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

[Myturnnow4]

I've listened to people argue this, but haven't heard a reasoned argument yet. The main criticism appears to be, "he's on the left" but don't go on to explain why that in itself is a bad thing.

I was interested enough to follow the discussions on the parliament channel with the pundits and pollsters. The detail they came up with tallied with my experiences of voters I know. It is very interesting if you look at data and listen to non-political (i.e. the majority of the electorate) people.

I have to admit I have self selected myself away from talking to hardliners over the years so I don't move in those circles you are quite right.
(Apart from the local barber who wants a revolution of sorts but reckons Jeremy Clarkson is your man!)

Remember squidzin even us dullards get to vote!

Would you like to see an equal wage for all squidzin?

I'm not a communist, so not equal no.

Non-exploitative, yes.

When wealth=Power, you can only obtain power without wealth in numbers. Power to demand a fair living standard etc through a collective movement.

squidzin trade union applications to the Labour party doubled in the last 24 hours before it closed, so the TU could get thier man in.
Trade union membership is going down the pan.
If you want to share the wealth it has to be created in the first place. this is the big issue with socialism, it assumes wealth just appears. Also. there isn't that much wealth in the first place when shared across 64 million people.

Also a lot of 'wealth' is tied up in property - this disappears if no-one is rich enough to buy it. Eg, a house is currently 'worth' £20 million. If we are all equal and can only pay £100k for a house, that house is worth £100k - £20m of rich persons 'wealth' instantly destroyed.

Why people won't vote for him - Fear of the unknown. Tax and spend might be spend on something that benefits you, but you don't know that. You know you'll lose money on the tax element of that, not sure if the spend will balance it out or improve your lot. With the Tories, you know where you stand, on your own with a few elements of government spending ring fenced. Tony Blair for all his faults, did a good job at convincing middle class people that they had nothing to fear from a Labour government.

He doesn't seem to really like middle class successful people, and seems rather sneery, those people aren't going to trust he wouldn't shaft them. Blair managed to come across as "being one of us" to the middle classes. He wasn't going to do anything too terrible.

Working class and poor people don't turn out to vote in large numbers. You need to win over the middle classes and someone who seems to look down at aspiration and self reliance isn't going to win any new votes to the left, at best he'll get some from the Greens.

If Corbyn becomes the Labour leader, I can see the LibDems doing very well out of it.

The situation is not like it was in the 80s.

Then, the country was recovering the 70s, culminating in the Winter of Discontent.
Mrs. Thatcher set about smashing the unions.

Now it's gone too much the other way. Zero hour contracts, job insecurity and poor working conditions for many means that the interest in banding together to fight for jobs and rights is growing in popularity.

People are seeing that we aren't all in this together.

1. Trade union figures have not doubled. Registrations are lower than votes cast last time, and turnout could be lower still. Registrations have taken time to build up because members have to actively opt in both to political levy and Labour values. See figures below, taken from 2010 figures and Michael Crick Twitter posts. Their share of the vote will be about the same or a bit lower. The difference is MPs’ influence, reduced from 33% of the proportion of votes to under 5% in relation to one person one vote, while £3 sign-ups are swamping the contest despite no evidence of past or future commitment. Some of the latter may be Tory infiltrators, some may not even on the electoral roll, or duplicates - we have no idea.
2. The numbers below will reduce because of (a) de-duping those who are already Labour members, (b) those who are affiliated to other parties, (c) turnout being lower than registration.

Figures for 2010 votes cast, approx 10% of ballots distributed, compared to 2015 contest registration in brackets:
CWU - 18,957 (10,000)
GMB - 43,106 (24,000)
UNISON - 28,142 (20,000)
UNITE the UNION - 111,270 (104,000)

While the Blair/Mandelson front seemed 'terribly relaxed' about wealth, Brown in the background was annually increasing taxes directly and indirectly, via Fiscal Drag - so New Labour was a bit of a scam. IMO

Perfectly put "If you want to share the wealth it has to be created in the first place. this is the big issue with socialism, it assumes wealth just appears."

And I agree there HAS to be something in this Labour internal bun fight for the Lib Dems, especially now Tim Fallon(?) appears to be bringing them back to their pre 2010 selves.

The Lib Dems only did what was right for the country when there could have been political instability at the worse possible time, so people need to understand that - as individually they were a Tory pain in the ass as never really lost their leftie, sandal wearing and tree hugging roots.

And versus Labour, they have a better 80-year economic CV, as in power they have left the UK economy in a better shape than they found it.

I'd take a minute to look at this article

www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/142144/the-key-questions-jeremy-corbyn-must-answer

What the fuck is all this harking back to the 80's about? Everything is entirely different now. And don't assume the majority remember the 1983 election. I certainly don't; being 5 years old . There are many politically active people under 50 you know.

Also, I'm not voting for Corbyn thinking about 2020, I'm voting for Corbyn so we can have a leader of the opposition who is actually in opposition to the Tories.

”Now it's gone too much the other way. Zero hour contracts, job insecurity and poor working conditions for many means that the interest in banding together to fight for jobs and rights is growing in popularity.”

”People are seeing that we aren't all in this together.”

Maybe it is still the Trade Unions and labour movement that has to get real, based on global trends.

