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

Yeah but let's not say that certain institutions are fully against austerity or fully for it.

The OECD's head did, after all, call Osborne's programme 'a textbook recovery'.

I fully agree that we should take evidence over ideology, but we can't simplify evidence either.

The trouble is why even care if you're going to ignore half of the advice. The OECD and and IMF may have said that but they are telling us we should not be helping the wealthy get wealthier. The Chancellor should have used the money given to the rich in his budget and spent it giving people a proper living wage and built more social housing. I know his a politician and wants to please his party base with the inheritance tax give away, but a compassionate Conservative should have thought, no give this to those with less.

I am smart enough to know not even academic economists get it right, so my own opinions are not very credible. But let us be frank, the Labour and Conservative party members, all parties in fact, could do with a little sense of independent critical thinking. You can still be a Conservative but still prioritise the low and middle income earners. Hence why there are Liberal, Cultural and One nation conservatives. Vice versa the Labour Party can be Socialist but still care about the profit making private sector, care about high income earners, want to be and be tough on domestic and international crime.

But when money is tight, you help the poor at every opportunity. George Osborne ignored that sense of urgent morality and the bit of advice given to him by the IMF and OECD.

You're delving into quite subtle aspects of Conservative party ideology here, but you haven't got it quite right. There is a limit to how much a Tory politician will help the poor in a recession simply because there is an ideological limit to Tory belief in the redistributive nature of spending and taxation; it is Conservative (I'm capitalising because the ideology comes from the name of the party rather than simply from the meaning of the word 'conservative' policy to reduce the size of the state to a level at which the poor have a safety net on which to fall back during hard times and there can be a decent provision of things like infrastructure and defence. It is their aim to treat everyone as equally as possible. Even One Nation Conservativism, which bases its beliefs on the 'social contract' and is essentially a Gladstonian ideology, doesn't advocate prioritising hugely the poor completely at the expense of the rich.

As a point of information, though, I don't think it's fair to paint Osborne's budget as one lacking completely in 'urgent morality'. It's his plan to bring to Tory party right to the centre (ie bring in a greater degree of One Nation-ism than there is already) in order to push Labour to the left, and I think he's essentially done that: he's brought in a much higher minimum wage for over 25's, he's put on an 8% surcharge on banks' profits, he's raised the bottom threshold for paying income tax, he's illegalised non-dom tax status, and he's pushed back the end of austerity by a year to make the cuts less extreme.

If Labour move back to where there was in the Blair days then next election would be a Labour majority and win about 400 seats

The guy is principled, very progressive and actually gives a damn about what he is saying. His got my vote.

No that's not true.

Blair wasn't elected on political positioning alone. His landslides were also based on his personal image as well as the image of 'New Labour' being able to move the country into the modern era. Neither Burnham nor Cooper will manage that. They (well, actually I think Burnham is the only real chance) are way more electable than Corbyn, but they won't win anywhere near 418/413 seats.

You're delving into quite subtle aspects of Conservative party ideology here, but you haven't got it quite right. There is a limit to how much a Tory politician will help the poor in a recession simply because there is an ideological limit to Tory belief in the redistributive nature of spending and taxation; it is Conservative (I'm capitalising because the ideology comes from the name of the party rather than simply from the meaning of the word 'conservative') policy to reduce the size of the state to a level at which the poor have a safety net on which to fall back during hard times and there can be a decent provision of things like infrastructure and defence. It is their aim to treat everyone as equally as possible. Even One Nation Conservativism, which bases its beliefs on the 'social contract' and is essentially a Gladstonian ideology, doesn't advocate prioritising hugely the poor completely at the expense of the rich.

As a point of information, though, I don't think it's fair to paint Osborne's budget as one lacking completely in 'urgent morality'. It's his plan to bring to Tory party right to the centre (ie bring in a greater degree of One Nation-ism than there is already) in order to push Labour to the left, and I think he's essentially done that: he's brought in a much higher minimum wage for over 25's, he's put on an 8% surcharge on banks' profits, he's raised the bottom threshold for paying income tax, he's illegalised non-dom tax status, and he's pushed back the end of austerity by a year to make the cuts less extreme.

Of course but surely a One nation Conservative would take note of the increasing dangers of it's own nation breaking up and each generations growing anger (and apathy) at the state. Benjamin Disraeli took necessary steps to become a electoral success through out Britain and heal national antagonisms. Since Major they are electorally dead in Scotland, declining in Britain and their policies are not helping to heal the growing divisions felt by Muslim, young, immigrant, Scottish or low income UK citizens.

I reckon there is one person who would but they are not in the leadership battle I think Chuka Umana would form a majority if he follows where NL was. Milliband tried to hit in between NL and OL

The people are rising up against the cynics. Nick Clegg talked about new politics Jeremy Corbyn does it.

Is this the end of Labour?

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]

No, it's rebirth.

"Socialism DOES work"? Not today it's doesn't. Try telling that to millions of Londoners today.

Speak to the tens of millions of Americans who are without healthcare. Socialism has helped educate and nurse the British nation to good health. It has helped given people human and workers rights. I like my minimum wage and right to sick pay thanks!

No that's not true.

Blair wasn't elected on political positioning alone. His landslides were also based on his personal image as well as the image of 'New Labour' being able to move the country into the modern era. Neither Burnham nor Cooper will manage that. They (well, actually I think Burnham is the only real chance) are way more electable than Corbyn, but they won't win anywhere near 418/413 seats.