Jeremy Corbyn elected UK Labour leader in a landslide - Polidicks

Sorry but as someone who doesn't follow politics very much aren't Both Sanders and Corbyn left wing so they are pretty comparable? I really don't get american politics though

It's kind of comparable, but Corbyn is way to the left of Sanders.

First bit of business. Also surprise interview. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmVLeMHxUmc[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0NwBWVwKgY[/media]

Good, i like this guy and generally i find his views the most likable, people saying Labour aren't going to win now are you guys for real? this guy generally was the best of all the 4 and clearly shits all over Cameron, just hope the voters see it.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48667161]Like reopening the coal mines? lmao[/QUOTE] He said it was on the table if it was ever deemed to be financially viable and if coal prices went way back up and only on the condition that it was carbon neutral. When people say things, there's this thing called context and the press doesn't like it very much. [editline]13th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;48668485]Wasn't there a thread that said that this guy was the British version of Bernie Sanders? Or am i wrong.[/QUOTE] It's essentially a similar thing yeah. Guy way to the left of the relative political mainstream of their country pops up out of nowhere and gets huge support from a group on the left that have been left without a political voice for decades that turns out to be a way bigger group than anyone thought. The difference is Corbyn won, the Bern probably won't. Buzzed for PMQs. [editline]13th September 2015[/editline] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZsYvkTw4Rg[/media] what a guy [editline]13th September 2015[/editline] [url=http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/564049/MP-Tom-Watson-phone-hacking-scandal-gaming-session-Portal-2-hearing-Murdoch]also this is labour's deputy leader[/url]

I thought that the last time this guy was posted about it was revealed that he is a nutcase. I think I found the post: [QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48536536]He's shared a platform with a literal Holocaust denier and conspiracy theorist Paul Eisen. 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. 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, and excuses the invasion of Ukraine with comments about the 'borders ebbing and flowing in history' or some rubbish. 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. 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. He tries to hold up Venezuela as a success story of socialism. 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. He focuses intensely on anti-austerity politics - Forgetting that was a battle lost and finished in the 2010 and 2015 elections - And in 2020, it will be expected that the next government will run a surplus. He wants to print money to finance himself. He says he will reopen COAL MINES. He wants to re-nationalise without compensation. He wants to isolate Britain from the globalised world and simply stick his fingers in his ears rather than facing up to reality. 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. Comparing this guy to Sanders is insulting to Sanders. [editline]25th August 2015[/editline] [url]http://www.cityam.com/222952/no-leading-economists-are-not-supporting-jeremy-corbyn-s-far-left-agenda[/url] And that version of Labour cannot do anything as it cannot win elections. Ed Miliband was -perceived- as being too left wing by voters, regardless of reality. When looking at the views of those who voted Tory over Labour and those who didn't vote, they generally state that Labour is for 'helping the scroungers' in some sense - ie. It was seen that Labour was only the party of the minority interests - Which is rather nice, but not something you can win an election off. Corbyn not too far to the left of Labour? Okay, say that to the 200 MPs who are to the right of Corbyn - Despite left-wing Miliband plants in safe seats. I know that just because you have a significant moral superiority over being correct on Iraq you feel that the Blair era did nothing for people. But the reality is between 1979 and 1997, Labour passed no laws to help the people you want to help. Not one. Under Blair? The minimum wage, investment in schools, freedom of information, investment in NHS and so on occurred. There's no point, even if you believe in it, fantasising about socialism in a centre-right country if you actually want to be a party of government and a party of change.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;48671127]He said it was on the table if it was ever deemed to be financially viable and if coal prices went way back up and only on the condition that it was carbon neutral. When people say things, there's this thing called context and the press doesn't like it very much.[/QUOTE] most of his economic policies are just austerity in another form (i.e cutting subsidies to businesses, getting rid of tax breaks, etc). he also wants to increase taxes on the rich (except these won't get as much as he expects and there's no way in hell he can eliminate the deficit by doing that). also his quantitative easing plan would cause a lot of problems for the bank of england and politicize something that doesn't need politicized (i.e maintaining macroeconomic stability). it'd be forced to use money to finance political projects, which in turn would piss off investors and make investment in the long term much harder.

