What no jeremy cobyn thread?

eeyore said:
:thinking:
Click to expand...
There was a news item recently where Tories were joining up to the Labour party so they could vote for for him.

Because they suspected with Cobyn in charge Labour were doomed to the pit of no return.

boyfalldown said:
I do think this country needs more polarisation in its politics - rather then everybody looking the same as has happened over the last few years
Click to expand...
I can't argue with that (y)
 
Cobra said:
There was a news item recently where Tories were joining up to the Labour party so they could vote for for him.

Because they suspected with Cobyn in charge Labour were doomed to the pit of no return.
Click to expand...

Ah, did think it was a bit odd, hope it comes back and kicks them in the ass :clap:
 
woof woof said:
I'm a socialist and I probably always will be but I live in the real world where there's a cost to pay.

Yes, we can go after Big Business until they all move to Rumania, we can hammer The Rich until they all go to Hong Kong and we can hammer the banks until they follow The Rich to Hong Kong... and then what do we do? Want a new hospital? Want to pay all council workers a living wage? Fine... where are you going to get the money? You can go cap in hand to the IMF... Remember when the IMF came to the UK and told us what to do? Is that any way to run an economy?

The way to be a socialist is not to spend money you haven't got and leave future generations to misery and austerity. The way to be a socialist is to provide for and help those in need and build a caring and sustainable society in which to do so and which can do so. You can't do that by continually instituting class war and you can't do it on a UK credit card either.

You want to tell me that Labour under Cobyn will do that?
Click to expand...
Wow when I did the test it came out that I am s liberal, however I fully agree with all of that. I must be a socialist :)

Seriously though I don't mind what label is out on anything.

I can't agree with Corbyn but I do respect him. I would also have a lot of respect for labour if they stand for what they stand for instead of, as it comes across to me, try to be "nice" Tories so they can win votes.

I like politics which is about representation and conviction, not about playing to what people want to hear. In that case they may as well all go independent.

No fair play, I like him and respect him, just don't agree with him. No different than many on here and around me. Heck I would even want to go for a beer with him, mums net seems to suggest he is liked by the ladies :)
 
rjbell said:
The tories have borrowed more than labour!
Click to expand...
Which forgets that the massive public sector borrowing requirement was built up under the Brown government when they kept massively increasing public spending despite the economy contracting. The coalition arrived in a recession with the economy still shrinking, so of course borrowing rose.

The reason Labour snatched defeat from the jaws of victory at the last election was because the public do not trust them to run the economy or balance the books and that same public is finally waking up to the fact that borrowing every year just to pay an ever expanding public sector's wages and to keep non-working faimilies of 8 in Sky subscriptions paid out of their benefits is a really bad way for the country to exist. Even left-wing columnists in the Guardian have said as much in the wake of the last election (yes, I read the Guardian, even though it infuriates me with its editorialising of the news almost as much as the Mail).

I haven't voted Conservative since William Hague was leader, and voted at the last election to try and keep them out in my constiutuency, but in principle of getting government spending under control and striving to run the country's books in balance they have my full support. If Corbyn is elected the Labour party will sail serenely leftwards until they fall off a cliff into a sea of unelectability.

Only way I could see myself ever voting Labour is if they elect Frank Field as leader, he's the only one of them left that has ideas with any credibility, at least on welfare reform (and doesn't sound like a politican talking soundbites when he talks about it either).
 
Last edited:
onomatopoeia said:
Which forgets that the massive public sector borrowing requirement was built up under the Brown government when they kept massively increasing public spending despite the economy contracting. The coalition arrived in a recession with the economy still shrinking, so of course borrowing rose.
.
Click to expand...

Not really massively... 2.7%

There was a gap between what Labour was spending and what it was receiving in tax revenues in the few years before the great crash and recession of 2008.

But that gap was not massive: sometimes it was a tiny bit bigger than the growth rate of the economy, sometimes a bit smaller; which means there was no significant increase in the ratio of public sector debt to national income or GDP.

