Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[Tangled up in Blue]

Guess who the first new education, policy proposal has come from in the Labour leadership race?

http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...es-10bn-plan-to-scrap-university-tuition-fees

 

[EastStandBlue]

**** sake...

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

**** sake...

Got something against tuition fees being scrapped and the student maintenance grant being restored?

Please explain your reasons why.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Whacking an extra 7% on NI for people earning above £50k isn't going to help Labour win an election.

Scrapping tuition fees entirely, for me at least, is the wrong kind of policy a potential Labour leader should be endorsing, particularly given the economics involved and what that level of finance could achieve if diverted towards health or welfare. By all means scale them back towards the £3kp/a mark, but to remove them entirely looks like a desperate - and eye wateringly expensive - attempt at being populist.

 

[Sandbach Shrimper]

Got something against tuition fees being scrapped and the student maintenance grant being restored?

Please explain your reasons why.

With the numbers of people going to university these days, free higher education is simply not economically viable. When it was free, only a small minority of people went to uni.

If they raised entry requirements for university and cut all these mickey mouse 'degrees' that you can quite easily learn at college or on the job, then I might support the idea of reducing fees. But not by making the rest of us pay more tax or by increasing corporation tax which will just drive businesses out of the UK.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Whacking an extra 7% on NI for people earning above £50k isn't going to help Labour win an election.

That wasn't the only way of raising the necessary revenue mentioned in the article.The alternative mentioned was "by slowing the pace at which the deficit is reduced".Don't forget the 2.5 increase in corporation tax btw,that would be a popular move with many on the left.

Scrapping tuition fees entirely, for me at least, is the wrong kind of policy a potential Labour leader should be endorsing, particularly given the economics involved and what that level of finance could achieve if diverted towards health or welfare. By all means scale them back towards the £3kp/a mark, but to remove them entirely looks like a desperate - and eye wateringly expensive - attempt at being populist.

On the contary, I happen to think that Blair's introduction of tuition fees for University Education was the greatest betrayal by the Labour party in my lifetime.

With the numbers of people going to university these days, free higher education is simply not economically viable.

Actually,this is simply not true.I suggest you read the article and find out how it could be financed.

When it was free, only a small minority of people went to uni.

True enough.When I studied for my degree in 71/74 and received a maximum grant and free tuiton fees, the % of my age group going to Uni was about 5%.

If they raised entry requirements for university and cut all these mickey mouse 'degrees' that you can quite easily learn at college or on the job, then I might support the idea of reducing fees.

I would certainly agree that degrees should, where possible, be "relevant".However this is difficult to quantify.Can't say my own first degree in politics has been all that useful in my TEFL career, for example.However it did give me a good grounding to teach history while doing a PGCE.

But not by making the rest of us pay more tax or by increasing corporation tax which will just drive businesses out of the UK

.

AS ESB noted, only those earning more than 50k would be expected to pay higher NI contributions.

Your claim about the effect of increasing corporation tax, (the UK already has the lowest rate in the EU), is contentious,to say the least.

 

[Neil_F]

As opposed to Cameron and his chums who want us back to the 1850s.

What does that even mean???

 

[Neil_F]

Guess who the first new education, policy proposal has come from in the Labour leadership race?

http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...es-10bn-plan-to-scrap-university-tuition-fees

Out of interest, do you know how the current Scottish system contrasts with the English system? Given Corbyn advocates this position (and you support it) I presume students from the poorest households have significantly higher attendance rates under the Scottish system?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Out of interest, do you know how the current Scottish system contrasts with the English system? Given Corbyn advocates this position (and you support it) I presume students from the poorest households have significantly higher attendance rates under the Scottish system?

I'm aware that Scottish students don't pay for entry to Higher Education (H.E.), (nor do EU students from countries other than England).

If you have any comparitive figures for entry to H.E. in Scotland and the rest of the UK I'd be interested to see them.

