Anyone still think Jeremy Corbyn should be Labour Leader?


Well, when you consider it in the context of his last comment, you can clearly see why I used those exact words. Thanks but I don’t need or want an English lesson from you.


How about I try to address some of your points from a more tolerable Conservative point of view.

The bedroom tax needed to happen, it is a direct response to people living in council houses too large for them and refusing to leave. If you have an extra room in your house that you are unwilling to allow someone to move into, you should have money taken away from you. Think about it. After university I will be finding a different job. When I get that job I am not going to rent an apartment on my own. During University I am going to be renting with other people. Of course I am going to find housemates. Why should people living on benefits treated special?

Firstly I would like to point out that the UK government is committed to making work pay. The Conservative Party, and I think UKIP, were the only two parties committed to making sure that people earning at the lowest tax band wouldn’t have to pay any tax by increasing the tax-free threshold. This is a policy that is directly favouring the poorest workers in our society. The cutting of the highest rate of tax led to an increase of £8 billion of revenue for the treasury. The city of london has been constantly complaining that the tax regulatory scheme had become ‘too onerous’, and it is undeniable that a decrease in tax would encourage more investors to come here.

I’m not going to blame New Labour for the Financial crisis, they may or may not have played a part in it. Let’s just say that. However, they did directly make the financial crisis worse for us in the UK. By the ever more increasing debt financing of New Labour, they kept increasing the yield/rate of UK governments bonds. This meant that when the financial crisis actually hit, it caused a far greater impact on the UK than should have. That is fact.

Well under current figures the Tories would win the next general election 47 to 52 Tories - 28 or 29 Labour


Hello, before I start I have to thank you for addressing this in a mature way, unlike my friend who hasn’t replied in two days.
But anyway, I respect that perhaps the governments intention regarding the bedroom tax may have been coming from a place of fairness, however, it failed to take into account the requirement of disabled people to have a spare bedroom in their house, often for carers or for equipment. But the stigma towards people on benefits (Which I’m not saying that you represent, but just your last point inspires me to say this) The stigma towards the poor and vulnerable as if in all cases of state benefits, the government is subsidising a holiday or something else luxurious needs to stop, of course there are some who exploit the system, but ARE a minority) Similarly, while we’re on the subject of people who are economic drains on society, while Cameron acted perfectly legally, we have to remember the Panama papers, remember that next time a member of the upper classes refer to Scroungers as if they are a majority of benefits claimants, that the same can be said about those who share THEIR lifestyle.
Next, I respect the Conservatives and UKIP for that, But it’s worth mentioning that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn is also committed to this.
Also, my point was simply regarding the fact that a tax cut for the richest was included in the same budget as Child benefit cuts, if the tax cut did raise £8bn, where was the need for this cut?
Next, as I’ve said, I’m more interventionalist and therefore disagree with much of New Labour’s economic policy, however, it is worth remembering that the UK was impacted far less severely than many other European countries, however, you may attribute that to the collapse in the Euro. In any case, Brown, in alliance with Obama etc…was instrumental in beginning to save the world economy.
Finally, I was addressing the Conservatives share of the vote in the General Election with that figure. I’d like to see the poll with Con on 52 though, not because I don’t believe you but out of interest.
But yes, our poll numbers are shocking, but we are slowly recovering, considering we were at 26 during the summer. We have a mountain to climb, but I believe that people will be inspired in 2020 when they hear Corbyn’s vision for the UK. A vision that I intend to vote for.


Firstly, I must point out that this is a fairly loaded paragraph. Therefore I will take it in two parts. All people do have a right to appeal against certain decisions for cases of special circumstances.
Finally, there are no figures of people exploiting the benefits system. Your stigma is that they are a minority yet you have no proof.

David Cameron had no part in the panama papers his father apparently did. Furthermore top band tax cuts make these schemes less profitable therefore more tax is collected in the home country.

Is he committed to this, or is he committed to this like Labour were committed to the EU Referendum… because it was going to happen anyway and they might as well claim credit.

In the current situation, the UK did far worse than it should have. You’ve completely hedged that entire point. Comparing it to a Euro country is useless. Comparing to Greece is less than useless. I thought you said that Brown wasn’t the President of the World…

I’ve used the ‘Who would be the best Prime Minister’ poll. May 52%, Jeremy Corbyn 18%, Don’t Know 30%

And yes, Corbyn scored lower than ‘Don’t Know’.

Insane optimism is less than useless in a time when Labour has never done this badly at this time of the election cycle, even considering the Tory rifts right now.


