back to article Jeremy Corbyn wins Labour leadership election

Jeremy Corbyn has been elected as the new leader of the Labour Party, following a three-month-long contest. The left-winger won 59.5 per cent of the votes to secure the leadership. Outspoken backbencher Tom Watson was elected Deputy Leader of the Labour Party on Saturday morning. Watson, speaking ahead of Corbyn's storming …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pyhrric victory

    As everyone bar the emotionally needy yawns, and turns away to find something a bit more relevant to the 21st century.

    1. Graham Marsden
      Boffin

      Re: Pyhrric victory

      You mean like the Blue Tories, the Purple Tories, the Red austerity-lite Tories or the Yellow idiots who sold their souls for a sniff of power and were comprehensively shafted by the Tories?

      Try visiting the Political Compass site and see how *all* of the "major" UK Parties are in the Right-wing Authoritarian corner.

      I have no love for Labour and have no intention of voting for them, but after 35 years of Tory-ism (yes, that even includes Blair) it's good to see that we might *finally* get some balance back in UK politics, rather than "Let the Rich get richer, I'm alright Jack, screw the little people".

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Pyhrric victory

        It's certainly novel to have a labour party member as leader.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Pyhrric victory

          Some Conservatives wish they had a real Conservative as leader.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Pyhrric victory

          > It's certainly novel to have a labour party member as leader.

          It's certainly novel to have a socialist as the labour party leader.

      2. LucreLout Silver badge

        Re: Pyhrric victory

        @Graham Marsden

        it's good to see that we might *finally* get some balance back in UK politics, rather than "Let the Rich get richer, I'm alright Jack, screw the little people".

        The only problem with your little rant, is that the Conservatives hate the poor enough to want to make them rich, while labour, the real nasty party, hate the rich enough to want to make them poor. Rather sad, no?

        Corbyns econimic policies, if implemented, would destroy the economy the same way they did last time they were used, in the 1970s. The defining difference though, is that there will be no North Sea Oil to bail us out this time. You'd be looking at generation upon generation trapped in poverty, real poverty, not just some silly metric based around how much your neighbour earns.

        1. Graham Marsden
          Facepalm

          @LucreLout - Re: Pyhrric victory

          > the Conservatives hate the poor enough to want to make them rich

          Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!

          The last thing that the Tories want is for people to have enough money to be able to pick and choose jobs, that's why their aim is to keep sufficient people unemployed (and, if possible, sanctioned), so they have a large supply of obedient serfs who are so desperate for any work that they'll take whatever jobs are on offer for a pittance.

          > there will be no North Sea Oil to bail us out this time.

          If Maggie had any sense, she would have *invested* the money from North Sea Oil, instead of using it (and flogging off nationalised industries to her rich friends) to bribe people into electing her again.

          1. LucreLout Silver badge

            Re: @LucreLout - Pyhrric victory

            The last thing that the Tories want is for people to have enough money to be able to pick and choose jobs, that's why their aim is to keep sufficient people unemployed (and, if possible, sanctioned), so they have a large supply of obedient serfs who are so desperate for any work that they'll take whatever jobs are on offer for a pittance.

            Arf arf - Your tin foil hat is over there fella -->

            Labour did more to destroy social mobility than any party in history. Forcing everyone into their local substandard comp by closing grammar schools is not the way to help bright working class people into a better job.

            Jacking up taxes doesn't help the working man get ahead - it keeps him in debt. Overly generous welfare make it ever more difficult for him to teach his children about the benefits of hard work and the application of their abilities.

            Labour depend on welfare wallers and their public sector client state such that they are really only ever interested in increasing the size of both of them, whatever adverse affect that has on the real economy.

            Labour, as a party, just don't understand economics. They never did. The biggest single improvement that could be made to Britains fortunes for the next 100 years would be to educate the labour party on living within your means.

            If Maggie had any sense, she would have *invested* the money from North Sea Oil, instead of using it

            Maggie invested the revenue in paying off some of the debts of the preceding labour government. In basic economic terms, paying off debt == saving.

            1. Graham Marsden

              Re: @LucreLout - Pyhrric victory

              No tin foil hat needed. The evidence is in front of your eyes, just avoid the wool that the Murdoch Media is trying to pull over them because Uncle Rupert is bang alongside the Tories on this.

              > Jacking up taxes doesn't help the working man get ahead - it keeps him in debt.

              And what do Zero Hours contract and Minimum Wage jobs with no prospect of advancement do for him?

              > Overly generous welfare make it ever more difficult for him to teach his children about the benefits of hard work and the application of their abilities.

              "Overly generous"? You *really* have to stop believing what you read in the papers! And when the message about hard work is "you work all hours of the day and *still* end up with sod all", something has gone seriously wrong.

              As for Labour not living within their means, once again we see the Tories trying to flog off what remains of the family silver in the hope that nobody notices they've pissed all of our money away on tax breaks for their mates, laughing up their sleeves as they piously claim "We're all in this together"!

              PS I will again remind you that I have no more love for Labour that the Tories, but at least we might see some options other than the failed nonsense of Right Wing Authoritarianism which we've had for the last 35 years.

              1. LucreLout Silver badge
                Boffin

                Re: @LucreLout - Pyhrric victory

                @Graham

                And what do Zero Hours contract and Minimum Wage jobs with no prospect of advancement do for him?

                They allow him to buy a house, a car, and have foreign holidays. They provide medical care and education for him and his whole family. They provide him a pension when he gets old.

                Just how much do you think the person with the least skills, experience, intelligence, and application in the country should be able to afford relative to the smartest, the hardest working, and the most experienced?

                And when the message about hard work is "you work all hours of the day and *still* end up with sod all", something has gone seriously wrong.

                Yes, what has gone wrong is your message. It does not reflect reality. £7.20 minimum wage next year, for no skills or experience required. Stress free work, and literally an endless choice of vocations to persue, and locations in which to live, for if you are to remain on minimum wage there is no mandate to specialise.

                Now, please Graham, stop abusing the Degree Level Icon for your school boy playground rhetoric.

              2. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: @LucreLout - Pyhrric victory

                @ Graham Marsden

                "And what do Zero Hours contract and Minimum Wage jobs with no prospect of advancement do for him?"

                A job. Fewer requirements of skill or knowledge to be paid a wage more competitive than some of our European neighbours which can allow the unskilled young to earn some money (kinda like a paper round but with real money) which they could apply to their life goals (or a night out). The possibility for someone unattractive to the workplace to get a start back on the ladder to earn some money, re-enter the workforce and to of course learn skills and knowledge (and the routine) to take control of their own life again. For zero hours the flexibility to work on a non-perminent basis for someone who will give you money for your time/skills while not tying up your time (an old friend liked this back when labour were in power over a decade ago).

                "As for Labour not living within their means, once again we see the Tories trying to flog off what remains of the family silver"

                Hey look over there. The fact stands regardless of the Tories actions and I am not surprised by the Tories actions, Cameron is leaning so far left the only labour party alternative was a massive leap to the left promoted only to stir debate. Libs are dead in the water, labour went from Blairs state controlled capitalism welfare state to a full blown print money for spending, Tories keep moving left 'to deny labour ground' although I just think Cameron signed up to the wrong party. We do need some real alternatives and UKIP seemed the most promising so far (although still very young).

                "Right Wing Authoritarianism which we've had for the last 35 years"

                Excluding labours attempt to bankrupt the country with their left wing authoritarianism? Shame all the main parties want big gov, big spend. Especially Corbyn.

              3. Mike Pellatt

                Re: @LucreLout - Pyhrric victory

                There are two slogans that are utterly meaningless when it comes to managing a country's finances.

                These are

                "Living within your means"

                and

                "Flogging off the family silver"

                My bullshit meter goes to 100 when I see either of those used. Which is pretty much anything from either side of the political debate on how the macro UK economy should be run.

                Maggie did economic debate a massive non-service when she compared UK finance to running household finances.

    2. TheVogon

      Re: Pyhrric victory

      Top Banana. My £3 investment will be repaid many times over in lower taxes if it as seems likely, it makes Labour unelectable.

      "Some Conservatives wish they had a real Conservative as leader."

      Nah - with no credible opposition you would hope that they will restrain the temptation to over do it. The last budget was a great example of moderate conservatism - even including things that Labour were proposing! Overall a Conservative government tends to be better for the country, as evidenced by stock market declines whenever Labour win.

      1. x 7

        Re: Pyhrric victory

        " it makes Labour unelectable."

        thats the trouble, it hasn't.

        If anything its likely to lead to a resurgent labour party while people just listen to the sound bites and ignore the polices.........we're now just one election away from unilateral nuclear disarmament and the destruction of our conventional armed forces. We're back to the situation Wedgwood Benn wanted us in the 1960's - Russian puppets

        1. The Axe

          Re: Pyhrric victory

          @x7, "we're now just one election away from unilateral nuclear disarmament and the destruction of our conventional armed forces."

          No we're not. You're thinking 200,000 votes in a limited election can translate to the whole population in a general election. No way. These are 200,000 emotionally disturbed people and some Tories who sabotaged the Labour election which is not the same as the general population.

          1. Mr Fuzzy

            Re: Pyhrric victory

            @The Axe

            People are emotionally disturbed if they have political views that don't line up with yours?

            Wind your neck in.

            1. LucreLout Silver badge

              Re: Pyhrric victory

              @Mr Fuzzy

              People are emotionally disturbed if they have political views that don't line up with yours?

              I think you're being a little unfair there. Even the parliamentary labour party don't want Corbyn as leader because they're afraid that his ill thought out world view would destroy both their party and their country.

              I'm not sure I can ever remember a party leader so openly maligned by the grandees of their own party, before ever they took office. Or a party where so many of its luminaries declined to serve even in a Shadow Cabinet.

              The only labour party members I know celebrating Corbyns win are those too young to remember the 70s - Generation Y and the Millenials.

              Personally speaking, I want a labour party I can believe in, that I could vote for, but this isn't it. This could never be it. And I'm a little upset about that.

              1. amanfromarse

                Re: Pyhrric victory

                >>People are emotionally disturbed if they have political views that don't line up with yours?

                >I think you're being a little unfair there.

                No comment required.

                >The only labour party members I know celebrating Corbyns win are those too young to remember the 70s - Generation Y and the Millenials.

                Know a lot of labour party members, do you?

                1. LucreLout Silver badge

                  Re: Pyhrric victory

                  @amanfromarse

                  Know a lot of labour party members, do you?

                  Yup.

                  I know 1 Conservative party member, and somewhere around 100 Labour party members, most enrolled when joining their union or because their parents are/were members. Working class lad from the North East you see, pretty well everyone I know was raised "Red until dead".

                  Of everyone I've asked in the run up, very few wanted Corbyn as leader, and most were dismayed by the lack of real choice in candidates, and their obvious lack of talent. Oddly enough, that's actually a view the Conservative party member I know has of his parties leadership too.

                  The Blairs are a truly horrible family, but Tony and his backers understood very well how politics works, and could sway the electorate. Only Alex Salmond was a better politician of that generation.

          2. LucreLout Silver badge

            Re: Pyhrric victory

            @The Axe

            You're thinking 200,000 votes in a limited election can translate to the whole population in a general election. No way. These are 200,000 emotionally disturbed people

            Agreed, they are. However....

            which is not the same as the general population

            That bit I wish I could be more confident about. While Britain has always been a capitalist country, all of my life it has had a deep under current of socialist spite & envy against anyone perceived as having been more successful in accruing wealth - unless they are also largely talentless nonentities from big brother, x-factor, or football.

            Don't write Corbyn off as unelectable just yet - idiots get to vote, and having watched Gordon Brown systematically destroy the country, almost enough of those useful idiots still wanted more!

        2. Graham Marsden
          Facepalm

          @x 7 - Re: Pyhrric victory

          > If anything its likely to lead to a resurgent labour party while people just listen to the sound bites and ignore the polices

          Wow! That's *so* different from what's happening with the Tories now...

      2. Graham Marsden
        WTF?

        @TheVogon - Re: Pyhrric victory

        > The last budget was a great example of moderate conservatism

        Are you serious? It was a great example of how to fuck over the ordinary people whilst convincing them that it was actually an improvement for them!

        Telling people that the Tories are bringing in the Living Wage was really clever, trouble is, it's total bullshit. Not only will that not happen until 2020, by the time we get to 2020, it will *still* be below the London Living Wage *today*! And, at the same time, he's slashing tax credits and in work meaning people will end up worse off.

        In other news: Big Brother has raised the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week...

        1. AlbertH

          Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

          Mr Marsden:

          In just the same way that the horde trying to cross the Channel from Calais are not refugees, the vast majority of the claimants for Social Security payments don't deserve them. It's just that claiming is easier than working. The British "Welfare State" was a Soviet-backed scam to bankrupt us.

          "Socialist" governments have always been bad for Britain: The Welfare State, endless strikes, comprehensive "education", rampant inflation and the highest taxes in the world.

          When Blair got into power, it was funny to see a neo-conservative trying to herd the socialist cats! Blair's "answer" was to generate over a million non-jobs in the NHS, DHSS and other state-run organisations, and to print money to pay them. We're still suffering the results of his and Gordon McMental's mismanagement and abuse of the economy.

          The election of a hard-left nutter like Corbyn will finally show Britons that the lefties are finished - particularly now that they won't get support from Russia any more - and that we need to sort out the Welfare State, the remnants of the Unions (we don't send children up chimneys any more), and stop the PC brigade in their tracks.......

          1. Graham Marsden
            Facepalm

            Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

            Gosh, I *wonder* which political colours Mr AlbertH has nailed to his mast...

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

              "Gosh, I *wonder* which political colours Mr AlbertH has nailed to his mast..."

              Like the majorty of us that can afford to support ourselves without scrounging benefits off the back of others, presumably "anything but Labour"...

