To ask you what you think would be bad about a Corbyn government?

[catdoctor]

Please be specific.

When Corbyn was seven, the family moved to Pave Lane in Shropshire, where his father bought Yew Tree Manor, a 17th-century country house which was once part of the Duke of Sutherland's Lilleshall estate.[16][8][17] Corbyn attended Castle House School, an independent preparatory school near Newport, Shropshire, before, at age 11, taking up a place as a day student at Adams' Grammar School in the town. Poor soul having such a deprived background.

And a slight increase In taxation of the rich

Disingenuous rubbish. How on earth can Labour’s huge package of tax increases and outright confiscations be called a “slight” increase in taxation?

Who cares if he taxes the rich more? You should pay more. You have more bloody money!

I’d be delirious with joy if JC was our next PM. I am sick and ashamed to see the state our country has been brought to by the amoral self serving bastards currently in charge

@derxa has JC ever claimed NOT to have come from a privileged background? He can however empathise with the majority who haven’t. Unlike the tories who couldn’t give a shit about ordinary people.

Who cares if he taxes the rich more? You should pay more. You have more bloody money!

And this is why anyone with more than a couple of groats to rub together should think very carefully before allowing an old Marxist into Downing Street.

Jeremy Corbyn is no leader and the party is deeply divided. There are leaders in the Labour Party but he is not one of them.

There would be more acts of rebellion in Parliament than there have been in the present one.

“Poor soul having such a deprived background.”

Can you please point me to anywhere where Corbyn has claimed to have a deprived background?

Dianne Abbot's opposition to private schools is rank hypocrisy. She admits it but how does it make it any different from 'what's good for my children isn't necessarily what is good for your children' . Frankly if Labour concentrated on making things better so the need for private schools disappeared (other countries have managed this) I would have more respect for them. Instead they'd rather reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. Reducing class sizes to 20 would be transformative for the state sector (and a massive cost). Abolishing/making private schools unaffordable would put a massive strain on the state sector (and a massive cost). So why choose the latter other than pure spite and class warfare?
Yeah the Tories are shit but for other reasons and you asked about Labour.

Dianne Abbot's opposition to private schools is rank hypocrisy.“
I agree. So is Chakrabhati’s. Next?

This is how the future of a Corbin government will look in tax terms:

• He won't increase tax payments on the poor - they have nothing anyway. So He will give them some spending money to keep the economy going.

He won't get any tax from the rich - they are able to hide their income. Offshore account anyone?

• That leaves the so called middle. Not earning enough to hide it, but with various amounts of disposable income. That disposable income will be the tax increases to pay for unicorns in Corbin & Labour government.

“Reducing class sizes to 20 would be transformative for the state sector”
This is not a view held by experts in education.

He can however empathise with the majority who haven’t. Unlike the tories who couldn’t give a shit about ordinary people. He cares about his voting base in urban England but he rarely sets foot in the countryside or in Scotland. He's been a professional politician all of his adult life. He's never had to lie awake all night worrying about losing his business or livelihood. I don't believe he's a bad person at all. John McDonell on the other hand... He joked that Esther McVey should be lynched and described her as a "stain on humanity". I don't like Esther McVey but is that an example of the 'kinder gentler politics' ?

“He's been a professional politician all of his adult life. He's never had to lie awake all night worrying about losing his business or livelihood”
And?

He was at least a trade union activist and official- so will have come closer to seeing poverty than the party containing the sort of people who describe the homeless as “the sort of people you step over on the way to the opera”

Jesus Christ - as a trade union official he contributed to poverty via the incredible inflation and national bankruptcy Labour inflicted upon us in the 70s!

There is a difference between levelling the playing field of opportunity and levelling the playing field of achievement.
And a slight increase In taxation of the rich is hardly “taking everything away from you

Given the list of what Labour want to do it is going to take a hell of a lot more than a slight increase in tax to pay for it.

And he would be taking everything away from me given my business.

Who cares if he taxes the rich more? You should pay more. You have more bloody money

Yes and it is MY MONEY and I earned every single penny doing stuff that you would either turn your nose up doing or find some excuse why you can’t do it.

My family came over to this country between 15-20 years before I was born.
We were the type of people that Labour wants to penalise the rich to subsidise

That is exactly what we didn’t want.

Our aim was to be rich.

I left school in the 70s under a Labour government.
I came out with £80 per month.

My rent was £60 per month and my bus fare was £5.04 per week.
I had to take on extra jobs to pay just for the basics.

Then I realised if I went on the dole I would get £11 per week for doing nothing, I could claim housing benefit and some income support.

Also with my UB40 I had free entry to the local swimming pool and sauna.

It didn’t make sense to work.

That is what Labour does. It takes away people’s incentive to work.

If you tax rich people too much they leave. If you tax companies too much they leave - and take their jobs with them. Therefore bringing in less tax. If you make people better off for not working then there is no incentive to work. And less people working means less tax to pay for all the benefits.

Hmm. So rich people need more money to incentivise themselves and poor people need less.

Yes and it is MY MONEY and I earned every single penny doing stuff that you would either turn your nose up doing or find some excuse why you can’t do it. Yes last week I was cleaning shit off sheep's backsides.

Corbyn involved in any international level of negotiations

His stance is so anti western governments and how they are to blame for everything.

His mindset is that of a naive teenager

Here’s an article about rich people happy to pay their tax- a refreshing antidote to some of the more unpleasant attitudes on this thread.

I'd rather Corbyn do the negotiations than Johnson.

A refreshing dose of virtue-signalling - we don’t get enough of that, do we?

Corbyn is an antisemite. He laid a wreath at a memorial service for terrorists who killed innocent Jewish people, except he was ‘present’ without participating. He has allowed antisemitism to grow and fester instead of expelling party members. He has not engaged with the Jewish community in any meaningful way. I’m really scared that he could be the next prime minister.

I’m not a fan of Boris, but the Conservatives or Libdems are a far safer option for anyone Jewish.

One step closer to Gilead? You know in The Handmaid's Tale universe, trans people would have been executed for being gender traitors?