Jeremy Corbyn.

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

before he is even voted in, there's been constant theme of MPs wanting to distances themselves from him. half the MPs who nominated him have openly stated they wish they hadnt. a group of senior MPs have supposedly been forming a party within the party to oppose him. i read that so few Labour MPs are behind him that he'll struggle to form a complete shadow government, with many briefs left empty past the front bench.

if even half of this is true, thats a crippled party, already more focused on internal fighting than functioning as an effective opposition. the good thing is he'll probably campaign against EU, so its not all bad.

The party's drifting back to it's roots which is great. It's time to change the guard, considering a lot of Labour politicians seem to have their fingers in both labour and conservative pies.

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

From 11.30am tomorrow we may as well be China, its a one party state for the foreseeable future. Will JC actually say something when he becomes leader?

Which is Bizarre considering people are actively seeking to make the Tories the only party in the country that'll win through controlling the papers and sending people to rallies.

 

[Soulman]

Which is Bizarre considering people are actively seeking to make the Tories the only party in the country that'll win through controlling the papers and sending people to rallies.

Unlike Labour who have the Unions, SWP and UAF etc to attend rallies, as bad as each other.

 

[Soulman]

In a society in which Govt. controlled austerity is taking money from the OB, NHS, Forces, Poor People etc, and letting Politicians run riot on insane salaries?



I haven't seen this kind of change before, I'm only 23, I only just remember John Major being in power. And yet Jeremy Corbyn is the only one of those four people who seems a compassionate, fair representative for the people.

He's brought so much hope to so many people.

I don't think he'll cripple the party. I think he'll usher in a new age for Labour and the country.

I was younger than you when Labour were in power back in the late 70's, and voted for them in 1997......both times they failed, which is a shame because i wanted them to do well.

 

[BHAFC_Pandapops]

I was younger than you when Labour were in power back in the late 70's, and voted for them in 1997......both times they failed, which is a shame because i wanted them to do well.

This time's different. If Corbyn wins the leadership role, Labour have a man who isn't totally out of touch with what people are going through and actually seems to want to do good.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

From 11.30am tomorrow we may as well be China, its a one party state for the foreseeable future. Will JC actually say something when he becomes leader?

Not just yet. It's just the Labour leadership election tomorrow. The one party state begins in 5 years time.

 

[8ace]

Jez vs Boris or Gideon next election then

 

[Soulman]

This time's different. If Corbyn wins the leadership role, Labour have a man who isn't totally out of touch with what people are going through and actually seems to want to do good.

Excuse me for being cynical but been through this before, the same or similar promises. Labour did not listen, admittedly helped out the less well off but helped encourage many to plump for benefits and made it better for many not to work, i can only imagine to secure votes. Meanwhile the Labour MP's had their snouts firmly in the trough and seemed to forget about the normal working class. I feel they alienated the vast majority of the people that were working, ie the working class. By actually encouraging large immigration the wages were kept down (not helping the worker) but it has since been admitted they did it to secure votes from those coming into the country.
I feel that imo they have let down and underestimated how many of the working class lost trust and patience in their empty promises. Plus in the two terms seventies and nineties they have left the country in massive debt when they have been ousted.

 

[Bry Nylon]

This time's different. If Corbyn wins the leadership role, Labour have a man who isn't totally out of touch with what people are going through and actually seems to want to do good.

They will also have a man who doesn't actually want to lead the Party.

 

[synavm]

Excuse me for being cynical but been through this before, the same or similar promises. Labour did not listen, admittedly helped out the less well off but helped encourage many to plump for benefits and made it better for many not to work, i can only imagine to secure votes. Meanwhile the Labour MP's had their snouts firmly in the trough and seemed to forget about the normal working class. I feel they alienated the vast majority of the people that were working, ie the working class. By actually encouraging large immigration the wages were kept down (not helping the worker) but it has since been admitted they did it to secure votes from those coming into the country.
I feel that imo they have let down and underestimated how many of the working class lost trust and patience in their empty promises. Plus in the two terms seventies and nineties they have left the country in massive debt when they have been ousted.

