How will you vote?

[Tman]

That kind of bluster and ranting is exactly what's driving a need for change busted, you've managed to cram straw .....

He's on the money with the point about railways though.
If someone wants to commute a hundred miles a day to take a better-paid job in a distant city then let them pay for travelling.
The vast majority of RM employees (for example) couldn't afford that journey every day due to the sheer cost, so why should we have to subsidise others who can?
Another example of Corbyn's twisted illogical dogma.

[fishtank]

Posties tend to have a very narrow viewpoint when it comes to the need to travel to work mainly because every major town and village had some kind of delivery office. That's changing and so will attitudes to public transport. After almost 30 years of private "investment" in public transport ours is one of the most pathetic, dirty and expensive in Europe....why?

[Tman]

Can't answer for your patch, but the trains and buses around here are modern clean and on time, but a) they don't go where many people go and/or at the times they need to go and b) they're far too expensive.
Unless Corbyn would promise much increased fare subsidies and a massive expansion to the rail network that's not going to change.
Personally I'd welcome a big investment in the railways but the days of simple compulsory purchase etc are long gone and so £billions need spending before building even starts.

[clashcityrocker]

Unless Corbyn would promise much increased fare subsidies .

He wouldn't need to look far for a wonderful example.

In 1981 the newly elected Labour Greater London Council began implementing a series of transport commitments that very nearly made London the environmental jewel of Europe.
Fares Fair - Free Public Transport for London
Labour leader, Ken Livingstone, and his transport chair Dave Wetzel's 'Fares Fair' initiative helped them win the 1981 GLC election. They got straight to it, cutting all bus and underground fares by a third, using a small increase in the 'rates' tax of every householder in London to pay for it.
Public transport in London had received its biggest ever political boost. The GLC were taking the first steps in their plan for free public transport for Londoners.
Side by side with their 'Just the Ticket' initiative the GLC also introduced the now indispensable travelcard, giving London's travelling public daily or weekly unlimited intermodal travel for the first time ever.  The 'Travelcard' gave holders access to buses and the underground system. British Rail trains were added with the 'Capitalcard'. 
The move was based on the reasoning that cars were receiving disproportionate subsidy from central government compared to the congestion they cause.  Public transport was overpriced but under-resourced, so it needed local government support to help it compete with private cars.
Practically this meant London Transport and the GLC had to put bums on empty seats.
A long-term plan
People's travelling habits take a long time to change. If bus fares go down we're not going to give up the car overnight, if at all, but even during Fares Fair's first year it was a roaring success.  Millions of Londoners chose to leave their cars at home and, since London is the hub of the national public transport network, the idea looked set to spread across the nation.
Details of the scheme were masterminded by Sir Peter Maesfield, Chair of London Transport Executive, who proudly watched passengers flocking to the tubes and the buses in their droves.  His off-peak fare scheme meant that the overall passenger load was spread, poorer passengers travelling when buses and trains would have plenty of spare capacity.

[Tman]

I remember a couple of London boys saying how well it worked, too, but that was London and it was 35 odd years ago.
Try getting to some DO or whatever on a bleak industrial estate for an early start. Wouldn't matter if it was free, the bus doesn't travel there at that time of the day...if at all.

[bustedflush]

Clash's example is unique, people liked it but then again London has a captive market - you can't drive a car there at over 4.7mph getting nowhere, you have 8m people densely packed in to a relatively small area thus journeys are short and easier to keep punctual and it's cost-effective as revenue is guaranteed, you'll pack nearly all trains and buses. It's a bit like a 'TNT Post' example where they applied exactly the same logic when they cherry-picked. Now see If that works for Joe Bloggs living in a village in Argyll and Bute who wants to commute into Glasgow, or A.N. Other who lives in a Fenland village and wants to commute to Norwich.

You can literally walk out your door into your car, get in and put your own music on, set the temperature and only have to inhale your own farts and CO2 as opposed to other peoples' - then you get out, walk 50 feet and you're in your place of work. Try getting the Inter City 125 to drop you off in your car works car park. The point is people are addicted to personal vehicles and the only way to keep rail fares low is to force them onto trains and buses. Let's see a politician dare try that, he'd have a 10x worse campaign than Theresa May just did.

[stan_lers]

You nationalise the trains because the government then makes money off ticket sales. What sense does it make for the government to pay to keep the tracks and signals in order just so private companies can reap the gains? We subsidise the private rail companies by £4bn every year. It's not to give middle class people cheaper tickets. My girlfriend used to commute 50 miles to Birmingham by train each way. A month rail pass cost her as much as I was spending on petrol getting to my DO, hardly a massive amount, and she had no choice but to commute because a) my job, b) house/rent costs in Birmingham and c) there are far more jobs and far better pay in Birmingham than where we lived.

Also, re: all his supporters being social media snowflakes - Labour won the majority of votes in every age category up to >45 year olds. That's people with houses and kids, not students. The same polls that accurately predicted the outcome now put Labour ahead. Given another two weeks, I'm certain Corbyn would've become PM. As each generation ages, they become less likely to support the Tories because rather than having a secure life in or approaching retirement, we're getting poorer and poorer. It's only going to get worse, as more middle to old aged people are stuck renting with really poor pensions. Look at the stats, and support amongst every age group 45 and below has been steadily dropping for about the last 5 elections, and really dropped off this time. For as much as you have an irrational hate of a principled man who believes in improving people's lives, he's not going anywhere.

