Corbyn wins

[Griffin NoName]

 


Hurrah for Corbyn.

Now we at least have something to vote for. And PMQ's may even be enjoyable.

His landslide victory was bigger than Tony Blair's.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Hopefully he'll last (and doesn't make any major blunder...)

[Griffin NoName]

Yes, there are many pitfalls facing him.

The Tories line is that he is a security risk and it seems if the Tories tell a lie often enough they get believed. Makes me very cross.

The big problem is the media. They are deliberately mis-quoting him, plus some just outright lies.

[Aggie]

The Economist figured a Corbyn win would be bad for Labour, but mostly because they see him as being behind the times and carrying on with the sacred cows of the 60's and 70's rather than adjusting to what the British public actually wants these days.  I have no opinion on the matter otherwise...

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Political opinions of The Economist should be taken with a grain (or two, or three) of salt, they may not be fully Randian in their politics but they come quite close at times.
--
As for the Murdoch media, you can't expect anything less than wholesale lies, exaggerations and misrepresentations.

[Griffin NoName]

Sure. And Murdoch owns pretty much every outlet. But the BBC is presenting totally biased against him which they are not supposed to do

Corbyn is not hard left, he is merely left. The ideas may have been around in the 60s 70s but they are just socialist policies which the Labour Party should have anyway.  He has a huge mandate and I think the Labour Party are stupid not to recognise socialism IS what the "people" want, and drop the ghastly Bliar legacy of New Labour (which is also old if one wants to be so picky) (oh and also betrayed socialism just in order to get elected).

[Aggie]

Unfortunately, socialism seems to have passed on from the public mentality, and politics in the English-speaking world have moved firmly to the centre (i.e. the right) over the last 50 years.  I'm a child of the 80's and remember a time that seemed a lot more socialist and caring than today's society.  The mantra of "lower taxes" remains popular at the polls, but for some reason the public has failed to realize what this actually means is "cuts to services".  The rich don't give a shit, since they have more money to tax than the poor do, and the ability to buy better services than the government can provide in any case (education, medicine, etc).

There is much hand-wringing over increasing levels of inequality between the top percentiles and the masses, but what doesn't seem to get brought up much is that the rich are getting richer and the poor (incl. the middle class) are getting poorer because the poor keep racking up debt to buy shiny new crap and income-sapping monthly services.  Um...  if you're actually concerned about inequality and angry about bankers living high on the hog while you struggle to pay your credit card bills, QUIT GIVING ALL YOUR MONEY TO THE BANKS, TECHS AND TELECOMS.

Political opinions of The Economist should be taken with a grain (or two, or three) of salt, they may not be fully Randian in their politics but they come quite close at times.

Disclaimer of Bias: The Economist is pretty much my sole news source at the moment. I certainly don't agree with all the editorial content, but do think they present a fairly good picture of what's going on from the perspective of the capitalist classes. The politics fall outside of traditional party boundaries for the most part, and cover a bit of a spectrum. They tend to be socially liberal and financially conservative, IMHO. Some of it is a combination of the two, and raises my hackles, such as the need to liberate women in developing societies in order to remove this terrible cause of unemployment (i.e. having a parent at home to raise the children) and boost GDP.  All the better to maximize returns to foreign investors, my dear.    OTOH, they support paternity leave and equal involvement of men in family life in developed nations.  

It's complex enough to keep it interesting; I find most party politics simplified, one-sided and banal.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Some in the middle class may put the noose on themselves at times but the overwhelming majority of people doesn't have much of a chance, you have to live somewhere, you have to be able to get to work, you aspire to a better salary so you "invest" in an education, and if you are normal enough you may have a child or two and then you have to pay for all the things involved.

I'd be interested to know how someone can avoid:

-paying rent and/or mortgage.
-paying for child care and/or education.
-paying for transportation when there are no available alternatives.

and more importantly:

-paying for a debilitating illness in the family.

The 0.1% seem to suggest that you should work at least 16 hours a day, don't get sick, don't get children, don't get married and spend all of your income paying for your housing and education.

People don't go broke because they pay for cable or cellphones, but because they get sick or they lose their job/hours. In the meantime the banks are laughing all the way at all the debt they acquired while dangling cheese on poorly informed people.

[Aggie]

Replied in a new thread in Politics, as I was getting a little long-winded. 

[Griffin NoName]

Corbyn's standing up quite well - great speech at Labour Conference. He does have a huge problem with the Bliarites but he does seem to be slightly more open to compromise than on the hustings.  However there are some very sticky sticking points to be navigated.

I don't think it matters if Labourlose the next election becaause there won't be much left to govern. There won't be poor, sick, disabled, low income workers, unemployed, possibly even no middle class either - they will all have been killed off, and the wealthy can just be left to get on with it.