Not to say the last Labour Government were perfect - they absolutely weren't, but what you're saying doesn't tell the full story:

Immigration

As you correctly point out immigration largely rose significantly under Labour and continues to rise today. The vast majority of those that came to the UK between 1997 and 2010 were from outside of Europe which follows a trend in the rest of the developed world. More and more people chose to emigrate in this time to well developed countries. Britain, at the time, was very much in a position of economic strength so was one of those developed countries that attracted a lot of migrants. My view is that we were too laissez-faire with our attitude towards immigration at the time. Stricter border controls should have been put in place.

I do, however, disagree with your point that it was done for political Capitol. As pointed out the rise in immigration was part of a trend in the developed world. The fact net immigration has continued to climb under the Tories also suggests political capitol was not behind this.

Benefits

It's a fair argument to say that people shouldn't be able to make the choice to live off of benefits if they are not sick or can work, but how common is it that people abuse the system? Well, JSA accounts of 0.8% of the total welfare bill now and recorded benefit fraud stands at being 70p in every £100 spent on welfare, so about 0.7%

What Labour should be criticised for is subsidising low wages with tax credits and subsidising high rents with housing benefit. Both should have been fixed.

Debt

Labour actually ran a surplus for most of their first term, and the deficit they racked up pre recession was still lower than what they inherited from John Major as a percentage of GDP- at which point the deficit was relatively insignificant compared to other countries in the developed world... Then the global financial crisis came. People argue that Labour should have saved for a rainy day, but to cover the shortfall the banking crisis caused, we would have needed a surplus of around £90-100 Billion. Nobody was calling for that, particularly the Conservatives who supported Labours spending plans and opposed the cuts Gordon Brown began to impose to recover the cost of the £800 billion spent on the bail out.

The real argument is that the economy was imbalanced towards the service sector and the financial sector was not regulated properly. Again nobody was arguing against this at the time, but I'm hindsight that is what was needed. Was Gordon Brown wasteful? Absolutely, but was it enough to bankrupt the country as some have argued? Absolutely not. You can't stop a financial crisis hitting a country very much reliant on the financial sector very, very hard. Indeed it hit most of the world very hard. Personally, I feel the Tories have created a rod for their own back by squarely blaming the recession on Labour, as when the Tories next preside over a recession, they'll be in the firing line.

So, yeah, as I say, you're not wrong to be annoyed at new Labour but be annoyed for the right things.

 

[neilbard]

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Not to say the last Labour Government were perfect - they absolutely weren't, but what you're saying doesn't tell the full story:

Immigration

As you correctly point out immigration largely rose significantly under Labour and continues to rise today. The vast majority of those that came to the UK between 1997 and 2010 were from outside of Europe which follows a trend in the rest of the developed world. More and more people chose to emigrate in this time to well developed countries. Britain, at the time, was very much in a position of economic strength so was one of those developed countries that attracted a lot of migrants. My view is that we were too laissez-faire with our attitude towards immigration at the time. Stricter border controls should have been put in place.

I do, however, disagree with your point that it was done for political Capitol. As pointed out the rise in immigration was part of a trend in the developed world. The fact net immigration has continued to climb under the Tories also suggests political capitol was not behind this.

Benefits

It's a fair argument to say that people shouldn't be able to make the choice to live off of benefits if they are not sick or can work, but how common is it that people abuse the system? Well, JSA accounts of 0.8% of the total welfare bill now and recorded benefit fraud stands at being 70p in every £100 spent on welfare, so about 0.7%

What Labour should be criticised for is subsidising low wages with tax credits and subsidising high rents with housing benefit. Both should have been fixed.

