affected by its reduction. Given what I think is an urgently dreadful state of the country, socially, economically and environmentally, I'd like to start with getting some democracy reinvigorated and that will hopefully clear the way for further dialogue on other matters.

He supports decriminalisation of prostitution. This would be a disaster.

The 50:50 cabinet idea sounds good to me.

What's wrong with Corbyn? It's Michael Foot all over again.

I've actually just joined to vote for Yvette Cooper.

Why would Corbyn be a disaster? The current state of politics is a disaster.

We have two right-wing parties, both manned -largely manned, for the reasons Amethyst said - in parliament by rich over-privileged people who know nothing of the realities of peoples' lives and care less. They insist on this idea that no other way of life is possible than this socioeconomic structure that forces inequality of wealth, is forcing it now to extremes not seen for 70-odd years within Britain. They tell us they deserve it and the poor deserve their lot, in direct contradiction of all evidence to the contrary, and so they live the life of riley while the poor can be chucked on the scrapheap before birth. Anyone who doesn't have good luck all their lives necessarily deserves their bad fortune too, or at least no help, and can be safely chucked onto that scrapheap too. After all,they say and absolutely insist, the 6th richest country in the world can afford nothing better. They're forcing every single social divide they can get their hands on open, age, gender, disabilities... They also tell us that the current environmental problems are inexorable and can't be stopped. We have no voice in higher places dissenting with any of this.

Worzels is right, this narrative needs to be blown wide open again. Ifound a blog post which puts it much better than me kittysjones.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/inverted-totalitarianism-and-neoliberalism-oh-dear/

I have never been a member of the Labour party but (apart from Holyrood elections where I vote Labour on the candidate secrtion and Conservative on the list section ) I have voted Labour in every election since 1979.

Corbyn will be a disaster.

Do you tweet, OP?

If so, I reckon I know who you might be.

You're "a leftie" who finds Corbyn "a little conservative" and who is voting for Andy Burnham?

Course you are OP.

I hate AWS it says I couldn't be here if a man wanted it.

However I note that the sex workers open university support him so that is interesting... how does he balance that support with some of the ideology he quotes.