What is so bad about jeremy corbyn?

Original post by YellowWallpaper

how on earth do you explain SNP surge in scotland if everyone has supposedly moved to the centre. How do you explain popularity behind Green party movement...

Corbyn is one of the few who represents the grassroots labour movement and isn't a vacuous bobble-head like Burnham, Tristram Hunt, Stella Creasy and Liz Kendall.

SNP are riding on a wave of anti Westminster populism, it's not a love of the left per see.
Corbyn represents a minority bourgeoisie liberal metropolitan bent, certainly not the working classes that on the whole despise Britain's modern hand-out and victimhood culture which they know from personal experience and not from the pages of the DM.

See todays report that took evidence from 7 MP's in Labour swing seats. Essentially it boils down to Labour being on the side of those that do not work, do not play by rules, immigrants and basically anyone but the white working class. The less you play by the rules, the more kids you have with wanton abandon, the more your rewards.

Liberal lefties are incapable of processing this which is why they will remain out of power. UKIP'S winning almost halve the number of voters Labour managed, will see UKIP generally replacing Labour as the new workers party.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 82

Original post by Катя

Then award pay based on experience, not age. Imagine 35 year old and a 25 year old starting out in the same industry with 0 previous experience - why give the old guy more money just because he is old?

"Keeping 25 year olds and younger on a lower minimum wage keeps them competitive" - you mean keeps them claiming tax credits and housing benefits because they can't afford to survive on pittance pay? Bless.

In response to your first paragraph: This is both ignorant of reality and of what I actually said. In reality, of course employers pick the more experienced rather than the older. And if you actually read critically what I wrote, I said the employer would go for the more experienced candidate. It is the case that there is a positive trend between age and experience, and, as a government can't legislate on the basis of experience, they legislate on the basis of age. It's really not that hard.

In response to your second paragraph: This really is quite irrelevant to what I'm saying. If you allows 25 year olds and younger to work on a competitive wage that they choose, there will be fewer young people out of work. And, of course, if you enforce a high minimum wage for everyone, the 25- bracket will, as less experienced people, be out of work. I make no reference to its cost on the government in benefits as they don't earn much - however, as you've raised it, let's explore it. If these young people earn little and need tax credits etc. to keep them going, they will still cost the state less than if they were to not work and have to rely on the state for everything. So that argument falls down, as well. On top of that, we've not even considered the beneficial effects of work in itself, in terms of crime reduction, the provision of a sense of self-worth, and so on.

So, before you patronisingly 'bless' someone, you might like to check that your argument actually holds water.

Reply 83

Original post by ibzombie96

If these young people earn little and need tax credits etc. to keep them going, they will still cost the state less than if they were to not work and have to rely on the state for everything.

Why should the state top up employers' pittance pay, when this could easily be avoided by simply legislating for a proper living wage (i.e. so that work actually pays enough to live on)?

Reply 84

Original post by YellowWallpaper

I would say leftism is also strong in parts of northern england.

Leftism is strong everywhere where Thatcher clobbered industry during her rule... everywhere else (south east especially) is a Tory wasteland.

Reply 85

Original post by Катя

Why should the state top up employers' pittance pay, when this could easily be avoided by simply legislating for a proper living wage (i.e. so that work actually pays enough to live on)?

Because giving everyone a legally-enforced high wage will put many relatively inexperienced, young people out of work. If they're out of work, they cost the government even more money.

Reply 86

Original post by ibzombie96

Because giving everyone a legally-enforced high wage will put many relatively inexperienced, young people out of work. If they're out of work, they cost the government even more money.

Why do young people not deserve enough money to survive without having to depend on social security?

Reply 87

Original post by ibzombie96

So, before you patronisingly 'bless' someone, you might like to check that your argument actually holds water.

You really need to stop taking everything so seriously

Reply 88

sdotd

Original post by Goods

The national debt has increased more in 5 years under Osborne than in 11 under labour....

well obviously its going to increase as we are still borrowing, its the budget deficit thats been reduced which is important and will eventually be a surplus

Reply 89

JC.

19

Labour is a disaster with or without corbyn.
Historically they represent the interests of the feckless and workshy. Currently they haven't got a clue what they stand for.
They have been a bunch of clueless muppets from the day the party was founded so at least they are consistent in that respect...

Reply 90

Original post by Катя

Why do young people not deserve enough money to survive without having to depend on social security?

Don't you see how enforcing a much higher wage for them will put them out of work completely, forcing them to depend totally on social security with no hope of getting a job?

Reply 91

Original post by Катя

You really need to stop taking everything so seriously

No, you can't posit the weak arguments you do and then make these condescending remarks, as if you've graced us with your formidable intellect. It's just rude.

Reply 92

MagicNMedicine

20

It's difficult to assess how effective Jeremy Corbyn would be as leader in terms of attracting votes to Labour, because we aren't really hearing from the people he needs to be winning back.

All the people passing comment on the Corbyn debate seem to be in two camps:

1. Tories, the right-wing media and right-wing groups, who are going on about Corbyn being the loony left, proof Labour haven't moved on etc. Lets be honest none of these are going to vote Labour, whether it's Corbyn, Burnham or Tony Blair as leader.

2. Labour activists who actively support one of the other leadership contenders. They are posturing against Corbyn now but would probably vote Labour whoever was leader, even if its more reluctantly in some cases than others.