Thus in 2007-8, public spending was 40.2% of GDP, compared with tax revenues that were 37.5% of GDP: so the deficit was 2.7% of GDP.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32549892

oh and don't forget this bit
So it is quite hard to describe the fiscal conduct by the government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as wildly irresponsible. And, to be clear, neither George Osborne or David Cameron were at the time shouting that the Labour government was maxing out the credit card and was about to bankrupt Britain.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
onomatopoeia said:
Which forgets that the massive public sector borrowing requirement was built up under the Brown government when they kept massively increasing public spending despite the economy contracting. The coalition arrived in a recession with the economy still shrinking, so of course borrowing rose.

The reason Labour snatched defeat from the jaws of victory at the last election was because the public do not trust them to run the economy or balance the books and that same public is finally waking up to the fact that borrowing every year just to pay an ever expanding public sector's wages and to keep non-working faimilies of 8 in Sky subscriptions paid out of their benefits is a really bad way for the country to exist. Even left-wing columnists in the Guardian have said as much in the wake of the last election (yes, I read the Guardian, even though it infuriates me with its editorialising of the news almost as much as the Mail).

I haven't voted Conservative since William Hague was leader, and voted at the last election to try and keep them out in my constiutuency, but in principle of getting government spending under control and striving to run the country's books in balance they have my full support. If Corbyn is elected the Labour party will sail serenely leftwards until they fall off a cliff into a sea of unelectability.

Only way I could see myself ever voting Labour is if they elect Frank Field as leader, he's the only one of them left that has ideas with any credibility, at least on welfare reform (and doesn't sound like a politican talking soundbites when he talks about it either).
Click to expand...
Why put yourself through it. Just stick to the daily fail with its family of 8 living in a mansion stories. Dehumanising them so the government can do what they like to them and the nation doen't care.
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
Calling Jp's family, come home he is getting into weird habits,
pursuing weird internet sites, he needs you (y)
Click to expand...
In my defence dear snake, I actually was listening to Nick Ferrari on LBC when they were discussing him and several women phoned in and referred to threads on mums net. I do not have first hand experience. ;)

Ps. You were with my family this week weren't you?
View attachment 42912
 
Llamaman said:
It was less embarrassing to have been reading Mumsnet.
Click to expand...
I'm not embarrassed either way. I like Nick's breakfast show, I also like Iain Dale, heck I even like Ken Livingstone show on there. I appreciate all sorts of angles in a political debate. Doesn't mean I agree or disagree or respect the person less. I love people who stand for something and have conviction even when I disagree.

What I can't stand is when people play the person in political debates just because they think or support a different stance. Please let's have a debate and kick the topic around instead of the players. I do think Nick is excellent at that.
 
dejongj said:
Ps. You were with my family this week weren't you?
Click to expand...
Well actually as you seem to have *yet another* image of me, I have no choice but to fess up ;)
 
I don't know too much about Jeremy Corbyn, but I did watch him on question time a while back. I thought he was awful. Full of grand statements that are easy to do in opposition, not actual putting any credible suggestions forwards. He was up against Jeremy Hunt who you would have thought he could have destroyed on the NHS and some other issues, but I felt he was just being populist. For me there is no way he should be anywhere near the leadership campaign.

Only seen him really this once so possibly a bit harsh, but that was my first impression.
 
I like Corbyn as in he seems to have an ideology (although I disagree) and stands his ground. However, if he gets in, Labour will lose the next election, so if i was a labour fan, even if i liked him, I would not want him in charge. He is 40 years out of date. In theory, fine, but in the real world his ideas won't work.

As someone who is more to the right (and would be a Tory but hates Cameron too much to vote for them), I am scared of Liz Kendall. She speaks sense and is really votable.
 
Are we to end up like America?, two parties that are basically the same.
I didn't leave Labour, Labour left me, hence why i vote snp, not for independence but people friendly values.
Sheep vote for the status quo because they've been shepherded into fear of losing jobs, homes and being able to feed their families.
Let's get the taxes due from global companies that've immorally failed to pay their dues and of course to scrap the monies used for nuclear 'deterrents' (there's a crock of proverbial) would help the people of our country no end.
 
The way I see it is this. Vote tory, get bummed. Vote New Labour, get bummed.

