Corbyn - I don't get it

ESchap

Unions running the Labour Party ....Press Barons and the City running the Tories  ..... it's the Eighties all over gain.  

Last one to leave, please turn off the lights!

JezWynd

Cirrus said:

Dominic said:

Hardly the template for a world -revered Statesman.....................if he had to face Putin and others over a G7 type meeting they would think the Council had sent in Health and Safety officer to check the stability of microphone stands !

On what basis are you making that judgement? I've seen him give some pretty strong speeches, for example, but never seen any of them broadcast on the evening news.

Is he being deliberately ignored by the media at large? Apart from a couple of feeble thrusts at PMQs I don't think I've heard him utter a single word. I thought maybe he was posing as the strong silent type. In which case he's halfway there.

ICBM

I like his ideas and his way of approaching issues as not black and white, easy soundbite politics as so many do. He's thoughtful and willing to find compromises, but he's also got strong principles, and is well left of centre (though not 'far left'). So on paper I would want him to hold out, remain as leader and drag the parliamentary party into line with the membership - and I genuinely think a large part of the population would want a real, left-wing alternative to the current right-wing 'consensus', if they really understood how right-wing New Labour became.

But sadly I don't think he's the man to lead Labour. He's too easy to paint as indecisive by being willing to see both sides of an argument (not the same thing), as weak because he's willing to tolerate some dissent (which has come back to bite him) and as unelectable (partly because he's a bit old-fashioned)… so in the media age he is therefore unelectable. He's also failed to effectively attack the Tories on ground where he should have all the advantages as they've fallen apart over the EU, but he was too selfishly principled to fully commit to something he didn't wholeheartedly believe in.

Hopefully his footnote in history will be that he gave the Labour Party a new start after the Blair/Brown years, since Miliband wasn't it - moving on from the excesses of the spin doctors and vacuous New Labour careerists, but making it realise that it does still need to remain purposeful as well as principled or it will never get the chance to put the principles into practice. Otherwise there is no credible opposition at all and we're all the worse for it.

Jalapeno

Still think it's a hoot Corbyn calling for loyalty and unity - when has he ever done either ?

ESBlonde

It was quite unnerving to listen to Len McClusky being interviewed on R4 this morning. He exercises control over his union in spite of its membership when it suits him. I have to say I admire a man of conviction (Corbyn), however the wrong conviction is still wrong.

Dominic

Corbyn is probably a good political thinker .Putting it into a vernacular that is familiar on this forum ......he may well be the Keyboard player/ song arranger/writer and the talent behind the band BUT he is no Front man or even a lead guitarist . Simples.

Bogwhoppit

The countrys broke, globalisation has stuffed the world. So if we're going to go down the plughole, lets do it with Corbyn in number 10, just for the comedy value alone.   He might even treat the downing street cat to his very own 2CV and a cat basket emblazoned with 'no nukes for this pussy'.

Myranda

So make him the artist-formerly-known-as-Leader? 

thomasw88

stickyfiddle said:

thomasw88 said:

stickyfiddle said:

Socially, he has some good ideas, and it's nice to hear those. Unfortunately, it's entirely unworkable from an economic perspective. 

The problem with much of the left is that they generally believe the solution to everything is just increasing taxes on "the rich", completely forgetting that "the rich" have accountants, and the ability to live and work abroad, taking all of that lovely money with them.

seeing as you're now in the land of making shit up... The problem with the right is that they tell everyone their lives are getting better when in fact they are getting much much worse unless you're extremely wealthy.

Not quite sure where you've got that from. Which bit are you actually disagreeing with? 

Social policies tend to be expensive (at least in the short term), and it's generally accepted that increasing the taxes on the richest people doesn't necessarily increase the total amount of tax the government collects in real terms.

I don't deny things are buggered up massively at the moment - i'm certainly not trying to pretend they aren't, but I'm also not making anything up. FWIW I agree with your position on the right- they're a bunch of bastards just as much as the left are a bunch of idiots, with us regular people stuck in the middle wishing we had someone credible to vote for.

I think the bit I disagree with is

"it's generally accepted that increasing the taxes on the richest people doesn't necessarily increase the total amount of tax the government collects in real terms."


