Anyone still think Jeremy Corbyn should be Labour Leader?


I have to say, I’ve never met anybody quite like you! I’ve never heard anybody (Even with all the far right voices dominating the news these days) Say that we should totally discard the weak and vulnerable because they “Make up 0.1% of the population” (Which by the way, is 65000 people) You should be glad that the Conservative leadership doesn’t hold the same view as you (at least in public) because they’d never see the inside of 10 Downing Street again. These cuts will also cost regular working families around £200 PER MONTH. Last I checked they made up quite a significant chunk of the population.
Even so, The fact that you think it’s okay to allow the most vulnerable in society to suffer because there’s less of them, is utterly disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying it. It’s just logical that we should pay for the countries debts in proportion with what people can physically lose and still survive. The rich don’t go without food if their tax goes up slightly. In order to pay for the mistakes and wrongdoings of the bankers and speculative banks. But austerity isn’t fair…Because while working people are seeing their vital public services and welfare cut, under the Tories (And, I admit New Labour did this also, just not on as big a scale) The rich are having their TAXES cut. Where’s the fairness in that?


But while we’re on the subject…I, a gender equality advocate (So, by definition…a feminist) will list some other "Massive problems"
1: Women get away with physically assaulting men, whereas if a man where to hit a woman, he’d go to jail.
2: Women who feel uncomfortable when being inappropriately advanced on by men are “Victims” while men who feel the same way about a sexual advancement from a man are “Pussys” and are laughed at and ridiculed.
3: Until recently, did you know that men paid more for car insurance?
4: Women nearly always get custody of children after a relationship ends
5: Here’s one that I guarantee will shock you: The gender pay gap isn’t caused by women being paid lower rates, because that’s illegal and has been for 46 years, the gender pay gap represents women earning less, on average, in their lifetime. The issue is that women take maternity leave and therefore physically earn less money. Which is sad, but the idea that it’s because bosses just give women less than men is ludicrous there is another factor which affects this though, and while there are many others, this is the main factor. Just as any other feminist would, I want something to be done about it. This issue is sexism which prevents women from being employed in the first place. i.e. bosses favouring and therefore employing men.
6: Going off my last point, another factor being that women can claim state pension 5 years earlier (That may be a reason…woman may be retiring earlier. The current State Pension age is:
65 for men born before 6 December 1953, between 60 and 65 for women born after 5 April 1950 and before 6 December 1953.
There are 5 examples of systemic, establishment sexism towards men, (The sixth point being more of a fact check)m,and to conclude, a piece of advice: If you want men to support and fight with you, maybe it would be a good idea to stop the generalisations and nastiness. While I’m sure you and most PEOPLE, never mind feminists, agree with what I’m saying.


You’ve never met somebody who cares about the majority of the population rather than a rather irrelevant but politically beneficial minority?

Christ, what kind of political circles do you hang around in?

Regardless, your numbers mean nothing out of context. They can lose 1000, 3000, 10000, 50000, I honestly don’t care. It means nothing. An in-context (appriopriate) comparison is talking about their material losses, such as how many will be forced into food banks.

If, however, we’re taking “1500 away from vulnerable families”, but all that 1500 is used for is holiday budget, Sky, cars or home interior, then we’re just taking away wasted money.

Use an appropriate comparison. Talking about money when you’re talking about poor people isn’t appropriate. Not all poor people are material poor, either mathematically or in media (Channel 5’s benefit shows)


Disability cuts, tax credit cuts, bedroom tax (all affecting a small % of the population) and they won the 2015 GE with the largest share of vote since 1992, so not sure what you’re talking about.

You have zero proof of this, and you have zero proof that the “regular working families” in question will go without food without that extra 200 p/m.

Then talk to Gordon Brown who bailed them out to the tune of 500 billion pounds, as far as I am aware he’s Labour’s guy.

It is fair, but we haven’t had austerity since 2011, so I’m really not sure what kind of ‘austerity’ you’re talking about, since no one with a real knowledge of economics would call what happened in the last 5 years ‘austerity’.

As you can see, government spending has never decreased under the Tories since they were elected in 2010. The current budget is 160 000 000 000 (160 billion) larger than the budget that they inherited from Labour in 2010. That’s equal to the NHS budget, which means that from 2010 to 2016 the Tories have basically created another NHS in public spending.

Which ones are Tories cutting? In secret and off-paper that you personally (somehow) know of?