At least with Corbyn the choice would be vote tory, get bummed. Vote Labour, might not get bummed.
 
norters said:
The way I see it is this. Vote tory, get bummed. Vote New Labour, get bummed.

At least with Corbyn the choice would be vote tory, get bummed. Vote Labour, might not get bummed.
Click to expand...

That how I see it too :)
 
Although, having said that, birds are the direct descendants of one group of dinosaurs, so I suppose you could make the argument that turkey/duck/goose (who would have chicken at Christmas?) are all kinda dinosaurs.
 
Someone described him this morning as the Nigel Farrage of the left. I think he had a point.
 
dejongj said:
Someone described him this morning as the Nigel Farrage of the left. I think he had a point.
Click to expand...
I get the impression that Corbyn is genuine in his political beliefs, so that comparison is probably a bit unfair on him.

But he's definitely a marmite politician, much like Farage, Salmond/Sturgeon or even May/Gove.
 
Llamaman said:
I get the impression that Corbyn is genuine in his political beliefs, so that comparison is probably a bit unfair on him.

But he's definitely a marmite politician, much like Farage, Salmond/Sturgeon or even May/Gove.
Click to expand...
I think Nigel is as well. And more so, they've both got the ability to include the ones that are disinterested in politics.
 
dejongj said:
I think Nigel is as well.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. UKIP's opposition to the EU predates their interest in immigration, which now borders on obsession and has gone on to become their main campaigning angle. They're using opposition to immigration as a means to secure support for an agenda they pursue for entirely different ambitions. It's intellectually dishonest and smacks of crude opportunism.

Edit: and let us not forget he completely disowned a manifesto he previously claimed to have authored, later admitting he'd not even bothered to read it.

dejongj said:
And more so, they've both got the ability to include the ones that are disinterested in politics.
Click to expand...
Again, I disagree. The national turnout for the last General Election (proclaimed to be "UKIP's big chance") was only 1% higher than 2010 (and 5% LESS than 1997). What's more, the turnout didn't even improve in most seats where UKIP polled strongly - even in Thanet, they only improved turnout from 65% to 70%. In Clacton, turnout improved from 50% to 65% - but this was a swing AGAINST UKIP.. Put simply, UKIP didn't win new votes, they converted old ones. Talk of an Obama-style movement of new voters rushing to vote UKIP is a myth.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, nope after careful consideration I don't agree.
 
Then we are agreed to disagree :) Politely, without anyone invoking the god of wrath.

A win, allround, I'd say.






PS you're still wrong :p
 
I agree and so are you.

Cool, now we've got that out of the way shall we go for a beer :)
 
Llamaman said:
No chance - I know you'll pick somewhere where that terrible oik hangs out :p
Click to expand...
Oi I'm no ukip supporter. Heck, I'll be kicked out of the country. Although I know if a few other nice Westminster bars.
 
Hmm, whilst I really don't agree with the principle, I do love his principles and going back to the roots. I bet this will get him quite some support from the core labour voters. Unfortunately it will also alienate quite a few others...

He is thinking of brining back clause IV regarding public ownership....
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ng-back-labours-clause-iv-on-public-ownership

I'm loving this finally some proper differentiation starting to appear. It is about time the Liberal Democrats start picking up the pieces and get cracking, there would be great coalition opportunities for them. I wish there were more in the middle parties that could balance it but that will have to do.
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
Hmm, whilst I really don't agree with the principle, I do love his principles and going back to the roots. I bet this will get him quote some support from the core labour voters. Unfortunately it will also alienate quite a few others...

He is thinking of brining back clause IV regarding public ownership....
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ng-back-labours-clause-iv-on-public-ownership

I'm loving this finally some proper differentiation starting to appear. It is about time the Liberal Democrats start picking up the pieces and get cracking, there would be great coalition opportunities for them. I wish there were more in the middle parties that could balance it but that will have to do.
Click to expand...