              1. Graham Marsden
                Facepalm

                Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

                > Like the majorty of us that can afford to support ourselves without scrounging benefits off the back of others

                Let me guess, you're not on a Minimum Wage job, let alone a Zero Hours contract.

                Again we see the "Screw you, I'm alright Jack!" attitude.

                1. LucreLout Silver badge

                  Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

                  @Graham

                  Let me guess, you're not on a Minimum Wage job, let alone a Zero Hours contract.

                  Again we see the "Screw you, I'm alright Jack!" attitude.

                  Ok, so tell me this.... How can I make you smarter such that you can get a better job? How can I make you educate yourself better? How can I make you work harder? Seems to me the answer to the problem here is "you", as opposed to anything I can buy for you, no?

                  If you want more money, then you have to work harder for it. If you want a better job then you'll have to educate yourself better. Life isn't about what I can do for you - that'll never make you successful or happy. Take responsibility for your life man, you're not a child anymore.

                  Yet again we see the attitude of "I'm not successful, wealthy, or happy, so I don't want anyone else to be". Or, to give it the name by which it is best know, socialist spite & envy.

                  1. Graham Marsden
                    Boffin

                    Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

                    > How can I make you smarter such that you can get a better job?

                    Err, just off the top of my head, shoot me down if you want to, but, as a wild idea, how about EDUCATING CHILDREN BETTER instead of letting your rich mates buy up schools and turning them into a for-profit Academys which doesn't work even though they get given 60% more money per pupil that local authority schools and where there have been allegations of fraud!

                    Oh, but of course, that's not a failure of the schools, is it? As you say "How can I make you educate yourself better?" since clearly it's the pupils' fault for not "educating themselves better"...

                    > How can I make you work harder?

                    How about paying people a decent rate for the job they're doing, rather than giving them a pittance. How about rewarding them with bonuses for doing their job well? It seems to work so well for the people at the top of the pile, why not try it for those who are actually *making* the money?

                    > Yet again we see the attitude of "I'm not successful, wealthy, or happy, so I don't want anyone else to be". Or, to give it the name by which it is best know, socialist spite & envy.

                    BUZZ! Oops, wrong again. I have no problem with people being successful, wealthy or happy, but, unlike you, I think that society works better when the rewards are spread around, rather than concentrated in the hands of a greedy few who think they're entitled(!) to live off the sweat of others' brows. (Ironic, isn't it? Same words, different meaning...)

                    1. LucreLout Silver badge
                      Boffin

                      Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

                      @Graham

                      Err, just off the top of my head, shoot me down if you want to, but, as a wild idea, how about EDUCATING CHILDREN BETTER

                      We've been trying to do that for generations but the NUT always end up stood in the way. We're paying top flight terms & conditions for teachers, and getting the performance of backwards monkeys from them. The only way to change that is bring in a 20/70/10 system. The best 20% get a pay rise, the next 70% don't, and the last 10% get sacked for poor performance.

                      Oh, but of course, that's not a failure of the schools, is it? As you say "How can I make you educate yourself better?" since clearly it's the pupils' fault for not "educating themselves better"...

                      Schools can and do fail. My primary & secondary school certainly did. They failed hard enough to become academies. I took ownership of my education, and attended a couple of universities and a great many professional certifications since then. You own your educational attainment, nobody else.

                      How about paying people a decent rate for the job they're doing, rather than giving them a pittance.

                      What get then is an expensive monkey. Some jobs don't take a great deal of skill, experience, or intelligence to do. If you want the income from one that does, you first need to meet the requirements of the role, and then attain one.

                      BUZZ! Oops, wrong again. I have no problem with people being successful, wealthy or happy, but, unlike you, I think that society works better when the rewards are spread around, rather than concentrated in the hands of a greedy few who think they're entitled(!) to live off the sweat of others' brows. (Ironic, isn't it? Same words, different meaning...)

                      Oh dear. The bitterness of the politics on envy again.

                      If you and I had the same level of intelligence, and applied ourselves in the same way, making the same efforts, in the same field, you'd find very little earnings differential to bunch your panties over. I live off the sweat of my own brow, and I'm quite honestly puzzled why you feel entitled to live off it also. Why do you think you should be entitled to claim a share of my rewards? What have you ever done to deserve them?

                      The paucity of intellectual rigor in your position is showing Graham. Think it through again. This time use logic, not emotion.

                      1. Graham Marsden

                        Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

                        Oh dear, LucreLout, I see little point in continuing with this.

                        You make personal attacks and claims about the "lack of intellectual rigour" of my position, but yours is simply "it's all the fault of the unions" and "the politics of envy" and "I'm alright Jack".

                        You also somehow think that Blair was Left Wing, but fail to realise that he was only to the "left" of the Tories because they were about as far to the Right as Genghis Khan.

                        The absolute epitome of the ludicrousness of your arguments is where you say that a Minimum Wage job or a Zero Hours contract allows someone to buy a house!

                        Please, LucreLout, come and join the rest of us in the real world.

                        And feel free to have the last word (which will, no doubt, be a smug ad hominem...)

                        1. LucreLout Silver badge

                          Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

                          @Graham

                          I see little point in continuing with this.

                          You might, if you entered debates with an open mind, rather than a loudhailer.

                          yours is simply "it's all the fault of the unions" and "the politics of envy" and "I'm alright Jack".

                          Utter rubbish. Yes, Socialism and Unionism are the greatest ills carried forward from the last century, but they can hardly be blamed for Gordon Browns lack of comprehension of Keynes, or the typical greedy labour voters "me me me, give me more more more" attitude. You've still not explained why it is you feel entitled to live of the sweat of my brow, rather than your own efforts.

                          You also somehow think that Blair was Left Wing

                          Well, yes, largely because he was. As always with his ilk, judge them by their actions, not their words. Corbyn is the extreme left, and further and you get to the far left (Hitler, Nazis etc) with very little movement.

                          The absolute epitome of the ludicrousness of your arguments is where you say that a Minimum Wage job or a Zero Hours contract allows someone to buy a house

                          I've given you detailed numbers on this three times Graham, and three times you've failed to provide a single postcode where a starter home cannot be had within a shorter commute than I have, for a full time minimum wage couple. Its time to drop your pretence, no? The facts have been given you in simple enough terms for you to comprehend. If you wish to debate them then put the loudhailer down and prove them wrong. Find a post code, just one.

                          Your posts have a woeful lack of any supporting evidence for any of your claims, hence the lack of intellectual rigour. They seem supported only by union dogma, emotion, and rhetoric. Start again with basic tennets - first identify some facts, then use those to inform your hypothesis, then test that hypothesis to show it the best interpretation of the established facts. Its called critical thinking, and you really should have been taught it at university.

                  2. Bernard M. Orwell

                    Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

                    What is the point of wealth, success and power if not to improve the world as a whole? Yes, you may start with yourself, but to stop there is the sign of stunted growth. Socialism is about understanding how humanity, as a whole, can have their lives improved. Capitalism is about securing wealth and power for the individual at the cost of the greater whole.

                    The true use of wealth is in its wise deployment, not in its accrual.

                    1. LucreLout Silver badge

                      Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

                      @Bernard

                      Socialism is about understanding how humanity, as a whole, can have their lives improved. Capitalism is about securing wealth and power for the individual at the cost of the greater whole.

                      And yet in any place & any time they've been applied, capitalism has improved the lives of humainty as a whole, while socialism has brought only misery and poverty.

                      The true use of wealth is in its wise deployment, not in its accrual.

                      The problem you have with that hypothesis, is that your view of wise deployment will be different to mine, which is different to grahams, which is different to... and so it goes. The left often mistake their view as being "good" and all other perspectives as "evil", which is simplistic nonsense.

                      1. Bernard M. Orwell

                        Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

                        "Socialism is about understanding how humanity, as a whole, can have their lives improved. Capitalism is about securing wealth and power for the individual at the cost of the greater whole.

                        And yet in any place & any time they've been applied, capitalism has improved the lives of humainty as a whole, while socialism has brought only misery and poverty."

                        I don't entirely disagree with you, and neither did Karl Marx who pointed out that it required a certain level of wealth, comfort and education to afford to be socialist. If you're scratching in the dirt for your next meal, you can't afford altruism. Marx believed that America was the natural birthplace for socialism, not Russia. We, I believe, are wealthy enough to share and to improve the lives of others without necessarily seeking a pecuniary profit alone. I believe that no child should starve, no illness should go untreated and no mind should be left uneducated, and I don't think that those rights should have a "subject to status" tag on them. From each according to their skills, to each according to their needs.

                        "The true use of wealth is in its wise deployment, not in its accrual.

                        The problem you have with that hypothesis, is that your view of wise deployment will be different to mine, which is different to grahams, which is different to... and so it goes. The left often mistake their view as being "good" and all other perspectives as "evil", which is simplistic nonsense."

                        Yes, again I agree, but are we in accord in saying that the simple withholding of wealth is therefore not wise, because it is not deployed at all? Surely some use, preferably for the greatest number of beneficiaries, is better than no use?

                        The needs of the many.....?

                        1. LucreLout Silver badge

                          Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

                          @Bernard

                          We, I believe, are wealthy enough to share and to improve the lives of others without necessarily seeking a pecuniary profit alone.

                          Nobody is stopping you. By all means, feel free to share your wealth with whomever you so please. It is yours.

                          I donate 2% of my pre-tax income to charities each year. Its not a large percentage, and I'm ashamed to state that I gift more both in pound terms and as a percentage than anyone I know. The positive point of that, is that I choose where the money goes, not someone else with a different moral compass.

                          I believe that no child should starve, no illness should go untreated and no mind should be left uneducated,

                          As do I, but I disagree that socialism, or indeed anything other than capitalism, can provide that.

                          I would go further though and state that no mind or pair of hands should be left idle until old age. All must do whatever work they can best accomplish. Jeremy Kyles only audience should be his mother and her retired friends.

                          and I don't think that those rights should have a "subject to status" tag on them. From each according to their skills, to each according to their needs.

                          And that, I'm afraid is where we part company. I'm unwilling to help those who chose not to help themselves, because it is a waste of my time and money.

                          Interestingly though, nothing you've described has used the word "equality" in any sense. A safety net doesn't have to be brought into being via socialism or even by government. It can exist simply due to the desire of people to have one. None of the charities I support receive government funding, despite being extremely worthy causes.

                          ETA: Not sure why you got downvoted. I couldn't see anything objectionable in what you wrote.

                          1. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

                            "I donate 2% of my pre-tax income to charities each year"

                            It's Ned Flanders in disguise!

                  3. DaveFace
                    Facepalm

                    Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

                    @LucreLout

                    You seem blissfully ignorant of the fact there are more unemployed people than jobs available, meaning no matter what someone does to improve themselves, they cannot get a job. At the same time, the Conservatives have increased barriers to education and the general 'betterment' you speak of, and are increasing the amount of debt young people have to bear to get it (increased tuition fees, removal of grants especially for poorer students).

                    Take your anti-poor spite elsewhere.

                    1. LucreLout Silver badge

                      Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

                      @DaveFace

                      You seem blissfully ignorant of the fact there are more unemployed people than jobs available, meaning no matter what someone does to improve themselves, they cannot get a job

                      You'd have a point if several million eastern europeans hadn't managed to move here and find a job in spite of any language & cultural differences. As it is, not so much.

                      At the same time, the Conservatives have increased barriers to education and the general 'betterment' you speak of

                      There have always been barriers. There will always be barriers. Those that see them as an obstacle to be conquered will prosper. Those that see them as insurmountable will not. T'was ever thus.

                      increasing the amount of debt young people have to bear to get it (increased tuition fees, removal of grants especially for poorer students).

                      Only in so far as they haven't looked at all the options. A remote study degree can be had from a whole range of UK universities for around £15k and study can be completed in an evening after work - It's how I did my MSc. Working while studying certainly isn't as much fun as I remember the student bar being, but then it does alleviate the debt that would otherwise accrue.

                      Take your anti-poor spite elsewhere.

                      I'm anti-poor only in the sense that I want them to recognise the opportunities before them, which are greater than any time in history, and use them to elevate their income such that they are no longer poor. Totally spite free.

                      It's tiring hearing champagne socialists like you and Graham knock the young & the poor all the time. Always telling them what they can't do, what they can't achieve, what they cannot be. You need to check your prejudice, because it's showing.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

                  Again we see the "Screw you, I'm alright Jack!" attitude.

                  No it's "Screw you, I bothered to work hard at school, and subsequently and have a decent career - so why should I have to subsidise you just because you didn't bother?".

                  1. Graham Marsden
                    FAIL

                    @AC - Re: @TheVogon - Pyhrric victory

                    > it's "Screw you, I bothered to work hard at school, and subsequently and have a decent career - so why should I have to subsidise you just because you didn't bother?".

                    WRONG!

                    I got O Levels, A Levels and graduated from Portsmouth Polytechnic (as was) in Computing. I now run my own business and do quite nicely, making enough money that I don't have to work all hours of the day and night simply to make ends meet.

                    I have *no* problem with paying taxes that go to support those on Benefits because I have spent a lot of time where they were and it was only that I found out how to (entirely legally) make the system work *for* me, rather than *against* me that let me start my business in the first place.

                    I understand that the Benefits System is supposed to be a safety net to catch those who are not as fortunate as me, I also know that only 0.7% of Benefits are claimed fraudulently, which is *less* than the amount of benefits which are *not* claimed but which could be.

                    I have compassion for people less well off than me, I don't treat them as some sort of underclass who should be punished for not being employed.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Pyhrric victory

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX-P4mx1FLU

    4. Bob Vistakin
      Facepalm

      Re: Pyhrric victory

      So long New Labour, hello again Old Labour, riots on the streets, strikes every other week and what's this - Militant has woken up too - yippee! So Derek Hatton has just been biding his time all along. Taxi!

