Jeremy Corbyn

[Feedback]

"You can only remove the NEED for austerity if there is a NEED to be removed in the first place "

Straight from the top draw of the Tony Benn / Karl Marx dream book.

"Building a better Britain for all"

"Let us not think about the future until we forget about the current"

You definitely said you have a better understanding of the cuts to services across the entire public sector. Are you denying you said that?

[archibald leitch]

"You can only remove the NEED for austerity if there is a NEED to be removed in the first place "

Straight from the top draw of the Tony Benn / Karl Marx dream book.

"Building a better Britain for all"

"Let us not think about the future until we forget about the current"

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Of course i am denying it, cos that is not what i said.

[Feedback]

"You can only remove the NEED for austerity if there is a NEED to be removed in the first place "

Straight from the top draw of the Tony Benn / Karl Marx dream book.

"Building a better Britain for all"

"Let us not think about the future until we forget about the current"

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

And other such clap trap

perhaps you can explain how you didn't say what was written down for all to see?

[GRUMPYS DEN]

QED

[archibald leitch]

"You can only remove the NEED for austerity if there is a NEED to be removed in the first place "

Straight from the top draw of the Tony Benn / Karl Marx dream book.

"Building a better Britain for all"

"Let us not think about the future until we forget about the current"

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

And other such clap trap

"There's a sucker born every minute" David Hannum.

Rather than spend hours trying to twist my words and make out i have said things i did not say in completely different threads about different subjects in a different context, why not deal with what i have said in the thread that is being debated?

[Feedback]

You definitely said

1. all services had been diminished; and

2. that through your work with unison there aren't many areas (of the public sector) you aren't familiar with.

But now you're saying you didn't. There is little point in discussing further if you're going to blatantly lie.

[archibald leitch]

You definitely said

Not sure why you are getting upset about the idea of someone lying (even though they have not) cos you spend quite a bit of your time on this board lying - and in fact have lied here.

[Feedback]

Archie

You definitely said every part of the public sector. That means every part. Can you explain if every part faced cuts, who of the 5.5m public sector workers were excluded? Surely if all parts faced cuts then all parts includes all workers.

You're also clutching at straws if you're trying to suggest that in this context 'the public sector' and 'the 5.5m public sector workers' are different things.

[archibald leitch]

Archie

FFS - are you serious? Wriggle wriggle wriggle.

[Feedback]

Archie

You definitely said every part of the public sector. That means every part. Can you explain if every part faced cuts, who of the 5.5m public sector workers were excluded? Surely if all parts faced cuts then all parts includes all workers.

Now since the public sector employs 5.5m people, you are claiming that you know that an organisation of 5.5m people has had services diminished in every part.

[jon1959]

Corbyn / Abbott dream ticket

Oh dear.

[jon1959]

Doing well in polls

Corbyn seems to me to be the best hope and at the same time the highest risk. But playing safe and trying not to annoy The Sun is no way to achieve change or electoral success. He will get my vote for leader.

[Pearcey]

Doing well in polls

Did well in LBC

Interesting points Jon. Winning back those that voted UKIP is crucial. If Corbyn is the best man to do that then get him on board.

[Feedback]

I think Corbyn has finally achieved some thing I never thought possible on this forum - political unity. He's managed to link the opinions of the common sense voters on the right with the idealists on the left.

[alfie sherwood]

Doing well in polls

Did well in LBC

Jeremy Corbyn's age is also against him. You are much closer to the Labour movement than me, are there any brilliant young bona fide left wingers likely to emerge to take over as leader of a revitalised, genuinely progressive Labour Party in a few years time?

[archibald leitch]

Doing well in polls

Did well in LBC

Blairites against him

As you say Corbyn will be 71 come the next election. If he wins this leadership battle we might see the left of the party reinvigorated. Loads of young people are signing up to vote for him. Whilst Corbyn will not be around long term and May not even win leadership battle it is refreshing to see progressive ideas being aired for first time in decades. Hopefully the progressive momentum will keep things rolling after this leadership thing.

[NECS]

Doing well in polls

Did well in LBC

Blairites against him

I'm afraid the Labour Party just don't get it. They are in a state of denial as to the reasons for their defeat. In the 80's they thought people voted for Thatcher because Labour weren't left wing enough and this load of old bollocks has resurfaced again even to the extent of a Militant style insurgence to rig the leadership vote. It's just like Ashes to Ashes although I'd take Keeley Hawes over Yvette Cooper any day. There's an old saying "you don't have to look in the crystal ball when you can read the history book" and it's advice Labour would do well to follow.

[archibald leitch]

Doing well in polls

Did well in LBC

Blairites against him

Good policies eg nuclear disarmament and renationalising rails etc

Do you have any links to Corbyns position on increasing immigration? Not heard him speak on the matter myself.

[NECS]

Good morning archie. Here are a couple of quotes from Jeremy regarding this. The first is a parliamentary question he asked the Foreign Secretary :-

Jeremy Corbyn: I ask the Minister to think quite deeply about this issue. Those poor people who were taken into Harwich are but the tip of an iceberg. There are hundreds of thousands of people around the world who are victims of war, oppression, and human rights abuses. Apparently, many of them come from Afghanistan, which we have occupied for the past 14 years. Does he not think that there is a worldwide humanitarian crisis here that we should be addressing to save lives? It is fine to condemn people traffickers--we can all do that--but we must look at the consequences for those desperate and very poor people.

