British Version of Bernie Sanders Leading Race To Lead Labour Party - Polidicks

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48536536]He's shared a platform with a literal Holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist Paul Eisen. [/quote] Yeah! And both of them breathe as well! Appalling. Come on. It just so happens people have different reasons for opposing Israel's foreign policy. It says literally nothing about Corbyn that they spoke at the same events. It literally doesn't matter at all. You can't honestly believe otherwise. What does matter is that he's campaigned all of his life against racism, in all of its forms, and got arrested for protesting apartheid outside the South African embassy. [quote]He's referred to Hamas and Hezbollah as his 'friends' and said that Hamas represented an important platform for positive social change in Palestine, and other 'anti-zionists' whose beliefs include spreading the ideas of Jews literally eating babies and using them in their bread. [/quote] This is diplomatic language. You can't bring peace by condemning everyone, you want real peace talks to take place. It's what we did with the IRA, it's what we can do with Israel and Palestine. If you think what Hamas and Hezbollah do is abhorrent you're right. And what Israel does to Palestine is abhorrent, oppressing them to the extent that they feel like terrorism is their only means of having a voice and fighting for their rights. But as I said, this is a problem that won't be solved by arguing over who is worse, it's solved through diplomacy. It's a cliché, but one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. [quote]He believes in 'spheres of influence', accuses NATO of aggression in expanding into East Europe, and says that it was wrong to allow Poland to join NATO, [/quote] He's anti-war remember. Looking into this, as far as I can see, he opposes NATO's expansion into the East as an act of military aggression against Russia. He's concerned about escalating the conflict further. [quote]and excuses the invasion of Ukraine with comments about the 'borders ebbing and flowing in history' or some rubbish. [/quote] He wasn't excusing the invasion at all. He was just saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily and escalate the situation. [quote]He's a key member of Stop the War, a Putin-appeasing group aka Useful Idiots Inc./The Enemy of the West is Our Friend. [/quote] Haha what are you on. He is the chair of Stop the War. And that's a good thing. Wanting to do everything one can to stop a war with Russia is not Putin appeasing. [quote]He tries to make the point that he meets with these extremists in order to promote peace, but there's a difference between meeting with them professionally and behaving as he does.[/quote] Behaving as he does? If you want to avoid war and bloodshed, you hold talks with both sides. You don't vilify because you don't agree with what certain sides have done. [quote]He tries to hold up Venezuela as a success story of socialism.[/quote] As far as I can tell from reading [url=http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/venezuela/]this[/url] is that when he talks about success he means more in terms of [url=http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6388]this[/url] and the significant decreases in poverty and unemployment they've seen over the last couple of decades. [quote]His economic policies are delusional, expecting to raise £120 billion off of the tax gap - Somehow. Even though the inevitable higher taxes will only increase the tax gap and offering no explanation on how to end it. [/quote] [url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/11/jeremy-corbyn-close-deficit-poor-labour-economy?CMP=share_btn_fb]read more about their economics directly from his campaign[/url] They're going to get a lot of money from a lot of places. They want to increase taxes on the super rich, increase corporation tax, close tax loopholes, and significantly decrease corporate subsidies, which would happen naturally anyway, since the plan is to nationalize a lot of the industries we're already subsidizing. [quote]He focuses intensely on anti-austerity politics - Forgetting that was a battle lost and finished in the 2010 and 2015 elections [/quote] Milliband wasn't anti austerity, and there are a lot of factors as to why Labour lost those elections than austerity. Generally, the public isn't interested in left and right political theory, they want to hear a politician saying things that resonate with them, that make sense to them. The Tory's narrative of 'living within our means' is a warped and misleading one, but compared to the non-existent narrative of middling Labour at the last election, it made more sense to people, but now people are feeling the result of that, and they want an alternative. Also, crucially, in that election, more people voted for left wing parties than right wing parties. Alllllso, the other three candidates have basically the same stance as Ed Milliband on austerity. They reckon we need it, just not as much as the Tories, which is why they're accused of being directionless. Labour needs to have a strong narrative in opposition to the Conservatives' to win. [quote]- And in 2020, it will be expected that the next government will run a surplus. He wants to print money to finance himself. [/quote] Fine. We did QE to invest in banks, and a lot of that money was wasted. We can do it again to invest money into producing jobs that are going to result in higher income jobs and higher tax income. [quote]He says he will reopen COAL MINES. [/quote] If you listen, what he said was that they would [u]consider[/u] it if coal prices went back up, and [u]only[/u] on condition of the use of carbon capture and other techniques to ensure it stays carbon neutral. He was very clear on that. [quote]He wants to re-nationalise without compensation.[/quote] With regards to the lack of compensation, he was only talking about future assets the Torys are yet to sell off including the last of RBS' assets under state control, and other financial assets, which are being sold off for far less than their value for the sake of private profits in significant expense to the tax payer. He's not about to renationalise the rails without any form of compensation, that would be nuts. As for renationalisation in general, good. Polls show the public strongly support it. We're currently subsidizing our rails, for example, with more money than we were ever spending on them, back when the public owned them. [quote] He wants to isolate Britain from the globalised world and simply stick his fingers in his ears rather than facing up to reality.[/quote] What reality is that? And what does this even mean? In what way would it isolate us? Because [u]some[/u] of our industries that are currently owned by huge international companies would be nationalised? Or, more specifically, they would be run as co-operatives in the public interest. [quote]He's an unreformed socialist from 1983 and will be deservedly destroyed by voters, everywhere except perhaps the north of England. He will not beat the SNP in Scotland, nor will he beat the Tories in middle-England. He will even lose many seats in London as it has been seen that there lies the centre of Kendall support. Not that he will actually make it to the next election, with the support of only 20 MPs.[/quote] We'll see about that won't we. Honestly, it's like you don't really know his policies. A lot of what you're saying, it sounds like you're projecting your assumptions of what he does or says onto what he's actually doing. It's almost like you formed your opinion on him based only on quotes taken out of context, and spun versions of his policies. To be honest, just going through this gets me excited about the slim possibility of him as a prime minister. Imagine having an ex chair of stop the war as PM. He's a very good debater, and doesn't have to even try to come off as a warm human being like all the other party leaders do, so I feel like he's gonna kill it the debates for the general election. But he's got a shit load of Tory narrative prevalent in Westminster and in the press to wade through.

