Labour Leadership Contest

[Bobby Hundreds]

I watched a Youtube video on a republican senator or Presidential candidate or some shit, he was asked what should happen if somebody ends up on life support and they have no insurance, he said thats the risk of life and pretty much admitted let them die if not the church might help. Members of the audience where shouting "yeah let em die" and a lot of applause. Comments underneath saying why should I pay for other peoples shit. What  a fucked up world, we are happy to see companies make billions from healthcare ripping off the masses but somebody whose job doesn't pay enough to cover their bills and their health insurance, fuck em you failed at life you deserve to die. Those fat cat's earn every fucking penny.

[Strontium]

I watched a Youtube video on a republican senator or Presidential candidate or some shit, he was asked what should happen if somebody ends up on life support and they have no insurance, he said thats the risk of life and pretty much admitted let them die if not the church might help. Members of the audience where shouting "yeah let em die" and a lot of applause. Comments underneath saying why should I pay for other peoples shit. What  a fucked up world, we are happy to see companies make billions from healthcare ripping off the masses but somebody whose job doesn't pay enough to cover their bills and their health insurance, fuck em you failed at life you deserve to die. Those fat cat's earn every fucking penny.

 

Aren't we all, to some extent, uncaring?

 

I dread to think how many lives the discretionary income I spend on unnecessary shite could save in the third world if donated to an appropriate charity.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Aren't we all, to some extent, uncaring?

 

I dread to think how many lives the discretionary income I spend on unnecessary shite could save in the third world if donated to an appropriate charity.

Or if we insisted on a system of government that promoted fair terms of international trade.

[Section_31]

I watched a Youtube video on a republican senator or Presidential candidate or some shit, he was asked what should happen if somebody ends up on life support and they have no insurance, he said thats the risk of life and pretty much admitted let them die if not the church might help. Members of the audience where shouting "yeah let em die" and a lot of applause. Comments underneath saying why should I pay for other peoples shit. What a fucked up world, we are happy to see companies make billions from healthcare ripping off the masses but somebody whose job doesn't pay enough to cover their bills and their health insurance, fuck em you failed at life you deserve to die. Those fat cat's earn every fucking penny.

The clever part here though, is that said Senator has probably had untold advantages in life which mean he will never face that risk.

 

The great irony at play in the states and now over here, is that it's billed as a meritocracy when in actual fact it's a rigged game from cradle to grave.

 

George bush was a retard, Boris Johnson is a retard, Cameron is a bona fide retard, these are not the pinnacle of the human race, they were simply born to money and born to rule, it may as well be a caste system in all but name.

[Vincent Vega]

How easy would taking Train Lines back from private ownership be?

 

Would it be a case of changing a law so we can have it or would it need to be bought out? If so who would set the price?

Genuine question, tryingto work out how it actuially might happen.

 

I imagine there a lot of shareholders at Virgin etc who will be expecting a wedge for handing it over? What rights do they get?

Railtrack was taken back in to public ownership under Labour when it was in crisis, the shareholders tried to sue but a judge threw it out.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4340794.stm

 

The government did this to prevent it going under, it wouldn't be as easy to take the franchises back in to public ownership, they have long term contracts that would be very expensive to cancel. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

[King Emlyn]

The clever part here though, is that said Senator has probably had untold advantages in life which mean he will never face that risk.

The great irony at play in the states and now over here, is that it's billed as a meritocracy when in actual fact it's a rigged game from cradle to grave.

George bush was a retard, Boris Johnson is a retard, Cameron is a bona fide retard, these are not the pinnacle of the human race, they were simply born to money and born to rule, it may as well be a caste system in all but name.

Good point in relation to America, they seem to pride themselves as being this classless system when it's anything but, it's exactly the same as here with the silver spoon and the old school tie.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Railtrack was taken back in to public ownership under Labour when it was in crisis, the shareholders tried to sue but a judge threw it out.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4340794.stm

 

The government did this to prevent it going under, it wouldn't be as easy to take the franchises back in to public ownership, they have long term contracts that would be very expensive to cancel. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

East Coast Mainline was re-nationalised when National Express decided it wasn't profitable enough.  When it was directly-operated, it was run profitably (with those profits re-invested, rather than paid out to shareholders) and customer satisfaction increased.  Obviously, this was the threat of a good example, so the Tories flogged it off to Virgin/Stagecoach.

http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2013/05/decision-over-east-coast-is-pure-politics/

[Red_or_Dead]

It's easy to renationalise the railways/Train Operating Companies as the govt could just not renew a franchise.  That said most of them are up for renewal in the next five years so IF a miracle occurred and Labour did get in on this mandate then they'd have to wait years to take them back into public ownership (for free) or pay off the companies if they wanted to do it sooner.

