The Labour Party leadership election

[Amethyst24]

Make leader, male deputy, male candidate for London Mayor. I fucking despair, I really do. I've been going on about this on social media and I can't seem to make myself shut up about it, it makes me so incredibly angry.

All statistics will be skewed when there are massive sociological divides, including any that analyse the UK. Especially when focussing on GDP as the marker.

Buffy, what do you think of Corbyn? A Plus or negative?

All statistics will be skewed when there are massive sociological divides, including any that analyse the UK. Especially when focussing on GDP as the marker.

Indeed - that was my point - quoting only the ones that support your point of view and ignoring those which don't are not convincing.

"is not convincing"

Glad we're agreed ;)

Exactly. I hope people generally wise-up to biased reporting even from the so-called "left" Guardian and "impartial" BBC are totally anti-Corbyn.

The sudden focus about females in high office is ridiculous. Not to mention all the hypocritical references to how amaazing our economy is doing, with manipulated unemployment figures and excessive focus on Profit-Creaming-GDP, but we can't afford to help refugees or people on low income.

Thanks btw Buffy!

I find it so arrogant when Corbyn is deemed "unelectable." Are we not allowed to decide for ourselves? How dare our media tell us who we will or will not elect in 5 years time.

There are a generation who will have grown up under the tories austerity and they may have a very different opinion about who they want to govern them in 2020 than the right wing media.

No-one is telling you not to decide for yourselves but if it needs spelling out I personally will not vote Labour whilst Corbyn is leader or McDonnell is Chancellor.

I have voted Labour in every General Election since 1979, all through the idiot years of Foot ( a far better speaker btw) and Kinnock.

Yes, it's quite a normal phenomenon for people to move politically right as they approach old-age.

Playswell - I see you ignored the reference to Switzerland. Well known of course for its high rates of tax and state ownership.

Did I ignore it or did I merely not mention it because it's fucking irrelevant for very specific reasons. Unless you're suggesting that we become a tax haven for Russian crime syndicates as well? Or are you suggesting that Switzerland is a socialist nation? Which is the reason I chose Norway to illustrate my point, could have used Sweden as well, because both are usually described as socialist, whereas Switzerland generally isn't. Is that clearer to you now? Shall I put my reasoning in smaller words for you?

Do you ever actually read what people you dislike are responding to before you get your crayons out? Or is it more fun for you to continue to play the man and not the ball?

I won't ever vote Labour again (and I've voted for them every general election since I was 18 except the last one) if one of those Blairite Robots is the leader.

There's no point. I'm not interested in voting for a party which has been so uninterested in pursuing its core values, that it has allowed the Overton Window of politics to be shifted so far rightwards, that we have food banks instead of the welfare state.

The political right's long-term project has always been to dismantle the welfare state (including the NHS) right from the start of when it was set up. The only use of the Labour party, is to stand firm against the incursions the right make to our safety net, every time they are in government. The Labour Party in the hands of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, conspicuously failed to do that and in fact, pursued the right wing project on these fucker's behalf, making it possible for Cameron and Osborne to mount the biggest attack on the poor for decades. I really can't see the point of voting for their heirs.

" Unless you're suggesting that we become a tax haven for Russian crime syndicates as well? "

I thought we were.

No Playswell you cannot just quote "Norway " and ignore the facts you don't like.

I am perfectly aware Switzerland is not a socialist country so clearly there are other factors which can contribute to a nation's wealth and its citizens' standard of living.

On the other hand the USSR, as it was , was a socialist country and having been there when St.Petersburg was still called
Leningrad there didn't seem to be universal happiness abounding.

The USSR didn't just have equal distribution of resources though did it (and actually, it didn't really have that either).

There were other reasons why it was not a happy place. Equal resources wasn't the reason.

Many people who lived through the war, look back on it as the best times of their lives, where everyone pulled together.

And of course, there was socialism. Rationing, fairly distributed food, where everyone had enough. And full employment.

But that wasn't representative of "equal societies" either, was it? It's not helpful to take just one example and declare it representative of a whole idea.

Fuck me. Blairites can't tell the difference between socialist and communist. We really do have a problem here.

www.romm.org/soc_com.html

USSR was communist. I think we all agree communism is rubbish.

Buffy I am comfortably off, but not rich. Work hard and rationed myself to 1 child so as to be able to afford my life.

Ask full employment making munitions, and what about those feckless POW living at the expense of the Germans and Japanese - yes the world was great during the war

I agree more equal is better than less, but also believe socialism does not work for anyone in the long run.

The current situation is not perfect, but Corbynism would destroy this country, or any country who adopted it, as it did in the 70's and as it has in nearly every country which has tried it.

I have no idea why Sweden and Denmark are successful socialist countries, but it may probably relates to the fact they are very socially and economically liberal, with most taxes being raised and spent locally, rather than centrally. I, personally, have no problem with a Nordic model, but that is not what is being offered.

And it should be noted, in terms of self-interest, very few Labour voters imagine themselves as worse off under a Labour government.

Carol I rolled my eyes so hard at your post I gave myself a slight headache. You have managed to do well in life because you have received free at the point of use education, healthcare and live in a nation where there is was a welfare system.

Most people take out MORE from the system then they put in.

Inequality is far from fun, people are bloody dying due to poverty in this country. In the 6th largest economy in the world. There are both richer and poorer countries that are more equal than ours - we are the most unequal country in the EU - so I do not know how you can claim that greater equality necessarily means a less well-off population overall. The recent reports from the OECD on how redistribution improves and strengthens an economy would also seem to argue against that correlation. And as Buffy says, there is extensive evidence that other measures of life quality in more equal societies as summarised by Wilkinson and Pickett. Check out Daniel Dorling's work too.

To be perfectly frank I am a bit disgusted with anyone who thinks a slightly improved cost of living for the rich is ever worth forcing many more people to live in the kind of poverty we are seeing reappear in Britain today, with food poverty on the increase and kids not having decent shoes to wear. I am sure the very rich could survive with one less party a week to fund a decent life chance for the week. In fact we already know they can, because of the aforementioned example of other European countries and also our own country just a few decades ago.

It is not that our poor need to be held down so that everyone can be richer - it is our elite rich choosing to kick the poor more so that they can get a few extra glasses of champagne in. Britain can do better than this.

thexxed You have no idea of my background and what i may, or may not, have received.

Does your final sentence mean you support welfare cuts, or maybe charging for education and health?

Lightning If you want to follow the EU model, then the NHS would stop existing. AFAIK, no other EU country has universal healthcare free at the point of use.

Caroldecker, the "EU Model" has evolved into a multinational capitalist model, which is precisely the problem.
Most of us do not want to adhere to a pro-exploitative EU model. We would like to adhere to an EU model that protects the interest of actual living people, not private finance.

We are lucky in the UK because of our deeply ingrained social history, but this is slowly being eroded by Pro-big-Corpa EU and the Tories.

Corbyn questions assumptions with regards to pro-capita. These assumptions need to be challenged.