This guy is a complete moron. He's against anything nuclear and blames NATO for Russian aggression.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48671257]most of his economic policies are just austerity in another form (i.e cutting subsidies to businesses, getting rid of tax breaks, etc). he also wants to increase taxes on the rich (except these won't get as much as he expects and there's no way in hell he can eliminate the deficit by doing that). also his quantitative easing plan would cause a lot of problems for the bank of england and politicize something that doesn't need politicized (i.e maintaining macroeconomic stability). it'd be forced to use money to finance political projects, which in turn would piss off investors and make investment in the long term much harder.[/QUOTE] Yeah, well if we've got a government talking about cutting for the sake of stopping the defecit but pretty much all the cuts are happening to those most vulnerable, [u]whilst income tax goes way way down[/u] and [u]selling off public institutions literally to their friends at significant loss to the public[/u] I'm a little suspicious as to whether cutting the deficit is their priority. If we've got to trim the deficit, I don't see why it should be centred on the most vulnerable whilst benefitting the city, we can cut corporate subsidies that go wasted, we can cut nuclear weapons, we can make sure we get the corporate tax that isn't being paid, we can invest to get people into better paying work increasing tax income through income and spending, and growing the economy and we can increase taxes and make them more progressive. Of course, it's far too early for him and his team to come up with numbers. At this point, he's stood on a platform on what he wants to do, now for the next 5 years the job is to figure out how they can do it in more detail. But the point is, that his proposals are probably possible, and there's figures that say so. [editline]13th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=capital;48671368]This guy is a complete moron. He's against anything nuclear[/quote] Good, Trident is a stupid waste of money. Unless you're talking about power, in which case, I've never actually read anything he said about it but by god if he was pro nuclear he'd be decimated, it's not a popular position, especially among the left for some reason. [quote]and blames NATO for Russian aggression. [/quote] No he doesn't, he has said he sees NATO's expansion as an aggressive move against Russia which is only going to exacerbate things, it's not like he thinks it's all been NATO's fault. At the very least, that's how Russia sees it, so expansionism is not going to help things. Russia isn't just some caricature of the bad guys, diplomacy isn't black and white, and diplomacy is what needs to happen.

The whole, "Corbyn is bed with Hamas" sort of thing is being taken out of context everywhere I look The guy is plainly anti-war, and looks to see both sides of the conflicts he invests himself in. I sympathize with that. I don't agree with pulling out of NATO but I agree with his stance on Trident in particular.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;48673200]The whole, "Corbyn is bed with Hamas" sort of thing is being taken out of context everywhere I look The guy is plainly anti-war, and looks to see both sides of the conflicts he invests himself in. I sympathize with that. I don't agree with pulling out of NATO but I agree with his stance on Trident in particular.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;pGj1PheWiFQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGj1PheWiFQ[/video] Nothing says "anti-war" like declaring the Hamas and Hezbollah are peace loving organizations that are wrongly labeled as terrorists.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;48673200]The whole, "Corbyn is bed with Hamas" sort of thing is being taken out of context everywhere I look The guy is plainly anti-war, and looks to see both sides of the conflicts he invests himself in. I sympathize with that. I don't agree with pulling out of NATO but I agree with his stance on Trident in particular.[/QUOTE] It isn't being taken out of context. He sees the world in a goodie/baddie perspective of the oppressor against the oppressed. Because Israel is an oppressor in many ways he manages to excuse whatever Hamas/Hezbollah do and even praise them as being some sort of organisation for good against imperialism. Compare this approach to how he treats right-wing extremists like the BNP and National Front. This is clearly not him trying to encourage dialogue. [QUOTE]Good, Trident is a stupid waste of money. Unless you're talking about power, in which case, I've never actually read anything he said about it but by god if he was pro nuclear he'd be decimated, it's not a popular position, especially among the left for some reason. [/QUOTE] 32% of people support Trident. 34% support another way of maintaining nuclear weapons. 20% support ending our nuclear capabilities. Source: [url]https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/15/trident-keep-scrap-or-downgrade/[/url] [QUOTE]He said it was on the table if it was ever deemed to be financially viable and if coal prices went way back up and only on the condition that it was carbon neutral. When people say things, there's this thing called context and the press doesn't like it very much. [/QUOTE] It will never be economically viable because British workers are paid too much to compete with other countries and no-one wants to work down the fucking mines in 2015. The suggestion is lunacy, not least when paired with him pushing for green energy - 'We'll mine the coal... but not [i]burn[/i] it!!'