[Anubis]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/05/jeremy-corbyn-political-stitch-up-anti-austerity-labour

 

 

 

The media and the political class can hardly contain themselves. What’s happening in the Labour party should simply not be happening. It’s suicidal, puerile, madness, self-mutilation, narcissistic, an emotional spasm and, in the words of one Tory cabinet member, a “potential catastrophe for Britain”.

 

But Jeremy Corbyn’s runaway leadership campaign shows little sign of flagging. In fact, the more he’s attacked and derided, the more support he attracts. It’s an extraordinary example of how utterly unpredictable politics can be. In the aftermath of the general election, Corbyn’s name was barely mentioned as a possible candidate, as Labour’s leaders lurched to the right.

 

A couple of months later and the veteran leftwing MP is heading the field in polls and nominations, attracting thousands of young people to the party and packing public meetings across the country. As Corbyn himself readily concedes, it’s a political insurgency that was waiting for something to latch on to - and that something has turned out to be him.

 

The parallels with the anti-austerity movements that threw up Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece and are fuelling Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the US Democratic nomination are clear. And the claim that the influx of new members and registered supporters is fuelled by far-left “entrists” is time-warp twaddle.

 

He may not be able to match Podemos’s Pablo Iglesias for charisma, but he’s transparently honest and un spun

 

The paradox of Corbyn’s campaign is that some of the very reasons he wasn’t seen as an obvious challenger after the election are why he’s attracting such wide support now. He may not be able to match Podemos’s pony-tailed Pablo Iglesias for charisma. But he’s transparently honest and unspun, and so obviously not from the professional politician’s mould. In a political landscape full of speaking-clock triangulators, those qualities go a long way.

 

Not only that, but far from being the “fanatical class warrior” of the Daily Mail’s imagination, Corbyn represents Labour’s mainstream values and is making the case for a social democracy that has been driven from the mainstream for a generation.

 

As one young supporter at a Corbyn rally explained: “People say he is an old leftwinger or an old Marxist but to my generation his ideas seem quite new.” What she meant was simply free university tuition and the public ownership of rail and energy – common across Europe and popular with the British public.

 

Public investment in infrastructure, housing and hi-tech industry, using targeted quantitative easing, combined with redistributive taxation and rights at work: “Corbynomics” is scarcely revolutionary. As the Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman put it, when Labour supporters refuse to accept a failed austerity ideology, they aren’t “moving left”, they’re “refusing to follow a party elite that has decided to move sharply to the right”.

 

That is what Labour’s other leadership candidates all did after the election, ditching the party’s most popular policies, such as the mansion tax and 50% top rate, in order to appease corporate business – which polling shows most voters believe Labour has in fact been too soft on. Add to that their reversion to the New Labour formulas of the 1990s and refusal to oppose George Osborne’s attacks on the working poor – and no wonder they’re struggling to cope with Corbyn-mania.

 

So now the mild-mannered London MP faces a wall of propaganda from almost the entire media and every Blairite has-been that can be mobilised to derail his bandwagon. Can’t his supporters understand, they rage, that someone such as Corbyn simply could never win an election, that the “rules” of politics mean elections can only be won on the centre ground? Don’t they know what happened in the early 1980s?

 

There’s no sensible comparison with the 1980s, when Labour was trounced after a rightwing faction broke away to form the Social Democratic party and Margaret Thatcher dined off the jingoism of the Falklands war. And the political and media establishment’s “centre ground” bears no relation to the actual centre ground of public opinion, from public ownership to taxes on the rich.

 

Having decided against the evidence that Labour lost the election because it was too leftwing, they now insist the party must move closer to the Tories or be consigned to irrelevance. Mass support for the anti-austerity Corbyn is definitely not part of the script. So expect the attacks to intensify – and more loaded polling and tendentious reports such as that partially published this week attempting to show the public supports austerity.

