To not understand all of this Corbyn hate

[clevername]

Disclaimer – I consider myself to be an intelligent and thoughtful person but also very uninformed and ignorant of political (and other) current affairs. Largely through my own choosing – I have virtually no faith in politicians and politics at all. I realised a very long time ago that the whole thing was an elaborate farce. I’ve always spoilt my ballot until Nick Clegg won me over and then proved, unequivocally, that I was right to not trust them. I vowed never to vote again but I’m feeling stirred to this time around and have therefore been looking into it more and trying to sift through the inevitable bullshit…

So – what is so bad about Corbyn? From what I understand (do remember my disclaimer and how uninformed I am!), the main people in the Labour party hate him because he is ‘unelectable’. So they’ve wanted him out for a long time but he has refused to go, on account of the fact he has been democratically chosen by the party members to be the leader. This annoys and frustrates them and they therefore blame him for creating an enormous and damaging rift in the party. But, surely, the fact that he has been elected as leader is testament to his popularity with Labour voters? And isn’t it a good thing that he stands his ground? Especially against the kind of people who would rather have someone like Ed Milliband (or his ilk – I don’t know any ‘current’ names) as party leader? Doesn’t it show that he is principled and ‘different’ from the political norm? Isn’t this something that we need?

And what does it matter if the Labour party are in shambles (a common reason I hear for not wanting to vote for them this time)? Surely that’s because of all of the ‘unelectable’ stuff above. But if he were to be elected, I’m guessing those problems would evaporate. Because he would have been elected. And anyway, aren’t political parties often shambolic? Wasn’t May’s drastic cabinet overhaul and sackings at the beginning of her reign (not to mention the Boris/Gove thing in the leadership contest) a clear sign of an ununited, shambolic party?

I realise Corbyn isn’t to everyone’s tastes politically but if you’re left leaning and want to try and get rid of the Tories, surely he’s not such a bad bet?

I’m sorry if this is making me come across as stupid but I genuinely want to know why some people (especially those who would normally consider themselves left-wing or Labour voters) dislike him so much.

Piglet I am sorry for your situation I often end up posting after you along similar lines honestly I am not stalking you

Abbott was totally unprofessional this morning at this point in time it was shockingly bad for her and her team

I'm a Labour party member - joined recently precisely because I am a moderate, centre left voter, with a moderate, centre left MP who I didn't want to see unseated by Momentum supporters wanting to install a hard-left candidate. I will be voting Labour for my MP - because he is a solid constituency MP, and I feel like if Labour is to have any chance of "rising from the ashes" we will need non-Corbynite MPs still around when the dust settles.

But I have a question for the Corbyn supporters.

I've been reading Labour's 10 pledges. Now, there's much to like in broad terms (strengthening labour rights, outlawing zero hours contracts, funding the NHS properly), but it's all very, very short on detail. In particular, the very first pledge looks like complete pie in the sky to me.

Pledge one is this: "We will create a million good quality jobs across our regions and nations, and guarantee a decent job for all. By investing £500 billion in infrastructure and industry, backed up by a publicly-owned National Investment Bank and regional banks, we will build a high skilled, high tech, low carbon economy to ensure that no one and no community is left behind.

We will invest in the high speed broadband, energy, transport and homes that our country needs and allow good businesses to thrive, and support a new generation of co-operative enterprises."

Now, my question is where is this money going to come from. Let's set it in context. 500 billion is almost as much as the entire tax receipts for 2016-2017 (inland revenue publicly published report) and in excess of the country's GDP for the first quarter of 2017 (ONS report). Now of course, if done via the creation of a National Investment Bank, the whole 500 billion wouldn't have to be put up "up front" (because of the way M1 money supply works), but it would presumably still add massively to the public sector borrowing requirement and/or national debt.

So, how, in detail, does Corbyn think the sums will work?

M0stly I would add to that - we already pay bns to pay the interest owed on our public sector debt - can we even afford to pay the increased interest payments on this much more public sector debt added to the pile.

Not to mention the New Statesmen has an interview with McDonnell from 2006 where he says that he is trying to bring the system down from within - debt crisis? These are things they need to put to bed unless this really is their strategy.

Doomed it is, then.

Piglet I am sorry for your situation flowers I often end up posting after you along similar lines honestly I am not stalking you smile

Thank you and no of course I don't think you are stalking me

I would add to that - we already pay bns to pay the interest owed on our public sector debt - can we even afford to pay the increased interest payments on this much more public sector debt added to the pile.

Well "pile" is bit loaded isn't it? Governments carry debt....is the UK carrying too much? One of the good things about UK debt is that at the moment - and predicted well into the future - we are paying very little in interest. A rate of about 3-4 percent.

Nothing is "spiraling" or "exploding". Of interest is that if we generate a bit of growth, something I guess the Tories have discarded as a goal, finances immediately look much better.

Jeremy sets growths as a goal. And he should. Keynesian economics show that cutting fiscal spending in times of slow growth kills an economy, as is apparent with our sluggishness (bumping along the bottom).