[QUOTE=ScumBunny;48673249][video=youtube;pGj1PheWiFQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGj1PheWiFQ[/video] Nothing says "anti-war" like declaring the Hamas and Hezbollah are peace loving organizations that are wrongly labeled as terrorists.[/QUOTE] he said they are dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian. it's not so different from the hordes of politicians who support Israel, I mean, why would you support Israel considering their actions? I see you're from there anyway, so you'd obviously be biased towards your own country. Both Hezbollah (and Hamas) and Israel are forces of negativity in the world - one wishes to put down another group of people and the other believe freeing their own people means they must terrorise another. If we can somehow eliminate both groups or bring them to talks with eachother (in comes Corbyn... surprise surprise) then you guys can have some peace. It's the UK's responsibility to sort out the mess we created by creating your nation.

Nobody manages to extrapolate a friendly turn of phrase to destroy someone's position without actually engaging with their position quite like the right-wing media does, wheeey!

[QUOTE]Good, i like this guy and generally i find his views the most likable, people saying Labour aren't going to win now are you guys for real? this guy generally was the best of all the 4 and clearly shits all over Cameron, just hope the voters see it. [/QUOTE] British politics is pretty simple. Labour are seen as strong on public services. Conservatives are seen as strong on the economy. Whichever party neutralises its weaknesses and plays up its strengths wins the election. Corbyn makes the Labour weakness on the economy infinitely worse, thereby losing the election automatically. Simply by proposing measures such as printing money and opening coal mines, he loses all his economic credibility. This is especially the case in seats that he needs to win in southern England and the midlands. By moving far to the left, he may be able to stack up the votes in already Labour constituencies, but as the cliche in American and British politics goes, he doesn't win where it matters. In America you need to win states like Ohio and Florida to win an election. In Britain, the equivalents are constituencies like Battersea, Chelmsford and Basildon. These constituencies are not winnable under Corbyn, because to win them, you need your party to appeal to those in the middle. Those who are not at the very bottom, who are not minority interests. Those who are doing okay for themselves. At the last election Labour had nothing to say to anyone who wasn't at the very bottom or with young children as a result of its '35%' strategy. Labour needs a broad appeal from a centrist candidate to prevent a Conservative victory. I would like to say that the inevitable Corbyn disaster will end the far-left fantasies, but in the end nothing will. Its never the fault of the far left. The people doing the socialism were doing it wrong, the voters were wrong, the media were wrong. Its never their fault. So another Corbyn will be needed. Another lost election. Another five years of Conservative rule.

This whole idea that conservatives are strong on the economy is nothing more than a meme. Most economists agree that austerity is bad for the economy - it's just a great deal easier to spin the austerity argument because people assume a country's economy is the same as their own personal finances - which it totally fucking isn't. Labour just needs to use facts and reason and explain away this myth. And the public needs the fucking patience and intelligence to stop asking for just one moment "WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM? I THOUGHT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY". The left doesn't have an economy problem; it has a spin problem.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48673346]I would like to say that the inevitable Corbyn disaster will end the far-left fantasies, but in the end nothing will. Its never the fault of the far left. The people doing the socialism were doing it wrong, the voters were wrong, the media were wrong. Its never their fault. So another Corbyn will be needed. Another lost election. Another five years of Conservative rule.[/QUOTE] Personally I would much rather labour try and supposedly fail than just tory-lite it up, getting into power should not be the only goal in politics.

