I have just realised that my media of choice is Biased McBiased Face

Drew_TNBD

octatonic said:

Having a bit of money saved doesn't make you a champagne socialist.
Having a house doesn't make you a champagne socialist.

No of course not! No-one said that. But having a bit of money saved, having a house, and being a successful person whilst at the same time trying to make it more difficult for people who have money saved, have houses, and have some success IS what makes him a champers socjus type.

octatonic

Drew_TNBD said:

octatonic said:

Having a bit of money saved doesn't make you a champagne socialist.
Having a house doesn't make you a champagne socialist.

No of course not! No-one said that. But having a bit of money saved, having a house, and being a successful person whilst at the same time trying to make it more difficult for people who have money saved, have houses, and have some success IS what makes him a champers socjus type.

That isn't the definition of a Champagne Socialist though- a C.S. is simply one who espouses socialist rhetoric whilst living an extravagant life. 
He isn't living a particularly extravagant life so he can't really be called a Champagne Socialist.

To your point of him making life more difficult for people.
Labour have 5 new policies that might actually help people were they to get elected (which they won't).

Five key policies:

• No income tax rise for anybody earning less than £80,000 a year - but a tax rise for the top 5% of earners

• £250bn to be pumped into the economy to finance a million new jobs 

• Renationalise the railways, Royal Mail and bring in state-owned energy companies

• Scrap higher education tuition fees

• Strengthen trade union rights - including increased unionisation across the workforce and repealing last year's Trade Union Act

That isn't really setting about trying to make life more difficult for working people.
Some of it might not be doable in a single parliament and some of it might not be doable at all but that isn't the point.

If you look at the last point above- repealing the Trade Union Act- that actually might help working people.

This is what changed when it was introduced: http://www.brodies.com/blog/trade-union-act-2016-changing/
It is too long to type it all out but a the 2016 Act essentially made it more difficult for unions and workers to strike.
Trade union law is not part of the devolved government purview so it applies equally across Wales and Scotland, despite strenuous objections from those governments.
This was the Tories chipping away at workers rights as they will continue to do in the next parliament.
Corbin voted against it- the only thing he voted for in this bill was 'Trade Union Bill — New Clause 2 — Workplace Ballots and Ballots by Electronic Means' which would allow union members to vote electronically- which I believe was voted down by the Tory majority.

I'm not a Corbynite, nor have I voted Labour at any stage whilst living in the UK- although I have left the LD's as of this week, as in no longer a party member.
I genuinely haven't decided which way I'll be voting- it will be the typical conscience vs wealth issue for me.

Drew_TNBD

I have no idea how I'll be voting either. In truth, Labour are still a possibility.

fields5069

I guess you could say I'll be voting tactically. I voted Green last time, but with a 3000 majority (16k vs 13k) I need to try to get the Labour guy back in, particularly since 6000 idiots voted for UKIP last time and Green only polled 1500.

Fretwired

Drew_TNBD said:

I have no idea how I'll be voting either. In truth, Labour are still a possibility.

What? Based on what you've said about Corbyn. His taxes on business, if implemented, will see a rise in unemployment. I'd be kind if I said is was A level economics.

I won't be voting as I live in Tory central - my current MP will get over 50% of the vote.

Drew_TNBD

Fretwired said:

Drew_TNBD said:

I have no idea how I'll be voting either. In truth, Labour are still a possibility.

What? Based on what you've said about Corbyn. His taxes on business, if implemented, will see a rise in unemployment. I'd be kind if I said is was A level economics.

I won't be voting as I live in Tory central - my current MP will get over 50% of the vote.

The only thing I like about Corbyn is the nationalisation of the trains.

One of my friends who was very anti-Brexit is also pro-nationalisation of the trains. I pointed out to him that it was quite nationalistic and didn't sit that nicely alongside his staunch remainer stance. He's not British so that is probably something to do with it. He also flies off the handle quite a bit when it comes to the idea of people being deported - he really thinks it could happen. Absolute nutter!

Fretwired

Drew_TNBD said:

The only thing I like about Corbyn is the nationalisation of the trains.

One of my friends who was very anti-Brexit is also pro-nationalisation of the trains. I pointed out to him that it was quite nationalistic and didn't sit that nicely alongside his staunch remainer stance. He's not British so that is probably something to do with it. He also flies off the handle quite a bit when it comes to the idea of people being deported - he really thinks it could happen. Absolute nutter!

There's one big lie with the railways. To start with the railways are in public ownership. The government owns the track and infrastructure. It then grants franchises to private companies to run the trains. Corbyn will takeover the franchises as they come to an end so that the money made comes to the Treasury. He will need it for further investment so fares won't come down. Fares are cheaper in say France as the government subsidies rail travel. No UK party is talking about subsidies. And look at Southern Rail - the unions will block any meaningful technological upgrade that puts jobs at risk.

Blair didn't renationalise the railways (it was in his first manifesto) as there was a massive jump is train usage that the private sector responded to - the old state run railways were an utter shambles and its unlikely there would have been the investment that we have seen. I commuted to London in the 70s on dirty overcrowded trains that often didn't run as the driver didn't turn up and when there was a strike the whole network was borked. State monopolies don't work.

