An interesting view on what Jeremy Corbyn needs to do to capture the imagination of the electorate.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...P=share_btn_fb

populist
ˈpɒpjʊlɪst/
noun
noun: populist; plural noun: populists

1.
a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.


The guardian are right Corbyn will never fit this description.

Can you tell me which of these pledges made by Corbyn you think do not represent the interests of ordinary people?

Full employment and an economy that works for all: based around a £500bn public investment via the planned national investment bank.

A secure homes guarantee: building 1m new homes in five years, at least half of them council homes. Also rent controls and secure tenancies.

Security at work: includes stronger employment rights, an end to zero hours contracts and mandatory collective bargaining for companies with 250 or more employees.

Secure our NHS and social care: end health service privatisation and bring services into a “secure, publicly-provided NHS”.

A national education service: includes universal public childcare, the “progressive restoration” of free education, and quality apprenticeships.

Action to secure our environment: includes keeping to Paris climate agreement, and moving to a “low-carbon economy” and green industries, in part via national investment bank.

Put the public back into our economy and services: includes renationalising railways and bringing private bus, leisure and sports facilities back into local government control.

Cut income and wealth inequality: make a progressive tax system so highest earners are “fairly taxed”, shrink the gap between the highest and lowest paid.

Action to secure an equal society: includes action to combat violence against women, as well as discrimination based on race, sexuality or disability, and defend the Human Rights Act.

How can a government possibly guarantee "full employment"? Total socialist fantasy and is seen as such by "ordinary" people. Likewise the borrowing of £500bn when we are already in eye-watering debt. It would be catastrophic and most people realise that.

Seeing how no government has even come near to that total, it's hard to believe. What's more, council homes have historically proven to be badly maintained, badly designed, and badly tenanted. Far better to let housing associations do the job. Rent controls and secure tenancies are fine so long as they don't strangle the private rented sector. Which they probably would.

A "back to the 70s" style employment policy is the very last thing we need. Post Brexit, we will be desperate for any employers, and making our labour market more like Italy or France will result in Italian/French unemployment figures. Not that Corbyn has the faintest clue about the subject. Just like he has a million ways to spend money and none to make it, he fails to understand there has to be employment for there to be employment rights.

A non-starter.

Health is not being privatised. That is a Labour lie. The NHS in its current form is unsustainable. Reinforcing it as a national religion, untouchable by anyone is merely prolonging the agony. If Corbyn had any sense, he would propose a social insurance model. THAT is the way forward for universal healthcare provision. Not the Stalinist NHS.


Lovely. Now how to pay for it.

Easier said than done, but certainly worthwhile. Has very little appeal to the "ordinary" people you are wanting to attract.


I suspect you are too young to remember what the railways were like when they were under public ownership. An utter shambles. "Ordinary" people don't give a damn who owns the railways - just that they run on time and the fares are not extortionate. Likewise bus services. They have been revolutionised in London, with private franchising. That is the model that should be rolled out nationwide. "Ordinary" people are sick to the teeth of political dogma, which is what you are peddling.

There is some scope for increasing top rates of tax, though there is little point in breaching the point of diminishing returns purely for political reasons.

We don't need more of this, thankyou.

You demonstrate everything that is wrong with Corbyn Labour. You haven't a clue what appeals to ordinary people.

Policies aimed at full employment was something both Tories and Labour aimed and legislated for post-war, until Thatcher and neoliberal economics took hold. It was seen by both parties as an obvious thing to try and achieve.

Can I suggest it should be Corbynless

It seems to be used as a derogatory term by the Guardianistas, The BBC and North London types these days, So I doubt The Guardian will ever use it to describe either Corbyn or his policies.

Utterly irrelevant. Most would think it is a desirable aim, even if a) it's unachievable in reality and b) it makes life very difficult for employers.

Pretending that any government in waiting can achieve it, however, is fantasy politics. Which is precisely what Corbyn and McDonnell practice.

Where will the 500 billion come from?

"Bill Somebody" I would imagine

That's easy.

Savings from Brexit.

The current employment rate is within the range technical definition of full employment now - it is currently 4.8% which is within the 3-5% range of what full employment is technically defined.

That article! The Guardian seems to really despise us plebs.

Of course it depends on your definition of "full employment". If you mean that everyone capable of working must have a job then you'll never achieve that, There will always be some people between jobs for a few weeks and there will always be some who are, frankly, unemployable.

If, however, you define it as unemployment being at around 1-2% then many parts of the UK, especially in the SE, have already reached that level. Zero (or very low) unemployment in an area can also be bad for a growing economy as it means businesses can't find new staff quickly when they need them which, of course, drives immigration.

Promise Jobs, houses and more jobs and more houses.

The same place the hundreds of billions of liquidity to the banks in the form of quantitative easing came from.

With control of the money supply and fiat currency, countries don't have to balance the books in the same way you and I do, it's a case of balancing deficit with inflation and interest rates.

It would, however, mean an end to the independence of the Bank Of England

Got another problem coming up Labour MP for Copeland Jamie Reed has resigned from Parliament , he had only a slim 2564 majority in 2015 , can't see Labour holding on there .

Didn't that constituency vote leave by a majority?

Can't see that happening.

Come to think of it I can't see Corbyn ever becoming P.M. either.

The votes he needs to attract are from people who already have a job and a house. Those without are going to vote for him anyway.

62% voted leave

Yes, 23,500 to 14,500

Corbyn's act has been largely preaching to the converted.

Voters he needs to attract are concerned about immigration (like it or not), don't want council houses building near them, are proud to be British to a greater or lesser extent, don't want the bad old days of 70s strikes back.

Then there is all his baggage, IRA, Falklands etc etc.

I rate his chances as ZERO.

All true.Most people have jobs and homes. Pensioners do not want jobs anyway.

honestly it is not hard to run Labour better than Corbyn right now, he just has to be seen supporting working people, whilst that should involve him being on a picket line, he should be sending Labour MPs to talk to those on picket lines. He should own any links with unions he has in his past, and not be scared, to have links with them now, they are links with genuine working people. this is what people want from MPs right now.

Also he needs to at least make the job Labour party MP, seem more linked to the fortunes of working people. Any Labour MPs who dont like it, he should pubically tell them to join another party.