Interesting view on Corbyn...

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

...compared to our chums over the North Sea, the nations which in many ways are culturally closest to Britain.

https://opendemocracy.net/can-europe-ma ... l-democrat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Malabus]

The man is a monster.

[Shade]

In a way there's a part of me that wants him to retain the leadership and win the next General Election.

I just love to watch the world (or country) burn.

I might be in for a history lesson here but has anything good ever come from a Labour government, in the long run, other than the NHS? From what I can tell, we always end up nearly bankrupt and crippled due to strikes. Then the Tories get back in, make enemies of all those that were striking and anyone else that wants an easy life because they don't practice what they preach, but essentially get the country back up and running again, people get fed up of working hard, forget what always happens and vote Labour back in eventually, and repeat.

[asl]

If it wasn't for the fact that I truly believe that every government requires a strong opposition in order to be effective and honest, I would find this whole Labour implosion incredibly amusing. I don't doubt that Jezza will be re-elected as leader - and that has the potential to split the party and ensure Labour will not get near winning a General Election for half a generation or more.

[Malabus]

He will be elected as leader alright. His hard left heavies have no doubt bullied their way for him to retain his leadership on Saturday.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

In a way there's a part of me that wants him to retain the leadership and win the next General Election.

I just love to watch the world (or country) burn.

I might be in for a history lesson here but has anything good ever come from a Labour government, in the long run, other than the NHS? From what I can tell, we always end up nearly bankrupt and crippled due to strikes. Then the Tories get back in, make enemies of all those that were striking and anyone else that wants an easy life because they don't practice what they preach, but essentially get the country back up and running again, people get fed up of working hard, forget what always happens and vote Labour back in eventually, and repeat.

Post war house building, without which we'd have even more of a shortage than we do.

Minimum wage was the other big one.

And the Good Friday agreement was a fantastic achievement by Blair.

I would also include the Sure Start programme and child tax credits Gordon Brown introduced as good policies.

Making the Bank of England independent.

Tuition fees and loans.

So, NHS, housing stock, Minimum wage, and Bank of England. All new innovations the Conservatives are too conservative to have done themselves.

Your debt/bankrupt argument is slightly misinformed. Spending, debt and deficit under Blair/Brown was lower than it is now, mainly as the benefits bill has rocketed under the Tories (as it always will with their low wage/high property rent ideology). The only difference was the banks were screwed, driven by the American banks, which had nothing to with Labour fiscal or monetary policy.

Yes, Brown introduced even more light touch regulation allowing banks to go haywire. But the seeds were sown during the 80s and the Big Bang under Thatcher, and the removing of the separation of retail and investment banks. The banks were too big too fail before 1997, it just took until 2007 and the changes to the Global (USA and China) for the s#!t to hit the fan. By this time our economy was too dependent on the finance sector to survive - not helped by Thatcher's decision to restructure the economy away from a balanced mixed sector base to one reliant on financial services.

And of course in the early 90s the country was bankrupt and in recession, with massive double digit interest rates such was the failure of Tory economic policy. And 1997-2007 under Labour saw one of the best decades the country ever had.

In terms of recession and debt, these are cyclical, happen under each party and are caused by different, often external factors. Until the system is changed so that commodity/currency/bond markets and Global supply and demand don't dictate what happens in the UK economy that is the way it is. So for me, accepting that neo-liberal economies will always have cyclical recessions (since the 1700s in Britain) means my voting decision is based on a toss up between a party which tries new things to help the majority of people (Labour, in my lifetime) and one which maliciously targets the most vulnerable in order to help the most privileged elite, whilst generally eroding opportunities for those inbetween (Tories, in my lifetime).

Most of the scaremongering over Corbyn comes from the minority with most to lose - the media/financial/business oligarchs.

