Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Shamwow said:
What would you say the major differences were?
Click to expand...
very rarely if ever) did the chancellor come out and directly contradict himself on a fairly major policy within a couple of weeks
nomally a process would be managed with softening of positions leaked slowly through junior ministers and the change well briefed in advance so everybody was on script... basically the opposite
 
Last edited:
jeff_goldblum said:
At a matter of interest, were all you guys equally loudly calling Labour a shambles when Blair said there wouldn't be an EU referendum, and then u-turned on that policy? And then u-turned back to his original position afterwards? All without consultation with the PLP?

Obviously it's a bit of a mess, but I'd rather a mess than Labour following a shit Tory policy. There was an article a few years ago that showed that the coalition government u-turned on a policy an average of once every 29 days, and I didn't see many on here giving them this sort of stick.
Click to expand...
The last government did u-turn tons, and plenty on here gave them plenty of stick for it, so I'm unsure what you mean there. The media also highlighted it regularly.

There were aspects of the Blair governments that were shambolic, it's true. He once fired Angela Eagle by accident, simply by forgetting she existed and not giving her a cabinet post. You'd be hard pressed to describe the overall operation in those terms though. When you fight a leadership election on an anti-austerity platform, then have your shadow chancellor state at conference that he will vote for the chancellor's pro-austerity fiscal charter, only to then unilaterally reverse that decision two weeks later (after having promoted your desire for consensual decision making), because he hadn't read the charter when he originally committed to voting for it...shambles is a word that, reasonably, leaps to mind.

It would help if the whole leadership period so far couldn't be described in similar terms. I found out yesterday that Corbyn's newly appointed political advisor last year encouraged people to vote for the Class War party over the Labour candidate.
 
Ubik said:
The last government did u-turn tons, and plenty on here gave them plenty of stick for it, so I'm unsure what you mean there. The media also highlighted it regularly.

There were aspects of the Blair governments that were shambolic, it's true. He once fired Angela Eagle by accident, simply by forgetting she existed and not giving her a cabinet post. You'd be hard pressed to describe the overall operation in those terms though. When you fight a leadership election on an anti-austerity platform, then have your shadow chancellor state at conference that he will vote for the chancellor's pro-austerity fiscal charter, only to then unilaterally reverse that decision two weeks later (after having promoted your desire for consensual decision making), because he hadn't read the charter when he originally committed to voting for it...shambles is a word that, reasonably, leaps to mind.

It would help if the whole leadership period so far couldn't be described in similar terms. I found out yesterday that Corbyn's newly appointed political advisor last year encouraged people to vote for the Class War party over the Labour candidate.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying this u-turn doesn't look bad, I'm just saying that those who are keen to jump on it as a way to criticise Corbyn's Labour should get some perspective. The response to this from some apparently pro-Labour folks has been over-the-top and is seemingly driven by the fact that many both on here and in parliament seem to be more obsessed with undermining Corbyn than opposing horrible Tory policies.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...te-live-debate#block-561e30bde4b024c58901646b
Today Jeremy Corbyn used his first three questions to have a go on the same topic himself. As in September, his tone was mature, reflective and sensible - and that made a welcome contrast with the usual, old-style PMQs. He even made the point about people like Kelly losing out massively quite forcefully.

But none of it appeared to discomfort Cameron much at all. In fact, he appeared to find the whole encounter about as unsettling as an interview on ITV’s This Morning. Corbyn used follow-up questions today, unlike in his first PMQs, when he tried six questions on six topics, but they were flaccid, and they did not really advance his case. As I have said many times before, questions at PMQs are not about eliciting answers; they are a means by which MPs articulate a political argument. A leader of the opposition needs to be able to “weaponise” them. Corbyn has not found a way of doing that, although it is not clear yet whether that is down to ineptitude, or whether that it is because overt point-scoring is part of the “old politics” that he has decided to reject.
Click to expand...