One example of that :is that it was widely acknowledged (apart from by the right wing press), that George Osbourne cutting the top band of tax for people over 150k was done far too soon. The reason being that the 50% rate    had not been in place long enough to actually measure its effect on a)revenues and b)the alleged exodus of rich people that was bound to happen once taxes had been put up.

thomasw88

Heartfeltdawn said:

Myranda said:

No, but would you want Corbyn sat on the other side of a negotiating table with that loon? He'd floss his teeth with Corbyn's spine

He'd end up choking on a piece of beard. Spluttering and turning purple, Vlad looks around the room, waiting for one of those G7 leaders to come over and perform the Heimlich Manouevre...

Russian Bear, downed by beard. 

I don't really get thie Corbyn negotiating with Putin thing tbh.   The actual likelyhood of ANY of the major politicians really getting involved in the negotiations is virtually zero.. theyr'e just there as a figure head and to take the glory once all the hard work has been done. 

mellowsun

He's a protester, not a leader. Students like to protest, so they like Corbyn Anyway, Labour are tearing themselves apart now, vandalizing each other's offices, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/12/corbyn-calls-for-calm-angela-eagle-office-attacked-labour-nec-meeting Labour are to be confined to the dustbin of politics. Hopefully a new left-green-liberal party will emerge from the ruins.

mellowsun

Can't seem to get paragraphs working in the new editor .

Myranda

Supporters of a pacifist do violence inin his name... Is he Jesus? 

stickyfiddle

thomasw88 said:

stickyfiddle said:

thomasw88 said:

stickyfiddle said:

Socially, he has some good ideas, and it's nice to hear those. Unfortunately, it's entirely unworkable from an economic perspective. 

The problem with much of the left is that they generally believe the solution to everything is just increasing taxes on "the rich", completely forgetting that "the rich" have accountants, and the ability to live and work abroad, taking all of that lovely money with them.

seeing as you're now in the land of making shit up... The problem with the right is that they tell everyone their lives are getting better when in fact they are getting much much worse unless you're extremely wealthy.

Not quite sure where you've got that from. Which bit are you actually disagreeing with? 

Social policies tend to be expensive (at least in the short term), and it's generally accepted that increasing the taxes on the richest people doesn't necessarily increase the total amount of tax the government collects in real terms.

I don't deny things are buggered up massively at the moment - i'm certainly not trying to pretend they aren't, but I'm also not making anything up. FWIW I agree with your position on the right- they're a bunch of bastards just as much as the left are a bunch of idiots, with us regular people stuck in the middle wishing we had someone credible to vote for.

I think the bit I disagree with is

"it's generally accepted that increasing the taxes on the richest people doesn't necessarily increase the total amount of tax the government collects in real terms."


One example of that :is that it was widely acknowledged (apart from by the right wing press), that George Osbourne cutting the top band of tax for people over 150k was done far too soon. The reason being that the 50% rate    had not been in place long enough to actually measure its effect on a)revenues and b)the alleged exodus of rich people that was bound to happen once taxes had been put up.

That's a very good argument, and while I'm fairly confident in the concept of the Lafer curve, I agree that there wasn't enough empirical evidence at the time to advocate its removal. 

That said, I left the UK partly to escape taxation, so I am empirical evidence of the exodus of people, not that I'd call myself rich by a VERY long way!

Myranda

stickyfiddle said:

thomasw88 said:

stickyfiddle said:

thomasw88 said:

stickyfiddle said:

Socially, he has some good ideas, and it's nice to hear those. Unfortunately, it's entirely unworkable from an economic perspective. 

The problem with much of the left is that they generally believe the solution to everything is just increasing taxes on "the rich", completely forgetting that "the rich" have accountants, and the ability to live and work abroad, taking all of that lovely money with them.

seeing as you're now in the land of making shit up... The problem with the right is that they tell everyone their lives are getting better when in fact they are getting much much worse unless you're extremely wealthy.

Not quite sure where you've got that from. Which bit are you actually disagreeing with? 

Social policies tend to be expensive (at least in the short term), and it's generally accepted that increasing the taxes on the richest people doesn't necessarily increase the total amount of tax the government collects in real terms.

I don't deny things are buggered up massively at the moment - i'm certainly not trying to pretend they aren't, but I'm also not making anything up. FWIW I agree with your position on the right- they're a bunch of bastards just as much as the left are a bunch of idiots, with us regular people stuck in the middle wishing we had someone credible to vote for.

I think the bit I disagree with is

"it's generally accepted that increasing the taxes on the richest people doesn't necessarily increase the total amount of tax the government collects in real terms."