[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;48536726]how is he a british version of Bernie Sanders wtf op[/QUOTE] He's an old grizzled principled politician who inspires people through words, policies, and principles more than through looks or being part of the establishment. He is daring to say what many other politicians would not and speaking about problems that truly matter to young people who have been abandoned my Labour under Blair, Brown, and even Miliband. He is much farther to the left than Bernie Sanders, but both of their countries consider them too far to the left. Both people represent a potential axial shift in politics: a rebalancing in which there is a true Left party to oppose the Right party. I disagree with a lot of what Corbyn has said or done. I can understand why he is anti-West (western/capitalist imperialism or whatever) and anti-Israel (simply being pro Palestine as a state), but it does not justify the anti-semitic people he has met or the positions he has made on NATO or Russia. But at least he talks about all of this. Bernie Sanders barely talks about foreign policy. I am hoping that Labour under Corbyn will be a revitalized leftist anti-austerity party but not a coal power promoting Russia loving party. I'm sure he will be moderated by the 200 MPs to his right. If one keeps the good ideas and forgets the bad ones, Corbyn has a ton of potential. As for all the Blair criticisms in Labour politics, it's true that he did a lot of good while in power to help the poor, his move to the center created a situation in which future politicians were afraid to make a principled stand against the Tories in 2015. Although there is a widespread perception that Miliband was too far to the left, I think one can make the case that his legitimizing of austerity led people to either vote Tory, abandon Labour for the Greens or UKIP, or just stay home. Corbyn says he can win those votes back in 2020.

Also he's vowed to be an inclusive leader anyway, where the cabinet and the policies are decided by Labour Party members and MPs, rather than behind closed doors by a leader. So if you're somehow concerned about him going in a dictator and beginning a Marxist coup on the Labour party, you shouldn't have much to worry about. Funnily enough though, whilst Labour's MPs aren't all left wing, the CLPs, it's members, and the trade unions, are all really rather left wing. He also supports a rotating parliament, where each session is held in a different constituency, to make people outside London and outside of cities feel more included in the political process, which is an awesome idea. It might be expensive, but not as expensive as maintaining the Palace of Westminster and giving them all really swish flats in London. Hand Westminster over to Historic England / English Heritage.

corbyn won't win in 2020, even if the UK wanted his policies, the media bias and scrutiny is just too strong. labour are fucked no matter who they choose

They could elect Nigel Farage and the Sun would still call him 'Ni-GORBACHEV' or something.