That about sums it up for me... I think cameron will be looking forward to Wednesdays if it continues like this.
 
some interesting odds starting to emerge

Labour Leader in 2020 election (paddy power)
Corbyn 5/4 (against)
Anybody else 4/7 (on)

Corbyn exit date (William Hill)
2015..................9/2
2016..................13/8
2017..................11/2
2018..................10/1
2019..................11/1
2020..................9/2
2021 (or later).....11/2

so they seem to suggest mist likely to go next year and if not the year after then they will probably stick with him for the election.

I think there is going to be a lot of pressure in him if (when imo) they do badly in the scottish elections... this whole idea of moving to the left can only realistically deliver victory if they can bring back the Scottish seats or form a workable coalition with the SNP that does not scare off moderate voters in the south - but surely that all falls apart if (when) the SNP trounce them in the elections and push for independence (would corbyn even campaign against that)... because if they do leave the union then to win power you have to take a majority of seats less the scottish block and surely the only way to do that is to come back to the centre ground... so yeah 2016 will be a big year for him
 
Deselected Labour MPs should stand as 'independent Labour'

Frank Field, the chair of the work and pensions select committee, has told the New Statesman that any MPs "picked off" should "cause a by-election immediately" and "stand as independent Labour".

He said: "If candidates are picked off they will stand as independent Labour cause a by-election immediately and a whole pile of us will go down there to campaign for then.

"They can't expel 60 of us. Momentum ought to know that they're not the only pair of wide eyes in the business. We're not powerless.

"Those of us who are not going to let Momentum win have a trump card on our side, which is that we would probably win the by-election."

Politicians have warned that Momentum, the campiagn goup backed by Jeremy Corbyn, is 'a threat to sitting MPs' and could seek to purge moderate MPs.

The group has said it will act as an independent campaigning arm of the Labour Party and will aim to influence party policy and organise a "mass movement" in homes and workplaces.

- Telegraph newsfeed
Click to expand...
 
Frank Field :rolleyes:

I'm not so sure that any of the moderate MPs that are apparently going to be de-selected will want anything to do with his anti-abortion, pro-thought police, pro-national service shtick.
 
sun_tzu said:
The premier league wouldn't last long
Click to expand...

Neither would most of the top business people, sports stars, music stars, me, you, TV stars, top lawyers...the list is long!

It's hilarious and sums up the nutcase and his loony policies.
 
Where has he stated his policy is a legal wage cap of 1 million?
 
Marching said:
Neither would most of the top business people, sports stars, music stars, me, you, TV stars, top lawyers...the list is long!

It's hilarious and sums up the nutcase and his loony policies.
Click to expand...

Add to that the finance and insurance industry on entire zone 1. Pretty much wipes out about 10-15% of GDP straight away.

Can probably demolish the entire city of london borough and built a giant council estate full of 100k syrian immigrants. :lol:
 
That's great and all but when and where has he specifically said that a 1 million pound wage cap is a Labour policy, or even his own?
 
On the one hand, it's heartening to see that most of the policies people disagree on Corbyn with aren't actually policies, on the other hand it's disheartening to see the papers attributing policies to him erroneously, it's blatant scaremongering.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Really surprised at some of those points... what's the deal with being against scrapping university fees? Surely that benefits everyone?
Click to expand...

Except the older generation of people who got their education for free and couldn't give a shit whether us young things have to pay it. The extent to which some older folks want to pull up the ladder and stop younger people succeeding is shocking, and is probably why a lot of them tend to vote Tory.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
On the one hand, it's heartening to see that most of the policies people disagree on Corbyn with aren't actually policies, on the other hand it's disheartening to see the papers attributing policies to him erroneously, it's blatant scaremongering.
Click to expand...

It's even more disheartening to see supposed Labour supporters lapping it up no questions asked and then making shit excuses when challenged.

I thought having Corbyn as leader would stir up political debate a bit more for the right reasons. It's just made the shitty side of politics and the media even more unbearable to me. So far.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Except the older generation of people who got their education for free and couldn't give a shit whether us young things have to pay it. The extent to which some older folks want to pull up the ladder and stop younger people succeeding is shocking, and is probably why a lot of them tend to vote Tory.
Click to expand...