  2. tfoale

    Goodbye Labour Party

    I wonder what will replace it?

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Re: Goodbye Labour Party

      What will replace it? The Labour Party.

      Meet the new boss, same as the old[n-3] boss

    2. Bob Vistakin
      Pint

      Re: Goodbye Labour Party

      A sure sign the tories fully realise what a (literal) loser he is will be how they treat him. Since him and his party are no threat whatsoever, they'll do anything to keep him there. Watch how gentle they will be at PMQ's, TV debates etc.

      1. Salts

        Re: Goodbye Labour Party

        @bob vistakin

        He just won the leadership of the Labour Party, whatever you think of him loser is not the correct term and the Tories are not so stupid to think that way either, he may not be my cup of tea but loser, nope, problem, probably, electable, I hope not ... But I am only one voter, the younger voters seem to like him.

        He also has the initials J.C.

        5 foot 9 he's Devine changes water into wine has anybody seen J.C. Sorry old song, could not resist

        1. MJI Silver badge

          Re: Goodbye Labour Party Initials JC

          That reminds me I will have to join Amazon Prime next year for my TV motoring fix

          POWER!

      2. dogged

        Re: Goodbye Labour Party

        > A sure sign the tories fully realise what a (literal) loser he is will be how they treat him.

        Within an hour of his election, the Tories rushed out a pamphlet claiming he's a security threat who loves terrorists, wants to import a billion Afghans, will give all our nukes to Sinn Fein and rapes kittens.

        So... either they don't or they're shitting themselves at having somebody at PMQs that Cameron can't just go "yeah, well you had it in your manifesto too and incidentally, Gordon Broon" to.

      3. LucreLout Silver badge

        Re: Goodbye Labour Party

        @Bob

        Since him and his party are no threat whatsoever, they'll do anything to keep him there. Watch how gentle they will be at PMQ's, TV debates etc.

        I don't think they will be. I think they'll try to split the party down the middle now, while the gaping cracks are showing. Go in for the kill, as it were. That will leave us without any opposition at all, never mind a credible one. And that won't be good for the country, the conservatives, or the people.

  3. Zog_but_not_the_first
    Boffin

    Interesting times

    Like him or loath him, the breadth of political debate will be broadened for the first time in decades. And no democrat can object to that, can they?

    1. DaveDaveDave

      Re: Interesting times

      Some things shouldn't be debated anymore because we've put them to bed long ago - like Corbyn's insane conspiracy theories about 'the joos' running the world. Much as he might like to, we really don't need to reopen the debate on the 'Jewish problem'.

      1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
        Black Helicopters

        Re: Interesting times

        [Citation needed]

        1. Bill M

          Re: Interesting times

          "May you live in interesting times" - Apocryphal

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Interesting times

        "'the joos' running the world"

        Terrorist state occupying Palestine surely?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Interesting times

          >> Terrorist state occupying Palestine surely?

          Greetings Adolf. Glad you are flagging your stupidity, bias and ignorance by conflating Judaism with Israel, the state. I suppose that makes any action by, for example, Great Britain or any of the Queen's realms an Anglican Christian invasion, as Britain is formally an Anglican country..

          So you agree with the various Arab countries and regimes complaining of Christians invading them in a new crusade?

          As for the nasties writing nonsense about self reliance and the generosity of zero hours contracts:

          1. We are not all born equal, in intelligence, physically, in health and, in these days of expensive university education, of means to get education.

          2. The mark of a civilised and able society is that it supports all its members at all times, in sickness and in health, in prosperous and hard times. No doubt you would be happy to conscript those you despise, in order to fight in wars to protect the society that you exploit so successfully.

          3. I was alive and working during the seventies. Surprise, surprise: they were fun. Britain was more respected then than now. We still made things and our culture became world wide, whether pop, rock or classical, written or visual, with rather less kowtowing to the USA. We maintained decency towards each other without panic despite the IRA at full blast (much more intrusive than the current set of bogey-men being used to justify control).

          4. Britain was no alway right wing, far from it. For some time the USA deigned to describe us as socialist - something of a compliment from them. Hence Britain opposed, eventually, slavery, child labour, introduced factories laws, pensions, universal suffrage, free and compulsory education, universal health care. Even the old workhouses, with all their faults, were an attempt at social welfare, thought tainted by the Gradgrinds of this world.

          I have got no idea how Corbin will turn out. I find him only marginally preferable to the ignorant Cameron. But as said before, a large part ot fhe population will agree with much of what he says and may at last regain some influence over those who receive the benefit of our taxes and labour.

          Yes, anonymous because the nastiness of some of the posts is distinclty off-putting.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Interesting times

            "Glad you are flagging your stupidity, bias and ignorance by conflating Judaism with Israel, the state"

            Because of course there is no link whatsoever with Israel as a state, and the Jewish people - and the majority of Jews don't support it - and do stand up and condemn it's many continuing atrocities and human rights abuses. Oh, wait...

            Yes, anonymous because the Israelis tend to just assassinate people they don't like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations

    2. eesiginfo

      Re: Interesting times

      @ Zog_but_not_the_first

      >Like him or loath him, the breadth of political debate will be broadened for the first time in decades. And no democrat can object to that, can they?<

      I have to agree.

      Corbyn seems to take a mature reflective position on many issues, that mainstream politicians avoid dealing with, or just go with the flow (banking their salary, and obviously whatever expenses they can).

      Yes.... 'it's the economy... stupid'.

      But we have just witnessed a labour government quite happy to see wild gambling in the city, on a Tulip scale..... and when it went tits up.... put forward the plan that would make every hard working person foot the bill for the gambling losses, while watching the head gamblers parachute out with their fortunes intact (even though they lost millions, or billions).

      My concern is that, while speculation is necessary... it is primarily focussed on 'get rich quick' schemes, rather than foundation building.

      The billions (trillions?) that were given back to the banks to cover their gambling losses, were clearly provided without strings.

      Nice that Reaction Engines Ltd. got a bit of backing..... but with a technology that has (now proven) potential to transform this 'mission critical field of propulsion'...... was it enough?

      Speculation on some dodgy mortgages, or speculation on a technology that can create the high tech jobs that the UK needs, to differentiate its existence from the sweatshops of the far east?

      I once saw Boris Johnson proclaiming how a London company was selling TV aerial antennas to Korea....... well done them, but we are making frigging aerials, while Korea is making high tech devices!!! (well done them also).

      Let's just hope that the democratic debate, looks at addressing short termism, and the need to correctly educate school leavers for the high tech engineering world that awaits them.

      I worry that sooner or later, the world will wake up to the fact that, an economy based upon how many people pay stupid amounts for coffee latte (coffee and milk), is not really a vibrant productive economy.

      Let's hope that the democratic debate, leads the politicians to discuss the only viable future.... that being one of a technologically capable society.

    3. Chris Tierney

      Re: Interesting times

      As you have proven sir, the most popular people are those who sit on the fence! :)

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Politics needs poking with a stick

    Hopefully the end result of this will be a complete death of all political parties and new non-shit ones arising out of their ashes.

    I can dream...

    1. Captain DaFt

      Re: Politics needs poking with a stick

      "Poking"? Try thrashing.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Politics needs poking with a stick

        I actually had something more brutal in mind than either, but I figured it might be illegal to say what most politicos need.

  5. Pete4000uk

    It will make a change. The others seem like your regular cardboard brown positions from the same mold as most others.

    Still LOLing though

    1. Martin Gregorie Silver badge

      Quite. Labour needed to be rid of the last traces of the Teflon-clad, self-regarding NewLabour crew to have any chance of being electable. Now that shower have been given an unmistakable message it may become a credible opposition.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        It may well become a credible opposition - it's going to have at least another 9 years to practice.

      2. Justin Clements

        Errr

        >>Quite. Labour needed to be rid of the last traces of the Teflon-clad, self-regarding NewLabour crew to have any chance of being electable. Now that shower have been given an unmistakable message it may become a credible opposition.

        You realize that the Teflon clad self regarding new labour crew are the only Labour Party that managed to be elected in 40 years, right?

      3. AlbertH

        Credible? No. They'll just be a sub-standard sixth-form level debating society. All the other lot need to do is to point out who Corbyn's friends are.....

      4. Frank Bough

        Re:

        Just LOL

  6. graeme leggett

    i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

    But what's his stance on tech? And technical solutions to societies ills and inequalities?

    Is he alternative energy at all cost, buses and bicycles for the masses. Or not as green(red) as he's been painted?

    1. John H Woods Silver badge

      Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

      "But what's his stance on tech? "

      Let's just remember, we aren't voting for a dictator, or even a president. It's quite possible that he will form a (shadow) cabinet which will temper his most left-wing views: we won't know until we see a manifesto.

      The problem with British democracy remains a dire combination of First Past the Post, the whip system, and the left-right partisanship. We've decided that swinging from boom to bust is bad, why is the only way we can moderate our government by swinging from right to left? Can't we have: a parliament roughly reflecting the views of the electorate; MPs voting according to their conscience and their constituencies even if this is sometimes against the views of their leadership; and sensible constructive discussion leading to consensus government?

      I live in safe seat - my national vote will make no difference at all. It's a bit of a relief really: as a pro-military liberal; a pro-nuclear green; an anti-pansurveillance patriot and a fervent believer in both market capitalism and a state health service, I have no idea who I could vote for anyway.

      1. Wommit

        Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

        @ John H Woods - "Let's just remember, we aren't voting for a dictator, or even a president."

        Actually we are. With the Prime Ministers patronage, and the party whip, the PM holds an effective dictatorship in this country. It is S/He who decides who gets the top jobs (so start sucking up boys and girls,) It's the PM who decides on the order of items before parliament (the speaker only tries to keep to the timetable.) And if anyone doesn't 'follow the whip' then they can 'lose the whip.' i.e. be kicked out of their party, deselected from the nice safe seat they were looking forward to getting, and have to actually work for a living instead.

        So get rid of the whip and we might get a fairer parliament, one whose members vote as their constituents desire. It's a simple move but one which should have major consequences for the government. If a leader can't persuade their (supposedly) like minded party members to vote for his policies, without threats, the that policy might not really be in our best interests.

        1. graeme leggett

          Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

          Despite the 'dictatorship', we had the vote of no-confidence in Callaghan in 1979, and the 1990 Conservative leadership challenge so discontent with a PM can lead to their removal.

          The party whip is the public display of what would otherwise happen in the shadows anyway. Fixers and go-betweens in the party making sure the MPs are aware what the policy line is and are in the right place at the right time for votes and debates, or appearing on Today and any Questions/Question Time.

        2. Steven Jones

          Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

          You aren't. Prime Ministers are always at the mercy of their more unruly members of their party. Governments can, and do lose votes. The party whip is not a guaranteed instrument and there's only so much patronage to go round to buy off the trouble makers.

          Of course it's governments with thin majorities that are most at risk. John Major's experience of office was torrid with a constant threat of rebellions. James Callaghan had major issues with his party too and he was prevented in dealing with issues just as he would.

          There is no tradition in the UK of prime ministers who have true presidential powers. They are always vulnerable and many have been brought down by their own side. There was one such, and her name was Margaret Thatcher. If it could happen to her, it can surely happen to anybody if they fail to command confidence. That is how the UK parliamentary system works.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

        John H Woods: as a pro-military liberal; a pro-nuclear green; an anti-pansurveillance patriot and a fervent believer in both market capitalism and a state health service, I have no idea who I could vote for anyway.

        Have a big fat upvote. I have a similar, and similarly mixed, grab-bag of opinions that don't fit easily with any single party. I suspect many people feel the same.

        All the same I am glad that Corbyn won because it's about time that political parties actually stood for something, even if I might not agree completely with what that is. Maybe what we need is another SDP-style fork of the Labour Party, with the Blairites leaving to join up with the remnants of the Lib Dems. Bring in proportional representation instead of the antiquated system we have now and then maybe people would have something to get interested in.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

          "Maybe what we need is another SDP-style fork of the Labour Party, with the Blairites leaving to join up with the remnants of the Lib Dems. "

          Whatever happened to UKIP? The last time I heard them mentioned in the media, Farrage had resigned, the party was in disarray and then Farage came back and it seems to have sunk without trace.

          1. The Mole

            Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

            UKIP is biding its time waiting for the Euro Referendum debate to really kick off at which point we'll have to put up with them again. Farage meanwhile is insulting his fellow members of the European parliament.

            1. Frank Bough

              Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

              He's always done that, that's his actual job. He's like an SNP man at Westminster.

          2. Anomalous Cowturd
            Happy

            Re: Whatever happened to UKIP?

            They changed their name to Douglas Carswell M.P.

            1. Elmer Phud

              Re: Whatever happened to UKIP?

              And Carswell is still a staunch Tory

        2. Mike Pellatt

          Re: Proportional representation

          Bring in proportional representation.....

          We voted on that in 2011. We voted against it, mostly (IMHO) because the LibDems put up a stupidly flawed half-way house thinking that would do the job of persuading the waverers.

          It may well be that another coalition will be the only opportunity to put such a change before the electorate again.

          So another generation or two away, unfortunately.

          1. edge_e
            Facepalm

            Re: Proportional representation

            "Bring in proportional representation.....

            We voted on that in 2011. We voted against it, mostly (IMHO) because the LibDems put up a stupidly flawed half-way house thinking that would do the job of persuading the waverers."

            No, We had a referendum on the alternative vote system because that's all the Tory party would agree too.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Proportional representation

              No, We had a referendum on the alternative vote system because that's all the Tory party would agree too.

              But now they'll say we had a referendum on electoral reform and overwhelmingly supported First Past The Post.

              Whatever, Colour me fucking all of that shit.

