Jeremy Corbyn.

[Pavilionaire]

The other three losers might as well have not bothered. The only "debate" going on is Former Labour Leaders vs. Corbyn.

I can't believe Umunna left the contest, he would have walked it AND his party desperately needed him. If he thinks he'll be better off waiting another 5 years he mind find the party has been split in two by then and won't exist in its present guise.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

As an aside I'm a member of the UK Labour Party here, it's an international branch, and it's doubled in size in the past few months.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This thread feels like I'm late night in a cheaply built hotel and listening to a marriage disintegrating next door, alarming but entertaining in equal measures as the volume and abuse increases...

Just you wait until you hear the make-up-again sex!

 

[Mutts Nuts]

As an aside I'm a member of the UK Labour Party here, it's an international branch, and it's doubled in size in the past few months.

Congratulations you now have a prospective leader with conviction and morals , we now require the equivalent on the right but I can`t see it happening any time soon , we are stuck with twunts like Cameron I can genuinely see the next election being a land slide to labour

 

[looney]

It isn't necessarily about winning the hearts and minds of middle England. .

Yes it is.

You and Labour are well and truly screwed.

End of thread,

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Yes it is.

You and Labour are well and truly screwed.

End of thread,

On what statistics or surveys do you based this 'fact' ?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I tell you what does **** with my head, people now advocating Corbyn as Labour leader who previously supported Labour's Blairite policies.

These are the kind of people who still support capitalism, private ownership of state utilities, free labour markets and the EU's austerity policies.

In the next breath they swear blind they are socialists...........these kind of people are idiots.

There are a lot about these days.

People who thought one thing in 1997 but who now almost 20 years later and with a radically different political and economic landscape, change their minds are idiots? I had a few questions about you, you've now answered them. Thanks.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I tell you what does **** with my head, people now advocating Corbyn as Labour leader who previously supported Labour's Blairite policies.

These are the kind of people who still support capitalism, private ownership of state utilities, free labour markets and the EU's austerity policies.

In the next breath they swear blind they are socialists...........these kind of people are idiots.

There are a lot about these days.

As an aside, idiots are people who clearly don't understand modern socialism, social democracy and the mixed market economy.

 

[beorhthelm]

I can't believe Umunna left the contest, he would have walked it AND his party desperately needed him.

well theres an interesting question, would he really have attracted the support that Corbyn has? i'd like to know if the Corbyn supporters agree with this.

 

[cunning fergus]

People who thought one thing in 1997 but who now almost 20 years later and with a radically different political and economic landscape, change their minds are idiots? I had a few questions about you, you've now answered them. Thanks.

Oh know I understand why people want to jump on bandwagons, it makes them feel good. Like those hundreds of thousands of nauseating people in pubs watching SKY supporting Man Utd, Arsenal or Chelsea........they may like football, but they don't have any genuine conviction to their team. It a narcissistic trait I think.

In the same way you are confusing those who have political conviction with those who have none........this election in the Labour Party is showing that quite contrast clearly, not least with Burnham spinning around like a weather vane to keep everyone happy. Cooper and Kendall to their credit remain committed to Blair's social democrat neo liberal agenda.

Accordingly if party members previously supported Blair and his removal of clause 4 in 1997 now support Corbyn and its likely reinstitution then they are political idiots and whores lacking no political conviction whatsoever. They simply cannot be trusted, they cheered when Labour turned its back on socialism, now they cheer a socialist.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...to-public-ownership-of-industry-10446982.html

They are like some **** in a pub that used to support Man Utd but now supports City.........

Do you know the kind of cretin I mean?

Out of interest, because you have ignored my point on it before.........Clause 4, where are you on its reintroduction to the Labour Party constitution today?

 

[cunning fergus]

As an aside, idiots are people who clearly don't understand modern socialism, social democracy and the mixed market economy.

The principles of Socialism have not changed..........it won't ever change, because the meaning of public ownership are clear, i.e. No private ownership.

Neither will the principles of capitalism, and the right to own capital.

Mixing the 2 cannot therefore be socialism..........its neo liberal, wet tory, Blairite, social democracy bollacks. By your own admission you are not a socialist, accept what you are and get over it.

A while ago on the radio 5 call in (I think), some young lad called in because he was supporting Corbyn because he thought Corbyn would help the young get on the housing ladder so they could buy their own houses.

When we have these debates I often think that young lad was you.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Oh know I understand why people want to jump on bandwagons, it makes them feel good. Like those hundreds of thousands of nauseating people in pubs watching SKY supporting Man Utd, Arsenal or Chelsea........they may like football, but they don't have any genuine conviction to their team. It a narcissistic trait I think.

In the same way you are confusing those who have political conviction with those who have none........this election in the Labour Party is showing that quite contrast clearly, not least with Burnham spinning around like a weather vane to keep everyone happy. Cooper and Kendall to their credit remain committed to Blair's social democrat neo liberal agenda.

Accordingly if party members previously supported Blair and his removal of clause 4 in 1997 now support Corbyn and its likely reinstitution then they are political idiots and whores lacking no political conviction whatsoever. They simply cannot be trusted, they cheered when Labour turned its back on socialism, now they cheer a socialist.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...to-public-ownership-of-industry-10446982.html

They are like some **** in a pub that used to support Man Utd but now supports City.........

