http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-tory-election-win-study-finds-10397821.html What the Tories are offering now isn't beneficial and the fact is, they got elected as a majority government with less than a quarter of the population that were elegible to vote. That is not fair. Also, I think part of the reason why Labour didn't get elected was because their manifesto was essentially a watered down version of the Tories and because Miliband didn't come across as charismatic. Contrary to what you may think, British people seem to rank the perception of the leader higher than what the actual policies are. Labour getting elected wouldn't have been ideal, but realistically, they were the best of a bad bunch.
I still don't understand this obsession with nuclear bombs. Why do we need nuclear capability? Think about it logically. If one day a country decided to use nukes, then 99.99% of the population and the world will be blasted to smithereens. So what good is it going to be then? This notion that we need to have nukes to have a big strong country is such a fascist mentality and what's the point of having such a large spend on the army as well as nuclear weaponry? It's just fear mongering. Immigrants contribute more to the UK than they take out in stat benefits. And I still don't understand why you have such an issue with them. What is the problem here? There are also plenty of issues with NATO at the moment. They should be trying to establish peace and help relations between countries rather than wage war and intervene in the interests of western imperialism.
Heading towards global nuclear disarmament is a good goal to work towards, just scrapping our nuclear capability and leaving the table isn't. I don't have an issue with immigrants or immigration, I choose to live in one of the most ethnically diverse areas of the country, I do think we could make changes to our immigration system though that would have a positive impact on the country and I do think we should be able to control immigration rather than being forced to work round the EUs freedom of movement rules. And that post wasn't to highlight the things I disagree with, it was to highlight his left leaning that I think won't resonate with the electorate.
You mean the 25% of the population who voted for the Tories? I'm talking about the upsurge in support for Corbyn (as we can't measure the whole population without an election), there's been something like 400k new supporters for the Labour party since the election, and most people agree that most of them are Corbyn supporters - the fact he's energised the party and is uniting disenfranchised supporters on the left and centre - among labour, lib dems, ukip, greens, socialists, tus is a good indicator - though of course nothings confirmed until the results of the leadership election. Though he's certainly inspired more people than the insipid Tory-lite and Blairite policies of the others...
We have clear ideological differences here, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Immigration does have a positive impact on the country as it is. I also saw a figure that said around a third of the 'EU Migrants' coming over to the UK were British people who lived in another country that wanted to move back (essentially British expats but I don't like the term). Given all the problems that there are in the world and that the country faces at the moment, this should not be on anyone's manifesto. Again, the reason is because no-one has actually offered a viable alternative and given sound reasoning for it. No-one has tried to dispel the myths that were created by the Tory government. Corbyn is trying to change that and I support him.
This forum is mostly dedicated to immigrant workers Coming over here with their words and their clothes..
Also one more point about "Labour overspending" - why do people keep saying this? Frustrates the hell outta me! First of all, the plans were actually supported by the Tory cabinet. Secondly, the Tories wanted even less regulation of banks so if they were the incumbent government at the time of the financial crisis, we'd have been in even more of a mess. Labour's spend was no different to Thatcher's in the 1980s when adjust and take everything into consideration and we also had much higher debt-to-gdp ratio in the 1960s yet still managed to create a welfare state, NHS and we managed to have economic growth.
I agree immigration has a positive impact (there are of course negatives to be taken into account but immigration as a concept is a good thing), but that doesn't mean it couldn't be managed better or taken better advantage of. Putting aside our individual views on immigration, as that wasn't supposed to be the point I was making, does a huge increase in UKIP support, with them coming second in many labour seats, suggest the target voters for labour would be in favour of an open immigration system? It would seem to me like large sections of the working class are concerned with immigration and that corbyns views on subjects like this could alienate sections of labours target voters.
Should it be a priority on party's manifestos? Absolutely not. We have far bigger issues to tackle. Putting aside the fact that UKIP got significantly less votes than the Tories, who themselves only accounted for 24% of the population, the increase in UKIP support was more to do with people being disillusioned with the main two parties, a bunch of bigots and racists from far-right groups voting for a party who had policies they felt were most closely aligned with their own views that have a better public platform than they do and people who are desperate to leave the European Union - which was the main reason why UKIP were created in the first place. The fact that the amount of Labour supporters has increased since Corbyn's been standing for leadership should tell you something.
I hate the reasoning that "oh there is a bigger problem" being used to sweep other issues under the carpet. How about we expect people to actually be competent and deal with any issue we are faced with rather than being selective. Surely the best person in government for coming up with a proposal on how to deal with immigration is not also the person responsible for dealing with austerity, or welfare, or education etc..... People have different jobs and areas of responsibility and we should expect them all to be doing there best to solve issues and improve the country as opposed to using one to hide the other. I also think it's important to have the smaller parties who make individual issues there main focus. They put pressure on government to address those issues that would otherwise be ignored. It's the reason I think both UKIP and the greens are good for politics in the uk. So yes, I think it's perfectly fine for an issue like immigration or any number of things to be a main point on a party's manifesto. I agree UKIP got support from a variety of avenues. My point was more that with such high popularity and with immigration being a very spoken about issue during the election, that an appetite for an open immigration system wouldn't seem to be the popular trail of thought at the moment. Just because a load of people have joined the Labour Party prior to choosing the new leader doesn't suggest corbyn is capable of winning a general election.
It's not about being selective, it's about priorities and getting them straight. Whilst I agree with the last line of what you're saying, I don't agree with the idea that limiting immigration and getting out of the EU will be beneficial for the country in the long haul. I don't even see immigration as a problem to 'solve', so it's all futile. Because there has been so much rhetoric and hyperbole about immigration that no-one has tried to deal with the issue and disprove it. People's perception can change if you can rationalise why you believe what you do and provide evidence to back it up. Most politicians don't. Flaws of populism. I've seen nothing to suggest he is incapable and by the looks of it, neither have many other voters.
Hilarious articles in the Guardian from/about the other Labour leadership about Corbyn, with Burnham saying he won't attack Corbyn, and that everyone should stop attacking him as it's counter productive, despite Burnham himself attacking Corbyn throughout and then the very next day attacking him! And Cooper and Kendall attacking Corbyn's polices despite (particularly Cooper) not stating any detailed policies about what they want to do, besides stop Corbyn getting in (so much for democracy!). Ohh wait, I'm wrong, Cooper wants to 'inspire Britain' and make 'economics more feminist' (whatever that means).
This leadership race is bordering on farcical. Three of the candidates are demonstrating why the elctorate turned against Labour at the last election. By outlining clear policy approaches, Corbyn is winning grass roots support whilst showing up the other candidates for what they are - clueless. No wonder Chuka Ummana dropped out. The outcome of returning Corbyn as leader will present a more honest approach to the strong opposition needed to hold any government account. Whether he can get his message to the wider electorate remains to be seen.
I'm intrigued by how hysterical the press is getting about Corbyn. You'd think if he was so divisive they'd leave him to it and chuckle their way through the contest. However the Telegraph has warnings about him every day prominently in their paper. I'd almost say they were scared!
It's frankly disturbing the way they are portraying Corbyn as the next anti-Christ. There seems to be an underlining agenda against him. I wouldn't trust the Media as much as I can throw them. All this helps to do is reinforce that he is a top guy and they are scared sh1tless that he will expose the system for what it is, corrupt and putrid.