 

[C'mon you Shrimpers]

I know you like Guardian links TUIB so try this one for size.

http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...tland-benefits-wealthiest-students-most-study

The Nats have also raided the FE budget to pay for this crazy scheme so there are less and less FE courses in Scotland. They really are a complete shower. Those things under their command like education (which Scotland used to be famous for but standards are now plummetting) and health (Scottish NHS failing compaired to England) have shown how incompetent they are. And still the good people of Scotland think they are great. Delusional. "They may be crap but they're our crap".

 

[Benfleet A1]

The man who would be king.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11749043/Andrew-Gilligan-Jeremy-Corbyn-friend-to-Hamas-Iran-and-extremists.html

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

The man who would be king.

Great film that.One of my favourites.:winking:

(ps Did I ever tell you that one of my best mates, (now retired), went to the same religous Teacher Training college as Gerry Adams in Brum)?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

http://www.channel4.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-i-wanted-hamas-to-be-part-of-the-debate

In his own words rather than how the Telegraph or even Nick Cohen in the Guardian want to interpret them. Worth mentioning that those who refer to the previous PM as B.Liar Corbyn is on your side.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I know you like Guardian links TUIB so try this one for size.

http://www.theguardian.com/educatio...tland-benefits-wealthiest-students-most-study

The Nats have also raided the FE budget to pay for this crazy scheme so there are less and less FE courses in Scotland. They really are a complete shower. Those things under their command like education (which Scotland used to be famous for but standards are now plummetting) and health (Scottish NHS failing compaired to England) have shown how incompetent they are. And still the good people of Scotland think they are great. Delusional. "They may be crap but they're our crap".

Not sure how having university education free in the same way that primary and secondary education is free can be referred to as a 'crazy scheme'. Individuals ending university with £50k debts sounds no less crazy surely?

 

[EastStandBlue]

Great film that.One of my favourites.:winking:

(ps Did I ever tell you that one of my best mates, (now retired), went to the same religous Teacher Training college as Gerry Adams in Brum)?

This is - coding errors included - the quintessential BarnaBlue SZ post.

 

[Pubey]

The man who would be king.

Great film that.One of my favourites.:winking:

(ps Did I ever tell you that one of my best mates, (now retired), went to the same religous Teacher Training college as Gerry Adams in Brum)?

 

[Lord Football]

I don't come on here often these days but.....

Yesterday, the Labour Party died. It is no longer relevant, it no longer stands on its core beliefs, it serves no purpose. Whatever your views on welfare reform in this country are, no one elects their MPs for them to sit on their hands and not take a view. Cetainly no true Labour supporter should allow the Tories do what they did last night without saying anything.

The internal debate in the Labour Party is

1. do you elect Liz Kendal? She openly supports policies from the Conservatives (albeit watered down), in the belief that she will be electable? There seems little point in my view in voting Labour if they are only going to do what Tories do. Tories wont vote for Labour because, well, they're Labour. The end result of a Kendal leadership is a lot of people on the left who have recently joined, re-joined, offered support or stayed in hoping for a better day will disappear. Probably to the Greens.

2. do you elect either Burnham or Cooper? There is little difference between the two, both represent the failed Labour Party ideas of the last election. They would take a poisoned challis of presiding over two ever seperating wings of the party. Burnham is probably the best candidate as far as electability is concerned (my view), but both would keep the Labour Party exactly where it is. Unsure whether it wants to be elected on Tory values or unsure if it is indeed a party of the working classes. In other words, unsure.

3. do you elect Corbyn? He stands on the core beliefs of the Labour Party but will get mauled by the media. End result is that a lot of Blairite element of the Labour Party may simply just go it alone and form something new. It's clear from the stuff I'm reading on social media that many could not and would not support Corbyn.

Yesterday's fiasco merely puts into the public domain what many of us have known for some time. Labour is a party that is split completely down the middle, and there is precious little common ground and it is now hugely at odds with a large number of its membership who are aghast that no meaningful opposition was levied against the Welfare Bill and that MPs were whipped to sit on their hands.

The only winner...... well actually, there are three.

The Lib Dems, who may well find some recruits from disaffected Labourites
The Greens, who will see a surge in membership if Kendal wins (and maybe Burnham / Cooper too)
The Tories, who faced with no meaningful opposition can probably plan for a further five years.