[QUOTE=Robbobobobin;48673374]This whole idea that conservatives are strong on the economy is nothing more than a meme. Most economists agree that austerity is bad for the economy - it's just a great deal easier to spin the austerity argument because people assume a country's economy is the same as their own personal finances - which it totally fucking isn't. Labour just needs to use facts and reason and explain away this myth. And the public needs the fucking patience and intelligence to stop asking for just one moment "WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM? I THOUGHT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY". The left doesn't have an economy problem; it has a spin problem.[/QUOTE] But where is the money coming from? The answer is one of two places: Firstly, from taxation. Secondly, from borrowing. Borrowing is rightly worrisome for the electorate. Although Britain has much more fiscal space than most countries in Europe (ie room to borrow), and pure hard austerity is certainly bad for the economy, the current 'debt denialism' which is very popular with many is nonsense. You only need to look at Greece or Japan to see the effects of crushingly high debt and interest payments. The more you borrow, the harder it is to borrow more, in general. As a result, the electorate is worried about borrowing more and more money to finance public expenditure. But instead of trying to address these worries, you instead choose to call them idiots. Real smart guy! Is the electorate always right? Of course not. But the current idea is that you need to fight the electorate on everything and match them on nothing - which is completely futile in most cases. This is a fundamental problem with the left wing to be honest. They seem to hate their own electorate, the very people they're meant to be representing. The working classes (as much as they still exist) are all Sun reading obese homophobic bigots. The middle classes are all mean-minded, racist Mail readers, who, you guessed it, are also all homophobic bigots. You don't win unless you obtain a broad consensus across many groups, and divisive figures like Corbyn can't do that. [editline]13th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=HighOnSinz;48673468]Personally I would much rather labour try and supposedly fail than just tory-lite it up, it's not about who is in power but why they are in power, what they actually will do, that matters to me.[/QUOTE] This is easy for me to say because I'm probably a Blairite at heart, and I understand why people to the left of me find it difficult to go down the centrist route, as it almost feels like betrayal. But if you ignore the Iraq war (which was a disaster), plenty of great things were accomplished by Labour during Blair's centrist victories, which I already alluded to in a past post. A centrist Labour will not accomplish all that you want if you are a socialist or on the far-left of the party. But they will accomplish more than a Tory government will do for you.

[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;48673028]Yeah, well if we've got a government talking about cutting for the sake of stopping the defecit but pretty much all the cuts are happening to those most vulnerable, [u]whilst income tax goes way way down[/u] and [u]selling off public institutions literally to their friends at significant loss to the public[/u] I'm a little suspicious as to whether cutting the deficit is their priority. If we've got to trim the deficit, I don't see why it should be centred on the most vulnerable whilst benefitting the city, we can cut corporate subsidies that go wasted, we can cut nuclear weapons, we can make sure we get the corporate tax that isn't being paid, we can invest to get people into better paying work increasing tax income through income and spending, and growing the economy and we can increase taxes and make them more progressive.[/quote] Instead of peoples quantitative easing, why can't we just borrow money at the extremely low interest rates we have right now and stimulate the economy with it? It's much easier and less stupid. Cutting corporate subsidies or raising taxes isn't going to help much - despite what people say, raising taxes on the rich isn't going to get as much money as you'd think. That's also not to mention that doing shit like his stupid quantitative easing idea is going to harm economic recovery.

