Labour Leadership watch

All quantitative easing is just printed money thatbags - not just inventing, that doesn't sense. Money was invented in the early years of man, we are not reinventing it.

So, the government instructs more money to be printed so they can bail out the banks. In truth it is not really debt as you can't owe money to yourself but printing it does devalue the currency. It gets absorbed by the banks who, far from using it to speed the UK on its way, have sat on most of it. They have paid some back to the government but we are unlikely to see much of it. Meanwhile the banks have paid enormous bonuses to the people who run them. Sadly, very rich people cease to spend money. They spend some of course, rather more than more than you and me, but they save much more and invest in capital goods, not consumables. The do not enable other people to get richer - except the odd yacht builder perhaps. The do not invest in the housing needed by large numbers of people and they do not improve the infrastructure. They do not improve education, health or any of the other things that will help our country in the future. They may send their children to independent schools saving the tax payer a little and they may pay for their health; they may even, under this frightful government make money out of the privatising of areas that were long ago agreed, by a consensus, should be for all not for profit. They will continue to get richer from the tax payers money that has been paid to them and because they cannot, ever, spend it all they will continue to get richer from the money their capital makes. They can get richer from this unearned income than the vast majority can however hard they work.

Any country can print more money - most have been since the global financial crisis. This is not just about what the UK does. We will never again be as separate from the rest of the world. So what is Corbyn suggesting? He is suggesting we do what has been done in the past. What has worked and what many people cleverer than both you and me believe can work again. Instead of printing money and pouring it into the banks and the pockets of the already extremely rich he suggest the next round of this money goes to improve the infrastructure to help grow our companies, into better education opportunities, into houses and hospitals so "our people" as the Tories love to say, actually benefit from this investment and, not only that, instead of sending so much of this money out of the country "our people" who find money a bit of a scarcity at the moment, will spend on consumables - in some cases silly things like food.

Margaret Thatcher pulled off the biggest con trick of the century by convincing large numbers of just a bit better off people that they could emulate the capitalists who don't know how to spend their money and be able to invest, invest, invest. She sold industries we already owned to people who could just afford them, she sold the future of housing to those who could only just afford them. I don’t blame these people. Everyone works with the system on offer. She convinced them that they could have this lovely cushion behind them. It was never going to happen. They have a little cushion but if China turns turtle or anything else upsets the world economy they will suddenly find the very rich sort themselves out and never mind the country and the people who gave them the opportunity to be in this position. Cameron is carrying on this lie. Do those with huge capital resources really need a cut in taxes when people are starving because of his policies?

So Corbyn wants to give the whole country an opportunity to improve themselves and improve the country - as a whole. I prefer that idea than the one that says let’s make the rich richer and some of the money will fall down from the heap they have on to the little man at the bottom. You may not agree with this. Many on here won't. They believe the sleight of hand magician Maggie played out in front of their eyes. Some may agree with some of it and feel I have some of it wrong but I and large numbers of others have always believed in something close to this. It is not communism as some have inferred or Marxism, nor are we Trotskyites it is simple democratic socialism. Blair took the guts out of the Labour Party but we may be seeing a renaissance. For all our sakes, I hope so.

""""I am a socialist. I am delighted to see JC standing up for real socialist policies. If he has defied the Labour whip it shows he is a man of principle. If more labour MPs had done so we might not have invaded Iraq. I see no reason why he shouldn't unite the party. Left wingers in the party were prepared to stand behind Blair, right wingers can do the same for Corbyn."""

Well said Trisher!

Blessed Tony Blair isn't an atheist, but then again I suppose he isn't a socialist either. I guess he's also some sort of hybrid too what combination exactly is open to interpretation, although I'd plump for sinister and deluded. He's certainly not in the down to earth donkey/duffle coat combination. Tone wouldn't be seen in a donkey jacket I suspect.

Goodness, no - nor a Gannex! Savile Row suits for our Tone, and only the best for Cherie...

Oh I don't know Ana they just might.........if they were free!

Loved your post gg

Would so like to hear from those grans who profess not to support this and listen to their reasons why not.

Questiontime, I am thankful to have a true socialist like Corbyn standjng for leader. A man who lives his life according to his principles and political beliefs

Excellent explanation, Gracesgran.

"They are clearly engineering the vote to ensure that Corbyn doesn’t win,” said Janet O’Shaughnessy, who signed up as a £3 registered supporter but was barred from voting. “I have always voted Labour, apart from in the last election. I feel like I have been accused of having ulterior motives for supporting a man whose political opinions are very similar to my own.”

Within six hours over 250 people had appealed the decision to bar them following a campaign launched on Twitter by Matt Beresford, a former member of the party, who re-joined after Mr Corbyn announced his candidacy. He said that while a few of the disqualifications appeared to be legitimate – most were just people who had posted support for the Greens on their Facebook page before the last election.

“I thought the whole point of political parties was to persuade people to support them,” he said. “In fact Labour used to celebrate when Tory MPs defected. But that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore which is a bit odd.

“Just because someone voted Green doesn’t mean they don’t share the values of someone like Jeremy Corbyn who is promoting a very different kind of politics and a different vision for the Labour Party.”