From a practical point of view it won't change much. For example, his policy of nationalising the railways. Currently most of my £160 train ticket to London leaves the UK to foreign owners and CEO offshore accounts, whilst the tax payer subsidises investment in the railways. All Corbyn is saying is cut out the middlemen who suck the money out and let my
£160 be invested in the railways. Makes sense to everyone and no one impacted apart from the people creaming the money off. Who of course are the ones who shape the media narrative and so whip up the hysteria.

As shown in the link, pro business policy which rewards good business who care about employees and society works. You won't find many Sports Direct style sweatshop warehouses or people on poverty wages in Scandinavia, yet they have higher employment, better maternity/paternity rights and have much more vibrant urban areas. Yet here anything to change the sweatshop model is derided?

I would love to set-up a business where I am able to compete with huge companies and be rewarded for treating staff like colleagues not cattle. However, as long as robber barons are allowed by our government to avoid paying tax, are allowed to have monopolies, rig the market and act shoddily that is not easy.

In a way I would be more confident of starting a business under Corbyn, than under the current government. I like dynamic businesses which thrive on and contribute to UK society. Not ones who thrive on serf-labour purely to pay dividends to people with no interest in the UK. And tackling market failure and corruption is the best way to help small businesses. If that makes me a filthy communist, that is your opinion. Mine is that it is what is needed in 2016.

[Malabus]

"Double digit interest rates"...the majority of us savers demand that now after being treated as 2nd class citizens since 2008 and who crashed the economy then, yes, the Labour Party.

[Circa 1887]

The American sub-prime debt catastrophe and its impact on the U.K. is actually directly linked to Gordon Brown and Labour, who loosened up FSA (now FCA and PRA) regulation to allow U.K. financial institutions to transact in a wider range of international products. This was whilst Brown was Chancellor. Our exposure to the crisis was vastly increased by that. A more prudent and risk aware Chancellor would not have taken that decision.

[Circa 1887]

So blaming a government from two decades earlier seems disingenuous, it's typical of policital spin we hear every day though. "Even though we are in power and have the ability to enact change...it's the last government's fault - not ours for failing to address it NOW."

[Circa 1887]

As for Corbyn, I agree with asl. The man also seems like a controlling bully. There is zero chance of Labour even increasing their minority, let alone coming to power, with him at the helm. Still, many people on the right knew that and that's why they paid to join Labour and sabotage any hopes they had by electing him.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

The American sub-prime debt catastrophe and its impact on the U.K. is actually directly linked to Gordon Brown and Labour, who loosened up FSA (now FCA and PRA) regulation to allow U.K. financial institutions to transact in a wider range of international products. This was whilst Brown was Chancellor. Our exposure to the crisis was vastly increased by that. A more prudent and risk aware Chancellor would not have taken that decision.

I said that Brown played a part in loosening bank regulation. But how far back along the ideological timeline do we go? New Labour only continued the laissez-faire deregulation started by Thatcher and Reagan - surely a more prudent Government would not initiated the Big Bang in finances, which started the growth of derivatives and debt swaps, etc, as well as creating the unique (in Europe) British obsession with home ownership. Or do we blame politicians from the time of Breton Woods?

Interestingly, Corbyn would have been against deregulating the banks like Brown did, and the Tories would have supported it. And the current front bench would support further deregulation. So on your main policy argument, you are closest to Corbyn!!

It does seem your general perception of Labour stems from too many years reading the British media and not enough studying of economic history.

I am not speaking from a Labour supporting position. Lib Dem would get my vote if I lived somewhere they ran/had a chance, and I am member of a different party altogether so played no part in the Labour leadership vote. However, the blatantly bias in the media and subsequent misinformation banded about does rile me!

[Circa 1887]

Sorry....I don't believe I've expressed a general perception of Labour, let alone given you enough information to source the route of my general perception. You don't know what, if any, mainstream or otherwise media I consume, who I've voted for historically, my qualifications, or my profession.

You really are a painful bore, RCS. You're arrogance lets you down.