…Where? There have been no tax cuts for the rich in the last 4 years.

I know that the stupid line “tax cuts for the rich, austerity for the poor” / “the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer” is the favourite line for labour/green people with zero knowledge of economics, but that line really doesn’t hold up when the rich you’re talking about haven’t seen a tax cut since 2012. In which case, it really is an irrelevant line.

How can a person who is smart enough to understand this support Labour at the same time?


I dont think labour can see a majority under Corbyn, I think Iraq hurt Blair so much people don’t even want to associate with his economic policies.


to be honest blairite economic policies aren’t really associated with Blair anymore. People like Kendall were able to succeed on such a platform reasonably. Even Tories are becoming slightly more Blairite today.


I just think labour threw away their chances of ever getting elected by moving away from that with Corbyn


Pretty much.

I think Corbyn is the problem, rather than his policies. His past is simply too awful.

Here’s Corbyn meeting the Syrian socialist dictator from a trip funded by a Palestinian Independence Organisation…


I miss the Blairite economics. I would totally vote for them if they still had that.

Still pissed off Kendall didn’t win.


Okay, well, I can’t even begin to fabricate a response to your first point because it is truly disgraceful that you hold this view. The context of the issue is: People who can barely afford to pay rent anyway will suffer greatly if they lose £3600…For me, that’s 6 months rent.
Regardless: people losing £3600 per year isn’t exactly symbolic of governmental success is it?
Coming onto your second point. I wouldn’t call 36.1% of the popular vote impressive if I were you.
They won the general election because…well, I haven’t got a clue how they did it to be quite honest. In any case, if Theresa May came out saying what you said in your last statement, they wouldn’t win the next election that’s for sure.

But I think it’s interesting that you say “We haven’t had austerity since 2011” but you still quote the “Disability cuts” etc…That seems like quite a contradiction to me. (also while you stated that the government hasn’t directly cut the top rate of tax in four years, it’s still relevant that it was cut in 2012.) (Which by the way was stated within a budget alongside cuts to child benefit)

I have distanced myself from New Labour, but the real question is: Would the Tories have done any different to Gordon Brown after the financial crisis? No they would have done the exact same.

But, I’m through with talking to you, your only argument is: Random outbursts of your frankly worrying view on the world and vulnerable people, followed by the insinuation that someone who disagrees with you doesn’t understand what they’re talking about. I’m a Labour voter and member through and through, I don’t need to justify myself to you. Goodbye.


To put it simply, those who voted Conservative did so because they saw them as the most viable option, and trusted them with governing the nation. It’s very rare that you can put an election down to giant ideological shifts among the electorate. 2015 wasn’t one of them. It’s one of those elections where because the economy wasn’t completely up the shitter, and Labour had failed to cast off its image of being ‘fiscally reckless’ amongst the populace, the incumbent government just about managed to cling on. Factor in the fact that many swing voters in English constituencies would have been put off by the prospect of a Labour-SNP coalition or confidence and supply agreement that seemed likely at the time, as well as the electoral collapse of the Liberal Democrats in areas where the Conservatives were the natural opposition, and you get yourself a Tory victory. (Intense Conservative campaigning in the Liberal Democrat seats was part of the reason they won.) That’s not to say that voters necessarily agreed with the Conservatives, or that there aren’t other factors which contributed or hindered (portrayal of Miliband, UKIP’s popularity, etc.) their electoral success, but they simply saw them as a more viable alternative to Labour. You can agree or disagree as to whether they actually are a more viable alternative, but that doesn’t change the reality of the perception of the populace.

Also, failing to understand why Labour lost and the Conservatives won will have a negative impact on how you structure your own politics. That’s not to be a dig directly at you, moreso a criticism I can levy at a lot of people.


Btw, I think it’s worth highlighting the fact that you started the debate with him, not the other way round.

  1. Source?
  2. Source?

As I have said, your response is completely inadequate because you’re throwing around random numbers which mean nothing. What are their material losses? How many will be forced into a food bank?

I honestly don’t give a shit if the loss of 300 pounds a month will force benefit claimants into canceling Sky, canceling holidays abroad and canceling Christmas gifts. That’s a good thing, because it’s a waste of money.

Unless they’re being forced into a food bank or on the street, then the cuts to benefits are going well. It’s not meant to be a way of life, and the taxpayers shouldn’t be liable to pay for your TV and the gifts you give to close ones.