[QUOTE]Yeah! And both of them breathe as well! Appalling. Come on. It just so happens people have different reasons for opposing Israel's foreign policy. It says literally nothing about Corbyn that they spoke at the same events. It literally doesn't matter at all. You can't honestly believe otherwise. What does matter is that he's campaigned all of his life against racism, in all of its forms, and got arrested for protesting apartheid outside the South African embassy.[/QUOTE] You don't see him meeting up with extremist Zionists or those on the other side of the Troubles, do you? He never holds talks with the opponents to his positions - only those who he agrees with. He excuses it with the exact reason you give, but it rings pretty hollow as soon as you see the above, and all he accomplishes is supporting a platform for anti-semites and holocaust deniers. [QUOTE]Fine. We did QE to invest in banks, and a lot of that money was wasted. We can do it again to invest money into producing jobs that are going to result in higher income jobs and higher tax income. [/QUOTE] The time for QE is passed. Believe it or not, I support helicopter money - I mean, its a right wing idea in the first place. But 2020 is not a time when QE will be relevant. [QUOTE]They're going to get a lot of money from a lot of places. They want to increase taxes on the super rich, increase corporation tax, close tax loopholes, and significantly decrease corporate subsidies, which would happen naturally anyway, since the plan is to nationalize a lot of the industries we're already subsidizing. [/QUOTE] The Tories are successfully reducing tax evasion - one of the few successes of their time in charge. This is through a combination of lowering taxes (because believe it or not, if your taxes are lower, you get less tax evasion!!) and on closing the tax loopholes that you mention. Raising taxes will just get people to leave. All you need to do is look at what happened to France's attempt to tax the super-rich and see how poorly it actually end out. The raising of taxes will simply reverse all of what has been done to reduce the 'tax gap'. When taxes are too high, the rich don't pay. That's the fact of the matter and no matter how much you kick and scream about closing loopholes, its the truth. [QUOTE]If you listen, what he said was that they would consider it if coal prices went back up, and only on condition of the use of carbon capture and other techniques to ensure it stays carbon neutral. He was very clear on that.[/QUOTE] Sorry, but the very suggestion that coal mines should EVER be reopened in this country should tell you of his lunacy. No-one wants to work down the fucking mines. We can't pay our workers little enough to compete in the global market. The proposition is just absolutely mad, even with the caveat that coal prices need to go up. To ask you a question: What industries do you want to see renationalised? Also, nice linking of a site that receives funding from the Venezuelan government. Venezuela is a shithole because of the moronic 'revolutionary' leaders and everyone should know that by now. [editline]25th August 2015[/editline] Also 36.9 (Conservative) + 12.6 (UKIP) = Right wing vote 30.4 (Labour, pro austerity anyway) + 7.9 (Lib Dem) = Pro-austerity Left 4.7 (SNP) + 3.8 (Green) = Anti-Austerity Left

I find it funny that the only reason that Corbyn looks set to win is because the Labour party membership seem to hate their own party more than they want to win an election. No sane person is voting for Corbyn because they can think that he can win, they voting for him to punish the Labour party for daring to try and appeal to the mainstream British public with sensible centrist policies.

[QUOTE=The mouse;48538589]I find it funny that the only reason that Corbyn looks set to win is because the Labour party membership seem to hate their own party more than they want to win an election. No sane person is voting for Corbyn because they can think that he can win, they voting for him to punish the Labour party for daring to try and appeal to the mainstream British public with sensible centrist policies.[/QUOTE] Where are you getting ANY of this from? I like to think of myself as sane, and I'm voting for corbyn

[QUOTE=Uzbekistan;48539339]Where are you getting ANY of this from? I like to think of myself as sane, and I'm voting for corbyn[/QUOTE] But Thatcher and the education system taught me that only loonies can be socialists!

[video=youtube;DlphPfcA2qU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=229&v=DlphPfcA2qU[/video] I love the way everyone relentlessly attacks him and he never attacks them back. They hit him with hard questions but he does perfectly fine.

He's great and extremely intelligent.

Most the arguments against corby have been busted. At least come up with some real arguments. It's like being in pol.

[QUOTE=KnightSolaire;48541569]Most the arguments against corby have been busted. At least come up with some real arguments. It's like being in pol.[/QUOTE] ur busted!!! I can play at the same game.