[Circa 1887]

And as for being closest to Corbyn, you've lost me there. I don't recall outlining my "main policy argument". I referenced the part Gordon Brown and the Labour government played in exposing the people of this country to greater financial risk in the 2000's. Whether Corbyn was anti, whether some Tories were pro, is irrelevant. Our elected government failed to do their due diligence on that occasion and like many countries, we suffered as a result.

To be clear, there is an awful lot about Corbyn I find unsettling - and not in terms of policy, but character. Not least of this is his close ties to Hamas and Hezbollah and his career as a talk show host in Iran working for a state run channel of dubious moral credibility. In the context of media, there is a sense of irony in being accused of reading too much British media by you RCS, a poster whose obsession with anything the Guardian says is clearly laced through nearly every non-football opinion expressed. You're not also a closet PRESS TV fan are you? I doubt the Sky box picks that one up.

Simply put, I will struggle to vote Labour again and most certainly won't with Corbyn at the helm. His ongoing purges within the party reflect a man who cannot even govern a minority party of 230 MPs, let alone the 5th biggest economy in the world which is home to over 65 million people.

[asl]

I see Gerry Adams has offered his congratulations as Jeremy has been a huge friend to Sinn Fein over the decades. Hmm.

My wife has a nephew who is a SF activist / borderline IRA thug mentioned something about "the Brits finally getting a strong socialist leader to oppose the scum" (and various other expletives and insults.) I've still not had a reply when I mentioned that JC plays to crowds of thousands of adoring supporters, just like Michael Foot; that JC is a great socialist, just like Michael Foot; that JC is a man of principle, just like Michael Foot; and JC will definitely win the next election, just like Michael F....oh.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Sorry....I don't believe I've expressed a general perception of Labour, let alone given you enough information to source the route of my general perception. You don't know what, if any, mainstream or otherwise media I consume, who I've voted for historically, my qualifications, or my profession.

You really are a painful bore, RCS. You're arrogance lets you down.

Sincere apologies, I mistook you for Shade. It was his perception of Labour (near the top of the thread) I was ranting on about, not yours at all. Sorry, not the first time I have confused you two and will try not to do so again. I take back my incorrect comments made towards you.

[Circa 1887]

Apology accepted, thanks.

[Shade]

You will never, ever see me starting a post with "The American sub-prime...". Shame on you

[confused.com]

At last someone else other than Mr Blair, Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness believe that the good friday agreement was a fantastic achievement.

If you call lying to and deceiving a sizable section of the UK electorate - then yes it was fantastic.
If you call releasing murderers onto the streets a good deal - yes it was fantastic
If you call giving an amnesty to only one side of the terrorism groupings a good idea - yes it was fantastic
If you call those terrorists now running drugs and extortion gangs - yes it was fantastic
If you call those terrorists now ruling their communities with fear, so that nobody questions their activities or murders - yes it was fantastic.

Mr Blair's one and only goal was to stop attacks here on the mainland, he thought little of or gave a care for those who lived and continue to live with terrorist gangs and the consequences of that.

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

At last someone else other than Mr Blair, Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness believe that the good friday agreement was a fantastic achievement.

If you call lying to and deceiving a sizable section of the UK electorate - then yes it was fantastic.
If you call releasing murderers onto the streets a good deal - yes it was fantastic
If you call giving an amnesty to only one side of the terrorism groupings a good idea - yes it was fantastic
If you call those terrorists now running drugs and extortion gangs - yes it was fantastic
If you call those terrorists now ruling their communities with fear, so that nobody questions their activities or murders - yes it was fantastic.

Mr Blair's one and only goal was to stop attacks here on the mainland, he thought little of or gave a care for those who lived and continue to live with terrorist gangs and the consequences of that.

Out of interest, which of the two nutjob sides do you support? Those who want to kill people who think wine and bread physically turns into the blood and body of Jesus C, or those that kill people because they aren't sure?

