Disgusted, But What Next?

[Scott777]

If you consider quoting a Telegraph article about Corbyn's policy as "looking deeper", then fair enough. In any case, I don't see how this article proves that Corbyn cares more about foreigners than British people.



What you are doing here is confusing the concepts of "wanting what's best for the people" and "assuming that those who have different views don't want what's best for the people".   You might not think that Corbyn's policies are what's best for the British people, but this doesn't mean that he doesn't sincerely believe that they are.



I've said before that I think Corbyn is a terrible leader, but it's so often the case on this forum that people feel the need to ramp arguments up to the hyperbolic and the vilifying. It's a great pity and really suppresses the room for more balanced discussions.

Okay, let's say he cares about foreigners as much.  That's almost as bad, given there are many more foreigners in Europe alone than there are Brits.  And in case you didn't know, Corbyn is an EU citizen, as are we.



If it's proof your asking for, I concede, there is none.  Now, how about your proof that he cares more about Brits.  Go for it.  And are you suggesting the Telegraph are lying about: "delegates at Labour's annual conference in Brighton unanimously backed a motion which commits the party to "free movement, equality and rights for migrants".

[Conchúr]

Here's how I know.  "Jeremy Corbyn will scrap controls on immigration and hand foreign nationals the right to vote in future elections and referendums if Labour wins power."



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/25/labour-scrap-controls-immigration/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... migration/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/25/labour-scrap-controls-immigration/





So, it seems also true that he is a British politician, a MP of a British constituency, leading a British party, campaigning for the British Parliament, with a manifesto aimed at making foreign people vote for Labour.  If he talks about nationalisation of railways / utilities or workers' rights then these are obviously policies which he envisages will benefit foreign workers and society overall.



If all you can do it see the "face value", maybe learn a thing that grown-ups do and look a bit deeper.

If you consider quoting a Telegraph article about Corbyn's policy as "looking deeper", then fair enough. In any case, I don't see how this article proves that Corbyn cares more about foreigners than British people.



What you are doing here is confusing the concepts of "wanting what's best for the people" and "assuming that those who have different views don't want what's best for the people".   You might not think that Corbyn's policies are what's best for the British people, but this doesn't mean that he doesn't sincerely believe that they are.



I've said before that I think Corbyn is a terrible leader, but it's so often the case on this forum that people feel the need to ramp arguments up to the hyperbolic and the vilifying. It's a great pity and really suppresses the room for more balanced discussions.

[Scott777]

Yeah, anyone can turn a question around but it doesn't change the fact that they haven't answered it.



Corbyn is a British politician, a MP of a British constituency, leading a British party, campaigning for the British Parliament, with a manifesto aimed at making the British people vote for Labour. The face value position therefore is that his policies are aimed at what he believes will improve the lives of British people.  If he talks about nationalisation of railways / utilities or workers' rights then these are obviously policies which he envisages will benefit British workers and society overall.



The point you are making is not the face value position ....you are saying he cares more about non-British people and cares more about saving Europe money than benefiting the U.K.  This is not a face value position and therefore requires evidence to be compelling ......hence why I'm asking you what you're basing this view on.

Here's how I know.  "Jeremy Corbyn will scrap controls on immigration and hand foreign nationals the right to vote in future elections and referendums if Labour wins power."



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/25/labour-scrap-controls-immigration/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... migration/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/25/labour-scrap-controls-immigration/





So, it seems also true that he is a British politician, a MP of a British constituency, leading a British party, campaigning for the British Parliament, with a manifesto aimed at making foreign people vote for Labour.  If he talks about nationalisation of railways / utilities or workers' rights then these are obviously policies which he envisages will benefit foreign workers and society overall.



If all you can do it see the "face value", maybe learn a thing that grown-ups do and look a bit deeper.

[Conchúr]

I could turn that around and ask how you know he "cares about the ordinary British people."  Does he say "British" people, or just people, when he talks about worker's rights and everything else.  Does he say British workers?  What are you basing it on?  And there's nothing wrong with caring about minorities.

Yeah, anyone can turn a question around but it doesn't change the fact that they haven't answered it.



Corbyn is a British politician, a MP of a British constituency, leading a British party, campaigning for the British Parliament, with a manifesto aimed at making the British people vote for Labour. The face value position therefore is that his policies are aimed at what he believes will improve the lives of British people.  If he talks about nationalisation of railways / utilities or workers' rights then these are obviously policies which he envisages will benefit British workers and society overall.



The point you are making is not the face value position ....you are saying he cares more about non-British people and cares more about saving Europe money than benefiting the U.K.  This is not a face value position and therefore requires evidence to be compelling ......hence why I'm asking you what you're basing this view on.

[Scott777]

I'd agree that there is an element of idealism to his politics but by what criteria are you saying that he "cares more about billions of non-Britons"? How do you measure that?  Also, what's wrong with caring about minorities?



Again, what are you basing this on? Has he said this explicitly? If not, what has he done to make you think this is how he views it?

I could turn that around and ask how you know he "cares about the ordinary British people."  Does he say "British" people, or just people, when he talks about worker's rights and everything else.  Does he say British workers?  What are you basing it on?  And there's nothing wrong with caring about minorities.

[Conchúr]

I think he does, but sadly he cares more about billions of non-Britons, especially if they are minorities.  

I'd agree that there is an element of idealism to his politics but by what criteria are you saying that he "cares more about billions of non-Britons"? How do you measure that?  Also, what's wrong with caring about minorities?

 Brexit costs money for Europeans and that's bad, so it doesn't matter if it's good for Brits.

Again, what are you basing this on? Has he said this explicitly? If not, what has he done to make you think this is how he views it?