Jenny Morris, a former Labour councillor in Islington where Jeremy Corbyn is an MP, complained to the party after her daughter’s application to join was rejected.

She said she had never joined any political party but is a lifelong Labour voter and that she wanted to support Jeremy Corbyn.

“My daughter hasn’t joined any organisation. It is not the sort of thing that she would do – but she has voted Labour since she was 18 and wanted to vote in the leadership election.

“I just find it completely inexplicable,” she told Channel Four news."

Over 250 Corbynites denied a vote. Mark Serwotka is just the latest in a big number.

Well said Gracesgran

Who that is eligible to vote have actually been able to so far? I am beginning to wonder what is going on.

Why the surprise? DJ

His Union is not affiliated to Labour. He openly said he voted for The Green Party at the last election didn't he. It has been spoken of so openly by Labour, especially by Burnham and Harman that it will not be tollerated for members from other Parties to vote in the Leadership Election.

Had there not been the closure of the other Corbyn thread this would be an extension of posts that have discussed this scenario before, many times in fact.

Some who posted believe you should not be eligable to vote if you are from other Parties but only for Tories, UKIP members anybody with right wing views basically. Reason given you agree to say you believe in Labour values or whatever. To others it is a moot point in the sense you either have a rule and adhere to it or 'selectively' choose to ignore your rules of voting procedure because The Greens and other Parties are classed as left wing so the rules can be bent under that circumstance.

I think it is good the Labour Party are sticking to 'The Rule' but I also queried if it was not going to be at some stage challenged by the likes of Ken Loach (reason I mention his name is for consistency to posts that have been made before on the other thread), as Left Unity members for example were said to be removed from the list of eligable voters.

Members from Parties such as Left Unity, The Greens, Respect are naturally going to vote for Corbyn if they joined Labour to vote in the election so the voting system will be stacked against Corbyn if they are refused the right to join Labour, I think that is self eveident.

I don't think Corbyn needs the votes anyway but Labour will have some serious questions to put to itself when the Leadership contest is over, In my opinion.

I think some have also been sent the email details, voted and then been cast aside.

night all. Just of to fill my hot water bottle and make my cocoa

off!

and me.

So are they going to bar Corbyn for not supporting their ideals?
Serwotka has spoken on platforms with Corbyn. He obviously supports Corbyn, therefore the Labour Party.

At least the Labour election is in the open, unlike the Tory one.

"A party spokeswoman said new members would be banned if they did not support the “aims and values” of the party. But she did not say whether having voted for another political party in the past was sufficient evidence for rejection."

That's the only reason they can have for banning Serwotka from voting.

Have you not heard the interviews with Burnham and Harman.?

Their main bone of contention has been other Parties 'infiltrating' the Labour Party to vote. You either adhere to the rules or you selectively turn a blind eye I suppose.

It has nothing to do with the Tories.

I think the Labour Party is getting itself in such a muddle over this. First of all, I don't think people should have been allowed to pay £3 just to be able to vote in the leadership election - it has meant that far more people have to be scrutinised to see if they are just trying to derail the whole process. And I wonder if there are enough people to actually do these checks properly.

My feeling is that if new people wished to actually join the Labour Party - even if they have previously been in another party - then they should have been asked to pay the whole yearly subscription up front, rather than be allowed to pay monthly. There is always the risk that people will pay a couple of months' instalments to enable them to vote and then cancel their payments. I don't know if this would have been practical or allowed though.

There are people who move from membership of one party to membership of another - even MPs have changed sides. It is good that the party is attracting more members. The downside is that the motives of some of them may not be honourable but I don't see how this can be entirely prevented - or at least only for people with a public profile who are obviously not Labour supporters - such as Conservative councillors.

I had seriously been contemplating joining the Green Party but in fact never did so though I agree with a lot of what they stand for. If I had joined, I would presumably not have been able to re-join the Labour Party. I think that is ridiculous because so many Green policies coincide with the grass roots feelings in the Labour Party even though they may well diverge from the more Blairite, high profile, career politicians.

I don't see how Andy Burnham can be described as "left wing" when he has never once defied the whip and, most recently, voted in favour of the austerity programme.

Excellent post, gg, and yes, I agree about the 'invent' part of JIM. It should have been JMM.

I've always thought that Labour grass-roots ideas were light-years away from the Labour leadership, always more progressive. This (well, not necessarily progressive) may be true in other political parties too. In fact, I'd be surprised if much policy pushing did not come initially from grass-roots pushing.

Andy Burnham did used to be described as left wing, regardless of not defying the whip, and before Corbyn came along as a contender, the Unions would have loved Burnham for leader (instead of Ed Miliband) not that it was likely to happen at that stage.In fact, if Corbyn had not thrown his hat in the ring this time after encouragement from MP's who now regret this move I suspect that everyone in the Labour Party ( on the left as it were) would have supported him happily.As it stands, someone even more left wing appeared, and there you have it!

Corbymania!

Closely related to Milifandom.

The £3 and yoou choose the leader thing was crazy.

to expect everyone to hold the same principles as oneself is more naive than crazy