Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?


Sugar Ape
 Share

Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?  

218 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?



Recommended Posts

CBI saying Labour’s plan to renationalise would cost 200bn. Labour calling it incoherent scaremongering from a group wanting to look after their shareholders rather than create a fair economy. They didn’t say how it was incoherent.
 

Whichever way you look at it, It going to cost a fucking lot of money. I think it would only result in marginally better outcomes. That’s why I said it shouldn’t be a priority. It’s not that I wouldn’t want some of it back in public hands, it’s that the sheer cost and benefits make it something that’s not as important as many other things. 
 

What I would like to hear, from those who do think spending so much on the likes of Royal Mail is the priority for the next government, is how much benefit we will get from the spend, and why that money isn’t better spent elsewhere. Unless the plan is to spend on everything we need, at the same time, then the word priority suggests it’s more important that this money goes in that rather than, say, hospitals, schools, policing, scientific research, social welfare programs, business support, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the problem that Labour has to quantify what it wants to do whereas, inexplicably, the Tories can just pretend they are good with finances and people believe it without question? I don't think saying it's incoherent scaremongering is enough of a defence, they have to show why it's beneficial to the country. If they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

That list is exclusively signed by Hindu organisations, those that are benefiting from the neo-nationalist agenda of Modi's government. It doesn't represent my community and it doesn't represent Muslims of Indian origin either. It's not really that diverse.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

CBI saying Labour’s plan to renationalise would cost 200bn. Labour calling it incoherent scaremongering from a group wanting to look after their shareholders rather than create a fair economy. They didn’t say how it was incoherent.
 

Whichever way you look at it, It going to cost a fucking lot of money. I think it would only result in marginally better outcomes. That’s why I said it shouldn’t be a priority. It’s not that I wouldn’t want some of it back in public hands, it’s that the sheer cost and benefits make it something that’s not as important as many other things. 
 

What I would like to hear, from those who do think spending so much on the likes of Royal Mail is the priority for the next government, is how much benefit we will get from the spend, and why that money isn’t better spent elsewhere. Unless the plan is to spend on everything we need, at the same time, then the word priority suggests it’s more important that this money goes in that rather than, say, hospitals, schools, policing, scientific research, social welfare programs, business support, etc. 

Half the price it cost to bail out the banks, we would own the assets as opposed to tax dodging profiteers and shareholders, all profits go back into the economy etc. I think the benefits are quite clear and wide ranging 

 

CBI also added 30% premium to the value of assets, so the headline figure is probably a bit misleading anyway

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, viRdjil said:


Jeremy Corbyn is the enemy of the Jews, the Hindus and the Muslims, if you listen to the right. 

 

Maajid Nawaz is not "the right".

 

Did you actually read Dr Ibrahim's thread or article? Do you have any comment on his conclusions?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Leyton388 said:

I've voted labour all my life but wont be voting for them again as they are an utter joke. 

Despite not being an entrenched hereditary Labour voter I have however only ever voted Labour and will likely continue to do so based on alignment with my core beliefs. Additionally I am neither a self serving cnut or driven by some perverse sense of I'm alright jack so fcuk everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...