Jeremy Corbyn.

[Pogue Mahone]

What an insult, how very dare you I am not a Daily fecking Mail reader.

Maybe you are right and the country will all vote for a buffoon with pencils in his pocket that looks like a retired geography teacher, who knows till the next general election (if he is still around)

Aaaah, the old 'what he looks like' chestnut.

I'd prefer someone that looks like him to the Old Etonian floppy fringe brigade.

 

[Beach Hut]

Aaaah, the old 'what he looks like' chestnut.

I'd prefer someone that looks like him to the Old Etonian floppy fringe brigade.

You may well, however the youth won't. Politics is big on media relationships so a PR disaster in the making.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Ooh, you forgot the bit about how Corbyn and old Labour will be a threat to our national security as well

Michael Fallon was very funny to watch on the news today. He answered every question with the same answer, the one you mention here.

He looked scared, if I'm honest.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

You may well, however the youth won't. Politics is big on media relationships so a PR disaster in the making.

Can't agree with you here. The 'youth' vote will prove very profitable for JC, with many who have not bothered to vote, as they have thought that it hasn't been worth it, supporting him. Certainly the case amongst many of the 'youth' that I know.

 

[Castello]

Which election are you talking about? Certainly not the general election in may. The Tories got near as dammit to 37 percent.

the electorate not those who voted. The electorate includes the 33% who didnt vote. The electorate was 46.4 million the tories got 11.3 million votes thats roughly 24%

http://www.ukpolitical.info/2015.htm

I could of course point out that many more didnt register and therefore didnt get included in the size of the electorate and they didnt vote tory either, but that would be churlish as I think I've proven my point.

Of course maybe you just think people who dont vote dont matter. That would be a whole different argument.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Which election are you talking about? Certainly not the general election in may. The Tories got near as dammit to 37 percent.

They got 37% of the vote. However, only 25% of registered voters voted for them. Many didn't think it worth voting at all.

I wonder who many of them might vote for?

 

[Castello]

Michael Fallon was very funny to watch on the news today. He answered every question with the same answer, the one you mention here.

He looked scared, if I'm honest.

The tories are scared shitless. The goalposts have shifted from a rather mild argument of hard core austerity v austerity lite, to a more problematic argument of the merits of an austeriity programme that increases the national debt from £800 billion to £1.5 trillion and which is condemning millions of young people to an increasingly harder life. I wonder which way theyll be leaning.

 

[1066familyman]

Every politician is a threat to national security given the self-promotion.

If it's self promotion you talk about then look no further than the likes of Chuka Umunna. He would have been a disaster for British politics.

The lack of self promotion is one of the very things that attracts people to Corbyn, aside from not seeking to say only what certain sections of the Labour party perceive middle class voters want to hear.

Already he wants to change PMQ's so that other MP's get more of a voice rather than it turn into a personality cult leadership battle.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...etely-change-the-way-pmqs-works-10498068.html

If he was indeed a geography teacher I get the feeling he'd be encouraging his pupils to stand up and find their own voice rather than pushing them out of the way to give a slick presentation to Ofsted himself. I feel like a whole new era might just about be around the corner at long last.

 

[beorhthelm]

Did Labour do anything about University fees last time in power ?

well they did introduce them.

also failed to build social housing or address problems in planning, other than to add more regulations and costs.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

the electorate not those who voted. The electorate includes the 33% who didnt vote. The electorate was 46.4 million the tories got 11.3 million votes thats roughly 24%

http://www.ukpolitical.info/2015.htm

I could of course point out that many more didnt register and therefore didnt get included in the size of the electorate and they didnt vote tory either, but that would be churlish as I think I've proven my point.

Of course maybe you just think people who dont vote dont matter. That would be a whole different argument.

They got 37% of the vote. However, only 25% of registered voters voted for them. Many didn't think it worth voting at all.

I wonder who many of them might vote for?

So, in the interest of fairness, it is only natural to suppose that you protested equally strongly when labour last won an election in 2005? They enjoyed a large majority with only 35% of the electoral vote. That was on a turnout of only 61% which gave labour 21% of the potential electoral vote. Almost 80% of the electorate did not want labour.

N.B. I do not like the Tories, but think things should be presented fairly.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

well they did introduce them.

also failed to build social housing or address problems in planning, other than to add more regulations and costs.

Labor also contributed to the scarce housing supply through open door immigration.

 

[Castello]

So, in the interest of fairness, it is only natural to suppose that you protested equally strongly when labour last won an election in 2005? They enjoyed a large majority with only 35% of the electoral vote. That was on a turnout of only 61% which gave labour 21% of the potential electoral vote. Almost 80% of the electorate did not want labour.

N.B. I do not like the Tories, but think things should be presented fairly.

In the interests of fairness I will indeed state that I protested that fact. Im in favour of PR and didnt vote Labour in 2005 or indeed any election since 1992.

However the point I was making is that its a bit cheeky suggesting that JC doesnt have a strong mandate with 60% when the current government and indeed the 2005 Government claimed to have a absolute mandate with such a small share of the electorate behind them.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

In the interests of fairness I will indeed state that I protested that fact. Im in favour of PR and didnt vote Labour in 2005 or indeed any election since 1992.