            2. Frank Bough

              Re: Proportional representation

              That's democracy for you, people don't agree and you have to compromise. We won't see another PR referendum for a generation, if at all.

            3. Mike Pellatt

              Re: Proportional representation

              Whatever. Either way, it's down to the LibDems for allowing it to be spiked for a generation.

              1. Roj Blake

                Re: Proportional representation

                Ed Miliband's fence-sitting also had a lot to do with the AV referendum defeat.

      3. OliverJ

        Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

        "as a pro-military liberal; a pro-nuclear green; an anti-pansurveillance patriot and a fervent believer in both market capitalism and a state health service, I have no idea who I could vote for anyway."

        Maybe we should start a party; my views are the same.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

          Maybe we should start a party; my views are the same.

          If you make it credible then I'm in. Now is the time to be making new parties as the old ones lose the plot.

        2. ISP

          Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

          "as a pro-military liberal; a pro-nuclear green; an anti-pansurveillance patriot and a fervent believer in both market capitalism and a state health service, I have no idea who I could vote for anyway."

          Ditto, and have another upvote. Honestly I'd love to have somewhere to put my vote that wouldn't have me holding my nose. Until then none of the above has it.

          1. x 7

            Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

            "as a pro-military liberal; a pro-nuclear green; an anti-pansurveillance patriot and a fervent believer in both market capitalism and a state health service, I have no idea who I could vote for anyway."

            Lord Sutch maybe? Or at least his followers......

      4. Hellcat

        Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

        I live in safe seat - my national vote will make no difference at all. It's a bit of a relief really: as a pro-military liberal; a pro-nuclear green; an anti-pansurveillance patriot and a fervent believer in both market capitalism and a state health service, I have no idea who I could vote for anyway.

        Where do I sign up? A monkey with the correct colour rosette would win here.

        Wait did I say would?

        1. Mike Pellatt

          A monkey....

          A monkey with the correct colour rosette would win here.

          Wait did I say would?

          Exactly what I used to say about Surbiton constituency in the 60's and 70's when Sir Nigel Fisher was MP.

          A constituency merger and boundary changes, and the '97 GE, and look what happened.

          Epsom & Ewell, on the other hand.....

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

      But what's his stance on tech?

      I've no idea about Corbyn's position but Tom Watson has been voted deputy leader. He's more clued up than most and he's on our side too.

      1. Chronos

        Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

        Precisely. It could have been much worse. Have a search on El Reg for Burnham, concentrating on his stint as Culture Secretary. He hasn't a sodding clue. Some of the rot he came out with in cahoots with Wacky Jacqui was almost as bad as Call-Me-Dave's stance on encryption.

    3. Rusty 1

      Stance on tech?

      Indeed we need to know: vi or emacs?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Stance on tech?

        Wordstar of course

        1. Rusty 1

          Re: Stance on tech?

          Wordstar? Technology from '78? Pah! None of that new fangled WYSIWYG kind of elitism. Should be roff all the way.

          Jeez, next someone will want to reopen coal mines.

          Ah, oh, OK.

      2. MD Rackham

        Re: Stance on tech?

        He seems a bit more teco to me.

        1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

          Re: Stance on tech?

          Probably the right generation for it. Does he have an account at the Living Computer Museum?

      3. That Old Guy

        Re: Stance on tech?

        Finally someone asks one of the truly important questions. Thank you sir (or madam) for keeping this discussion on track.

    4. Captain DaFt

      Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

      "But what's his stance on tech? And technical solutions to societies ills and inequalities?"

      Aren't those questions you should be asking before the election?

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

      "... where does he stand in tech..."

      I read on BBC he wants all kids to learn to play a musical instrument and to act in a play.

      What are they going to do the rest of the time?

      1. AlbertH

        Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

        Well you can be sure that they won't be getting any proper education! The last thing a socialist ever wants is an educated populace - it's too easy to see through their lies, obfuscations, and evasions if the voters are educated.

        If you want proof of this, compare the literacy and numeracy standards of school pupils across the world. There is a precise correlation between socialism and poor educational standards.

        1. dogged
          FAIL

          Re: i for one, welcome... (actually I don't but that's by the by)

          > Well you can be sure that they won't be getting any proper education! The last thing a socialist ever wants is an educated populace - it's too easy to see through their lies, obfuscations, and evasions if the voters are educated.

          Which obviously explains why the American school system is so much better than, for example, the Swedish school system to the point where the Swedes import loads of Amaerican doctors and scientists....

          Except meanwhile, back in reality...

  7. Bloodbeastterror

    Thank god!

    The thing that people don't seem to get is that there is no Labour party any more - Blair saw to that. Now we have Tory, Tory Yellow, and Tory Pale Blue.

    This vote shows that there are still people (I'm one of them) that want to see a fairer representation of the mass of the people - not the special interests of corporations and the already well-off.

    Unfortunately far too many of the mass are swayed by the hope that one day they too will be accepted with open arms by their betters - a hopeless hope, since the Tories have respect for nothing at all except amassing yet more wealth, and will continue to stand on the necks of these hopeless hopefuls.

    All power to Corbyn. If he achieves nothing else, he's at least shown that there is some decency left in the world.

    1. DaveDaveDave

      Re: Thank god!

      "All power to Corbyn. If he achieves nothing else, he's at least shown that there is some decency left in the world."

      Poe's law applies. I honestly can't tell if you're joking, given that his supporters don't appear to have noticed that he's a flagrant liar, a multi-millionaire who fiddled his expenses and lied about it, etc etc. He's the vilest man in Westminster - and would be even if Cyril Smith was still there, and naked.

      1. graeme leggett

        Re: Thank god!

        The Cyril Smith line is a bit low.

        1. DaveDaveDave

          Re: Thank god!

          I don't think it is in any sense unjustified. Corbyn's a raving antisemite, a thoroughly dishonest fake leftie only in it for the money. The hypocrisy is so immense that they can smell it in New Zealand.

          1. Naughtyhorse

            Re:raving antisemite

            By which you mean someone not 110% supportive of each and every atrocity committed by the bunch of zionist thugs occupying Palestine?

            yeah I thought so

            oy vey!

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Re:raving antisemite

              "By which you mean someone not 110% supportive of each and every atrocity committed by the bunch of zionist thugs occupying Palestine?"

              If he could actually do something about that even I as a right of centre voter would consider voting for him. For far too loo long our leaders have sucked up to terrorist, apartheid states like Israel.

            2. Terry 6 Silver badge

              Re: Re:raving antisemite

              This

              " zionist thugs occupying Palestine"

              followed by this

              "oy vey!"

              about the land that has been the Jewish home for several thousand years, despite the world's powers trying to take control for their own benefit says, more about your views than about Corbyn's.

              All he wants to do is show support for the "struggle" of whoever the far left consider to be doing the struggling at the moment. Which isn't much different to how the Militant Tendency of Labour (which was basically just the Socialist Workers Party playing games) worked in the 1970s - which is when I left Labour.

              1. x 7

                Re: Re:raving antisemite

                "the land that has been the Jewish home for several thousand years, "

                I rather got the impression there weren't many jews left in Palestine after the Romans did a rather efficient job of exiling them. The Muslim invasions and Crusades pretty much obliterated the rest. Certainly by the time the Ottomans were in control they were a small minority, though maybe a vociferous minority. Most of the survivors had gone to Greece, Armenia, Russia or Western Europe with a few in Syria - but they were probably the descendants of the Babylonian exiles anyway.

                The majority of jews claiming ancestral rights to live in Israel have as valid a claim as I do to say I have a right to live in Rome because I think I'm descended from a legionnaire..........a totally unprovable claim, but no more fanciful than the claims of those justifying ancestry for the stealing of non-jewish land for settlements

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Re:raving antisemite

                  "I rather got the impression there weren't many jews left in Palestine after the Romans did a rather efficient job of exiling them"

                  There were less than 5% Jews in Palestine at the end of the 19th Century.

              2. GrumpyOldBloke

                Re: Re:raving antisemite

                Check out the documentary The Ringworm Children for a view of what the immigrant zionist Jews' thought of their peers whose lineage in the region extended back those thousands of years.

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Re:raving antisemite

                "about the land that has been the Jewish home for several thousand years, "

                For several decades after occupying it by force you mean. The majority of Israeli Jews are genetically of European origin, and over 98% of them are not indigenous.

                If you really mean that several thousand year ago, that some loosely connected by religion ancestors might have lived in that part of the world gives them some sort of right to reclaim it by force then are we all entitled to go reclaim the trees in Africa since we all originated there?

      2. JJSmith1950

        Re: Thank god!

        Ad hominem tu quoque, ad nasuem.

        If you can provide a single "lie" Corbyn has uttered, feel free to repeat them here.

        1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

          1. jong

            Re: Thank god!

            I read your reference that supposedly showed his corruption on expenses. Here's what is actually in the Guardian article:

            "...There is something of the ascetic about Corbyn. At the time of the expenses scandal, it was reported that he had the lowest claim in the Commons – £8.95 for a printer cartridge. Actually, he’d like to come clean on this one, he says – he’d screwed up his expenses. “You had to pay within a certain period for things, and somewhere along the line we claimed for one print cartridge, but the rest of the stuff was slightly slower going in so that went into the next claim period, which was a much more realistic claim. A more typical Corbyn claim might run to “a few hundred quid each quarter”. He rents his office from the the Ethical Property Company. “Fine people. Hossana to the Ethical Property people.” He raises his mug of coffee by way of a toast."

            You're going to have to do better than that to paint him as corrupt.

          2. gavpowell

            Re: Thank god!

            You've said several times he's an anti-Semite while providing no evidence, but you've also said he's a multi-millionaire. This surprised me so I went looking for proof of this, but can't find any. Are you sure you've got that right?

            1. Terry 6 Silver badge

              Re: Thank god!

              Well yes,

              Corbyn's views don't seem to be fired by anti-Semitism. Though the radical left does have plenty of that in its history. (Blaming the Boer War on "the Jews" , for example).

              It's rather that he's following that old late 1970s- early 80s style Labour/Militant Tendency/SWP line of supporting anything that seems radical and right-on and anti-American/anti-establishment, be it the IRA or Hizbollah, but not worrying too much about being elected because they believe that eventually the workers will assert themselves and rise up. To that group a nasty Tory government was what they wanted to see in power, not a mildly leftish Labour ( or even moderately rightish Tory) one.

        2. Arctic fox
          Headmaster

          @JJSmith1950 Re:"If you can provide a single "lie" Corbyn has uttered,...............

          .................feel free to repeat them here."

          Wasting your time unfortunately - that poster is too busy uploading his own here.

      3. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Thank god!

      "Unfortunately far too many of the mass are swayed by the hope that one day they too will be accepted with open arms by their betters [...]"

      Unfortunately the big unions supporting Corbyn tend to have that attitude. Some of us can remember when every time a small union's members were given a justifiable rise in pay - then the big unions demanded more for their members "to maintain the differential".

      The miners' strike in the 1980s seemed to many miners to be ill-advised and more to do with their union leaders' ideology.

      I remember my miner father quitting the Labour Party in disgust back in the 1950/60s. In a publicised ceremony a local Labour councillor declared a new street of council houses, named after himself, ready for tenants. That councillor then promptly moved into one of them.

      If Corbyn really is an idealist then it is likely that it will be the unions who will eventually turn on him. If he turns out to have a pragmatic streak - then they will probably feel he is a turncoat.

      Most ordinary people who vote Labour are conservatives at heart - which is why Thatcher, Blair, and Cameron attracted so many of their votes.

      1. gerdesj Silver badge
        Alien

        Re: Thank god!

        @AC: If you care about something, why do you write as an AC?

        I've always used the same moniker across all websites (apart from /. : JSG - oddity, can't remember why and hard to change, twattr: browser knows, who cares, not important)

        I go through life with a name and I decided many moons ago to be who I am and identifiable as such wherever I touchdown. Sometimes I talk (wine fuelled) bollocks but it is still me and I standby what I say.

        I enjoy the luxury of being able to do so. Some people don't (think PRC, Norks, int al). I doubt you are being persecuted in any way. Grow a pair and de-cloak.

      2. James 51

        Re: Thank god!

        'That councillor then promptly moved into one of them.'

        Perhaps if all councillors and mps had to live in social housing then they're be more of it and of better quality too.

  8. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

    Congratulations!

    The Labour Party has successfully transformed itself from a party of incompetent jokers to that of raving lunatics. LOL!

    The mini-Stalin they've just elected will first purge the old guard, then proceed to turn the party into an ultra-left greenish irrelevance. Unless, of course, the parliamentary LP functionaries manage to assassinate him (politically) before he wrings their necks. Ah, what fun to watch!

    1. Bloodbeastterror

      Re: Congratulations!

      You've hit it right on the head. Well done. Any party that wants to stand up for ordinary people must be completely round the bend.

      Right on... (sic)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Congratulations!

        Any party that wants to stand up for ordinary people must be completely round the bend.

        What on earth makes you think that Corbyn and his cronies will "stand up for ordinary people"? What ordinary people want is jobs, security, a decent standard of living. The Labour party, particularly the left leaning versions, have done nothing but bring misery to the working man, through systematically and repeatedly fucking up the British economy. They've achieved that four times in my life time.

        Corbyn's idiot policies guarantee that if he gets into power he'll deliberately repeat the same mistakes as his Labour forefathers, and you can be assured that it won't be the rich who pay for the "workers' paradise" this bearded cretin wants to create. It'll be the ordinary working people of this country, who will have to pay higher taxes, if they're lucky enough to have a job, and when they get to retirement find out that Corbyn's wasted all the money, and there's nothing left to keep them in their old age.

        1. Rich 11 Silver badge

          Re: Congratulations!

          The Labour party, particularly the left leaning versions, have done nothing but bring misery to the working man, through systematically and repeatedly fucking up the British economy. They've achieved that four times in my life time.