Debt

Labour actually ran a surplus for most of their first term, and the deficit they racked up pre recession was still lower than what they inherited from John Major as a percentage of GDP- at which point the deficit was relatively insignificant compared to other countries in the developed world... Then the global financial crisis came. People argue that Labour should have saved for a rainy day, but to cover the shortfall the banking crisis caused, we would have needed a surplus of around £90-100 Billion. Nobody was calling for that, particularly the Conservatives who supported Labours spending plans and opposed the cuts Gordon Brown began to impose to recover the cost of the £800 billion spent on the bail out.

The real argument is that the economy was imbalanced towards the service sector and the financial sector was not regulated properly. Again nobody was arguing against this at the time, but I'm hindsight that is what was needed. Was Gordon Brown wasteful? Absolutely, but was it enough to bankrupt the country as some have argued? Absolutely not. You can't stop a financial crisis hitting a country very much reliant on the financial sector very, very hard. Indeed it hit most of the world very hard. Personally, I feel the Tories have created a rod for their own back by squarely blaming the recession on Labour, as when the Tories next preside over a recession, they'll be in the firing line.

So, yeah, as I say, you're not wrong to be annoyed at new Labour but be annoyed for the right things.

Well put

 

[jakarta]

Not long to wait now People, will it be by seven points?

 

[Soulman]

Not to say the last Labour Government were perfect - they absolutely weren't, but what you're saying doesn't tell the full story:

Immigration

As you correctly point out immigration largely rose significantly under Labour and continues to rise today. The vast majority of those that came to the UK between 1997 and 2010 were from outside of Europe which follows a trend in the rest of the developed world. More and more people chose to emigrate in this time to well developed countries. Britain, at the time, was very much in a position of economic strength so was one of those developed countries that attracted a lot of migrants. My view is that we were too laissez-faire with our attitude towards immigration at the time. Stricter border controls should have been put in place.

I do, however, disagree with your point that it was done for political Capitol. As pointed out the rise in immigration was part of a trend in the developed world. The fact net immigration has continued to climb under the Tories also suggests political capitol was not behind this.

So, yeah, as I say, you're not wrong to be annoyed at new Labour but be annoyed for the right things.

Some good points however on immigration i believe the mass immigration was encouraged by Labour for political gain.
From the Guardian as i know some sources will get panned.
"As today’s generation of political leaders prepares to fight an election that is in part a contest about the mistakes, judgments and assumptions Labour made in government on immigration, it is easy to forget just how much immigration and asylum haunted Downing Street throughout New Labour’s time in office. Between 1997 and 2010, net annual immigration quadrupled"
Andrew Neather, a former No 10 and Home Office adviser, who wrote that the Labour government embarked on a deliberate policy from late 2000 to “open up the UK to mass migration”
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-story

And
"Labour ministers deliberately encouraged mass immigration to diversify Britain over the past decade, a former Downing Street adviser has claimed.

Andrew Neather said the mass influx of migrant workers seen in recent years was not the result of a mistake or miscalculation but rather a policy the party preferred not to reveal to its core voters.

He said the strategy was intended to fill gaps in the labour market and make the UK more multicultural, at the same time as scoring political points against the Opposition.

Mr Neather worked as a speechwriter for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
http://news.sky.com/story/733663/labour-encouraged-mass-immigration-to-uk

Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatchUK, said: "This apology is three million immigrants too late. Labour have secretly encouraged mass immigration so as to engineer a huge change in our society in the full knowledge that it would be totally against public opinion."

Labour sent out ‘search parties’ for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.

In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.

 

[Castello]

Some good points however on immigration i believe the mass immigration was encouraged by Labour for political gain.
From the Guardian as i know some sources will get panned.
"As today’s generation of political leaders prepares to fight an election that is in part a contest about the mistakes, judgments and assumptions Labour made in government on immigration, it is easy to forget just how much immigration and asylum haunted Downing Street throughout New Labour’s time in office. Between 1997 and 2010, net annual immigration quadrupled"
Andrew Neather, a former No 10 and Home Office adviser, who wrote that the Labour government embarked on a deliberate policy from late 2000 to “open up the UK to mass migration”
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-story

And
"Labour ministers deliberately encouraged mass immigration to diversify Britain over the past decade, a former Downing Street adviser has claimed.