Why are people supporting Corbyn for having principles when this is irrelevant to the job he is hoping to eventually get? I want a politician that can do their job and do it well, in running a country. Politics is all about competing groups finding ways to compromise on various issues and policies. People should be flexible when formulating policy. If anything I think that the new political system ushered in by the birth of New Labour is great. It's much less politicized than in the 70s and 80s when people on the left and right could never agree on anything and got into constant tussles.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48541729]Why are people supporting Corbyn for having principles when this is irrelevant to the job he is hoping to eventually get? I want a politician that can do their job and do it well, in running a country. Politics is all about competing groups finding ways to compromise on various issues and policies. People should be flexible when formulating policy. If anything I think that the new political system ushered in by the birth of New Labour is great. It's much less politicized than in the 70s and 80s when people on the left and right could never agree on anything and got into constant tussles.[/QUOTE] So basically you like it when the left and right are hardly different, and both alternatives revolve around the center - right as part of neoliberalism and other late 20th century developments. You like the stability it guarantees because nothing changes and both parties act the same, they just manage the nation and agree on the current state of capitalism, with the added bonus of coming to power with a popular mandate (ironically usually down to dissatisfaction with this whole unchanging system being laid at the foot of the previous ruling party, exhaustion with such is why actual left and right alternatives in America and Europe are gaining traction). This system affords complacency without change. Thus it's perfect for someone that, like you, simply wants the best, most stable conditions for liberal-capitalism to prosper and nothing more. Politics is not about moderation or compromise, it's about interest groups that make up the nation and its parties. There's no point in flexibility and moderation if it means defaulting against your own interests out of some loyalty to the 'whole', to a new ideological orthodoxy as formed after the New Labor you lauded, or to some misguided belief you exist as an apolitical manager whose job it is to serve a stable national market on a platter to investors. That left and right alternatives do exactly none of this is actually their appeal, so your inertia towards Corbyn is understandable, though you honestly seem confused they're doing this. But anyway, if politics is down to this sort of thing above, there's no point in democracy other than to provide the illusion of choice, which is probably the biggest criticism of liberal-democracy anyway. We might as well have codify it and create the liberal dictatorship, it already basically exists.

Being really good at running things is almost useless if your principles suck. Like, Margaret Thatcher and Reagan were amazing politicians who were extremely effective leaders. Unfortunately, all that skill was used to fuck over large swathes of the population.

I honestly don't see the problem some people have with Corbyn, he seems like a decent, honest, principled politician, and I'd quite happily have swapped my SNP vote for Labour had he been Leader last election. He's certainly no extremist, maybe nearly 30 years of rampant neo-liberalism has made people believe that anybody left of Milipants is a neo-Stalinist... the extreme left don't even support Corbyn because he's not currently storming Buckingham Palace with a Tokarev in one hand and a portable guillotine in the other.

Anyone who believes austerity doesn't work or isn't needed is living in la-la-land as far as I'm concerned. Shame, because I like Corbyn's other policies.

[QUOTE=Conscript;48542124]So basically you like it when the left and right are hardly different, and both alternatives revolve around the center - right as part of neoliberalism and other late 20th century developments. You like the stability it guarantees because nothing changes and both parties act the same, they just manage the nation and agree on the current state of capitalism, with the added bonus of coming to power with a popular mandate (ironically usually down to dissatisfaction with this whole unchanging system being laid at the foot of the previous ruling party, exhaustion with such is why actual left and right alternatives in America and Europe are gaining traction). This system affords complacency without change. Thus it's perfect for someone that, like you, simply wants the best, most stable conditions for liberal-capitalism to prosper and nothing more.[/quote] Except the system that exists in Britain has been around for quite a while - Parliament has been operating in the same manner for centuries. That doesn't mean it doesn't change though (it frequently does), as it passes all forms of legislation or the parliament itself is reformed to meet the demands of a changing society. [quote]Politics is not about moderation or compromise, it's about interest groups that make up the nation and its parties.[/quote] No it isn't. The entire point of politics is to keep a society of millions working and operating smoothly by balancing competing interests through moderation, compromise, deals, etc (rather than inciting races, classes, sexes, religions, or nationalities against one another). Britain has had a long history of having to do this, and will continue to do so in the future. [quote]But anyway, if politics is down to this sort of thing above, there's no point in democracy other than to provide the illusion of choice, which is probably the biggest criticism of liberal-democracy anyway.[/QUOTE] Except the system existing in Britain exists because of popular support for it in general. New Labour was formed when the party decided to actually change their stance on certain issues to capture a bigger swathe of the electorate - there is nothing wrong with that. To imply that Britain is some kind of dictatorship is ludicrous. [QUOTE=person11;48542271]Being really good at running things is almost useless if your principles suck. Like, Margaret Thatcher and Reagan were amazing politicians who were extremely effective leaders. Unfortunately, all that skill was used to fuck over large swathes of the population.[/QUOTE] It's a pity that they won democratic elections then.