[Scott777]

You may be surprised. I'm not sure he'll go through with the 2nd ref stuff and revoke has been...revoked thank God. In his heart, he's an old Lab Brexiter but he's playing to the gallery for now.



For the record, I'm not particularly in favour of that position but respect it.

I'm afraid Corbyn has u-turned on Brexit, but he won't ever admit it, because he has learnt, just like most politicians, that power goes to those who deceive, to paraphrase Machiavelli.

[Scott777]

Yeah, despite not fully agreeing with his economic vision, at the very least I do get a sense that Corbyn cares about the ordinary British people.

I think he does, but sadly he cares more about billions of non-Britons, especially if they are minorities.  He is an idealist who has no idea how impossible his ideology is.  Brexit costs money for Europeans and that's bad, so it doesn't matter if it's good for Brits.

[Borg Refinery]

Because he will be browbeaten into his future position, which will be remain.

You may be surprised. I'm not sure he'll go through with the 2nd ref stuff and revoke has been...revoked thank God. In his heart, he's an old Lab Brexiter but he's playing to the gallery for now.



For the record, I'm not particularly in favour of that position but respect it.

[Borg Refinery]

@Conchúr



I can agree with all that -except the Siliband part, that guy was something else.



I liked Farron rather a lot and may have voted LD for the first time ever if he stayed on as leader..



The fact is that a SNP-Lab coalition may be the best thing, as they will balance each other out some deal.

[Scott777]

Why? Corbyn is and was an old labourite Brexiteer who has only been browbeaten into his current position.

Because he will be browbeaten into his future position, which will be remain.

[Conchúr]

Why? Corbyn is and was an old labourite Brexiteer who has only been browbeaten into his current position.



I agree with Javert's assessment of Corbyn. IMHO his biggest weakness is that he's surrounded by eejits like McDonnell and Abbott. And Corbyn is a top notch local polutician (sp intentional) but not such a good national one; that said, even with his numerous glaring deficiencies and Labour's donkey jacket treacle mine manifesto - they're still coming across as half-competent compared to the Tories, Brexit Party or the utterly demented Lib Dems...so that says something about the unprecedentedly dire state of 'politics' in the disunited fiefdom...

Yeah, despite not fully agreeing with his economic vision, at the very least I do get a sense that Corbyn cares about the ordinary British people.  I actually found him pretty refreshing in his early days as Labour leader and, in fairness to him, some of the criticism he has received borders on the hysterical.



Nonetheless, I think he has been a terrible leader. He has led the Opposition against what has easily been one of the most laughably dysfunctional Governments for many, many years — and instead of absolutely obliterating them he has often looked watery in his convictions and gave Labour an overall aura of insipidness on the big issues (Brexit above all).  One gets the impression that if Labour had a leader with the same energy and polish as the 1990s version of Blair or, hell, even David Miliband, they would have capitalised on the utter shite circus.  



Some of Corbyn's principles are admirable, and he strikes me as sincere, but he is not (as you say) a national leader. He might surprise us yet, as he has done before, but if he fails to capitalise votes-wise against the shitshow which is the current government . . . he should go.

[Borg Refinery]

At least if Corbyn gets in we will know that Brexit has been stopped, whereas I predict a Tory guv to keep on and on and on and on and pretending and delaying and deceiving, until I have died of old age.

Why? Corbyn is and was an old labourite Brexiteer who has only been browbeaten into his current position.



I agree with Javert's assessment of Corbyn. IMHO his biggest weakness is that he's surrounded by eejits like McDonnell and Abbott. And Corbyn is a top notch local polutician (sp intentional) but not such a good national one; that said, even with his numerous glaring deficiencies and Labour's donkey jacket treacle mine manifesto - they're still coming across as half-competent compared to the Tories, Brexit Party or the utterly demented Lib Dems...so that says something about the unprecedentedly dire state of 'politics' in the disunited fiefdom...

[Scott777]

"Brexit Party surges four per cent in the polls after Nigel Farage vows to fight the Tories and Labour by unleashing 600 candidates at the general election."



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7651863/Brexit-Party-surges-polls-Nigel-Farage-vows-fight-Tories-Labour-election.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ction.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7651863/Brexit-Party-surges-polls-Nigel-Farage-vows-fight-Tories-Labour-election.html

[Major Sinic]

Nationalising certain industries is not communist.  Many countries in the world have nationalised utilities industries - are you saying those countries are all communist?



If he was proposing to nationalise ALL companies, and equalise taxes so that every single person is paid the same no matter what they do, that would be a communist policy.



If you keep claiming this is marxist, how are you going to describe it if a real Marxist party gets into power?



Also from what I've seen on Fullfact and other sites, the smears of the policy around those companies being confiscated without paying any money to the shareholders and suchlike are misrepresented and wrong.



Increasing marginal tax rates on the most wealthy people in society is also not a communist policy, or at least, if it is, we are already living in communism as we already have higher tax rates for higher earners.  It would only become communist if it sought to equalise everyone's pay across all professions.

You conveniently single out those aspects which are not marxist, ignoring those which are. The entire concept of forced confiscation without equitable compensation is a fundamental economic principle of marxism. As the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell is on record as saying he is proud to be a Marxist and lists the destruction of capitalism as a main ambition. Totalitarianism is the result of a gradual process starting from relative freedom moving through socialism with differing degrees of authoritarianism before totalitarianism is achieved. It is always destined to ultimately fail.



I have no problem with certain taxation reforms depending on degree.  I absolutely disagree with raising Corporation Tax by over 50% as has been mooted by Labour because it reduces dividend levels thus providing a disincentive to invest, impacts negatively on pensions and reduces retained profits again reducing the amount left to invest in growth. Rediced profits also mean a future reduced tax take. Labours economic plans as they currently exist, whatever you think or believe, will result in economic catastrophe for the UK.