Okay, well…My optimism is based on the idea that when Jeremy Corbyn’s message is directly targeted at the people (Using the TV debates etc…) rather than through the media narrative, then I predict that Labour will see a rise in support…you shouldn’t feel obliged to prove or disprove that, it’s just my prediction.
Secondly, it’s dangerous of you to say that the poll you site represents a Conservative share of 52%, it doesn’t…it represents Theresa May’s share being 52%.
Next, no, Brown isn’t president of the world, I said that he was part of a coalition of world leaders which let the world to recovery, please listen to what I say before you mis-represent me. But, it’s completely valid to state that the UK did far better than some of the other European countries, how is it an invalid point?
Also, Yes, he’s committed to it, any party that continues the policy of another after the other party has announced it will be accused of “Hopping on the bandwagon” Its just an irrelevant point.
And, I never said that Cameron actually avoided tax, but he DID profit from it, the Prime Minister of the UK who is in very basic terms, in charge of taxes (As I say, very basic terms) has no credibility if he himself has profited from Tax avoidance.

You want facts? It is estimated that in 2011-12, 0.8% of total benefit expenditure is overspent as a result of fraud.


Firstly - please quote, like I am, what you are answering.

Your belief in his core idea does not equate to others believing in his idea.

It’s a valid point, however it is inaccurate to compare. You are refusing to answer the entire basis of my point, Britain has done far worse from it than it should have due to prior deficit spending. You still haven’t answered that point.

If something is going to be passed which he may not support but that might get him votes, why wouldn’t he support it. Look at the EU referendum, Labour have completely backtracked when they once accepted that it was going to pass ‘So let’s just vote for it’ and look good.

You probably benefited from slavery, you have no credibility.

This is fraud. Fraud =/= Laziness or unwilling to work.

52% support for Theresa May is more or less supporting the Conservative Party. Yet you fail to even consider that Jeremy Corbyn is doing terrible. All you can say is ‘I predict’, but predictions are based on nothing but optimism. Furthermore if you want to look at figures closely, why don’t you look at actual opinion polls. 47% for the Conservatives, Labour 29%. IN TIMES OF OPPOSITION this is unheard of. It paints a picture of a terrible opposition which is not supported by the people. This opposition is not credible.


Unfortunately you’re your own worst enemy in this statement. You say that Theresa may and therefore the Conservatives have 52% support and then site that they actually have 47%. I’m just stating that we vote for the party, not for the prime minister. I’m not saying that either poll is irrelevant. I’m simply correcting you. I won’t repeat myself any more, this is the last time. It’s my PREDICTION…Based on OPINION. That Labour would see an increase in support when they hear what Corbyn has to say. It’s just an opinion. You don’t need to try and prove or disprove it…

Why have I consistently been the one who is presenting you lot with evidence. How about you show me some?

Probably so yes, but not as directly and recently as money left to me by my father. Last I checked my father didn’t have slaves. What a laughable point. In any case, Cameron has also probably profited from slavery. The issue is that he ALSO profited from his father’s offshore accounts. AND I’M NOT THE PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.

I’ve answered it a few times actually-I’ve said that I disagree with much of New Labour’s economic policy. My point was that the UK Labour party didn’t cause a global recession. (As your party managed to convince people that they did in 2015) Sajid Javid even said “Every Labour government has led to a recession” Which is completely false. See here, data which shows that the Conservatives are the party of economic incompetence.


Because we cannot measure laziness. It’s subjective. Fraud, however difficult to find, is possible to measure.

No need to get angry. If your father commits a crime [not actually a crime tax avoidance] it means less because you aren’t the PM? It should mean the same for whoever you are, whether poor or rich.

But he didn’t profit from himself. He filed all of the tax returns in the way you are designed to do it in, but his father didn’t. Why should Cameron be punished for something he didn’t do? That’s absurdity.

This figure is bloated, because the recent deficit was caused by one of the biggest financial crashes in the world. Here is a graph which further illustrates it more effectively.


The image won’t load. But, it is worth mentioning that you’re right in calling it a Global financial crisis. But I don’t understand how the figures are “Bloated” they seem clear and simple to me.

He admitted himself that he profited from it. I don’t think he should be punished. But, again, this is just my opinion which you will, no doubt, try to prove or disprove, he should have stepped down then and there. Because he lost all credibility at that point. But, going back to your point a few days ago. While I may have profited from slavery. David Cameron certainly did, the difference is that David Cameron ALSO profited from his father’s offshore accounts. He should’ve donated the money to charity.

I did, in fact, state that tax avoidance isn’t a crime. But it’s certainly relevant that Cameron is the PM considering that he’s (In general terms) in charge of taxes and punishing people who don’t pay. The fact that you don’t understand that relevance is astonishing.

So you can’t actually show me any evidence that anybody receives benefits because they’re lazy?


I’ve just stated how they would have become bloated. A global financial crisis, which I have stated many time which you seem to ignore, could have had their exposure minimised.

Well this is your opinion, I disagree so I will just leave it there.

Well as you said it isn’t a crime and therefore no one should be punished. However we can learn from this and adjust.

Can you read? No. You cannot show evidence of laziness because laziness cannot be measured. There isn’t a unit of measurement or unbiased way to prove that one is lazy. Fraud can be measured in the value of cash however.


It did.

Every Labour government has left office with higher unemployment than it inherited.

Do you have a source for your claim that there was ever a Labour government that did not end up in a recession?


AHA John…It appears that my prediction was spot on was it not?