          That just sounds to me like balance. The Tories have fucked up the economy four times in my lifetime too. And they've fucked up the railways, the NHS and the schools in between.

          1. GitMeMyShootinIrons

            Re: Congratulations!

            "That just sounds to me like balance. The Tories have fucked up the economy four times in my lifetime too. And they've fucked up the railways, the NHS and the schools in between.."

            The railways were screwed way before privatisation (about the time it was nationalised). The civil servants ran it at the behest of the unions and left it, slow, late and filthy (now it's less late, a bit faster and much cleaner - just over-priced). The NHS is a wonderful, but flawed ideal that is based upon a myth of being "free" and yet consumes (tax payers) money like a Hoover, while offering services well beyond its remit (boob job anyone?). Schools have been under Union rule for decades - and God help anyone who dares question them or quantify their competency.

            As for the economy, only four for the Tories? Every time Labour got in, they left it in worse condition after. Labour inherited an economy on the rise in '97 and took us into a deficit unlike anything in UK history. Oh, and look back at the left wing consensus in the '70's with Heath (barely a Tory) and Labour systematically allowing the unions destroy the UK economy, even as the oil started flowing from the North Sea. Or how about Labour wasting cash nationalising businesses the state had no reason to be involved with (cars, chemical, even sugar!) - money that would have been better spent on a multitude of areas that are the role of government- like infrastructure, defence and perhaps even the lefty favourite- decolonisation. When Labour screw up, they do it big time, every time.

            I know the left are associated with red, but let's draw the line at looking at the past with rose tinted lenses.

            However, I agree with balance - his election will add a comedy factor to parliament that hasn't been seen since Labour's 1983 election manifesto. Plus, the anti-Europeans have now gained a powerful ally - that might make the euro-referendum a little less rigged.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Congratulations!

              I know the left are associated with red,

              ...mostly in the balance sheet.

              Soshul justis don't come cheap if it comes at all, which somehow it never does.

            2. John H Woods Silver badge

              Re: Congratulations!

              "The NHS [...] consumes (tax payers) money like a Hoover"

              According to The King's Fund UK spending is about the OECD average, lower than Germany, France, the Netherlands and Canada and significantly lower than the USA.

            3. Mr Fuzzy

              Re: Congratulations!

              @ GitMeMyShootinIrons

              "The NHS is a wonderful, but flawed ideal that is based upon a myth of being "free" and yet consumes (tax payers) money like a Hoover, while offering services well beyond its remit (boob job anyone?)."

              Like reductions to prevent a life of crippling back pain or reconstruction after a mastectomy?

            4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: Congratulations!

              @ GitMeMyShootinIrons

              Maybe a tad unfair to Heath given the fact that Wilson/unionism cronying had pushed a lot of power out of reach of government already. But otherwise spot on.

            5. Outcast

              Re: Congratulations!

              Ukippers are NOT anti Europeans. (Is that geographically possible ?)

              We are anti- EU. <----- No it's NOT the same thing.

          2. Frank Bough

            Re: Congratulations!

            No idea why this myth of the Tories fucking up the NHS exists - it was Tony Blair and - especially - Gordon Brown who did the most damage to the NHS in my lifetime.

            1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

              Re: Congratulations!

              Frank - you're absolutely right. I spoke to many NHS doctors and they are all unanimous about the Blairites completely screwing it up and turning it into a feeding trough for their cronies.

              Manger is sitting on manager and managing managers ever since. Most of the money NHS burns is going on admin and "management". They would send a "manager" in, no one would hear a thing from him for 6 months, then he'd fire off an email telling people how they all do their jobs wrong and how they should do it from now on - and, pffft, off he flies to greener pastures as a party functionary with a "work experience"...

            2. TheVogon

              Re: Congratulations!

              "it was Tony Blair and - especially - Gordon Brown who did the most damage to the NHS in my lifetime."

              Yep - they privatised 10 times the value of NHS services that the Conservatives ever did - mostly via financially crippling "PFI" contracts. And created hundreds of thousands of useless non jobs - particularly in Labour heartlands of course...

        2. Mike Pellatt

          Re: Congratulations!

          ...and when they get to retirement find out that Corbyn's wasted all the money...

          Well, I suppose wasting it is better than stealing it, as Gordon Brown did, putting the final nail in the coffin of final salary schemes.

          All so that they could keep their promise of "no rises in income tax". Which everyone heard as "no rises in taxes" in 1997.

        3. Roj Blake

          Re: Congratulations!

          "The Labour party, particularly the left leaning versions, have done nothing but bring misery to the working man, through systematically and repeatedly fucking up the British economy. They've achieved that four times in my life time."

          Yes, having a free NHS, a minimum wage, guaranteed holidays and the right not to be sacked arbitrarily have brought nothing but misery to millions of hard working people.

        4. Naselus

          Re: Congratulations!

          "The Labour party, particularly the left leaning versions, have done nothing but bring misery to the working man,"

          Yes, I know most working people's lives were made so much worse off through the introduction of the NHS. You just can't get proper tuberculosis these days.

      2. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

        Re: Congratulations!

        Ah. A party for ordinary people! How romantic. Just like a Greek tragedy... :D

        Every time people elect populists who promise them the horn of plenty they end up paying five-fold for the brief political orgasm that follows the election. Just like getting clap from a cheap hooker...

      3. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

        Re: Congratulations!

        Right on 'comrade'

        There fixed it for you.

        1. Bloodbeastterror

          Re: Congratulations!

          "There fixed it for you."

          No, you didn't. Mine was just fine as it was, thank you.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Congratulations!

      With a nick like yours you seem remarkably ignorant of the difference between Josef Djugashvili aka Stalin (paranoid psychopath who not only managed to kill off a lot of the peasantry but nearly lost WW2 by purging competent Army officers in the 1930s) and a bloke who would have been shot by Stalin within about five seconds because he would be considered too dangerous to have alive, even in a gulag. And again with that nick you seem not to know what "ultra-left" would look like (hint - not middle of the road European social democrat.)

      Posts like yours remind us of why a majority of the population associate the Right with nastiness - and as that is the association that Corbyn and Watson are going to be pushing hard for the next four and a half years, I think a modicum of shutting up might be the best strategy for the Conservatives.

      1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

        Re: Congratulations!

        @Arnaut:

        Nationalise everything, turn on money printers, tax you more than you earn then hand you out benefits to make ends meet - that's as ultra-left as they go, short of nationalising all women and renaming days of the week...

        And you really don't understand who Stalin was or that you don't need to physically murder someone to be a Stalin in an organisation. Well, let's not argue too much about it now. I've made my predictions in my OP - let's wait and watch this show...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Congratulations!

          You're really quite good at misrepresentation and you're never wrong. You are Kelvin Mckenzie and I claim my free database of hacked voicemail passwords.

        2. TheVogon

          Re: Congratulations!

          "Nationalise everything, turn on money printers"

          Corbyn can make us like Zimbabwe!

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    PR

    His support for Single Transferable Vote Proportional Representation for electing MPs is apparently mixed.

    "On 2 Nov 2010: Jeremy Corbyn voted to only automatically act on the outcome of the referendum on introducing the alternative vote system for electing MPs if at least forty per cent of electors entitled to vote did so."

    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/divisions?policy=1084

    Still - that suggests he should have no problem supporting the Tories' reform of Union strike voting then.

    1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

      Re: PR

      Alternative Vote isn't Single Transferable Vote and isn't Proportional Representation, so how can you compare a vote on AV with opinions on STV?

  10. DaveDaveDave

    So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

    Electing as leader a man who bases his entire philosophy on ridiculous antisemitic conspiracy theories from a century ago. 'Corbynomics' is hardly new, it's simply the idea that there's a magic money tree that 'the joos' steal all the money from, and that if we, ahem, finally solve the 'Jewish problem', we can all share its fruit and live happily ever after with kittens.

    1. Rich 11 Silver badge

      Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

      Some people seem to be very fixated on declaring Corbyn to be anti-semitic. I'm still waiting to hear evidence for it.

      http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/20/jeremy-corbyn-and-antisemitism-claims

      1. DaveDaveDave

        Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

        "I'm still waiting to hear evidence for it."

        And you'll be waiting a long time if you keep refusing to hear it. Do you honestly believe that the BoD and JC are saying things they don't believe in order to influence the Labour leadership contest? Why? How would that benefit them? You're dangerously close to antisemitic conspiracy theory territory already, if you argue that they feel Corbyn's economic policies would disproportionately affect Jewish people, and the alternative is that they are genuinely worried by Corbyn's antisemitism.

        The fact is that Corbyn has repeatedly endorsed naked antisemitism, for decade after decade. This isn't hidden, it's public knowledge that has been printed in multiple national newspapers. For you to continue to deny its existence says a lot about the mindset of the Corbynites.

        1. Graham Marsden
          WTF?

          @DaveDaveDave - Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

          > it's public knowledge that has been printed in multiple national newspapers.

          ORLY?

          The Guardian

          The Independent

          The Telegraph

          The Spectator for gods' sake! not exactly a Corbyn supporting publication...

          1. DaveDaveDave

            Re: @DaveDaveDave - So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

            Nonono, we're discussing his antisemitism here, not the flagrant dishonesty he and his supporters display.

            That you'd cite the notoriously antisemitic Independent is an amusing digression. The Spectator article, despite the headline, is talking about something that it's bizarre to claim isn't antisemitism. The Telegraph article merely reports Diane Abbott's opinion. And your link to the Guardian simply goes to the letters page, with some comments by random people.

            How about posting something that actually addresses the accusations made?

            1. Dan 55 Silver badge

              Re: @DaveDaveDave - So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

              Be nice to have a quote or two with those accusations otherwise you'll start to look a bit silly.

              1. Naughtyhorse

                Re: look a bit silly.

                oops!

                a bit late there

            2. Graham Marsden

              Re: @DaveDaveDave - So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

              > How about posting something that actually addresses the accusations made?

              Great idea, DaveDaveDave: You start...

        2. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

          You just sound like another one of those who equate any criticism of Israel at all with antisemitism, in an attempt (usually effective, unfortunately) to shut down opposition to its policies.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

          "You're dangerously close to antisemitic conspiracy theory territory already"

          And you seem unaware that the BoD only represents Orthodox Jews and the JC is pretty right wing nowadays where Israel is concerned, so your comment is like saying the Conservative Party don't like Corbyn's politics. Given the number of nonpractising Jews and Reform Jews who don't recognise the Orthodox Chief Rabbi (though the latest one is a vast improvement) or the BoD and who wouldn't be seen dead reading the JC, your comment really is a waste of space.

          Did you know there are Jews in Israel who agree with Corbyn's stance? Did you know there are Israeli rabbis who oppose settlements? Mind you, there are settlement-favouring Zionists who accuse them of self-hatred.

          1. Frank Bough

            Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

            ...and yet the settlements, check-points and bulldozing continue.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

          "you honestly believe that the BoD and JC are saying things they don't believe in order to influence the Labour leadership contest?"

          Yes of course they are.

          "Why? How would that benefit them? "

          It furthers their political agenda of hoping that Israel will never be held accountable for their many war crimes, acts of genocide, collective punishment, illegal occupation and any other such continuing breaches of international law.

          "The fact is that Corbyn has repeatedly endorsed naked antisemitism, for decade after decade. This isn't hidden, it's public knowledge that has been printed in multiple national newspapers"

          Strange that there seems to be zero quotable examples of such endorsements then.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

      The irony is that Marx Lenin and Trotsky were so Jewish that communism became known as the 'Jewish conspiracy'. And now its offspring wants to reject it.

      Oedipus perhaps,. Oh hang on, that's another Jewish conspiracy....

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

      "ridiculous antisemitic conspiracy theories from a century ago"

      His comments have as far as I am aware only related to Palestine (which had a majority indigenous arab population a century ago, before it was invaded) - rather than anything about Jews. What are these "antisemitic conspiracies" from 1915 of which you speak?

      1. Only a Sith

        Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

        I'm utterly sick of people equating critisim of Israel with anti-semitism. They're not the same and it's lazy disingenuous bullshit shouting down to claim they are. I'm not anti-Semitic but I cannot support the behaviour of the Israeli government. I can't support the behaviour of many other states either - including our own, with their attack on civil liberties and the poor.

        1. Terry 6 Silver badge

          Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

          "I can't support the behaviour of many other states either - including our own, with their attack on civil liberties and the poor.

          Well here's the thing. Look at Israel's record. Not always good. Sometimes excessive even.

          No one is asking for your support. And that level of criticism is understandable.

          But look at those countries which routinely behave really dreadfully. Condone slave labour, deny civil rights, have arbitrary imprisonment, throw political opponents in to torture chambers, promote proxy wars across neighbouring countries and so on,.

          Then look at where most of the venom is aimed.

          Then claim that the Jewish state isn't being singled-out for anti-Semitic reasons.

          I don't see the same degree of venom about Russia throwing pop singers in prison or its supporting the "rebels" in Ukraine, or about Saudi-Arabia, or China, or Iran, or Uzbekistan or North Korea and so on and so on.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

            "Condone slave labour, deny civil rights, have arbitrary imprisonment, throw political opponents in to torture chambers, promote proxy wars across neighbouring countries and so on,."

            Sounds like a good description of Israel.

            1. Terry 6 Silver badge

              Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

              You can claim that if you wish. It isn't true. But you are ducking the point.

              That Israel is singled out for criticism.

              Where was the profession of outrage over a real crime in Srebrenica.

              Or Russia's proxy invasion of Ukraine.

              Or Australia and New Zealand's treatment of the people who lived there long before Europeans with no connection to those places arrived.

              Or the treatment of residents of Diego Garcia.

              But no, the Jewish state in its traditional historic homeland gets the stick. The one democracy in a sea of hostile enemies using force to protect itself.