You’re not answering the question.

Depends entirely on what you believe “governmental success” means.

If governmental success means cutting the deficit and debt, which is what most on the right-wing want (Tory + UKIP = 50.2% of people) then yes, the government is on its route to success through these actions.

Because they know how to handle the economy, something Labour is godawful at. Regardless, not understanding why the public doesn’t want Labour (which isn’t something exclusive to you, it seems to be a popular confusion even in Labour’s Shadow Cabinet) is also the reason why you’re extremely likely to lose the next election.

…because they weren’t cut?

The public voted for the Tories despite the plan to cut disability payments. They were canceled later anyway and did not go through.

How is it relevant then? Will it stay relevant until it is cut/raised again? Will it still be relevant in 2025?

Cut =/= Cap.

The spending on child benefits grew in said year, but some people had their benefits cut because they had too many kids and no one wants to pay for them.

Given the fact that the Tories have criticised Brown’s decision to ban Barclays from taking over Lehman Brothers (which is almost directly attributable to causing the financial crisis itself) then yes, it likely would have gone differently.

Also depends on who would be handling the party at that time. The further right of the Conservative Party wouldn’t mind the banks falling down.

c ya


Okay, I’ll do this one final time, In the hope that this time you listen. The disability cuts didn’t happen, but, if you look closely you’ll see that I was quoting you and I said “etc…”. The bedroom tax, however, DID happen, alongside many other regressive taxes/cuts etc…
Well, I’ll explain how the cut in the top rate of tax is relevant. If you’d bothered to read my point, it was about the Conservatives favouring the rich through their economic policy. My point was that it appeared within the same budget as cuts to child benefit. We can argue about what the government should/shouldn’t pay for all day but that’s a new can of worms that I REALLY don’t wish to open with you.
I’m NOT going to have the debate about the Labour parties perceived economic incompetence with you. Not because I believe that they were incompetent. There were many years of strong economic growth etc…But because I don’t intend on defending the economic policy of New Labour, although it is ludicrous to state that Labour caused the financial crisis.
Finally, I was referring to my own set of opinions and beliefs when I said that I didn’t know how the Tories won the last election. clearly 36.1% of the electorate do, but “I” don’t. Of course, I understand the reasons but I am referring to myself.


I appreciate this, however, I was merely using a figure of expression and referring to my own personal opinions etc…But, As a politics student I do understand how and why the Conservatives won. I obviously, disagree but there’s nothing I can, or want to do about it.


" If you’d bothered to read my point, it was about the Conservatives favouring the rich through their economic policy. "

By doubling the personal allowance for low income earners? Really?

Look at the miserable growth of tax breaks for the poor under Labour, then the boom in low taxes for the poor under Tories.

" although it is ludicrous to state that Labour caused the financial crisis."

Lehman went bankrupt the morning after Brown blocked Barclays from taking them over, which was the cause of the stock market spiral and market uncertainty, hence causing huge asset depreciation, taking out investment and mass unemployment.

Housing benefit spending has been going up every year since Tories took power.

Labour caused many years of strong economic growth (global)
Labour caused many years of economic recession (global)

Sorry, but you can’t pick and choose. The recession and the boom were global. Not sure why you’re attributing the global economic boom to Labour, but the economic crash to whomever else.


Yes, that’s true, but I never insulted his choice of partisanship by implying that those who vote for his party are less intelligent, as he did. My point was that I don’t have to justify or prove my intelligence to him or come up with an excuse as to why I align with a particular party. I was more than happy to continue debating him regarding policy, but I physically cannot do it anymore XD. Whoever initiated the debate is irrelevant.




Erm, I never once said that the economic growth enjoyed under labour until 2008 was global. Did I? Talk about a basic understanding of economics, last I checked, between 1997 and 2007 Tony Blair was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not the president of the world.
Again, another point proven, you aren’t listening to what I’m saying. Simply throwing around and misquoting me.
It’s simply a waste of time debating you because everything I say, you ignore. No minds will be changed, no matter what facts you’re presented with.


Here? My word, you do have a selective memory don’t you?


Whoever initiated the debate isn’t irrelevant with regards to your comment, because you’re phrasing it as if he’s engaging in a purposeful assault on your views. “I don’t need to justify myself to you” is a line that sticks out like a sore thumb in that regard. Whether you meant that or not is irrelevant. Take it as a lesson to phrase yourself properly if you didn’t mean that.