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.

Strike through fail

I hadn't heard that about the Trews. That is a shame. There was a lot of wisdom and some good humour on there.

Article from Nick Cohen in the Spectator. He is against Corbyn, but realises that huge changes are coming.

"It can’t last. Either the Parliamentary Labour Party will have to change or Corbyn will have to go. Something will have to give. Someone will have to be purged. And I am not at all sure it will be Corbyn.

Westminster correspondents are talking of counter revolutions and coups; of Labour MPs going underground and fighting like the French Resistance. Maybe. But you cannot just throw out a leader who has been democratically elected. Beyond that constitutional nicety there are more substantial reasons to wonder whether Labour MPs will be heroes of the resistance or victims of the new regime.

Labour is changing beyond recognition

Corbyn is at the head of a movement that is transforming Labour politics. Labour now has 610,753 members, supporters and affiliates. Full membership of the Labour Party has gone from 176,891 members in 2007, to 299,755 today.

As Michael Harris of the Little Atoms website says, the mainstream media sees what is happening but does not understand it:

‘There is a new left-wing political party in Britain. It may carry the name “Labour”, the blandly fonted red logo and a set of MPs, many of whom were elected while Tony Blair was Prime Minister, but this is not the Labour party you know. For decades, the British left has fantasised about creating a new political movement – well, it’s happened and will transform British politics for a generation’.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/corbyn-labour-party-one-must-go/

Amazing times. It looks like it is the end of the old Oxbridge MP stitch-up where MPs ignore their members, where progressive Tories allegedly called their own consttuency members "swivel-eyed" and where Blairite Labour MPs can blissfully ignore lifelong party members. Democracy is holding the spinners to account and they dont like it, they're not used to it, this wasn't what they signed up for.

The #labourpurge is a massive, both barrelled shot to the foot for Labour, the biggest fuck up they could have conceived. To me, it looks like McTernan's filthy fingerprints are all over it. He screwed over Labour in Australia, extinguished it in Scotland, and seems to be going for the hat trick in rUK now.

Despite what people might like to think. The #Labourpurge isn't just affecting those that were going to vote for Corbyn either.

Yes, it is almost like a Stasi like scrolling through social media accounts and who knows what other data they hold on people. It may even be staffed by interns on less than minimum wage hoping to enhance their futures in a Tory-lite regime that is clinging on by its fingertips as it tries to stop Corbyn and the people.

Who are these Labour bigwigs, who appointed them, who selected them and what are their "aims and values"?

Claig .... re your quotes provided, the "Amazing times"

AND

"Corbyn is at the head of a movement that is transforming Labour politics. Labour now has 610,753 members, supporters and affiliates. Full membership of the Labour Party has gone from 176,891 members in 2007, to 299,755 today."

While I’d agree that there is notable rise in further to left politics, as seen in the the SNP’s non independence popularity in Scotland, I’d hardly call it “amazing”, especially as the previous much mentioned strong rise in the BNP and Ukip membership, hardly transformed into Westminster seats e.g. a total of two 'defected' seats, that were both represented by sitting Conservative MPs.

And as many have said, we HAVE seen those politics for many years before, right up to the 1990’s.

So could someone please answer the following;

Q:In which decade were far left politics combined with State controlled and private sector companies, growing and competing in the world, building a sustainable UK economic model -paying all the annual State bills of the public sector/services/welfare/benefits/pensions and providing growth, and secure full time job opportunities for all?

Q:In order to assess the UK's prospects of a well left of centre government in the 21st century, of the major-to-medium sized global economies with a similar population to the UK, which are economically/socially similar to the Corbyn model?

previous much mentioned strong rise in the BNP and Ukip membership, hardly transformed into Westminster seats

That's true, because no matter what, British voters don't go with the smell of racism.

But look at Scotland. SNP popularity meant 49 seats.

That's what may happen in England too. Labour may carry popular votes under JC. Tory-lites offer more of the same and won't win support for Labour.

I gave Scotland a mention, but they are different to the UK as a whole.

Protected under the UK umbrella and automatically receiving via the Barnett Formula per year far more money per head than England, the voters there could have a Chimp Tea Party running Holyrood - and it wouldn't make too much difference to their country's economic future and own pockets.

With a Corbyn led UK Labour Government, the stakes are far much higher when messing with that 'whole' that has 65 million voters, not 5 million.

Hence my question, in a General Election campaign, where the past IS a guide to the future, when did Corbyism or anything close, leave the UK economically and socially in a better place when it left power, versus when it came in?

Depends how 'better place' is defined. May be we need to go back to the times when NHS was created. Would a Tory government be ever able to create such an institution?

Why can't Railways be given independence under state ownership? The profits could be ploughed back into further development, (instead of far ever rising fares and increased bonuses to bosses despite wrong kind of leaves on track; and more dividends).

"Why can't Railways be given independence under state ownership?"

Isn't that a contradiction?

Who's going to run it as a 'non profit' organisation, the Co-op, or the Salvation Army?

Services need investment, investment in the railways had been found wanting for decades, and that is the problem with government running anything commercially - they'll always find something else to spend money on with a higher priority.

P.S. I'd worry more about higher salaries/bonuses in the public sector more than the private sector, as tax payers pay 100% of the first, and share holders pay 100% of the second - and the taxes of the latter make a NET contribution TO the public sector.