There was an interesting article this month in the F.T. looking at the EU, looking at temp vs full time, worker rights stifling more full time employment etc – and the UK looked in much better full time shape, especially for younger workers – I wish I’ have kept it as a hard copy and can’t find it on-line now.

I found this though, which gives an indication of employment trends.

Temporary, casual and self-employed account for 75% of workers
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4f2e3516-fd67-11e4-b072-00144feabdc0.html

”Three-quarters of the world’s workers are temporary, casual or self-employed and this sort of employment is likely to become more prevalent, says the International Labour Organisation.”

”The ILO, a UN agency that specialises in work, analysed employment patterns in 180 countries and found that the “standard” model of permanent full-time employment was “less and less dominant” in rich, developed economies.”

Quiero .... Corbyn's policies are 1970's throwbacks that failed - and as for opposing the Tories, that is all Labour did for a whole parliament and based on the UK record versus the rest of Europe, lost every one of their economic argument,s and therefore looked stu-pid.

The problem for the other 3 candidates is that the Conservative on several main issues are moving closer to Labour - so assuming they understand the difference between "austerity" and good financial management - all there is left is no answers themselves individual policy knit-picking e.g. their typical pc 'mustn't call illegal migrants "swarms" or "marauding".

This shows that Corbyn is popular among the public in general.

"Left-winger Jeremy Corbyn is 'first choice for Londoners'
Poll reveals he has more support among London public than nearest rivals, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper, put together"

www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/left-winger-jeremy-corbyn-is-first-choice-for-londoners-a2633546.html

This shows that Corbyn is popular among the public in general.

Yes, because in so many ways - politically, economically, structurally - London is the perfect model for the rest of the country. By polling opinions in London, you will find almost no difference between what is expressed and what the rest of the country thinks.

Of the 73 parliamentary seats in London, Labour holds 45 (62%, and up from 38 in 2010) , the Tories, 27 (down from 28). Labour with a large and growing majority: just like the rest of the country. The read-across is obvious.

I thought your were against the metropolitan elite, claig, and how here you are claiming it represents the whole country.

The London public aren't the metropolitan eiite which is why they prefer Corbyn to the party robots from Oxbridge. The metropolitan elite is the Guardian editorial team, the BBC, the Westminster class and all the rest of the Oxbridge lot.

Corbyn offers what every far left and right wing politician/party across Europe offers; what 'the people' want to hear, with some painless but impractical ways to solving the financial and social problems of a country.

Syriza tried it, now said about to split. Nuff said.

The London public aren't the metropolitan eiite which is why they prefer Corbyn to the party robots from Oxbridge.

The London public are already massive Labour voters. 45 seats out of 73, yes? So it doesn't matter what Corbyn does, Labour get a landslide in London anyway. If that were replicated over the whole country, Labour would have a majority of 150.

The problem is, the rest of the country doesn't vote Labour on anything like the same scale.

yes Miliband's problem was that he did not convince people outside of London. Can't see Corbyn persuading any swing voters either. Why shouldn't people fear the unknown? I prefer to vote for policy and tax changes I can understand not some nebulous idea of change for the better. It surprises me that so many people are prepared to vote for unclear policy offerings.

Yes, but those London voters polled (not all Labour) preferred COrbyn by fa to the party elite's candidates who are rushing around calling Corbyn's policies not credible and a crazy throwback. The entire elite is out of touch with the public. Grandees are being wheeled out of retirement, and away from their holidays, to endorse the Establishment's chosen candidates and the public is thumbing their nose at the lot of them. The Emperor has no clothes, this is the biggest public swing in recent political history.

The caring, Sure Start progressives from Oxbridge are being abandoned by the public for a Marx reading left wing rebel who was against their wars and is against their neoliberal austerity consensus. No one saw it coming and it demonstrates what the public, who have never been asked but have only been preached to by the elite on the BBC, really think of them. And of course, they think the same of the Tory elite.

'I prefer to vote for policy and tax changes I can understand not some nebulous idea of change for the better. It surprises me that so many people are prepared to vote for unclear policy offerings.'

It is because they have no faith in the current lot and are crying out for change, as Burnham himself has recognised and said. No one ever asks the public, they just take them for granted, but now the public are showing them what they really think of them and their policies.

Claig ... being 'in touch with the public' ltelling them what they want to hear and good governance is two different things - and as to 'no one saw it coming', its happening throughout Europe and in the UK we had a slippery, boggle eyed snake oil salesman called Farage, that the people will have no need for after an EU Referendum.

Politics are fickle, Farage today, Corbyn tomorrow, which you will understand having spent so much of your precious political time and energy 'bigging him up'.

And the reason this is terrible news for the Tories is that their Oxbridge chums in Labour (the Tory lites) with all the press and BBC and Jess Phillips, the Establishment's new favourite (who I predict we will be seeing lots more of on the BBC as things grow more despearte for the elites) behind them, have failed to convince Labour members and the public.

The failure of the Tory lites bodes bad news for the Tory heavies, they will sink even faster because they sing from the same hymnsheet as Blair and the band.

all that's fine as far as it goes, current politics rotten, austerity bad - but poorly thought-out & badly implemented change, that's not going to do the poor any good. Economic uncertainty hurts the poor more than the rich. This is an old man with no experience of government. What do we think would happen to the stock market if Corbyn got into government? What would happen to the cost of Britain's debt? These things do matter.