I'm not actually from this country and your education prices are insane. That's coming from someone who works in 3rd level education. I find the system of debt terrifying.
 
Fearless said:
Why should someone working on a building site see his taxes being spent on some twat wanting to learn needlework at Cambridge?
Click to expand...

On top of what unchanged_lineup said - a qualified engineer had to design the building, a few more had to 'OK' it. Someone who's done business probably runs the company etc. etc.

Having an higher average rate of education benefits everyone in the long term, whether directly or indirectly.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
On top of what unchanged_lineup said - a qualified engineer had to design the building, a few more had to 'OK' it. Someone who's done business probably runs the company etc. etc.

Having an higher average rate of education and a more skilled workforce benefits everyone in the long term.
Click to expand...

Without ganging up on you, Fearless, but why wouldn't this guy want to be an engineer some day after years of working on a building site? Unis are taking account of professional experience in lieu of study these days. He could put those years into getting onto a civil eng course. Why would he bother if he was going to be accumulating £27,000 of debt to do so?
 
Honestly, student debt is the easiest debt you'll ever acquire. You don't have to pay it off until you're earning 21k, the repayments aren't large and it'll get wiped out if you haven't paid it off by a certain time. The main problem with the current system is that the government simply won't be paid back a large number of the loans, which endangers university funding in the long term.

I used to rail against tuition fees along with everyone else, but if you actually want to tackle social mobility and life chances for the poorest, money is far better targeted at early years education, and that should be prioritised before ending tuition fees.
 
Last edited:
Ubik said:
Honestly, studied debt is the easiest debt you'll ever acquire. You don't have to pay it off until you're earning 21k, the repayments aren't large and it'll get wiped out if you haven't paid it off by a certain time. The main problem with the current system is that the government simply won't be paid back a large number of the loans, which endangers university funding in the long term.

I used to rail against tuition fees along with everyone else, but if you actually want to tackle social mobility and life chances for the poorest, money is far better targeted at early years education, and that should be prioritised before ending tuition fees.
Click to expand...

I can understand that, I've been starting to become very familiar with the system. However, I lived through an era in my country where we didn't have fees. I was only the second generation in my family that had 3rd level education, and for my parents it was basically by the skin of their teeth getting fee-free paths. In a fees world, this system here is much better than what was in my country, but we got rid of the fees altogether. It's idealist maybe, but a country grows by realising you have to give your young people sufficient education to improve the country. The benefits are enormous.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
I can understand that, I've been starting to become very familiar with the system. However, I lived through an era in my country where we didn't have fees. I was only the second generation in my family that had 3rd level education, and for my parents it was basically by the skin of their teeth getting fee-free paths. In a fees world, this system here is much better than what was in my country, but we got rid of the fees altogether. It's idealist maybe, but a country grows by realising you have to give your young people sufficient education to improve the country. The benefits are enormous.
Click to expand...
Of course, education is central to the advancing of any country. The question is whether the current system prevents students from poorer backgrounds going to university, and the current evidence suggests not. Plus, when Labour proposed at the last election to lower fees to £6,000, the numbers suggested that the people who'd benefit most was kids from better off backgrounds. You need a university system that's adequately funded (and this is why Labour brought in tuition fees in the first place, to boost funding) whilst making sure everyone has an equal opportunity to get into one should they have the ability. The biggest impediment to that second part goes right back to when people start school, that's where you're going to get most results and that's also where you'll get a lot of support from the public.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
Really surprised at some of those points... what's the deal with being against scrapping university fees? Surely that benefits everyone?
Click to expand...

Someone has to pay for it. If its not the students themselves then its the government/taxpayer. I think you'll find people would be far more supportive of scrapping tuition fees for in demand qualifications like engineering or medicine, as that does benefit everyone. I personally hope the system moves that way. The reluctance to scrap the fees stems from not wanting to fund an increasing number of people delaying work by 3 years to study art history or sociology. Nothing to do with 'pulling the ladder up'. Education is not free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.