It is nice to see someone who appears to be genuine, although u do question the practicality of many of his ideas. However is he really capable of become electable in this day and age. For every labour vote he picks up, he will lose another. I would have guessed that many people he appeals to would vote labour anyway, for them to get into power they need to take seats off the Tories. Why is he ahead in the polls? Wouldn't labour fans want any labour government even if a blairite one, rather than another Tory government.
 
cambsno said:
It is nice to see someone who appears to be genuine, although u do question the practicality of many of his ideas. However is he really capable of become electable in this day and age. For every labour vote he picks up, he will lose another. I would have guessed that many people he appeals to would vote labour anyway, for them to get into power they need to take seats off the Tories. Why is he ahead in the polls? Wouldn't labour fans want any labour government even if a blairite one, rather than another Tory government.
Click to expand...
I think people are waking up, it doesn't have to be just anti-tory voting. I think a good mixture, standing for the principles and less strategic policies to win votes will actually win votes in the future. Ah well I can dream.
 
The Labour party has gone so far to the right since the Blair / Brown days that there really is little difference between them and the Tories. Corbyn isn't correct in everything he's suggesting but at least it's shaking things up and that surely is a good thing. The Labour hierarchy are scared stiff because they're only out to feather their own nests anyway (again just like the Tories). It's about time we had some honest politics for a change!
 
bindex said:
The Labour party has gone so far to the right since the Blair / Brown days that there really is little difference between them and the Tories. Corbyn isn't correct in everything he's suggesting but at least it's shaking things up and that surely is a good thing. The Labour hierarchy are scared stiff because they're only out to feather their own nests anyway (again just like the Tories). It's about time we had some honest politics for a change!
Click to expand...
Everyone is out to feather their own nest, I think it is fair for being critical of Labour trying to be Tory, however to be critical of Tory for being Tory would be daft in my opinion and doesn't constitute feathering their own nest. But yes purely playing up to the electorate to get votes is not really standing for anything other than trying to get elected.
 
bindex said:
It's about time we had some honest politics for a change!
Click to expand...
History show's only one person ever entered the houses of parliament, with honest intentions,
and that was in the November of 1605 ;)
 
I don't know if anyone else saw Channel 4 News about ten days ago when Corbyn lost his rag and failed drastically when Krishnan Guru Murthy questioned him only ordinarily closely.

Famously, of course, Jeremy Corbyn has never actually organised or run anything. He's only ever been a demagogue sniping from the sidelines and that performance didn't bode well for shadow cabinet or Labour Party meetings when the party leader would have to deal with real politics with real [sometimes egotistical] grown-ups. Let alone inter-party or national or international differences.
 
Yves Geza said:
I don't know if anyone else saw Channel 4 News about ten days ago when Corbyn lost his rag and failed drastically when Krishnan Guru Murthy questioned him only ordinarily closely.

Famously, of course, Jeremy Corbyn has never actually organised or run anything. He's only ever been a demagogue sniping from the sidelines and that performance didn't bode well for shadow cabinet or Labour Party meetings when the party leader would have to deal with real politics with real [sometimes egotistical] grown-ups. Let alone inter-party or national or international differences.
Click to expand...
I don't think he lost it at all. Krishnan wouldn't let him answer. I wanted a tabloid headline answer. They guy belongs on sky.
 
Yves Geza said:
I don't know if anyone else saw Channel 4 News about ten days ago when Corbyn lost his rag and failed drastically when Krishnan Guru Murthy questioned him only ordinarily closely.

Famously, of course, Jeremy Corbyn has never actually organised or run anything. He's only ever been a demagogue sniping from the sidelines and that performance didn't bode well for shadow cabinet or Labour Party meetings when the party leader would have to deal with real politics with real [sometimes egotistical] grown-ups. Let alone inter-party or national or international differences.
Click to expand...
Oh dear, I just watched that interview. That Jeremy Corbyn has got some skeletons in his cupboard and anger management issues. Flipping heck he seriously lost it, he wasn't answering the question, was given plenty of time. And bloody hell he should speed up a bit in his answers.

I love it how he answered the question regarding the super rich by questioning whether they (the super rich) are actually happy.

I didn't hear about this interview before, but that is bad. I'd be worried if I was in a meeting with anyone who can flip like that and physically change like he did.

Hmmmm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top