              1. Roj Blake

                Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

                "Or the treatment of residents of Diego Garcia."

                Actually, Corbyn has been one of the few politicians speaking in favour of the Chagos Islanders right of return.

                He wants the Americans off Diego Garcia.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

                "That Israel is singled out for criticism."

                Oh so we should just ignore on-going genocide because of completely unrelated issues in some other part so the world? Not a very convincing argument, but unfortunately often apparently a successful one.

                "The one democracy "

                The last time I checked, the Palestinians in the occupied territories don't get to vote in Israeli elections but the Jewish settlers do. And there are still "right of return" laws that apply only to Jews and not to the indigenous expelled Arab population. That's an apartheid state, not a democracy.

    4. Tim99 Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: So this is what the party of No Platform has become...

      Are you sure you have not used one of your Daily Express or Daily Mail logins by mistake?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I can't see me voting Labour any time soon but it's good to see we now have a party that it's a variation on the Tories. This country, like a lot of Europe, has taken a worrying lurch to the right which I fear will only end in tears (and hopefully not bullets but history doesn't make me hopeful).

  12. Chris Miller

    That popping noise you hear

    Is bottles of Bolly being opened at Chequers.

    1. Naughtyhorse

      Re: That popping noise you hear

      yup.

      just like every weekend at chequers.

      what was that about us all being in this together?

      don't let the door it you on the ass on your way out

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Mushroom

    Unless the Tory who is next running for PM (Cameron says he will stand down) gets found out to be a paedo just before the election I can't see how Labour expect to win ? The labour party are now run by Tom & Jerry.

    I'm off down the bookies to lay a bet on a 50 seat Tory majority at the next election.

    The icon is labour self destructing.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      One thing I will say in Corbyn's defence however is at least he's not part of the Oxbridge PPE mafia, still think he's unelectable though.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        No, still an independent prep and grammar school boy, followed by full-time union work, and career politician from 1974 onwards.

        I suppose not being a lawyer or finance type is a positive change though.

  14. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Meh

    So many experts

    Yet not one of them an MP.

    I'll wait and see. At the very least, it's now totally clear to anyone with more than two communicating brain cells that a very great many people are not happy with the current situation.

    1. Zog_but_not_the_first

      Re: So many experts

      "a very great many people are not happy with the current situation."

      But why?

      Not trolling, but curious.

      1. Bloodbeastterror

        Re: So many experts

        Let's start with a simple one then. Trident. If it cost only one thousand million pounds per year (let's make it clearer than the American corruption of "billion") then that would surely cause a storm of protest about wasted money. Now consider the estimated cost (and they're all imaginary, I admit, which is why I started with the low figure) of £100bn over the next 40 years for a product which can never be used.

        Two things spring to mind:

        1) The anti-elephant paint on my roof has been a wonderful investment.

        2) My 70-inch TV is more essential than my kids' shoes.

        If Corbyn makes any inroads into this sort of insanity I'll be more that happy to vote again for the Labour party which died 18 years ago.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So many experts

          To test the possible misdirection on the subject of MAD. Move to a house in elephant country then give us an update on the efficacy of that paint.

          1. Bloodbeastterror

            Re: So many experts

            "To test the possible misdirection on the subject of MAD."

            What misdirection? We're talking politics and waste of money (someone has already mentioned the NHS as a Hoover, laughably). Trident is a pointless waste of money, a missile pointing nowhere at a time where the threat is not from space but from rucksacks.

            "Move to a house in elephant country then give us an update on the efficacy of that paint."

            I'm pretty sure that it would be equally effective.

            If you're going to make a point at least think it through first...

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: So many experts

              "Trident is a pointless waste of money, a missile pointing nowhere at a time where the threat is not from space but from rucksacks."

              Really? When terrorist states like Israel and North Korea already have nukes, and more might get them in the future?

    2. SundogUK Silver badge

      Re: So many experts

      Really? Less than 1% of the UK population voted for him. That's not "a very great many people."

  15. zebm

    Look who's back

    I recently read a German fairytale about a politician rising from the dead to great acclaim from the rabble for the discredited policies of the past. Such a tale could never be set in Britain. Oh, and he was a vegetarian.

    1. hammarbtyp

      Re: Look who's back

      Thus proving Godwin's law

    2. Graham Marsden
      Facepalm

      Re: Look who's back

      Whoops...

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Linux

    I expect he uses Linux

  17. Chronos
    Joke

    Little musical interlude...

    The working class can kiss my ass

    I've got the leader's job at last

    Annoying Dave is my new role

    You can stick the red flag up your hole!

    With apologies to the chap I first heard singing something like it on the shop floor of an electronics company.

    1. Chronos

      Re: Little musical interlude...

      Apologies to the down-voters for the irreverence but, as eny fule no, it comes as standard on El Reg. Incidentally, it was originally because said chap had just become foreman, so s/leader's/foreman's/ and the third line was "I've got a raise, I'm off the dole" and it just struck me as hilariously funny at the time - until I realised that people's principles have a price and the whole thing's a truism on human nature.

      Time will tell if it applies here. As for the disapproval, I throw myself upon the mercy of the Commentardosphere.

  18. Trollslayer Silver badge

    Nine years

    That will get me to state pension age, all I want.

    1. jason 7

      Re: Nine years

      They will have spent it all by then.

      Pensions won't exist in a few years. The figures don't add up.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Way to go

    Max out the credit cards! Hock yourself up to the armpits with loan sharks!

    The trouble with socialists is that, sooner or later, they run out of other people's money

    1. Bloodbeastterror

      Re: Way to go

      "The trouble with socialists is that, sooner or later, they run out of other people's money".

      Like the socialist bankers who until 2008 were happily throwing my money at the roulette wheel?

      And after 2008, supported by the Tory government too fearful of annoying their cronies, it all changed, right...?

  20. TwoWolves
    Facepalm

    I've not been paying that much attention but I hear...

    1) He says that he's going to instruct the Bank of England to print enough money to pay off the UK deficit.

    2) He doesn't believe that countries should have borders.

    How is that going to play out well? I'd be interested to know.

    (He sounds really nice but somewhat bonkers)

    1. DasWezel

      Re: I've not been paying that much attention but I hear...

      In fairness, really nice but bonkers has got to be an improvement on slimy shitstain on their way up the greasy pole and to hell with the consequences...

      Even if he turns out to be the next Screaming Lord Sutch, at least politics might be a little bit more interesting than 650 identical and highly suits jeering at each other like schoolchildren in the playground. Honestly, it's pathetic.

    2. Naselus

      Re: I've not been paying that much attention but I hear...

      "1) He says that he's going to instruct the Bank of England to print enough money to pay off the UK deficit."

      He's said nothing of the sort. He's suggested that, if more QE is required, it should be given to real human beings rather than private banks. Since the money will be put in banks sooner or later anyway, it just means that rather than you borrowing your own tax money back from the bank, the bank must borrow the money from you. Some might say that they kind of owe us for obliterating a decade of economic progress.

      "2) He doesn't believe that countries should have borders."

      He doesn't believe that, either. He believes in freedom of movement, but to be fair that is also a central tenant of the EU, which is far from a socialist organization.

      Seriously, Corbyn isn't some hard-left fanatic looking to revive the USSR. He's a fairly typical moderate social democrat. The kind of policies he's putting forward would not raise eyebrows in modern Germany (that famously awful economy). Only idiots claim he's an anti-Semite; and only idiots would suggest that they can predict the result of an election in 5 years time.

  21. Tom 7 Silver badge

    Wierd world.

    "If you turn the clock back, even to say 1985 with Margaret Thatcher in all her pomp. We can still see free university education for all (with student grants) a nationalised rail service and the average working family being able to afford a decent home or at the very least rent one. Not to mention a much higher rate of top tax than now. And now we've arrived at a situation that anyone who fights for these things is a dangerous Marxist."

    1. Swiss Anton

      Re: Wierd world.

      One difference, back then we read the tabloid press and believed them when they wrote that there was nothing more evil than an Argentinian, (other than Ozzie of course). Now Corbyn want's to talk to Argentina about sharing those south Atlantic islands. Clearly the man is .... sane.

  22. Yugguy

    Senior labour figures

    In the news today, some senior labour figures throw their toys out of the pram. Others go home and take their bats and balls as well. The rest scream 'NOT FAIR!!!'

    1. Roj Blake
      Joke

      Re: Senior labour figures

      Yvette Cooper's Balls was already at home.

  23. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    IT Angle

    Labour... now unelectable

    Great we have a left wing socialist in charge of labour ..how long until various senior members start showing him the loyalty he showed the labor leaders of previous years ?

    "we're going to save the NHS" comes the heroic cry.. except how is he? by throwing money at it? when the 2 key problems are not enough hospitals/equipment and not enough staff.

    Any money just thrown at it without taking these 2 considerations will just be swallowed in pay rises for all concerned, IE £5/week for the floor moppers and £2000/week for the manglement without any improvement to the service it provides.

    Energy... re-open deep coal mines... yeah right good luck with that, another subsidy to go on everyone's power bills along with wind, solar and nuclear , although I suspect that last one will come off and nuclear will be shutdown(there goes 18% of our power supply, best buy the french electrickery to make up for the shortfall ... generated by... yes you guessed it .... nuclear)

    And throw open the borders to all who can make it here.... without building extra hospitals, homes, power supplies, water supplies, roads, sewers, law courts, and employing the extra doctors, nurses, midwives, policemen, lawyers, etc etc etc that a modern city would need.

    Without that , all it will do is force up house prices even more and force the citizens already here to face a worse service from things like the NHS than it already gets.

    And thats true face of labour, claim to be all about 'protecting' the working class while screwing them in the arse....... the tories are no better , but at least they are honest about it

    1. jason 7

      Re: Labour... now unelectable

      The problem with the NHS is we have 50% of the staff that want to do a good job and fix people ASAP. The other half unfortunately are lazy, incompetent and just waste people's time, health and money.

      Don't get me started on the daft energy policies that have been worked out due to the public's fears and ignorance.

      If you want to be truly Green then Nuclear is the only way to go. Nuclear is fine as long as you apply two main rules.

      1. Don't use old plants past their sell by date.

      2. Don't use old plants past their sell by date in a major earthquake zone.

      "Oh we'll go 100% solar and wind!" Okay what happens at 7.30pm on a still Xmas night when everyone wants to watch the Eastenders Xmas special?

      For every renewable energy source, you need to have either coal/oil/gas/nuclear backing it up when it's not working.

      1. graeme leggett

        Re: Labour... now unelectable

        the problem, if there is a single problem and that's debatable, with the NHS is what we ask it to do.

        In the 50s, we wanted everyone to see a doctor (GP or hospital) without having to worry about finding money to do so. And the doctors (etc) had to deliver babies, get them past childhood diseases, and treat infections with antibiotics.

        Now we want them to enable the childless to have babies, provide a wide variety of life-extending and improving treatments (possibly in correction of some questionable life-style choices), and treat every new disease that scientists uncover the cause of. And some of the modern treatments are expensive, even if they are worth it in terms of quality of life, eg Monoclonal antibodies for inflammatory conditions - £350 a shot.

        And without increasing, nor decreasing, the money available to it.

      2. Tim99 Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: Labour... now unelectable

        The fix for the Health Service is easy. Mandate that 90% of staff have to be customer facing or directly involved in treatment i.e. doctors, nurses, technicians, cleaners, receptionists etc. The other 10% can be administrators, IT support etc. To avoid the 10% costing the same in total as the 90% mandate like-for-like salaries - The senior administrator earns the same as the average of 9 consultants, senior IT person the same as a doctor etc. etc. Hospital management Boards to be similar to the early days of the HS - the senior administrator, the senior consultant, "Matron", a junior doctor, a nurse, a cleaner, a couple of community reps and the chair to be an outsider.

        It will never happen of course, as the main purpose of the HS now seems to be to channel as much money as possible I nto the hands of whoever whispers into government's ear.

        1. x 7

          Re: Labour... now unelectable

          "senior IT person the same as a doctor"

          I wish........IT in the NHS isn't exactly well paid unless you're a contractor

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            IT Pay

            I am on the same grade as a staff nurse. Our team leader presumably gets more than me so they will be like a senior nurse.

        2. jason 7

          Re: Labour... now unelectable

          Another big problem for the NHS is the fact that...

          ...in most cases the Doctors are now terrified to make a conclusive diagnosis.

          Unless your condition can be 100% verified they will not make a diagnosis and will just hedge their bets with a range of treatments that 'might work'. So what happens is you get treated for half a dozen things seeing half a dozen other specialists at six times the cost and time. Then after all that it's taken so long that your condition changes to something worse that costs all the more to treat.

          My other half has experienced this and has even told her doctor "Look let me sign a bloody legal waiver saying I won't sue you if you'll properly diagnose me!"

          They won't. Like many in this position we'll end up going private and pay for it all again but it will get diagnosed within 5 minutes and treated properly like it should have been done under the NHS in the first place.

          For many the NHS is just a huge waste of time and life. Not fit for purpose unless you need a organ transplant or possibly cancer treatments.

      3. TheVogon

        Re: Labour... now unelectable

        "If you want to be truly Green then Nuclear is the only way to go. Nuclear is fine as long as you apply two main rules."

        You forgot 3) allow for the costs of dealing with the vast amounts of highly radioactive nuclear waste that will stay that way for the next 100,000 years or so!

        1. jason 7

          Re: Labour... now unelectable

          @TheVogon

          Actually look it up. Another big misconception.

          It's not nearly as much as you think and in modern reactors most of the spent fuel can be used again...and again.

          A few tons of waste stuck deep down a hole is a better legacy than an atmosphere filled with carbon pollutants and the millions of tons of waste non-nuclear power stations produce.

          Nuclear waste is tiny almost negligible compared to other ways.