Snap

Nationalisation: conceptually I agree. I think a role of government should be to provide cheap effective and reliable infrastructure and utilities. But, and it is a massive but, track record of national ownership is shocking, on all sides of the political spectrum.

It would cost a fortune to set up and run as well. I dont think they could be trusted, any of them, to do it. When you look at almost any large scale project that a government ends up taking on, it usually ends up over time, over budget and shambolic.

And what fuckwit would the Labour party have in charge of it?

jpfamps

ICBM said:

Snap said:

The other parties are marginally less useless, but really, can anyone with true sense seriously believe that the modern day labour party is the right choice for a government? 

I don't. But I do seriously think they are the lesser of the two evils which have a chance of winning this time. If only the Lib Dems were competent/hadn't damaged their reputation so terminally… and even then I'm not sure.

Corbyn is useless, but May is dangerous. I'd rather have useless.

I also don't think you can accuse him of being a champagne socialist - he isn't poor, but he has by no means used his career to enrich himself in the way most have. Until he became leader he routinely returned the lowest expenses claims of any MP, and (as I understand it) used some of his salary to pay his staff. He's not whiter than white for sure - none of them are - but I don't think he's that much of a hypocrite.

In the famous printer cartridge round of MPs expenses claims, Jeremy Corbyn did indeed submit the lowest expenses claim of MPs who submitted expenses claims, however a substantial number (around 80) claimed no expenses at all.

Claiming for a single printer cartridge for a years expenses smacks of incompetence, or though the cynical view would be that he did this to ensure he was the MP who claimed the lowest expenses.......

thomasw88

Snap said:

He also sympathises with Hamas, the IRA, to name two terror organisations.

I repeat: he's an idiot.

What do you actually mean by that?  Are you suggesting that corbyn is supporting terrorist organisations going round killing people?     

What do you think of the UK government's policy of selling arms to Saudi Arabia?

Drew_TNBD

thomasw88 said:

What do you think of the UK government's policy of selling arms to Saudi Arabia?

It's fucking disgusting.

What do you think of the UN appointing Saudi Arabia as one of the heads of women's equality?

Fretwired

jpfamps said:

In the famous printer cartridge round of MPs expenses claims, Jeremy Corbyn did indeed submit the lowest expenses claim of MPs who submitted expenses claims, however a substantial number (around 80) claimed no expenses at all.

Claiming for a single printer cartridge for a years expenses smacks of incompetence, or though the cynical view would be that he did this to ensure he was the MP who claimed the lowest expenses.......

I'd love to know which year that was as the myth he claimed very little dosen't stack up. Screen grab from official MPs expenses site.

jpfamps

Fretwired said:

jpfamps said:

In the famous printer cartridge round of MPs expenses claims, Jeremy Corbyn did indeed submit the lowest expenses claim of MPs who submitted expenses claims, however a substantial number (around 80) claimed no expenses at all.

Claiming for a single printer cartridge for a years expenses smacks of incompetence, or though the cynical view would be that he did this to ensure he was the MP who claimed the lowest expenses.......

I'd love to know which year that was as the myth he claimed very little dosen't stack up. Screen grab from official MPs expenses site.

Would have been the first year after the expense scandal made MPs make detailed claims of their expenses, so 2010.

capo4th

Don't forget all the union donations and brown envelopes 

Snap

thomasw88 said:

Snap said:

He also sympathises with Hamas, the IRA, to name two terror organisations.

I repeat: he's an idiot.

What do you actually mean by that?  Are you suggesting that corbyn is supporting terrorist organisations going round killing people?     

What do you think of the UK government's policy of selling arms to Saudi Arabia?

What do I mean - exactly what you say: he is sympathetic to terrorism as an instrument of protest. I think  he is also anti semitic. He veils this well, but I think its very clear that he is.

He is an idiot because of this, and also because of his naivety. Naivety in how the world works, and naive in how to express your opinions and carry yourself. This was epitomised by this IRA example above - appallingly bad judgement .

As for arms to Saudi - agreed, v poor. I don't think Corbyn is the answer to that though, you'd just be putting more shit in a shit pot by adding him to the mix.

Saudi and its position in the world is highly complex. The regime is hugely oppressive. I know, I've worked there. However, the West needs them in the fold. They are a crucial focus point and ally for all manner of things in the Middle East. But, they have a stinking record on human rights, never mind everything else. I don't have the answers, but I stand by my opinion on Jezza: he's an overblown politically naive, ideological and immature activist who would be better placed spouting off in a student union.

Further, he and his pseudo communist cronies Momentum, have knackered the Labour Party, and probably ensured that we won't have a strong effective opposition for a long time. That in turn gives the Tories far too much leeway to flip too far to the right.

I think I am voting Liberal. In this consituency its the only way to ensure Labour don't get the seat.

octatonic

capo4th said:

Don't forget all the union donations and brown envelopes 

Union donations are declared.
Brown envelopes? Are you actually accusing him of accepting bribes?
Got a shred of evidence to support that or are you just engaging in slander?