One example of that :is that it was widely acknowledged (apart from by the right wing press), that George Osbourne cutting the top band of tax for people over 150k was done far too soon. The reason being that the 50% rate    had not been in place long enough to actually measure its effect on a)revenues and b)the alleged exodus of rich people that was bound to happen once taxes had been put up.

That's a very good argument, and while I'm fairly confident in the concept of the Lafer curve, I agree that there wasn't enough empirical evidence at the time to advocate its removal. 

That said, I left the UK partly to escape taxation, so I am empirical evidence of the exodus of people, not that I'd call myself rich by a VERY long way!

Are you empirical or are you anecdotal? How many of you are you? 

fretmeister

He's a man out of time.

He appears to want to stick with his principles and the party members love him. On the other hand the labour MP's don't appear to want to work with him. So he can't get anything done.

Eagle appears to have some support from the MPs but none from the members so she won't get the job if JC is on the ballot. So she won't get anything done.

As it happens I don't think either of them are electable in a general election. Eagle hasn't got any policies and JC refuses to acknowledge that diplomacy is a game of negotiation that requires compromise.

For any politician of any party having rigid principles usually means never being in a position to act upon them.

Much like the farce of the US Democrats where Sanders supporters are refusing to vote for Clinton, the result will be Labour losing the next election.

And although I really hate that it matters - the 1970s physics teacher look doesn't work in the modern Social Media obsessed world.

thomasw88

fretmeister said:

He's a man out of time.

He appears to want to stick with his principles and the party members love him. On the other hand the labour MP's don't appear to want to work with him. So he can't get anything done.

Eagle appears to have some support from the MPs but none from the members so she won't get the job if JC is on the ballot. So she won't get anything done.

As it happens I don't think either of them are electable in a general election. Eagle hasn't got any policies and JC refuses to acknowledge that diplomacy is a game of negotiation that requires compromise.

For any politician of any party having rigid principles usually means never being in a position to act upon them.

Much like the farce of the US Democrats where Sanders supporters are refusing to vote for Clinton, the result will be Labour losing the next election.

And although I really hate that it matters - the 1970s physics teacher look doesn't work in the modern Social Media obsessed world.

The bit I don't fully understand is why he is so unpopular in the PLP.      So I'd expect there is more to that meets the eye.

On the other hand Is he any less electable than Ed Milliband or Gordon Brown for example?  I personally don't think so, and both of them were more Blairite than lefty..

Angela Eagle is not the answer either.

Jalapeno

thomasw88 said:

stickyfiddle said:

thomasw88 said:

stickyfiddle said:

Socially, he has some good ideas, and it's nice to hear those. Unfortunately, it's entirely unworkable from an economic perspective. 

The problem with much of the left is that they generally believe the solution to everything is just increasing taxes on "the rich", completely forgetting that "the rich" have accountants, and the ability to live and work abroad, taking all of that lovely money with them.

seeing as you're now in the land of making shit up... The problem with the right is that they tell everyone their lives are getting better when in fact they are getting much much worse unless you're extremely wealthy.

Not quite sure where you've got that from. Which bit are you actually disagreeing with? 

Social policies tend to be expensive (at least in the short term), and it's generally accepted that increasing the taxes on the richest people doesn't necessarily increase the total amount of tax the government collects in real terms.

I don't deny things are buggered up massively at the moment - i'm certainly not trying to pretend they aren't, but I'm also not making anything up. FWIW I agree with your position on the right- they're a bunch of bastards just as much as the left are a bunch of idiots, with us regular people stuck in the middle wishing we had someone credible to vote for.

I think the bit I disagree with is

"it's generally accepted that increasing the taxes on the richest people doesn't necessarily increase the total amount of tax the government collects in real terms."

It's well documented. The 1960s&1970s had v.high top-rates - all those who could left the country.  Listen to George Harrison's Taxman ....

Ro_S

The appeal of Corbyn could be that trendy lefties are only interested in identity politics and overseas issues.  The young are self absorbed and are social justice twats, and so they love all the identity bollocks.

The Labour party needs focus on the sorts of issues that affect the man on the street.   Gender and sexuality issues are niche matters.
  

holnrew

I know a few Corbyn supporters who aren't into identity politics. The policies of this government in particular have been very anti-young people, I think it's natural for them to latch on to anybody who they feel gives them a voice.