 

It will be hard for any Labour leader to win in 2020, given boundary changes and the fragmentation of Labour support. But is it really more likely that a New Labour machine politician can win back the party’s lost working class, Green, SNP and Ukip voters – or wow the punters with support for another illegal war – than someone at the head of a popular movement for a different kind of politics?

 

With the likelihood growing of a new economic downturn before the end of this parliament, while new cuts bite into the living standards of millions, the fear seems to be as much that Corbyn might succeed as that he would consign Labour to oblivion. That certainly seemed to be Tony Blair’s worry when he said the problem with Corbyn’s platform was that even if he did win “it wouldn’t be right”. And former chancellor Ken Clarke has warned fellow Tories not to underestimate Corbyn, who he believes “could win” on a left populist ticket.

 

Of course, Corbyn is far from home and dry. Faced with dire warnings of disaster, Labour members may still balk at the prospect. If the Islington MP does win against the odds – the result is likely to turn on second preferences – he will at least face non-cooperation in parliament and relentless hostility from the media, though the threat of immediate coups and splits may be exaggerated.

 

But even if he loses to Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper, Corbyn has already succeeded in busting open a political establishment stitch-up. He has pushed an anti-austerity agenda into the heart of political debate, forced his rivals to halt their shift to the right, and brought tens of thousands of young people into active politics. Whoever wins, that movement is not going to disappear. In six weeks, the Corbyn campaign has changed the rules of the game.

[Stickman]

Nice to see a balanced article for once rather than the usual bile coming out from the media.

[Section_31]

I think if anybody here wants to help change things, it's to tell anyone who'll listen, be it in person or on social media, that the media is the problem. A lot of Corbyn's popularity seems to be coming from the fact he's being attacked by the press, the more the narrative takes hold that the press are the political enemy the better.

[melons]

How well is Corbyn actually doing? I like many of you have signed up to the labour party to have a vote, not because I support new labour, I support what labour was and what Corbyn wants to make it again. My feeds are very left wing and I'm not sure I'm actually getting a true reflection of what is actually happening with the Leadership campaign, to me it feels like Cooper, Kendle and Burnham have barely uttered a word, yet JC seems to be everywhere, are they actually having a campaign or just sat in the knowledge they'll walk it? If it is one member one vote, then surely the other candidates promoters must be out there somewhere? 

[Section_31]

How well is Corbyn actually doing? I like many of you have signed up to the labour party to have a vote, not because I support new labour, I support what labour was and what Corbyn wants to make it again. My feeds are very left wing and I'm not sure I'm actually getting a true reflection of what is actually happening with the Leadership campaign, to me it feels like Cooper, Kendle and Burnham have barely uttered a word, yet JC seems to be everywhere, are they actually having a campaign or just sat in the knowledge they'll walk it? If it is one member one vote, then surely the other candidates promoters must be out there somewhere? 

 

Andy Burnham has had a photo opp with his mum and dad. 

 

Liz Kendall is out gassing poor people. 

[Anubis]

How well is Corbyn actually doing? I like many of you have signed up to the labour party to have a vote, not because I support new labour, I support what labour was and what Corbyn wants to make it again. My feeds are very left wing and I'm not sure I'm actually getting a true reflection of what is actually happening with the Leadership campaign, to me it feels like Cooper, Kendle and Burnham have barely uttered a word, yet JC seems to be everywhere, are they actually having a campaign or just sat in the knowledge they'll walk it? If it is one member one vote, then surely the other candidates promoters must be out there somewhere? 

 

There is less interest in what the others are saying, which is pretty generic 'centre-ground' bollocks, and more interest in Operation: Stop Corbyn.  As such there is a disproportionate amount of coverage of Corbyn, the majority of which is negative.

 

Burnham, has changed his position a little, and has moved from starting his campaign in traders offices in the financial centre of London, and is now talking re-nationalisation of the railways.  However, all he's doing is copying little bits of what Corbyn has been offering  from the start.  If anything, it makes him look weaker.

 

Cooper is continuing to occupy the centre ground without actually saying what she stands for.

 

Kendall has gone full Tory, and you should never go full Tory. Kendall has convinced herself that Corbyn is not popular because he's actually set out his policies and answers those questions he's in a position to answer, but rather that we are all having a jolly jape at her expense and everyone will be voting for her come the ballot in just over a weeks time.