          1. Mike Pellatt

            Re: Labour... now unelectable

            @jason 7 - and even better - guess what - nature managed to run a reactor for us underground a couple of billion years ago, so it's already tested what happens long-term to buried waste. Turns out it's likely to pretty much stay where it's been put.

            Was gobsmacked to find this out - http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeWasteFromNuclearPower

          2. TheVogon

            Re: Labour... now unelectable

            "Actually look it up. Another big misconception."

            I currently work for a client in the energy industry. It's the main reason why no one wants to build nuclear plants without ridiculously large government subsidies. See for instance "The total cost of cleaning up the UK's 17 nuclear sites is "around £70bn", the NAO says. " :

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31725365

            "most of the spent fuel can be used again...and again."

            After reprocessing that that also eventually turns pretty much everything in the process into nuclear waste.

            "A few tons of waste stuck deep down a hole"

            It's not that easy - or cheap - to contain waste in a geologically stable environment for 100,000 + years. See http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/jan/30/nuclear-waste-cumbria-copeland-allerdale

            "Nuclear waste is tiny almost negligible compared to other ways."

            It really isn't - The UK inventory as of 2013 is 1770 cubic Metres of High Level Waste, and 95,600 cubic Metres of Intermediate Level Waste. Pretty much the entire reactor building and containment, and processing facilities also become nuclear waste at the end of their useful life. Hence the vast costs. See http://www.nda.gov.uk/ukinventory/the-2013-inventory/2013-uk-data/

            1. Mayhem

              Re: Labour... now unelectable

              "Nuclear waste is tiny almost negligible compared to other ways."

              It really isn't - The UK inventory as of 2013 is 1770 cubic Metres of High Level Waste, and 95,600 cubic Metres of Intermediate Level Waste. Pretty much the entire reactor building and containment, and processing facilities also become nuclear waste at the end of their useful life. Hence the vast costs. See http://www.nda.gov.uk/ukinventory/the-2013-inventory/2013-uk-data/

              Or to put that in perspective, a roughly 12mx12mx12m pile of High Level waste and a roughly 45mx45mx45m pile of Intermediate Waste.

              Ok, there needs to be a substantial amount of containment, and you can't exactly pile it all together without wondering if Stuff Will Go Wrong, but we're really not talking about a lot of physical material here. The UK is very geologically stable, being in the middle of a plate, and it should be straightforward to find a nice big chunk of granite to entomb it in. Not politically easy, but straightforward. The low level and Very Low Level waste is probably ideal to use to fill up a few old deep coal mines. It's certainly cleaner than a bunch of the waste tailings from the mining operations in the first place.

              1. TheVogon

                Re: Labour... now unelectable

                "12mx12mx12m pile of High Level waste and a roughly 45mx45mx45m pile of Intermediate Waste."

                So that's the size of a large house and a block of flats. Not exactly tiny - and of course it all needs packing in secure containers.

                "but we're really not talking about a lot of physical material here."

                It's substantial once you consider breaking it up in to manageable chunks, enclosing it, and storing / cooling it.

                "UK is very geologically stable, being in the middle of a plate, and it should be straightforward to find a nice big chunk of granite to entomb it in. Not politically easy, but straightforward."

                Well it hasn't been found yet. See above

                "The low level and Very Low Level waste is probably ideal to use to fill up a few old deep coal mines."

                Yes I'm sure the locals would be delighted with that added to the water table!

                Regardless of all your attempts to avoid the point, we know that cleaning up after nuclear power already costs us tens of billions...

            2. jason 7

              Re: Labour... now unelectable

              Well carry on pumping out the thousand of tons of CO2 everyday then.

              It doesn't matter though as nuclear will be the future anyway. It will have to happen so just sit back and enjoy the ride.

              Renewables are not going to power the lifestyles of the 9-10-11-12 billion to come very shortly.

              Nuclear is the way forward. Unless you want to tell all those to come in the developing world personally they can't live like we do?

        2. Bernard M. Orwell

          Re: Labour... now unelectable

          We use Plutonium and Uranium in our reactors because the waste can be reprocessed into weapon grade materials, usable in our Trident program (and exportable to other countries).

          If we use Thorium in our reactors, the amount of waste is vastly reduced, but we can't enrich it for weapon grade material.

          Methinks the solution is obvious and non-profitable, therefore I would nationalise the nuclear power industry and sell the energy at cost to UK industry, making us more than competitive, greener and less reliant on foreign fossil fuels.

      4. Yugguy

        Re: Labour... now unelectable

        All we need to do is ring the northern coast of scotland with wave column generators. We'll give Scotland independence but keep the waters British so we can generate electric whilst giving them the finger.

        Win win.

        1. jason 7

          Re: Labour... now unelectable

          Wave/Tidal power...would be great, as an Island nation we have quite a few waves and tides and they are regular. However, when you try to go install them in the places they would operate at their best you get opposition...from the environmentalists.

          "Oh cant go there...site of special scientific interest/breeding ground/fragile eco-system etc. etc.

          1. Yugguy

            Re: Labour... now unelectable

            From what I can tell environmentalists don't like the following forms of power:

            Fossil fuels. Nuclear fuels. Wave power. Wind turbines. Water power from reservoir/dam systems.

            I'm not sure what they DO recommend we use. Because turning the lights off and going back to an idyllic agrarian economy is simply not going to happen kids.

            1. jason 7

              Re: Labour... now unelectable

              "From what I can tell environmentalists don't like the following forms of power:

              Fossil fuels. Nuclear fuels. Wave power. Wind turbines. Water power from reservoir/dam systems."

              I've seen that question asked of environmentalists on the TV many times.

              It always goes very quiet and the interview ends.

    2. Graham Marsden

      Re: Labour... now unelectable

      You know, I *keep* seeing this "Labour is now unelectable" line being trotted out and I have to wonder just *who* is trying to convince *whom*.

      Because it seems to me that it is actually coming from the Right Wing (be it the Right of Labour or from the Tories or their supporters and tame media) who are desperately trying to convince *themselves* that people haven't finally wised up to the bullshit which is Austerity and aren't going to kick out its proponents at the next election when they finally get tired of being screwed over whilst their feudal masters sit in their mansions and castles sipping champagne.

      They double down on their bets by chucking in claims about how it will all go on floor moppers and letting in the "hordes" on our borders and so on and so forth because, as the old saying has it, if you throw enough mud, at least some of it should stick...

      1. jason 7

        Re: Labour... now unelectable

        I don't think it's coming from the right.

        I think it's coming from folks like me (in actual fact the majority) who sit in the dead centre and are just fed up with the constant left right swing of politics.

        In a modern world, most political ideas and concepts are redundant. We don't need a bunch of people who just look after one end of the social spectrum. We need to look after everyone. Why? Because its the folks in the middle who get ignored who pay for it all.

        All we folks in the middle want is some calm, focused people who have a modicum of economic, managerial and social skills to be able to make a more efficiently run country that hopefully benefits everyone rather than just lurching from one end to the other every 5 years or so.

        Basically we just want a sensible 50 year plan for Britain's future and just get totally turned off by pathetic out of date party politics. It's childish and as a nation we deserve better.

      2. TheVogon

        Re: Labour... now unelectable

        "Because it seems to me that it is actually coming from the Right Wing (be it the Right of Labour or from the Tories or their supporters and tame media)"

        Not from the Tories. They have been quite explicit in how much of a danger Corbyn represents to the UK, and that he is to be considered a genuine threat.

  24. Spanners Silver badge
    Happy

    Does this mean there's hope now?

    The last time we had an admitted socialist elected to 10 Downing Street was 1974.

    I was a couple of years too young to vote anyway. I suspect that plenty people here were too young for solid food.

    We don't know what the all results of this will be but at least we will have a choice for a change!

    The labour party has had at least 1,500 new members today (Sunday). As the Murdoch press and other ****bags gets their lies into gear tomorrow, it will be interesting to see how many more join. I'm thinking about it.

    1. Mike Pellatt

      Re: Does this mean there's hope now?

      I remember 1974 - 1979.

      It wasn't pretty.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Does this mean there's hope now?

        I remember those years too: rather fun apart from the IRA. The three day week, rather short lived, revealed that productivity went UP under those conditions. There were short lived inconveniences. But overall it was a productive time, culturally, scientifically, socially, technically. There were no food banks that I recall; museums were still free, universities were open to all without fear of a long term debt and a degree was of some value. Tolerance was normal, unlike some of the bilious comments in this forum. Britain was country to live in, not a business unit. People actually cared, which could be inconvenient at times; but at least they cared and did something.

        This revision of memory, in the light of more recent, black propaganda is very sad.

        Is today, with high youth unemployment, food banks, child poverty, observation cameras more than anywhere else, xenophobia, real poverty against obscene wealth and non-doms, sheer funk in the face of terrorism less than that of the IRA, even more USA subservience, obesity becoming the norm, overcrowding, negligible industry (do you really count cleaning each other's telephones and general *service* industry), a NHS that is barely free (hefty prescription charges, expensive dentists and opticians, charges for sick notes etc.), schools being removed from local democracy to government by business experts, Is all this really better?

    2. Naselus

      Re: Does this mean there's hope now?

      "The labour party has had at least 1,500 new members today (Sunday)."

      Was 15,000 between Corbyn's victory and 10am the following day. For reference, that's just over 10% of the size of the Tory party signed up to join Labour in 1 day.

      Clearly, the man's a disaster for the Labour party.

      1. TheVogon

        Re: Does this mean there's hope now?

        "For reference, that's just over 10% of the size of the Tory party signed up to join Labour in 1 day."

        It probably was 10% of the Tory party so they can vote the next time Labour offers the chance to make itself unelectable...

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Social mobility

    Congratulations Jeremy!

    Hopefully his leadership will widen political debates.

    I'm mainly hoping for a return of social mobility last saw in the 90's.

    We need a balanced system of socialist responsibilities (NHS, education, housing, etc) matched against capitalist progression.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Just like John Major

    Grey

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Just like John Major

      Yeah, but can you envisage him shagging Edwina Currie ??

      Perhaps the left-wing equivalent is Vanessa Redgrave........

      Better get my coat now.

  27. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Yugguy

      Re: @Graham Marsden

      How about "Jack, get a job"?

      1. Bernard M. Orwell

        Re: @Graham Marsden

        How about we invest in jobs, industry, education and healthcare then to make effective workers and improve our national wealth?

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: @Graham Marsden

          @ Bernard M. Orwell

          "How about we invest in jobs, industry, education and healthcare then to make effective workers and improve our national wealth?"

          Who? If the gov invest in jobs then they are not real (needed) jobs. The gov cannot create jobs, they can only destroy them. This is why a public sector must be carefully deployed as each job costs at least one private job. Also who chooses what is the best industry to invest in? Again the gov would be doing a wealth transfer and they are not particularly good at this nor impartial/benevolent. Education has been an amusing cock up and arguably so has health.

          As for improving the national wealth, well thats easier. There is a sweet spot in taxation where you bring in more. It is not about higher tax rates nor exceedingly low ones, it is about the right spot. Around the world governments are ramping up tax and getting nothing for it (the money leaves the country) while the beneficiary is the countries with the money flowing into it. This is the one part gov can do very well.

          1. Graham Marsden
            Thumb Down

            @codejunky - Re: @Graham Marsden

            > If the gov invest in jobs then they are not real (needed) jobs.

            So Nurses and Doctors and other Health Care jobs are not "needed" jobs?

            Public services are exactly that, services *for* the public. Someone has to sweep the streets, someone has to collect the rubbish, someone has to maintain the tax service, someone has to run the benefits system, someone has to maintain the roads...

            If government stops investing in these and farms them out to private companies, all they are doing is adding a middle-man whose only interest is in what profit they can make between the cost of doing the job and how much they charge the Local Authority or Government for doing that work. They add no value, they just add cost (but, of course, it moves that cost off the Government's books onto someone else's...)

            Meanwhile, of course, the private companies are looking at how few people they need to employ to do those jobs, so they trim their workforce, then trim the wages as much as possible because both of those reduce their profit margin, so we end up with *fewer* people employed.

            Then, to add insult, you get someone like Iain Duncan Smith forcing the unemployed into doing those jobs, but not even for the minimum wage, but "do this job or you won't get any benefits" and the private contractors go "Whoopee! We get FREE workers from the Government who cost us even less" and sack more people, some of whom may even find themselves being forced to go back and do their old job for subsistence level benefits!

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              @Graham Marsden

              "So Nurses and Doctors and other Health Care jobs are not "needed" jobs?"

              That is an interesting leap. We have those. In fact we steal them from other countries. Look at labours investment, a bloated public sector that we couldnt afford consisting of interference, interference and more interference. So much red tape and nothing achieved but the taking of earnings and giving it away to move paper. One of my family members was employed by the NHS as a secretary while nursing staff was being reduced, under labour. If we have an NHS in crisis do we need more doctors, nurses or secretaries? Do we need people employed to make work or to do work?

              "adding a middle-man whose only interest is in what profit they can make between the cost of doing the job and how much they charge the Local Authority or Government for doing that work"

              This sounds like defending the people expensing second homes, porn, duck houses, moats, etc. With their only interest being the pork they get now and after (Blair is a good example). Also I have suffered the state education system, and the NHS, and so on. If you dream there is no pork there thats up to you but while some services are better public, some are better private (better service).

              "Meanwhile, of course, the private companies are looking at how few people they need to employ to do those jobs"

              Perfectly said! How many people do you need to do the job, full stop, no porking. Compare that to the public version of how big can I make my kingdom? More people, more money, more influence and set for life while everyone else has to earn a living. Your argument of employing people so they have a job instead of employing those you need for a job is the exact point I was making in the bit you quoted. Not needed jobs, just pork.