Andrew Neather said the mass influx of migrant workers seen in recent years was not the result of a mistake or miscalculation but rather a policy the party preferred not to reveal to its core voters.

He said the strategy was intended to fill gaps in the labour market and make the UK more multicultural, at the same time as scoring political points against the Opposition.

Mr Neather worked as a speechwriter for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
http://news.sky.com/story/733663/labour-encouraged-mass-immigration-to-uk

Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatchUK, said: "This apology is three million immigrants too late. Labour have secretly encouraged mass immigration so as to engineer a huge change in our society in the full knowledge that it would be totally against public opinion."

Labour sent out ‘search parties’ for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.

In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.

I think you have some good reasons for not trusting the Labour party, and like you I feel they betrayed the core vote for political expediency. I dont agree with you on immigration, but do feel people have good reason to feel uncertain as there has never been a reasoned discussion about the pros and cons of immigration, nor tried to reach a consensus on the matter. Too often the debate has been about people swarming into the uk versus the view that those who argue this are bigots. Both arguments are simplified and inaccurate versions of a complex issue. Far better would have been to be hoinest and have an open debate. This may seem idealistic and impossible, but we currently have polarised camps with no bridges between the two sides. Certainly Gordon Brown deserved all the scorn heaped upon him for calling Eileen Drury a bigot for expressing understandable concerns to the leader of the party she supported. This perception of elitism by the Labour Party leadership is not without merit and goes a long way to explain both the election loss and the rise of JC.

Having said all of that, and in the spirit of reaching out, if you believe none of the parties or MP's can be trusted, and I accept those are my perceptions of your argument, what is it you would suggest instead.

If the Labour Party has been as bad as you say, and I do have sympathy for that view, when and how do we draw a line under their arrogant behaviour and more forwards into the future. I obviously believe the movement led by Jeremy Corbyn is the answer, what is yours?

 

[Mackenzie]

Good news for the Liberals if Corbyn gets in.

 

[beorhthelm]

... People argue that Labour should have saved for a rainy day, but to cover the shortfall the banking crisis caused, we would have needed a surplus of around £90-100 Billion. Nobody was calling for that, particularly the Conservatives who supported Labours spending plans and opposed the cuts Gordon Brown began to impose to recover the cost of the £800 billion spent on the bail out.

quite right no one was calling for a surplus, that is taking an expression too far. what was being called for, some years before the financial crisis, was to reign in spending and to stop using budget as a solution to every little problem. remember "no boom or bust", keeping spending within the economic cycle? Brown abandoned those policies and was heading for a substantial deficit problem regardless of events. a large proportion of the deficit is due to projected spending, not due to reduced revenue and growth (from the recession that is behind us years ago).

this obsession about perceived imbalance in the economy is increasingly odd as we look across Europe, seeing those economies that dont have said imbalance still appear to had/having a recession. manufacturing is a couple of percent less of GDP than the other major europeans, bar Germany. its interesting that people seem to think a modern manufacturing will lead to mass employment, overlooking the scope for automation and robots that would do your manufacturing if you started a freah in a developed nation with expensive labour.

its very clear Corbyn economic policy doesnt understand any of this, its based on 50 years ideas and unicorn policy outcomes, imagining you can invent money (because not understanding QE) and renationalise industry for free with no consequences.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

If Yvette Cooper wins, and if she goes on to be Prime Minister, that would mean that Ed Balls would be First Lady.

Heaven forfend! I think I'd sooner have Jeremy Corbyn

 

[Surf's Up]

If Yvette Cooper wins, and if she goes on to be Prime Minister, that would mean that Ed Balls would be First Lady.

Heaven forfend! I think I'd sooner have Jeremy Corbyn

haha - conjures up a rather disturbing image of Ed Balls in drag, teetering on a par of 6" high heels

 

[Surf's Up]

pair even