ABOLISH TUITION FEES? vote Jeremy Corbyn for Labour Party leader!

Please vote for Jeremy.

The country needs labour unelectable again.

No, it wasn't. The reason he stood for Labour leadership was because he wanted a clean break from New Labour. That's also why he changed the name of his party. He thought the electorate had moved to the left. And although he utterly capitulated on austerity (and to be honest he was stuck between a rock and a hard place - he didn't want austerity on the one hand but needed some economic credibility on the other), there were clear signs of a move away from the centre-left: freezing energy prices and the seizing of privately owned land to build houses.

Either way, his actual political positioning is irrelevant; you should know that politics is about perception, and Miliband lost because he was perceived as being too far to the left. It stands to reason, after three victories for the guy seen as centre-left and a catastrophic failure for the guy seen as leftist, that Labour would do better with a centre-left leader.

the EU has shown via Greece what happens when silly lefty parties make a load of unfounded promises.

Additionally the fact that he thinks we need to take in much more migrants

printing out money

wants to get out of NATO

Quite frankly as one of the saner left wingers I'd have thought you'd have more sense voting for this man.

Half it was ad hominin. The NHS was created by liberals and has been supported by conservative governments.

Guys, putting in Corbyn as leader is the best way to ensure another Tory government. Rather have a Tory government than a centre-left Labour one? Fine by me. It's just that the people in this country who actually need a Labour Party to prevent their benefits being cut will be absolutely thrown under the bus purely for your 'principles'. Don't forget that a party can be of the centre-left and still be principled and can still be better than the Tories. If Tony Blair hadn't made the party electable, the minimum wage would have come in much later than it did, if at all. Jeremy Corbyn will ensure another loss for Labour in 2020 and mean that whatever principles his supporters like, he will be powerless to put them into place - what's that actually worth? He may be a strong and principled opposition, but he'll never change the country. A centrist Osborne government will trump a socialist Labour Party any day of the week - that's what Osborne's been trying to do by positioning himself in the centre; he wants the Labour party to put itself in an unelectable position and you're just doing the work for him.

Lord Kinnock puts it well:

In the leadership election, we are not choosing the chair of a discussion group who can preside over two years or more of fascinating debate while the Tories play hell with cuts in local services and public investment, extend injustice and flatlining incomes, sustain or worsen private debt, and deepen the balance-of-payments, productivity, housing and poverty deficits. We have to elect a leader capable of taking us to victory in the 2020 election and of being Labour prime minister.

@Reformed2010 : I'm disappointed that you've clearly given up on the Corbynmania is a joke thread and set up this one instead of carrying on our discussion.

P.S. Andy Burnham has the same policy as Corbyn to get rid of tuition fees and replace them with a progressive graduate tax. It all seems so fantastic: want to abolish tuition fees? Vote Corbyn! The trouble is, that's just not the truth. If Corbyn is elected leader, we'll have another Tory government and can be sure that student fees will not be abolished.

I watched the LBC leadership debate on Youtube yesterday.

I'm sorry, even if they are more electorally viable, I just can't bring myself to install one of the three mannequins Corbyn is running against. They are so boring, so soul-less, so unprincipled.

So if it is wrong to vote for Jeremy Corbyn because he wants to abolish tuition fees and renationalise the railways. It is perfectly acceptable to vote for Andy Burnham who at the last desperate moments steals these two popular pledges? how about I drop playing this New Labour game and vote for the real deal.

You do realise that all these platforms are relative.

If the Tories suddenly bring in 50p Income Tax for high earners, they'll be centre-left and if Labour campaign to bring it down, they'll be seen as right-wing.

These labels (left-wing/right-wing) are irrelevant and a scare tactic used by those who wish to ferment a particular perception or connotation.

Run on your policies, not on your allegiance.

I know the problem with using tags like 'left' and 'right' and have written much about it. The fact remains that it is one of the most accessible descriptors of politicians - everyone knows what the left and the right are. Second to how a politician looks, their perceived position on the left/right spectrum is hugely important and very widely used amongst the electorate.



Milly Billy lost because he didn't offer an alternative to the Tories. He was parroting their words but was just delaying them.

You have absolutely no evidence for that claim. This claim is posited far too much by those for whom Mr. Miliband wasn't different enough and who therefore assume the rest of the country agrees with them. In most vox pops and interviews people say that Miliband was 'too far on the left'; indeed, most pundits agree.

Look at the issue of EU Referendum, he didn't know which side to come down on. Cameron also didn't but he diverted attention away from that and onto the fact that he will be able to successfully negotiate with Brussels, which we completely failed to do.


Ed lost not because he was left wing, but because he didn't have alternatives and because he couldn't deflect attention away from those alternatives. He ran a very very poor spin campaign.

Speaking of spin, Tony B was great at it. He still is great at it.


There are many similarities between what is happening now and what happened 10 years ago.

The Conservatives lost the election in 2005 and after a delay in the review of the party leader rules, Cameron was installed by 6th December 2006. The Financial Crash affected the Government in 07/08 and they couldn't handle the fallout.

Now the Tories are in Government. Labour is holding leadership elections a year or so earlier and Cameron's trying to get the defining issue of his legacy and this Government, EU Referendum, over and done with by 2016.

Cameron's shrewd because the more time that he has to prepare for the fallout, the better the chances of the Tories retaining power.

Brown and Labour didn't have the luxury of planning for the crash and the Tories trampled all over them. Brown was clever, but not a master of spin.

In politics, the only thing that matters, is spin. How you present something, as opposed to what the presentation really is about.