Do you know the kind of cretin I mean?

Out of interest, because you have ignored my point on it before.........Clause 4, where are you on its reintroduction to the Labour Party constitution today?

You seem to think people's convictions can't change ? As I've moved through life my convictions have changed due to my experiences - only those that refuse to change because of sheer bloody mindedness are the idiots.

And exactly who determines what socialism or capitalism are ? Ah, yes, some clever toff at LSE with utterly no life experience. Only because HT's form of socialism doesn't match the toff 'designated definition' doesn't mean it isn't socialism to him.

 

[Don Quixote]

The principles of Socialism have not changed..........it won't ever change, because the meaning of public ownership are clear, i.e. No private ownership.

Neither will the principles of capitalism, and the right to own capital.

Mixing the 2 cannot therefore be socialism..........its neo liberal, wet tory, Blairite, social democracy bollacks. By your own admission you are not a socialist, accept what you are and get over it.

A while ago on the radio 5 call in (I think), some young lad called in because he was supporting Corbyn because he thought Corbyn would help the young get on the housing ladder so they could buy their own houses.

When we have these debates I often think that young lad was you.

You speak a lot of sense. It is true, Labour hasn't really been socialist for years. They've been neo liberal. It's given the left a bit of a bad name.

 

[Gwylan]

well theres an interesting question, would he really have attracted the support that Corbyn has? i'd like to know if the Corbyn supporters agree with this.

Can't see it myself. He's pretty much aligned to the Liz Kendall wing of the party ... and she's polling atrociously. If Umunna had stood, he'd have come fourth, I reckon

 

[attila]

It's not Corbyn the bloke who matters here. It's the ideas he represents, and the galvanising effect he has had on thousands (tens, hundreds of thousands maybe) of people of all ages and social backgrounds who felt alienated from and ignored by mainstream soundbite-toe-the-line politics. Most importantly, countless young people are now motivated to engage in political action and debate from a left wing perspective where they actually feel they are being listened to and are part of a genuine grass roots mass movement, unlike the 57 varities of Trot/anarchist alternatives of previous years. It's a tremendously exciting development which is mirrored all over Europe, and it will shape political debate in this country for years to come. The neo-liberal mainstream consensus is over. Hooray.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The principles of Socialism have not changed..........it won't ever change, because the meaning of public ownership are clear, i.e. No private ownership.

Neither will the principles of capitalism, and the right to own capital.

Mixing the 2 cannot therefore be socialism..........its neo liberal, wet tory, Blairite, social democracy bollacks. By your own admission you are not a socialist, accept what you are and get over it.

A while ago on the radio 5 call in (I think), some young lad called in because he was supporting Corbyn because he thought Corbyn would help the young get on the housing ladder so they could buy their own houses.

When we have these debates I often think that young lad was you.

I give up.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You seem to think people's convictions can't change ? As I've moved through life my convictions have changed due to my experiences - only those that refuse to change because of sheer bloody mindedness are the idiots.

And exactly who determines what socialism or capitalism are ? Ah, yes, some clever toff at LSE with utterly no life experience. Only because HT's form of socialism doesn't match the toff 'designated definition' doesn't mean it isn't socialism to him.

Thank you, sincerely.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

It's not Corbyn the bloke who matters here. It's the ideas he represents, and the galvanising effect he has had on thousands (tens, hundreds of thousands maybe) of people of all ages and social backgrounds who felt alienated from and ignored by mainstream soundbite-toe-the-line politics. Most importantly, countless young people are now motivated to engage in political action and debate from a left wing perspective where they actually feel they are being listened to and are part of a genuine grass roots mass movement, unlike the 57 varities of Trot/anarchist alternatives of previous years. It's a tremendously exciting development which is mirrored all over Europe, and it will shape political debate in this country for years to come. The neo-liberal mainstream consensus is over. Hooray.

Exactly this. North of the border the Scottish independence vote engaged with the people. This was then rolled out to the 2015 general election with the huge success of the SNP. Time to roll out the experiment South of the border and give disenfranchised socialist-leaning voters something positive to vote FOR.

 

[beorhthelm]

And exactly who determines what socialism or capitalism are ? Ah, yes, some clever toff at LSE with utterly no life experience. Only because HT's form of socialism doesn't match the toff 'designated definition' doesn't mean it isn't socialism to him.

to be fair, economist from LSE or similar institutions are exactly who determine and define economic concepts. if you dont like the meaning of one, use another, you cant start re-defining a concept to meet your own needs because it suits, or doesnt suit anymore.

 

[Soulman]

Exactly this. North of the border the Scottish independence vote engaged with the people. This was then rolled out to the 2015 general election with the huge success of the SNP. Time to roll out the experiment South of the border and give disenfranchised socialist-leaning voters something positive to vote FOR.

The difference being that the SNP represented Scotland, their policies were for the Scottish people, in the 13 years that Labour were in power they showed indifference to the people of England backed up by some of their MP's speeches. They left the country in a poor state, and many do not have short memories, so the comparison with the SNP is a very poor example.