[Ralph]

Sorry....I don't believe I've expressed a general perception of Labour, let alone given you enough information to source the route of my general perception. You don't know what, if any, mainstream or otherwise media I consume, who I've voted for historically, my qualifications, or my profession.

You really are a painful bore, RCS. You're arrogance lets you down.

Sincere apologies, I mistook you for Shade. It was his perception of Labour (near the top of the thread) I was ranting on about, not yours at all. Sorry, not the first time I have confused you two and will try not to do so again. I take back my incorrect comments made towards you.

It seems like once a month that you keep on apologizing for "mistaking" people and making incorrect comments. Maybe think a little more before you post? Try slowing that post count down a little?

[RegencyCheltenhamSpa]

Sorry....I don't believe I've expressed a general perception of Labour, let alone given you enough information to source the route of my general perception. You don't know what, if any, mainstream or otherwise media I consume, who I've voted for historically, my qualifications, or my profession.

You really are a painful bore, RCS. You're arrogance lets you down.

Sincere apologies, I mistook you for Shade. It was his perception of Labour (near the top of the thread) I was ranting on about, not yours at all. Sorry, not the first time I have confused you two and will try not to do so again. I take back my incorrect comments made towards you.

It seems like once a month that you keep on apologizing for "mistaking" people and making incorrect comments. Maybe think a little more before you post? Try slowing that post count down a little?

Time is money. Using the RNF on the bog or when brewing coffee does not allow for much thought.

Plus, why would a Cheltonian take instruction from someone who spells 'apologising' with a Z.

[Circa 1887]

At last someone else other than Mr Blair, Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness believe that the good friday agreement was a fantastic achievement.

If you call lying to and deceiving a sizable section of the UK electorate - then yes it was fantastic.
If you call releasing murderers onto the streets a good deal - yes it was fantastic
If you call giving an amnesty to only one side of the terrorism groupings a good idea - yes it was fantastic
If you call those terrorists now running drugs and extortion gangs - yes it was fantastic
If you call those terrorists now ruling their communities with fear, so that nobody questions their activities or murders - yes it was fantastic.

Mr Blair's one and only goal was to stop attacks here on the mainland, he thought little of or gave a care for those who lived and continue to live with terrorist gangs and the consequences of that.

Well said.

[confused.com]

At last someone else other than Mr Blair, Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness believe that the good friday agreement was a fantastic achievement.

If you call lying to and deceiving a sizable section of the UK electorate - then yes it was fantastic.
If you call releasing murderers onto the streets a good deal - yes it was fantastic
If you call giving an amnesty to only one side of the terrorism groupings a good idea - yes it was fantastic
If you call those terrorists now running drugs and extortion gangs - yes it was fantastic
If you call those terrorists now ruling their communities with fear, so that nobody questions their activities or murders - yes it was fantastic.

Mr Blair's one and only goal was to stop attacks here on the mainland, he thought little of or gave a care for those who lived and continue to live with terrorist gangs and the consequences of that.

Out of interest, which of the two nutjob sides do you support? Those who want to kill people who think wine and bread physically turns into the blood and body of Jesus C, or those that kill people because they aren't sure?

Out of interest, why does any sane person have to 'support' any of the violent groups ? If you are asking my religion, I would say I have been to a catholic Chapel or a protestant church in equal measures over the last so many years. I just tend to believe that people's religions should be respected. However, you seem to be falling into the trap that what happens in NI is largely to do with religion as opposed to Unionism v Republicanism. You also seem to be going down the same road of 'all brexiters are racists'.being of one religion or another does not de facto make you in any way a supporter (or a nutjob), of those that proclaim they are defending your rights. As I have said, quite the reverse is true. Mr Blair has given these thugs the freedom to terrorise their own communities and they still do.
You have your view of how fantastic a job Mr Blair did, but let us not be fooled as to why he did it or who is paying the price.