[jetblack]

Also, re: all his supporters being social media snowflakes

We are living in unprecedented times - and some people are having a job keeping up Stan. People are connected and networked - they are no longer reliant upon the MSM. This is massively important - but its effects are disproportionately beneficial to the left, who have traditionally been slaughtered by the media. Indeed, Jeremy Corbyn was slaughtered - but in a networked world the effect is very much diminished - and I can only foresee this effect gaining more traction over the medium and long term.
The genie is out of the bottle.

And yes, just for interest, the Survation poll today puts Labour at 45% and the Tories at 39%.

Nice to see some of the anti Corbyn brigade having a little bicker amongst themselves.

Bit of advice boys - don't repeat yourselves (as indeed FT seems to have wised up to (after the event ) - because, as the great man said:-

[Tman]

[

Also, re: all his supporters being social media snowflakes

Who said "all"? Not me, I just commented on the surge in support from the younger age group, largely driven by social media campaigns.

-. For as much as you have an irrational hate of a principled man who believes in improving people's lives, he's not going anywhere.

"Hate" is a strong word and inappropriate, but then again "principled" shouldn't ever be seen in a sentence involving Jezza either.

I'm glad we agree that he's not going anywhere.

[stan_lers]

You think a man who sticks to his lifelong beliefs on things like nuclear weapons, security and terrorism, despite them being his single biggest weakness and the papers tearing him to shreds over them, isn't principled?

He's believed in the welfare state, disarmament, helping the poor, reducing homelessness and ending conflict his entire life. You can say what you like about him but saying he doesn't have principles is flat out stupid.

[NWpostie]

You think a man who sticks to his lifelong beliefs on things like nuclear weapons, security and terrorism, despite them being his single biggest weakness and the papers tearing him to shreds over them, isn't principled?

He's believed in the welfare state, disarmament, helping the poor, reducing homelessness and ending conflict his entire life. You can say what you like about him but saying he doesn't have principles is flat out stupid.

Principles are nice when you don't to have to carry them out in reality and not be responsible for the fall out when it goes wrong, as PM he won't have that luxury.

[Tman]

You think a man who sticks to his lifelong beliefs on things like nuclear weapons, security and terrorism, despite them being his single biggest weakness and the papers tearing him to shreds over them, isn't principled?

He's believed in the welfare state, disarmament, helping the poor, reducing homelessness and ending conflict his entire life. You can say what you like about him but saying he doesn't have principles is flat out stupid.

He never believed in the EU, and he stated his opposition to it enough times over his political life...until he found out he might gain some votes from the Remainers, so now he just sits on the fence and says what he thinks his audience want to hear.
I'd call most of his utterings "beliefs" rather than principles, though to quote that he's "believed in the welfare state, helping the poor, reducing homelessness, etc" is just the trite glib quotes of a beauty queen.
It doesn't make him any more of a PM-in-waiting or an elder statesman of politics, but merely another also-ran back bencher thrust into the spotlight and way out of his depth.

[baldrick]

You think a man who sticks to his lifelong beliefs on things like nuclear weapons, security and terrorism, despite them being his single biggest weakness and the papers tearing him to shreds over them, isn't principled?

He's believed in the welfare state, disarmament, helping the poor, reducing homelessness and ending conflict his entire life. You can say what you like about him but saying he doesn't have principles is flat out stupid.

He never believed in the EU, and he stated his opposition to it enough times over his political life...until he found out he might gain some votes from the Remainers, so now he just sits on the fence and says what he thinks his audience want to hear.

Corbyn has always been sceptical of the EU, believing, like Tony Benn, that it was an undemocratic institution and there mainly as a free market for Big Business.
But it was Labour Conference policy to remain, backed by the Labour right.
Corbyn accepted this policy as official Party policy. He also now accepts the decision of last June's Brexit referendum, though there was no decision on what sort of Brexit the electorate actually wanted. Corbyn wants a Brexit that will protect UK jobs and workers' rights.

[Tman]

“The ward where this fire took place is, I think, the poorest ward in the whole country and properties must be found - requisitioned if necessary - to make sure those residents do get re-housed locally.

The knowledge and wisdom of Jeremy Corbyn, as part of his cry for the wealthy's empty houses in Kensington to be "requisitioned for the poor".

Love it. A salutary lesson for those protest-voters who voted in a Labour MP for the first time ever as their little anti-Brexit show of defiance.....vote Corbyn and get this dangerous nonsense openly spouted by a political leader.
Only someone as openly dumb or vote-catching as this idiot could be so crass.

[NWpostie]

Requisitioning private property is communism by any other name.

While I don't approve of land and house banking, it's not a new phenomenon. There should be legislation in place to prevent it.

On that note, I noticed Comrade Corbyn haven't offered the use of Labour HQ as an emergency shelter.