The other is a qustion he asked about EU and other immigration :-

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister for once acknowledge the massive contribution made to our economy and our society by those who have migrated to live here and who have sought and gained asylum in this country, which we are bound to offer under the Geneva Convention? Given his rhetoric about EU and other migration, what would he say if EU countries as a whole decided to stop British people from going there to study and to work? What would he say if they all decided that British people were a drain on their economy and put their shutters up against us? What would the rhetoric be from him and, perhaps more importantly, from his colleagues in the Daily Mail?


Now before you get on your high horse I'm not saying what he states is wrong but it is a view which I think you'll agree won't find much favour with UKIP voters. Now I do find his EU views somewhat at odds with a statement he made on his website at the time of the Lisbon Treaty (though after all when all is said and done I suppose he is a politician.

Later on Wednesday, Parliament will finally vote on whether there should be a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, which concerns changing the structure of the European Union. It is unclear what outcome can be expected.

The Liberal Democrats have hitherto supported all aspects of the treaty in debates in the House and delivered their 65 MPs loyally through the lobbies in every division. For some curious reason, they have decided that there ought to be a referendum on EU membership itself, rather than on the huge changes that the treaty proposes. Following their highly choreographed walkout last week, it could be that they are thinking of finally supporting a referendum.
The results of the postal ballots by the I Want A Referendum campaign are very revealing. The campaign sent ballot papers to half of the electorate in 10 constituencies and received between 30 and 40 per cent of them in return. Of those people that voted, around 70 to 80 per cent did so in favour of a referendum. At the very least, this would indicate a much higher level of public understanding of the issue and a much higher preparedness to engage in debate than political commentators have given credit for.

The issues surrounding the treaty are actually very serious, in that it enormously extends the powers of the European Commission and, by the appointment of the president and foreign affairs spokespeople, one can see the development of executive power with some accountability to the commission, very limited accountability to the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament and almost none to national parliaments. What is also explicit in both the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty is the imposition of a market economy on Europe, a control on borrowing made by any member states' government and serious control on the political choices open to any one member state. Thus, the British government had to explain to the European Union why it proposed to take Northern Rock into public ownership, for how long it intended that to be the case and give assurances about the bank's future. EU law makes it almost impossible for a government to take any industry into public ownership of its own free will because it would be accused of giving it illegal state subsidies.

There is a strong socialist argument against the Lisbon Treaty and the economic consequences that flow from it.

Later on Wednesday, every MP will have a choice. Every party that contested the 2005 general election pledged to hold a referendum on the European constitution and, as they all know, the treaty is very little different from the constitution.

Therefore, in all honesty, there ought to be a unanimous vote in the House for a referendum.

[jon1959]

Doing well in polls

Did well in LBC

Blairites against him

Something has to give.

[Feedback]

Doing well in polls

Did well in LBC

Blairites against him

Good policies eg nuclear disarmament and renationalising rails etc

2. I take it you didn't see the last budget where taxes increased. That is hardly an ideological attack on the state - in fact, its quite the opposite. The last budget moved left compared to the March 2015 Libdem/Tory coalition budget.

[jon1959]

The Tories got 36.9% of the vote in the May election (UKIP got 12.6%).

In other words the Tories got the support of 24.4% of the electorate.

Most polls in the 4 months before the election showed that UKIP supporters had more in common with Jeremy Corbyn than with George Osbourne. On one side was immigration and the EU, but on the other was support for renationalisation of rail and the utilities, major additional investment in public services, a rise in the Minimum Wage to the (real) Living Wage, a higher top rate of tax and increased regulation of the banks and utilities.

I saw the budget, thank you. Osbourne got the headlines he wanted but after a day of unpicking it became clear that this was a budget that (despite a few nibbles at the very rich) took money out of the pockets of the poor (tax credit cuts massively outweighing a rise in Minimum Wage) and into the pockets of the older and better off that disproportionately supported the Tories. He also ensured another round of swinging cuts in central and local government departments and services that will mean whole sections of government closing down (no more scope for 'efficiencies' or salami slicing cuts), and ever greater reliance on charitable donations to the 'deserving poor'. So, exactly what I said!

[archibald leitch]

1. I'd say most of the UK have voted for a centre right or right wing party - that is, either the Conservatives or UKIP, both of whom attracted more than 50% of the popular vote.

2. He was refering to the massive slashing of the public sector and the cuts to welfare.

[archibald leitch]

Good morning archie. Here are a couple of quotes from Jeremy regarding this. The first is a parliamentary question he asked the Foreign Secretary :-

I would agree that much of what Corbyn says will not resonate with many UKIP voters, i think there is an element of that UKIP vote that was simply voting for an alterantive to the status quo. I am not sure that element would be big enough to win an election for Corbyn and i doubt if he wants people voting for him who are not really on the smae page as him. He seems like a pretty straight guy to me and would want to govern by consent.

[Feedback]

1. I'd say most of the UK have voted for a centre right or right wing party - that is, either the Conservatives or UKIP, both of whom attracted more than 50% of the popular vote.

2. I take it you didn't see the last budget where taxes increased. That is hardly an ideological attack on the state - in fact, its quite the opposite. The last budget moved left compared to the March 2015 Libdem/Tory coalition budget.

What we need is a paradigm shift, with the attitude shown by certain quarters it won't be done but if the top push down a similar methodology the likes of Ford adopted in the 1970s then anything is possible.