              "you get someone like Iain Duncan Smith forcing the unemployed into doing those jobs"

              IDS hasnt gone about it in the best of ways (I think) but he is in the public sector to do this stuff to people. But also what do you do with the unemployed and so becoming increasingly unemployable? What do you do with the generations who dont work and those who see it as the better route (I have known some of these people personally before you claim imagination)?

              1. Graham Marsden

                @codejunky - Re: @Graham Marsden

                > Your argument of employing people so they have a job instead of employing those you need for a job is the exact point I was making in the bit you quoted.

                That's not my argument, that's your Straw Man. I fully agree that the NHS needs more front line staff and fewer paper pushers and administrators and bean counters etc, but that's not what we've seen from any government for a long while and as Cameron and chums flog off the NHS a piece at a time to their mates, it's not going to change, especially as we see the ludicrous results of policies which mean we have to import Nurses etc and pay them higher rates than those we could have trained at home.

                And, no, the public services haven't been perfect by any means and, yes, we need to stop the empire building, but selling said services to private enterprise isn't going to make matters better.

                > what do you do with the unemployed and so becoming increasingly unemployable? What do you do with the generations who dont work and those who see it as the better route

                First of all you *stop* tarring all of the unemployed with that big brush. Yes, there are a *few* of them who are quite content to scrounge off the state, but they are very much the minority, not the majority. Unfortunately the media both in print and on TV (with unrepresentative nonsense such as Benefits Street) keep pushing the idea into the public's minds that these people are the majority who have to be forced into jobs to stop them stealing our money.

                The government has the ability to fix the situation, but they don't *want* to because it suits their ideology to foster this belief, knowing that they can use it to ensure that wages are kept to the bare minimum and that there are sufficient unemployed people that anyone who complains knows that they can easily be replaced.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: @codejunky - @Graham Marsden

                  "That's not my argument, that's your Straw Man"

                  Your comment was-

                  "Meanwhile, of course, the private companies are looking at how few people they need to employ to do those jobs"

                  Which marries nicely to my comment-

                  "If the gov invest in jobs then they are not real (needed) jobs"

                  Bridge the gap in case I misunderstood your post. It seemed you were suggesting the gov doesnt act like that (employing the few needed to do the job) which is what I said.

                  "And, no, the public services haven't been perfect by any means and, yes, we need to stop the empire building, but selling said services to private enterprise isn't going to make matters better."

                  But by your comment we know the empire trimming is more likely in the private sector than by the forever hungry public demanding more money and less work. Of course it is not certain but the empire must actually support itself in the private sector or collapse. In the public sector that would be Greece.

                  "First of all you *stop* tarring all of the unemployed with that big brush."

                  The only tarring was how being unemployed increasing the difficulty of being employed which is true (little effect at first depending on reason, moving to more and more difficult). But then you mention scroungers which is something else (which I mentioned because they are factual, at least the ones I knew personally) and not all. I also point out that I asked a question (2 actually), what do we do with them (the 2 separate issues)?

                  "The government has the ability to fix the situation, but they don't *want* to because it suits their ideology to foster this belief, knowing that they can use it to ensure that wages are kept to the bare minimum and that there are sufficient unemployed people that anyone who complains knows that they can easily be replaced."

                  You may have lost me with this bit. The gov can fix what? Unemployment? The gov cannot create jobs, only take them away.

                  1. Graham Marsden

                    Re: @codejunky - @Graham Marsden

                    > It seemed you were suggesting the gov doesnt act like that (employing the few needed to do the job) which is what I said.

                    No, that's not what I was suggesting.

                    A friend of mine works as a carer. Due the cuts in local authority budgets, the number of carers employed by the agencies the LA's use has also been cut, so she is having to do home visits that last less than 15 minutes to be able to get through the number of visits she's allocated during the day.

                    This sometimes means that an elderly person has to make a choice between either being washed or being fed because she doesn't have the time to do both!

                    Those carers jobs *ARE* needed, but in the quest for savings, fewer and fewer people are being forced to do more and more and, inevitably, the quality of the care suffers.

                    As for the unemployed, you still fall for the government's constant message that we must "do something" about the "scroungers" despite the fact that they are a tiny fraction of the overall total, yet IDS and his motley crew want us to treat them all the same, so we get the nonsense of people benefits being sanctioned for being late for a Job Centre appointment because they were at a bloody job interview!

                    > The gov cannot create jobs, only take them away.

                    That sounds like something that Tim Worstall would argue. I've already pointed out how cuts in Local Authority budgets have resulted in carers being made unemployed. Those are needed jobs, but they have been taken away.

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: @codejunky - @Graham Marsden

                      @ Graham Marsden

                      "No, that's not what I was suggesting."

                      Sorry but I am a dog with a bone on this one. You were trying to explain how the private sector make more unemployed-

                      Meanwhile, of course, the private companies are looking at how few people they need to employ to do those jobs, so they trim their workforce, then trim the wages as much as possible because both of those reduce their profit margin, so we end up with *fewer* people employed.

                      You seemed to take issue with the private sector for only employing the number needed to do those jobs. Which is surely the correct thing to do.

                      "Due the cuts in local authority budgets, the number of carers employed by the agencies the LA's use has also been cut"

                      Should your friend be fired then? The country is in a large deficit and it is much less than under the lab gov who caused it. The LA has less money because they have less money available. They demand a service but wont pay for it. Try that at any supermarket and I know the answer will be 'sorry but if you cant afford it, you cant have it'. Is your friend and her colleagues offering to take a pay cut? Spread the cut around them to reduce the impact but to either give them more time or to hire extra bodies? I am sure she was willing to receive a pay rise so on the condition of improved working conditions could she stomach a pay cut? I suppose you could demand more in tax money but since more was collected through a tax cut on the top rate I cant imagine the voters and their green eyed ideology voting someone proposing that.

                      "Those carers jobs *ARE* needed, but in the quest for savings, fewer and fewer people are being forced to do more and more and, inevitably, the quality of the care suffers."

                      And in Greece healthcare, pensions, education, etc are needed but when the country is skint the country is skint. Maybe this is where we should stop pushing for greed (never ending public spending) but look to spend on what we need. To stop being wasteful with the money but use public money for the public. Of course this would be recognising the point of failure (government and electorate) where people are in it for themselves so want higher tax's on anybody but themselves to punish the 'greedy' so the 'victim' can have more state paid toys and sweets. Obviously the misidentification is of the greedy and the victim.

                      "That sounds like something that Tim Worstall would argue. I've already pointed out how cuts in Local Authority budgets have resulted in carers being made unemployed. Those are needed jobs, but they have been taken away."

                      Truth is truth whoever says it. You might dislike it or have your own opinion but it stands up fairly well as an argument. The gov cannot create jobs they can only destroy them. The public system has less money (I hope you dont dispute that at least) so it must either get more or reduce spending. In theory more could be borrowed but thats not currently a good option*. The public sector doesnt make money so it will either take more (steal by force) or cut spending on the least worse options for re-election. If they take more then they must steal more money from the people, either people working for someone or from people employing people. Take it from the workers and you make them poorer and less willing to spend, take it from employers and they reduce wages or staff. For every job the gov makes it must take 1 away from the private sector (the job could almost always be done there) and possibly more for the tax money required to fund that job. This is acceptable for necessary jobs, but for every non-job this is destructive. If I remember right the public sector accounted for about 50% of the economy. And it can only take but never make money.

                      "As for the unemployed, you still fall for the government's constant message that we must "do something" about the "scroungers" despite the fact that they are a tiny fraction of the overall total"

                      Sorry but your saying that (accusing me), I didnt. I asked you 2 direct and simple questions. What do we do with the unemployed AND what do we do with those who abuse the system? I asked this clearly twice before and again now. What do we do with them? You keep talking about IDS and what he is doing, which not only doesnt answer the question but I have already said I dont agree with his approach. So what do we do about them?

                      *While labour didnt cause the global crash (I would argue the banks didnt either) they left us in the poor position of selling the gold (for a bad price), racking up excessive debt and commitments during a boom and bloating the public sector to unsustainable levels. Not accounting for the 2 wars and the socialists attempt at selling off to the private sector (aka badly)

                      1. Graham Marsden

                        Re: @codejunky - @Graham Marsden

                        > take issue with the private sector for only employing the number needed to do those jobs.

                        No, codejunky, I take issue with them shaving the quality of care to the bare minimum because they are only interested in maximising their profits, not the effects on their workers or the people their workers are caring for.

                        It's clear which side your politics are on because you trot out the line that Labour created the deficit, yet fail to mention that George Osborne has borrowed more money in the time that he's been in his job than Labour ever did in their entire time in power! The "deficit" is not the *debt*, it's just the rate at which the debt is increasing. Bravo to the Tory supporting press for conning the people into believing that big lie.

                        You also still don't seem to understand with your "the government can only destroy jobs" line, that putting the private sector in as a middle man only *increases* costs, it doesn't create value.

                        > What do we do with the unemployed AND what do we do with those who abuse the system? I

                        I've already pointed out that those who "abuse the system" are a tiny fraction of the total welfare budget, so I'm not going to do it again.

                        As for what we "do" with the unemployed, I will again point out (and which you will probably again not accept because it doesn't fit in with your politics) that it's what we *shouldn't* do with them that is more important, which is to penalise them for *being* unemployed as if they were *all* scroungers when most of them are not.

                        Now try looking at this page from the ONS and see what proportion of the total spending goes on unemployment benefits...

                        1. codejunky Silver badge

                          Re: @codejunky - @Graham Marsden

                          @ Graham Marsden

                          "No, codejunky, I take issue with them shaving the quality of care to the bare minimum because they are only interested in maximising their profits, not the effects on their workers or the people their workers are caring for."

                          But that is not what you said. You said "Due the cuts in local authority budgets" which is a lack of money to pay for more care. So when you say it is about maximising profit that doesnt tally with the LA not paying for the service it wants but instead cutting back what it spends. If you pay for a premium service do you expect the same level of service when you then say 'I cant afford that so I will pay you less'? Interestingly you dont seem to offer a solution nor want to discuss the options I suggested for your friend. If you look for problems but have no interest in solutions then you wont solve the problem.

                          "It's clear which side your politics are on because you trot out the line that Labour created the deficit, yet fail to mention that George Osborne has borrowed more money in the time that he's been in his job than Labour ever did in their entire time in power"

                          Labour did create the deficit. They were in surplus in the early years as they continued with the previous tory policies. This could have been the policies or fortunate global circumstances, I dont care which. However labour did sign bad PFI deals, did sell gold cheap, did borrow and borrow through a boom and did bloat the public sector. Of course Osborne borrowed more money (as a total) he has been in power longer from the point that labour left a huge deficit. He had to borrow to pay labours bills. Its very simple, labour signed commitments and then left power. The tories took over but had to meet the scorched earth obligations signed by labour. Any gov would be buggered no matter who is was.

                          "The "deficit" is not the *debt*, it's just the rate at which the debt is increasing. Bravo to the Tory supporting press for conning the people into believing that big lie."

                          Actually it seemed you were confused (look at the previous bit you said). Your the one complaining Osborne borrowed more (debt) but Osborne cut the deficit (the amount of debt being added over time). I know the difference and have no problem with it. Since you know the difference you must know that Osborne has done better for our finances than Brown, even if you dont think he is doing a good job.

                          "You also still don't seem to understand with your "the government can only destroy jobs" line, that putting the private sector in as a middle man only *increases* costs, it doesn't create value."

                          You dont seem to understand that line. Regardless of price or value the simple fact is the gov can only destroy jobs. Also when the gov takes money from private people (steals from their earnings) they are taking from the economy, they are removing value. We accept an amount of that for our welfare systems but it can only stretch as far as the economy can cope with the gov taking earned money. As for value you are wrong. Water suffered underinvestment from the gov as did rail due to the nature of the beast aka everyone wanting more of the pie. While things could be better they already are. We have more choice and freedom and if we dislike the service of one we can choose another. People pay for what they want.

                          "I've already pointed out that those who "abuse the system" are a tiny fraction of the total welfare budget, so I'm not going to do it again."

                          I am so glad your not going to do it again because you seem so stuck repeating yourself but refusing to answer and avoiding the questions.

                          "As for what we "do" with the unemployed, I will again point out (and which you will probably again not accept because it doesn't fit in with your politics) that it's what we *shouldn't* do with them that is more important, which is to penalise them for *being* unemployed as if they were *all* scroungers when most of them are not."

                          So you say you have found a problem but I dont see you offering a solution. I didnt ask what we shouldnt do because that could be a long list of irrelevance. I asked what should we do, what ideas do you have? And your comment fits fine with my politics. At no point do I assume them to all (or even most) to be scroungers.

                          "Now try looking at this page from the ONS and see what proportion of the total spending goes on unemployment benefits..."

                          I know, its horrifying isnt it. Same with all of those welfare costs. All of that money not paying for education, NHS or even more carers to support your friend in her job!

                          1. Graham Marsden

                            Re: @codejunky - @Graham Marsden

                            I see no point in continuing this. You won't accept any argument that doesn't fit in with your beliefs and demand that in order to object to a problem I have to be able to fix it too and bring in irrelevancies to shift the goalposts.

                            Again I offer someone the opportunity to have the last word.

                            1. codejunky Silver badge

                              Re: @codejunky - @Graham Marsden

                              @Graham Marsden

                              "I see no point in continuing this. You won't accept any argument that doesn't fit in with your beliefs and demand that in order to object to a problem I have to be able to fix it too and bring in irrelevancies to shift the goalposts."

                              Thats up to you but so far I have asked questions about how it should be solved. It is easy to complain, that solves nothing. I am amused you think I have brought in irrelevances as you failed to address my comments in pretty much any respect but I tried to address yours point by point. And I guess this would be the last word if you are sick of repeating yourself but not willing to discuss the actual points which you raised.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020