However the point I was making is that its a bit cheeky suggesting that JC doesnt have a strong mandate with 60% when the current government and indeed the 2005 Government claimed to have a absolute mandate with such a small share of the electorate behind them.

Good on you.

 

[essbee]

The tories are scared shitless. The goalposts have shifted from a rather mild argument of hard core austerity v austerity lite, to a more problematic argument of the merits of an austeriity programme that increases the national debt from £800 billion to £1.5 trillion and which is condemning millions of young people to an increasingly harder life. I wonder which way theyll be leaning.

Are you being serious?

 

[beorhthelm]

Already he wants to change PMQ's so that other MP's get more of a voice rather than it turn into a personality cult leadership battle.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...etely-change-the-way-pmqs-works-10498068.html

its an interesting idea he's suggesting there. the reason is intriguing: "I think it’s very exciting for political obsessives, it’s utterly boring for most of the population, who think it’s an utter irrelevance,". it will still be exciting for political obsessives, a boring irrelvance for most, while now the leader of the opposition will abdicate the opportunity to hold the PM to account. its good for parliament i think, but for Labour or for Corbyn? it suggests a style of leadership absent of any leading. may seem like a nice idea, but will be easy to portray him as weak, evading responsibility.

 

[Castello]

Are you being serious?

which bit do you dispute. The fact that the debate is now about pro or anti austerity or the fact that austerity has increased the national debt, or indeed the fact that austerity is wrecking the futures of many young people.

The first part is self evident as corbyn has made clear he is opposed to austerity

The second part is shown here http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/ and here http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/ and here http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html.

Incidentally you will notice that the government forecasts for the debt is massively off course.

The third part is evident from the level of cuts to public services.

Now I am also aware you may wish to argue that austerity is necessary to which I counter read this http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

Now very clearly this is the debate that will be argued about over the next five years, as it should have been over the last 5 years. But the labour Party were so afraid of disputing anything the tories said about austerity, that they let them get away with murder. That all changed today.

Still think I'm not serious. You may disagree with me, but you cannot say i dont have my arguments to hand. Perhaps youd like to present some arguments to counter me. Or is this another thread?

 

[beorhthelm]

However the point I was making is that its a bit cheeky suggesting that JC doesnt have a strong mandate with 60% when the current government and indeed the 2005 Government claimed to have a absolute mandate with such a small share of the electorate behind them.

however if we follow your logic, >99% of the electorate did not vote for him. its a bit cheeky to count the entire electorate one minute, then only the voting cohort the next to suit your argument.

and on your economics of the debt, while its quite a fair point that the debt has increased under the supposed austerity, you completely neglect to count how large the debt would be without the austerity. simply spending more money will increase the debt, it will not create some economic utopia where growth outpaces the rate of spending and debt falls. it might help if you spent only on infrastuctre and building up industry and commerce, however certainly wont if the spending on is cost sinks within the public budget.

 

[1066familyman]

its an interesting idea he's suggesting there. the reason is intriguing: "I think it’s very exciting for political obsessives, it’s utterly boring for most of the population, who think it’s an utter irrelevance,". it will still be exciting for political obsessives, a boring irrelvance for most, while now the leader of the opposition will abdicate the opportunity to hold the PM to account. its good for parliament i think, but for Labour or for Corbyn? it suggests a style of leadership absent of any leading. may seem like a nice idea, but will be easy to portray him as weak, evading responsibility.

I agree with your last point and think this is exactly the angle that most coverage of the idea will take. But I think instead it shows grown up leadership, not afraid to let others have a voice and express themselves.

PMQ's will still be a boring irrelevance for most anyway like you say. I somehow can't see it ever competing with the likes of Eastenders for viewing figures even if you had Harry Hill making guest appearances saying that there's only way to settle this

 

[essbee]

which bit do you dispute. The fact that the debate is now about pro or anti austerity or the fact that austerity has increased the national debt, or indeed the fact that austerity is wrecking the futures of many young people.

The first part is self evident as corbyn has made clear he is opposed to austerity

The second part is shown here http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/ and here http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/ and here http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html.

Incidentally you will notice that the government forecasts for the debt is massively off course.

The third part is evident from the level of cuts to public services.

Now I am also aware you may wish to argue that austerity is necessary to which I counter read this http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

Now very clearly this is the debate that will be argued about over the next five years, as it should have been over the last 5 years. But the labour Party were so afraid of disputing anything the tories said about austerity, that they let them get away with murder. That all changed today.

Still think I'm not serious. You may disagree with me, but you cannot say i dont have my arguments to hand. Perhaps youd like to present some arguments to counter me. Or is this another thread?

To suggest that his opponents are scared shitless is about as far off the mark as it's possible to be.

 

[Beach Hut]

To suggest that his opponents are scared shitless is about as far off the mark as it's possible to be.

There is a distinct whiff of anal delusion from the lefties tonight