Our levels of debt are in no way extravagant. "Paying off the debt" would be a lovely idea in times of high growth and high interest rates....but it is used now as the excuse for this misguided and economically unsound austerity.

This is the question we should be asking. Why go against all economic reason and mufflel the economy with strangled fiscal spending?

Make, that doesn't address the point at all. Read Mostly's post - the question is whether a massive increase is OK, not whether we should be paying it off. Is it? I have no idea. Which economists think it is, do you know?

Our levels of debt are in no way extravagant. "Paying off the debt" would be a lovely idea in times of high growth and high interest rates....but it is used now as the excuse for this misguided and economically unsound austerity.

We have to manage the deficit, otherwise all the public borrowing would hamper us even further if there was to be another economic disaster.

You don't borrow money just to pay the existing wages.

make as M0stly says, '500 billion is almost as much as the entire tax receipts for 2016-2017' - that is a HUGE increase in public debt, aka a 'pile' more debt.

I'd want to hear the advice of independent economists, the Bank of England, IFS, all the groups with a stake in the stability of the UK economy on this policy for a change of this magnitude.

Who is leading this national investment bank? Do we even have the expertise lined up to disburse the funds? What will the rules be.

I can set anything as a goal - a trip to the moon on gossamer wings. Doesn't mean I'm going to achieve it.

i also think McDonnell needs to refute the idea that he's trying to collapse the economic system from within - since I read that New Statesman article I'm not entirely convinced he isn't with these grandiose plans.

Just watched a brief clip of the DA interview on BBC. That was absolute car crash television wasn't it, I felt embarrassed for her.

Me too. And worried. She didn't actually seem to know what 250 000 is. The thought of her having a job that requires you to make very important security or safety decisions quickly....

and it doesn't give me any confidence they can even manage things with some minor tweaks, let alone huge changes like a NES, a National Investment Bank etc. If you wanted to put the case for some huge left wing policies, I might buy it if it was a lot better and more comprehensively explained. Not on this evidence...

I know these interviews are difficult, but she was so unprepared. Did she even read her brief? And JC just dismissing it as if it's of no consequence.

Well. People will make their own minds up, won't they?

I might buy it if it was a lot better and more comprehensively explained. Not on this evidence

Yep. This is one of the reasons I voted No in Indyref 1. Lots of ideas which sounded good but without much substance behind them.

exactly - if the IFS had assessed this national investment idea, tested the amount added to the national debt and the interest payments vs the potential stimulus to the economy, and we thought we had a competent team of experts to make sure the money was well spent, like M0st is thinking it could be a good idea. As it is though, it's an idea in embryo without any of the necessary details that could make it a success or an abject disaster.

This really pisses me off. She has managed to knock Brexit dinner fallout AND May's non-interviews off front page in favour of whether she can divide by 20000 or not. Now she is blaming the press for taking an interest - of course they flippin' are. It wasn't a slip of the tongue or misspeaking (which is a non-story) - her performance raised serious questions about her fitness for office if she gets s easily confused and flustered.

M0stlyBowlingHedgehog- these 10 Pledges seem to have a little blast from the past... the ideas are as old as Marks & Engels but obviously brought into the 21st Century . That's one of the reasons I won't be voting Labour.

Just watched a brief clip of the DA interview on BBC. That was absolute car crash television wasn't it, I felt embarrassed for her.

They all were to be honest.

Her GMTV interview was ridiculous as was her Daily Politics one.

Yes Lalsy once again the focus is "ha ha, look at how crap Labour are" when it should be elsewhere. DA had a great opportunity to do something positive - showcase a flagship policy - and messed it up.

NoLonger yes, that makes sense to me.

I think of it bit like walking into (say) an interview for a new job and telling them about this great idea you have, then when asked how you'll achieve it, doing an annoying dismissive hand - wave thing and saying "oh, details - we'll work it out later". The interviewer(s) will think you're a piss taking time waster.

I haven't seen any of the others Piglet so can't comment in fairness. I can well believe it though.

I'm wondering how on earth she was so unprepared though - she's an experienced politician and it's not like this was her first interview.

She never does detail though does she? On the Politics Show, they asked her which f the other six (or whatever) interviews she had done included the correct figures (she was claiming all of them did).. She didn't answer that one either. I think her patronising sit-nicely-on-the-carpet manner lulls interviewers to sleep usually.

I haven't seen any of the others Piglet so can't comment in fairness. I can well believe it though.

Her Good Morning Britain interview was so bad it even had me have some sympathy for Piers Morgan.

Steady on Piglet

Who is going to pay back this 500 Billion JC is going to borrow? Our children and grandchildren!
Who do we pay back the money to? The wealthy elite who bought the government gilts that the government issued to raise the debt.

So JCs half a trillion borrowing is actually massive wealth distribution from the poor to wealthy. That's really going to make a more equal society. When did JC become such a hard right Conservative?