[Jairzinho]

I've probably got more respect for Kendall than the other two. She is a Tory and she's not really pretending otherwise. The other two are waiting to be told what they should say, with Burnham now pretending to be on the left.

[stringvest]

How many billions would that cost? Several hundred billion for the first 3 alone.

It wouldn't cost anything. Just take them over. Fuck the shareholders. Extraordinary measures. You'd be alright Steve.

[stringvest]

The clever part here though, is that said Senator has probably had untold advantages in life which mean he will never face that risk.

 

The great irony at play in the states and now over here, is that it's billed as a meritocracy when in actual fact it's a rigged game from cradle to grave.

 

George bush was a retard, Boris Johnson is a retard, Cameron is a bona fide retard, these are not the pinnacle of the human race, they were simply born to money and born to rule, it may as well be a caste system in all but name.

This place is packed to the gunnels with Untouchables

[Dr Nowt]

At least Kendall has a stint as Cruella de Vil lined up if she loses.

[melons]

Andy Burnham has had a photo opp with his mum and dad. 

 

Liz Kendall is out gassing poor people. 

 

 

Bring over the refugees, place them with the poor on a 'camp' site in Kent and I'm sure she'll feel fulfilled! 

 

 

There is less interest in what the others are saying, which is pretty generic 'centre-ground' bollocks, and more interest in Operation: Stop Corbyn.  As such there is a disproportionate amount of coverage of Corbyn, the majority of which is negative.

 

Burnham, has changed his position a little, and has moved from starting his campaign in traders offices in the financial centre of London, and is now talking re-nationalisation of the railways.  However, all he's doing is copying little bits of what Corbyn has been offering  from the start.  If anything, it makes him look weaker.

 

Cooper is continuing to occupy the centre ground without actually saying what she stands for.

 

Kendall has gone full Tory, and you should never go full Tory. Kendall has convinced herself that Corbyn is not popular because he's actually set out his policies and answers those questions he's in a position to answer, but rather that we are all having a jolly jape at her expense and everyone will be voting for her come the ballot in just over a weeks time.

 

Thats what I don't seem to see. Once they'd got over the shock of an alternative, yes the media are still attacking (Guardian seem to have backed down a bit) but the other routes seem to be quite positive. I genuinely think he can win it, that said, I thought we'd be heading for another coalition back in May. 

[Jairzinho]

The Guardian have backed down a bit because every single comments section was hammering the paper. That piece they did in response, which Medialens took apart, was utterly pathetic.

[Ginny]

I like Corbyn he looks and seems genuine and honest. But he's a politician and my instinct tells me that to get to the level he's at you have to have a certain amount of CUNT in you.

 

He looks like he should be in another political party like The Greens.

[Gnasher]

Andy Burnham has had a photo opp with his mum and dad.

 

Liz Kendall is out gassing poor people.

Ed Balls has said the Labour Party needs to be more pro business to win over the voters and Corbyn would be a disaster.

 

The fact that Corbyn massively increased his majority at the last election whilst Balls got booted out is obviously lost on him.

[lifetime fan]

Do I agree with everything Corbyn says? Fuck No.

 

But he represents me a million times better than any of the other useless cunts in the leadership election. You know, what with him actually being a fucking socialist.

[Jairzinho]

I can't actually think of much I do disagree with him about, although I'm probably to the left of what he's campaigning on.

 

Although I reckon he's probably a fair bit to the left of what he's campaigning on as well.

[Anubis]

Thats what I don't seem to see. Once they'd got over the shock of an alternative, yes the media are still attacking (Guardian seem to have backed down a bit) but the other routes seem to be quite positive. I genuinely think he can win it, that said, I thought we'd be heading for another coalition back in May.

Really? Telegraph, Times, Mail, Express, S*n, Independent, Guardian and even The Mirror have been steadfastly anti-Corbyn. The Mirror mildly so because it's behind Burnham, but it's columnists refer to a potential Corbyn vote as madness, and while they failed to make much of Corbyn's re-nationalisation proposals they were all over Burnham's announcement on the railways yesterday.

 

However, luckily there are voices being heard in comment columns, blogs, social media and the odd article which are countering that and have seen a groundswell of support.