I completely agree with that last sentence (the rest is tangential). Politics is a game of perception, and perception/presentation is more important than substance. For this reason, I don't understand why you don't think Miliband's perception as 'Red Ed' is important to why he lost.

Jesus you sound like you've joined a cult. I'm not saying that you shouldn't vote for Corbyn because of his policies, I'm saying you shouldn't vote for Corbyn because his policies will never be realised. This is what I've said all along - I've no issue with someone liking his policies.

Your post was very bitty and tangential at times, but I've commented in the text.

I know the problem with using tags like 'left' and 'right' and have written much about it. The fact remains that it is one of the most accessible descriptors of politicians - everyone knows what the left and the right are. Second to how a politician looks, their perceived position on the left/right spectrum is hugely important and very widely used amongst the electorate.

You have absolutely no evidence for that claim. This claim is posited far too much by those for whom Mr. Miliband wasn't different enough and who therefore assume the rest of the country agrees with them. In most vox pops and interviews people say that Miliband was 'too far on the left'; indeed, most pundits agree.

I completely agree with that last sentence (the rest is tangential). Politics is a game of perception, and perception/presentation is more important than substance. For this reason, I don't understand why you don't think Miliband's perception as 'Red Ed' is important to why he lost.

- EDIT -

I know in the past you've said you'd rather lose an election than subvert your principles to get into office, but don't you think that's a very selfish position? There are, as I'm sure you know, people bearing the brunt of benefit cuts as a result of a Tory government. If the Labour party becomes unelectable (which it most definitely will if it elects Corbyn leader), these people stand no chance of having a more sympathetic Labour government. Real power comes with office (if Blair hadn't brought the party to the centre, we may well not have a minimum wage by now), and whilst a Corbyn opposition will make nice, loud noises, unless they're in government, they will have the power to do **** all.

An extraordinary political tale is unfolding in Britain: a little-known politician, relegated to the margins of his party for much of his career, is now the favourite to become leader of the Labour party, the second-largest party in Britain and the government’s main opposition, Jeremy Corbyn. His supporters are already being subjected to personal attacks in an attempt to undermine his Labour leadership campaign, but the more people who hear him the bigger his support.

One Week to go! Vote for Jeremy, Register here: http://www.labour.org.uk/w/labour-party-supporters

Jeremy Corbyn gives impassioned argument for Democratic Socialism.
[video="youtube;pZvAvNJL-gE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZvAvNJL-gE[/video]

Bad idea
False statement
A load of drivel
Another bad idea
You mean what we're getting anyway, or maybe a load of tosh

While you're listing his bad ideas, why didn't you include "nationalise everything that isn't bolted down enough?"

Posted from TSR Mobile

Wrap QUOTE tags around the parts that you would like to reply to (next time).
Each bit should have a start [QUOTE.] and an end [/QUOTE.] (Remove the fullstops after the "E".

Then the system is broken and needs reform. People need to use their brain when voting, not simply pick out the colour on a piece of paper.

It's very well to say that in hindsight. Did you notice an increasingly amount of reports (including internal Labour) that have come out in the last few weeks taking that exact view?

Perception is important but Red Ed is meaningless. If that was the case, then Labour would have romped home in Scotland, but they left their back door open and got robbed by the "anti-austerity SNP".

That was 40 seats lost.

Another 10 seats went from Lib Dems to SNP. Labour really needed to clean up Scotland (where they've nearly always been anti-Tory) and it wouldn't have even required much work.

Labour, in 2015, as the main opposition to the Tories, refused to fight collectively on an anti-Tory ticket, like the SNP or Lib Dems (they got hammered because they were in Coalition and then came out anti-Tory).

Had Labour kept their core voter base content, picked up disaffected Lib Dem seats (as the party to make real change) and ran collectively on an anti-austerity ticket, they would have been in Government by now (although a coalition of sorts).

The North has always been a Labour stronghold but they grew reckless with their policies.

*I'm not in favour of MW (but that's for another debate )

Every time a new government comes in, people will hurt, be they rich and poor.

You seem to think change comes overnight. It doesn't, Corbyn's not a leader at the moment but he can be, given a bit of time.

Mate you're so dramatic it's borderline comedic. Reformed doesn't come across as a left cult member, he comes across rather centrist on a European perspective. From what I have read from him he supports the UK, EU, NATO, private schools, is tough on crime and immigration, and favours humanitarian military intervention. Its issues not political ideology for him, frankly it comes across refreshingly pragmatic.

But Britain is becoming less politically isolated, largely as a result of the European Union and social media. People are looking at Scandinavia and the rest of Western Europe for alternatives, they are thinking if they can abolish tuition fees so can we. Just let people get excited over politics and stop trying to kill the mood. You don't think his electable we get it. You have made your point brilliantly.

There are nobel winning economists who have been arguing that austerity, tax avoidance, loopholes and so on is destroying growth. The IMF and OCED has come out several times arguing that economic inequality has robbed Western countries hundreds of billions in lost of growth.

Stop thinking like a tribal politco and follow the evidence.

Aren't these the exact same groups that have been praising us for our successful austerity leading to strong growth?

No they are the group that called for "spending on education, health and infrastructure, as well as for programmes to benefit the poor". Not forgetting IMF’s head of fiscal policy, saying "the recovery was supported by lower oil prices, looser monetary policy and a relaxation of austerity measures". But hey let us ignore the OECD's report "In it together, why less inequality benefits all" is that talking about worsening inequality is not to engage in the politics of envy, but to discuss economic failure or a big missed opportunity. It argued for investing in the low and middle income earners and not give tax cuts etc to the high income earners.

Again, step away from your tribal politics and follow the evidence. Ideological fundamentalism is destructive.