 

[Benfleet A1]

I don't come on here often these days but.....

Yesterday, the Labour Party died. It is no longer relevant, it no longer stands on its core beliefs, it serves no purpose. Whatever your views on welfare reform in this country are, no one elects their MPs for them to sit on their hands and not take a view. Cetainly no true Labour supporter should allow the Tories do what they did last night without saying anything.

The internal debate in the Labour Party is

1. do you elect Liz Kendal? She openly supports policies from the Conservatives (albeit watered down), in the belief that she will be electable? There seems little point in my view in voting Labour if they are only going to do what Tories do. Tories wont vote for Labour because, well, they're Labour. The end result of a Kendal leadership is a lot of people on the left who have recently joined, re-joined, offered support or stayed in hoping for a better day will disappear. Probably to the Greens.

2. do you elect either Burnham or Cooper? There is little difference between the two, both represent the failed Labour Party ideas of the last election. They would take a poisoned challis of presiding over two ever seperating wings of the party. Burnham is probably the best candidate as far as electability is concerned (my view), but both would keep the Labour Party exactly where it is. Unsure whether it wants to be elected on Tory values or unsure if it is indeed a party of the working classes. In other words, unsure.

3. do you elect Corbyn? He stands on the core beliefs of the Labour Party but will get mauled by the media. End result is that a lot of Blairite element of the Labour Party may simply just go it alone and form something new. It's clear from the stuff I'm reading on social media that many could not and would not support Corbyn.

Yesterday's fiasco merely puts into the public domain what many of us have known for some time. Labour is a party that is split completely down the middle, and there is precious little common ground and it is now hugely at odds with a large number of its membership who are aghast that no meaningful opposition was levied against the Welfare Bill and that MPs were whipped to sit on their hands.

The only winner...... well actually, there are three.

The Lib Dems, who may well find some recruits from disaffected Labourites
The Greens, who will see a surge in membership if Kendal wins (and maybe Burnham / Cooper too)
The Tories, who faced with no meaningful opposition can probably plan for a further five years.

Excellent analysis.

 

[mrsblue]

I don't come on here often these days but.....

Yesterday, the Labour Party died. It is no longer relevant, it no longer stands on its core beliefs, it serves no purpose. Whatever your views on welfare reform in this country are, no one elects their MPs for them to sit on their hands and not take a view. Cetainly no true Labour supporter should allow the Tories do what they did last night without saying anything.

The internal debate in the Labour Party is

1. do you elect Liz Kendal? She openly supports policies from the Conservatives (albeit watered down), in the belief that she will be electable? There seems little point in my view in voting Labour if they are only going to do what Tories do. Tories wont vote for Labour because, well, they're Labour. The end result of a Kendal leadership is a lot of people on the left who have recently joined, re-joined, offered support or stayed in hoping for a better day will disappear. Probably to the Greens.

2. do you elect either Burnham or Cooper? There is little difference between the two, both represent the failed Labour Party ideas of the last election. They would take a poisoned challis of presiding over two ever seperating wings of the party. Burnham is probably the best candidate as far as electability is concerned (my view), but both would keep the Labour Party exactly where it is. Unsure whether it wants to be elected on Tory values or unsure if it is indeed a party of the working classes. In other words, unsure.

3. do you elect Corbyn? He stands on the core beliefs of the Labour Party but will get mauled by the media. End result is that a lot of Blairite element of the Labour Party may simply just go it alone and form something new. It's clear from the stuff I'm reading on social media that many could not and would not support Corbyn.

Yesterday's fiasco merely puts into the public domain what many of us have known for some time. Labour is a party that is split completely down the middle, and there is precious little common ground and it is now hugely at odds with a large number of its membership who are aghast that no meaningful opposition was levied against the Welfare Bill and that MPs were whipped to sit on their hands.

The only winner...... well actually, there are three.

The Lib Dems, who may well find some recruits from disaffected Labourites
The Greens, who will see a surge in membership if Kendal wins (and maybe Burnham / Cooper too)
The Tories, who faced with no meaningful opposition can probably plan for a further five years.

Labour are now a circus clown act without the laughs.