Were not a franchise had to be taken over and run by the State and privatised again recently?

Shareholders in railways and Utilities do not pay hugh salaries and bonuses. This is all charged back to the consumers - general public. That's is why the fuel bills keep going up, the train fares keep going up and the high profits go to Russian owners of British gas and railways profits to other investors.

Utilities, Railways and Postal Services should never have been privatised. That way either the cost is kept down or the profits go back to State.

These are monopolies. Public has no control on how much their charges go up and up.

Re railways etc I suggest you need to do more homework on _how much private sector investment there HAS been, and how much NET profit there is because of that investment the State/taxpayer historically wouldn't have put in.

British Gas is owned by a British consortium.

Royal Mail had an £11 bil Employee Pension Fund deficit that when addressed could have made it bankrupt.

Etc etc etc.

"Were not a franchise had to be taken over and run by the State and privatised again recently?"

If so, I'd suggest that it wasn't because it was keeping up with the investment/standards asked of it, and making truck loads of money doing it.

You are forgetting. The private franchise was making losses and dumped it on State.

It was made profitable and re-privatised.

You often make good arguments. But please don't be selective.

National Express East Coast Line

On 1 July 2009, the Department for Transport announced that it would take the National Express East Coast franchise into public ownership at the end of the year after National Express announced it would not invest any further funds into the franchise, effectively declaring it planned on defaulting.[43] Further controversy ensued when, on 27 July 2009, the Commons Transport Committee said that ministers should consider operating the East Coast Main Line as a public railway after National Express announced they would walk away.[44] Directly Operated Railways took over the East Coast franchise on 14 November 2009.

Redkite .... "National Express announced it would not invest any further funds into the franchise, effectively declaring it planned on defaulting."

OK then, as I'm often accused of giving too much info/links, please finish the job as now I'm interested and depending on your answer, I can't be arsed to look it up..

Why would one company not invest, HOW was it made profitable, wage/staff cuts, government allowed investment cuts, how?

It seems to me that historically every State run company becomes a bit of a worker jollie, as the workers think it has loadsamoney, always wanting to sit around 'kin tables, especially with a Labour Party who gives in no matter how much money is being made..

Why would the company not invest ?
Perhaps lower profits than they expected. Or they wanted to get out of their commitments, so planned default. Only National Express can tell.

How was it made profitable?
Perhaps by removing fat cats and excessive bonuses. Only DfT could give more info, but since the franchise was later snapped by other private investors, State must have run it well.

The public only know 2 facts.

1. National Express defaulted, so State had to take it over.
2. State was able to sell the franchise again. It must be attractive enough to the new investors.

East Coast franchise is now operated by Virgin. Richard Branson is no fool.

Jeremy Corbyn and Polly Toynbee are on BBC Radio 4 Any Questions tonight at 8 pm

National express agreed to pay £1.4bn for the franchise over the term, but revenues did not increase, so they pulled out as unable to afford the £1.4bn, not because the line was unprofitable, but because they had bid too much for it. And the govt gave up £140 million payment from national express at the end because 'they do not renegotiate contracts'.

I think a key problem with state ownership of public utilities has been that it becomes too politicised, every decision that is unpopular is reversed, thereby leading to a situation where the utility becomes financially untenable. I.e. people don't want fare rises - no investment takes place - quality deteriorates - people complain.

I would be in favour of a majority state ownership with a minority private stake.

As to OP's original question...

What does Labour have to do to win the next election?

It must win over primarily Tory voters in the South.

(Even if Labour won every SNP seat we still wouldn't have had a majority).

What do we know about these voters?

We know they voted for full-fat, no holds barred austerity (the Conservatives). We know they don't trust Labour on the economy. We also know they are concerned about the NHS & immigration.

What does Corbyn offer these people?

Fuck all.

We will not win the election with Corbyn.

Quite apart from that, I also mistrust his positions on Putin, Syria, Milosevic & his tendency to pal around with anti-semites.

hurryupharry.org/2015/08/21/the-enemy-of-my-enemy/

Beware the endorsement of claig - she has a knack of predicting the exact opposite of actual events.

Did I not predict a landslide for UKIP in Clacton, and a UKIP victory in the EU elections?

What I am now seeing is Corbyn's Labour making UKIP irrelevant. If Corbyn loses, Labour are finished. Their Establishment Oxbridge robot-speak candidates can never win back UKIP voters and UKIP will only grow (unless the Establishment has its people inside it to sabotage it).

Unlike Andrew Marr, I alos predicted that Labour would lose the election and Cameron would win. I even said that Miliband did not look serious in interviews. He was far too calm and relaxed and looked as if he didn't care. His grin when asked "are you ready?" to assume the responsibility of government gave the game away in my opinion and I said so on the boards and was asked what I was smoking?

Dave was desperate, he was told by large financial backers to get serious and liven things up and put some "passion" into it because he was sinking fast. And so his Oxbridge spinners told him to take his jacket off, roll his sleeves up, start speaking mockney and try not to look like a laughing stock. Meanwhile Ed was as calm as a cucumber and just grinned at the wrong moment everytime. It was obvious Ed wasn't serious and the Edstone just confirmed it.

But what worries the Establishment and the PPEs is that they all know that Corbyn and McCluskey are serious. Now it is real, now there is no grinning and no laughing, just sheer utter panic.