Apart from the immigration issue I don't have any issues with other policies like nationalisation and Trident. The trouble is though these will be manna from heaven for the Murdoch media and The Mail who will hammer Labour with them mercilessly.
Surely, all the policies have be agreed via the democratic process if we are to believe the words spouted by Corbyn. I guess he may not choose to exert his will and compromise or adjust or go with the democratic process on many issues- not sure why people are bothered at the moment, he is not campaigning for the leadership of the country and may never do so- who knows? it brings discussion and political debate to the fore again- surely that is a good thing. A true opposition rather than a pale imitation of the Tories is good thing, I would have thought.
No, I wasn't effectively saying that. The give away being that I didn't say that. What I said was that you are basing your position on the entirely irrational, Daily Mail stoked fear, that lowering bars to immigration will equal hordes of innumerable immigrants. I'm also enormously disappointed in you for being so irrational as to conflate Corbyn's comments on immigration to mean he will support unlimited immigration. He has said no such thing that I can find. He has simply made the point that immigration is a good thing, which is correct. You've succumbed to Tory scare-tactics and it is irrational. Also remarkable how anti-democratic your position is. Labour Party members have spoken. You are also entirely incorrect about Huguenots and Jews. Both groups (and indeed almost all ethnic minority immigrants in history) have evangelical traits. It's a question of whether they will succeed - facts suggest they won't, and the only way to preserve their extremism is to isolate themselves (just take a quick look at some of the isolated Hasidic communities in London). The same happens with any immigrants from any other country - the key is to not let them get isolated and then they rapidly work out that our predominantly secular society of freedom is preferable. It's the isolated ones who descend to worse extremism. I have to say, your last post is incredibly disappointing. I am astonished that someone could write that post and claim to have been a Labour supporter, although it does at least explain why UKIP picked up Labour voters. So we're not getting anywhere with this discussion, you're going to stay with your irrational prejudices, because nobody can counter irrationality with logic. I'm out.
AHHHH!! Stop it Cruyff! Bloody hell! You're doing my nut in. Not voting for a party because you are worried people will be scared away from voting for the party is about the most ridiculous reason I have heard! Stop reading the papers! Clearly it's having a negative effect on you!
No, you've misunderstood. I am not CAMPAIGNING for the party because it's not worth the effort as Labour is going to be riven by infighting now. It's quite daft to harangue someone for disloyalty when the parry leader voted against the whip 500 times. I have merely chosen to remove my support from someone who is effectively still Militant. When he goes I will probably come back.
I've largely stayed away from this thread as it was doing my head in but I will say this. The appointment of Corbyn looks like it is an act of self indulgence by the hardcore left of labour. I for one think it will not succeed and will not bring many or hardly any of the voters that feel ostracised by labour and forced to the right. To be honest I don't know a lot about him as I am quite young but policies like aiming to renationalise the rail network and other private companies are just plain nuts. The true cost of doing this and the burden on the tax payer would be out of this world. I cannot see how he can connect with the people that are moderate-working class people. I will have a proper look about what he is about but from what I've seen he has some great utopian ideas but some are really socialist.
He won 60% of the vote so it's hardly only the left of the party that voted for him. Renationalising the railways is actually supported by the majority of the electorate as well.
I was in the party in the 80's when Militant Tendency tried to take over by entryism. The successors to MT supported Corbyn in his campaign. It is frustrating discussing this with people who have not been involved with the party. I was a Constituency Management Committee member in the late 70's and early 80's. Our constituency was targeted with one of the banned Lambeth councillors taking over as Constituency Agent. He did nothing but campaign for Militant until he was sacked. Then he sued the party for unfair dismissal.
I will start taking you more seriously when you can get through one comment without harking back to the 80s (Though I see it is relevant to your point this time)! How about this, my dad has worked for Unions his whole life and has been heavily involved in the Labour party, even helping candidates run for leader. Does this suddenly make my points more valid?
We learn from the past, or at least we should. That '83 election is seared in my memory. We pounded the streets for weeks then got wiped out by Thatch. For '83 read 2020.
Yes but since the Labour Party lost its way years ago it's like a clamber for something more left wing and socialist to be "different". I don't think this is what the public want. I may be wrong. As for renationalising private institutions it would be very, very expensive. Then what British Gas, Electric, Telecom.........
it gives me some hope that there is some basic human decency out there and people actually give a **** about others. - I think it highly unlikely that Corbyn would lead labour to victory but if his leadership (however long it lasts) leads to people understanding that there are other ways to succeed economically and support the most disenfranchised in the world then he has been a massive success- at the very start of this thread my answer to why you should vote Tory is because you're a **** (apologies to sensitive folk) if Jeremy can make even a few folk reconsider their priorities that's just grand.
Anyone else see Cameron's tweet after Corbyn was confirmed? "The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security, our economic security and your family's security." It seems that's their sound bite for the next few years, Gove and others have said something similar. It's laughable. They don't want to debate Labour on ideology apparently. I've no idea if Corbyn will be electable or not in 4 or so years, but I think he'll be better in opposition than Harman. Harman seemed to oppose everything the Tories did, because it was the Tories doing it. Corbyn at least seems to have principles. He's also supposedly emailed labour members to source questions for PMQs this week, which might just be shallow PR, but it's refreshing to see at least. The concerns about Corbyn seem to come from what he's done in the past, but he's also shown a willingness to listen. It'll be interesting to see what approach he takes.
Labour activists are living in some kind of parallel universe where everyone wants a Syrian family for neighbours. Personally I would go for renationalisation with the shares compensated at the same price that was paid for them. The only trouble is to do it you need to be elected first, that's the tricky bit. On the immigration bit I see the German open door policy has gone so well that they have had to stop it.
Anyway...to put this in perspective I just had a call to say an ex employee of mine was killed today in a motor bike scramble. Early 20's. a nice lad.