May they remain lower than a rattlesnakes belly for eternity.

 

[EastStandBlue]

I don't come on here often these days but.....

Yesterday, the Labour Party died. It is no longer relevant, it no longer stands on its core beliefs, it serves no purpose. Whatever your views on welfare reform in this country are, no one elects their MPs for them to sit on their hands and not take a view. Cetainly no true Labour supporter should allow the Tories do what they did last night without saying anything.

The internal debate in the Labour Party is

1. do you elect Liz Kendal? She openly supports policies from the Conservatives (albeit watered down), in the belief that she will be electable? There seems little point in my view in voting Labour if they are only going to do what Tories do. Tories wont vote for Labour because, well, they're Labour. The end result of a Kendal leadership is a lot of people on the left who have recently joined, re-joined, offered support or stayed in hoping for a better day will disappear. Probably to the Greens.

2. do you elect either Burnham or Cooper? There is little difference between the two, both represent the failed Labour Party ideas of the last election. They would take a poisoned challis of presiding over two ever seperating wings of the party. Burnham is probably the best candidate as far as electability is concerned (my view), but both would keep the Labour Party exactly where it is. Unsure whether it wants to be elected on Tory values or unsure if it is indeed a party of the working classes. In other words, unsure.

3. do you elect Corbyn? He stands on the core beliefs of the Labour Party but will get mauled by the media. End result is that a lot of Blairite element of the Labour Party may simply just go it alone and form something new. It's clear from the stuff I'm reading on social media that many could not and would not support Corbyn.

Yesterday's fiasco merely puts into the public domain what many of us have known for some time. Labour is a party that is split completely down the middle, and there is precious little common ground and it is now hugely at odds with a large number of its membership who are aghast that no meaningful opposition was levied against the Welfare Bill and that MPs were whipped to sit on their hands.

The only winner...... well actually, there are three.

The Lib Dems, who may well find some recruits from disaffected Labourites
The Greens, who will see a surge in membership if Kendal wins (and maybe Burnham / Cooper too)
The Tories, who faced with no meaningful opposition can probably plan for a further five years.

Parts of that I strongly agree with, but I do think it’s a tad dramatic and early to rule out a Labour resurgence in the coming years. Let’s not forget that membership has soared in the months since May, and there’s obviously a groundswell of public opinion since Osborne’s horribly misguided budget was announced. It’s about capitalising on that with the right message.

All in all, it’s been something of a masterstroke politically from the Tories to have the Welfare bill go through first reading now when the opposition has no elected leader. Harman’s caught in between standing for Labour’s values and not making a rod for her/her party’s own back when a leader is elected, while Cooper/Burnham/Kendall would’ve had to resign if they rebelled. It’s all good for Corbyn to come out and beat the drum, but he wasn’t facing the same circumstances in doing so. Would Harman have abstained if someone like Umunna or Jarvis was in contention for the leadership and was making noises about opposing it? I don’t think so.

Make no mistake of my opinion here, for there not to have been vehement opposition to the welfare bill from the Labour party yesterday is disgraceful, but Labour were excellently boxed into a corner on this one. Sometimes you just have to put your hands up and say the better, more organised team won. But the fact some Labour members found themselves unable to oppose a bill backed by Gideon and Iain Duncan ****ing Smith needs addressing internally.

I think it’s underpinned the size of the challenge at hand. Corbyn’s presence has been hugely divisive and it’s no wonder some of the PLP that backed his bid have since come out and said they regret doing so, and Cooper’s proven herself to be a political lightweight. I would’ve backed Kendall as I genuinely believe she’s making the right noises about modernising the party and making it electable by modern Britain, but if I had to vote today I’d be polling for Burnham and Flint simply on the basis that Corbyn would be an absolute disaster for the future of the Labour Party. He can talk a good game when all he has to do is not come across as the biggest idiot in a room containing Yvette Cooper, but he’d get ****ing mauled by a frontbench comprising Osborne, May, Patel et al.

I don’t think Burnham’s capable of uniting the party, but he’s probably the safest pair of hands for the next five years until a stronger candidate emerges, hopefully Umunna or Jarvis.