Laffer curve

[url]https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/642984909980725248[/url] Ayy

[QUOTE=Robbobobobin;48666225]All this shows is that everyone is collectively underestimating Britain's capacity for actual compassion towards other human beings. I can see it going all the way. If not? At least we should be shifting the political orthodoxy a little away from the right so our politicians can at least start pretending they care about other people again.[/QUOTE] I think the larger phenomenon we're seeing is people getting really disgruntled with the political establishment. It's the same thing with both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in the US. All are candidates that don't play well with the established system, don't fit the role of a career politician, and above all seem extremely averse to the diplomacy of policymaking. Which is also why I think neither will [I]really[/I] give people what they're looking for; the British PM and US President don't hold absolute power - not over the government, let alone society, economy and foreign relations - and them getting elected won't change the way that works.

[url]https://twitter.com/PaulLomax/status/643005884587712512[/url] [QUOTE]Looking into the possibility I could sue him. As a member of the Labour Party, this is defamation of my character.[/QUOTE]

Haha Cameron you what, don't let Rupert Murdoch write your twitter posts you mug.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;48673947]Haha Cameron you what, don't let Rupert Murdoch write your twitter posts you mug.[/QUOTE] Well, he's not wrong about the first two at the very least.

Like Corbyn/The Labour Party or not, that's just pathetic.

[QUOTE=benbb;48673979]Like Corbyn/The Labour Party or not, that's just pathetic.[/QUOTE] criticising your opponents is pathetic? are we living in north korea?

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48673961]Well, he's not wrong about the first two at the very least.[/QUOTE] The prime minister shouldn't be making accusations like that on twitter, true or no. Declaring an entire political party to be a threat to national, economic and family??? security is petty and childish. [editline]13th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48673990]criticising your opponents is pathetic? are we living in north korea?[/QUOTE] He should criticize policy not make it out that Labour MPs are going to start bombing train stations.

He can't criticise policy on twitter directly due to character limits. And all that Corbyn has done over his career proves right everything that he says. I don't see anything wrong with the tweet whatsoever.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48673346]British politics is pretty simple. Labour are seen as strong on public services. Conservatives are seen as strong on the economy. Whichever party neutralises its weaknesses and plays up its strengths wins the election. Corbyn makes the Labour weakness on the economy infinitely worse, thereby losing the election automatically. Simply by proposing measures such as printing money and opening coal mines, he loses all his economic credibility. This is especially the case in seats that he needs to win in southern England and the midlands. By moving far to the left, he may be able to stack up the votes in already Labour constituencies, but as the cliche in American and British politics goes, he doesn't win where it matters. In America you need to win states like Ohio and Florida to win an election. In Britain, the equivalents are constituencies like Battersea, Chelmsford and Basildon. These constituencies are not winnable under Corbyn, because to win them, you need your party to appeal to those in the middle. Those who are not at the very bottom, who are not minority interests. Those who are doing okay for themselves. At the last election Labour had nothing to say to anyone who wasn't at the very bottom or with young children as a result of its '35%' strategy. Labour needs a broad appeal from a centrist candidate to prevent a Conservative victory. I would like to say that the inevitable Corbyn disaster will end the far-left fantasies, but in the end nothing will. Its never the fault of the far left. The people doing the socialism were doing it wrong, the voters were wrong, the media were wrong. Its never their fault. So another Corbyn will be needed. Another lost election. Another five years of Conservative rule.[/QUOTE] Did your parents tell you all this? Because Conservatives being strong on economy isn't exactly correct. For starters there's no objectively right way. I for one disagree with the Conservative fiscal policy, I think now growth has kicked up again we're a bit too far deep to start an expansionary fiscal policy now but still I don't think we should have tried to cut out way out budget deficit and lack of growth in the first place. [editline]13th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48673990]criticising your opponents is pathetic? are we living in north korea?[/QUOTE] Common courtesy, Corbyn wins and Cameron shakes his hand a congratulates him putting aside their disagreements. It's respect and politeness, even if they disagree politically.