The issue is it's difficult to know what the public generally thinks about him, rather than what press commentators say the public should think about him!

My guess (and this is just a rough guess) would be that Corbyn will attract these types of voters:

- The Labour diehards, who will vote Labour whoever is leader
- A large chunk of Scottish voters that voted SNP last time because of their left-wing platform but are not that bothered about independence
- The youth vote that the Lib Dems picked up in 2005 and 2010
- A large chunk of Green vote (Greens might have to do some tactical alliances with Labour and not field candidates against them in some cases)

Will that be enough to win the next election...unclear, but it's not as outrageous as people think. They would win back a lot of Scotland and so the Conservatives would have to actively make headway in to existing Labour seats: which is not an easy thing especially as after 10 years the country might be starting to get tired of them and the full impact of cuts and austerity will be biting in those areas.

Reply 93

MFBurgh

2

Original post by SotonianOne

•

Corbyn wants to give back Northern Ireland to Ireland - It is a colonial conquest and should be.

•

Corbyn wants to give Falklands to Argentina - Don't know an awful lot about it, but understand Argentina's links are dubious.

•

Corbyn wants to give back Gibraltar to Spain - Again, don't know much about it.

•

Corbyn supports Hamas as a serious political entity with legitimacy - They are a democratically-elected government, whether you like it or not.

•

Corbyn wants rent control (poor people lose their houses)

•

Corbyn wants rail nationalisation (worse railways for marginally lower ticket prices) - Should be re-nationalised

•

Corbyn refuses to confirm he is not a Marxist (he wants to take your money and give it all to Africans and compensate you by giving you a seat on the executive board of your workplace) - Yawn

•

Corbyn wants to significantly decrease the UK military - Spend money on health and education and less on killing people? What a fool.

•

Corbyn is anti-American, pro-Venezuelan - So?

•

Corbyn wants all rich people to **** off with his higher-than-green-party top rate of tax at 75%

•

Corbyn believes ISIS is our creation - It is

also Corbyn is anti-austerity - Austerity doesn't work.

As above.

Reply 94

Politikal

Original post by Катя

Leftism is strong everywhere where Thatcher clobbered industry during her rule... everywhere else (south east especially) is a Tory wasteland.

If all those Labour run areas over the last 3 decades had been lead by MP's interested in wealth creation and enterprise instead of hand-outs and minorities, those communities would be bristling with jobs and commerce.

Listen to Labour MP's at PMQ's, their whole focus is on the non working, the spongers it's all they bang on about.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 95

Politikal

Original post by MagicNMedicine

Will that be enough to win the next election...unclear, but it's not as outrageous as people think.

Yes I too concluded he could win back disaffected leftists, but who will he alienate?
I would say the mass of middle Britain that works and plays by the rules, plans their own resources prior to having children and has no thoughts of what the state owes them.

The white working class I think will deem him just another middle class Islington lefty that would consider their genuine concerns over mass immigration as no more than bigotry and unfounded fears lead by the nose by the press (the working class are thick you see....)

In the end he's just another throwback to 1980's 6th form politics of the kind that ends up rewarding all the spongers. Fair it is not.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 96

TheDefiniteArticle

20

Original post by ibzombie96

Ah, another intelligent comment.

This analysis is so basic it doesn't even really qualify as a particular economic theory. If you dramatically raise the minimum wage for all people, there will be many under 25s who are willing to work for less if it means they can get a job, who will be legally prevented from offering to work for less. Employers, faced with a 25 year old and a 35 year old who charge the same living wage, will always go for the more experienced person. Keeping 25 year olds and younger on a lower minimum wage keeps them competitive in the labour market and keeps them, therefore, in employment. It's really not that hard.

Not even close to true for the labour market. Might be worth reading this: http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/7522.html

Reply 97

Rakas21

21

Original post by footstool1924

Why not cut the State Pension aspect of it then?

They should however no government will go after old people with an aging population.

You want pensions sorted, you need to spit out children.

Reply 98

TheDefiniteArticle

20

Original post by Politikal

Yes I too concluded he could win back disaffected leftists, but who will he alienate?
I would say the mass of middle Britain that works and plays by the rules, plans their own resources prior to having children and has no thoughts of what the state owes them.

The white working class I think will deem him just another middle class Islington lefty that would consider their genuine concerns over mass immigration as no more than bigotry and unfounded fears lead by the nose by the press (the working class are thick you see....)

In the end he's just another throwback to 1980's 6th form politics of the kind that ends up rewarding all the spongers. Fair it is not.

When the EU stops being an issue either way, we will see a slide back to leftism in the white working class, as any remotely reasonable anti-immigration platform will be more overtly racist than before, so scapegoating will be less of an option. Corbyn will achieve good results with that, as (hopefully) he'll stop Labour's pathetic charade of attempting to make economic sense based on an economically-questionable Tory-lite platform to people who don't know the first thing about economics (most of the electorate), and make politics more about ideology again.

People massively overestimate the amount/impact of 'spongers'. Offer the 'spongers' a public sector job if you want to find out if they truly are 'spongers' or not (for unemployment benefit at least - disability benefit claimants we can pretty much instantly exclude from the 'sponger' category; child benefit is obviously justified according to basic moral principles etc etc).

Reply 99

APlantinga