The Instigator
Atheistvoice
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
PointyDelta
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Jeremy Corbyn Would Make A Good Prime Minister

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/29/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 360 times Debate No: 104216
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Atheistvoice

Pro

In the first round I would like Con to set out their first argument as to why Jeremy Corbyn would not make a good Prime Minister.
Please can we keep petty name calling out of it.
PointyDelta

Con

This'll be a fun one, I hope to have a good debate! Best of luck, Pro.

I'm going to make one point here, and carry on with the other two points in a later round (because i ran out of space)

C1: The proposed tuition fees abolishing is economically illiterate and will be ineffective.

C2: Jeremy Corbyn's tax plans would cause capital flight and be counterproductive.

Right, let's get right into it.

+++++C1+++++
According to Labour's own admissions, the costs of tuition fees being abolished would be "100bn in the long run. [1] The IFS has calculated that it would be at least 8bn [2] and increase the deficit by more. This is symptomatic of a greater problem with Corbyn and his policy, and I'll get onto that in a later round, but even assuming we could pay for it by Corbyn's proposed corporation tax increase (also not a good thing, later round material because I ran out of space)

So the reason that tuition fees were raised under the coalition government is the Browne report[3], which was commissioned by the Blair govt into tuition fees - it recommended raise to 9000. Quoting now directly from the report -

"We estimate that only the top 40% of earners on average will pay back all the charges paid on their behalf by the Government upfront; and the 20% of lowest earners will pay less than today. For all students, studying for a degree will be a risk free activity"

The question here now is why on earth would they even do this in the first place? Surely even if there was some short term benefit, having free education meant that all could go to university? So in order to answer this question, we need to answer another - what exactly are tuition fees?

Tuition fees are essentially paid to the university. They are generally financed by a student loan, which is written off (govt covers cost) after 30 years. 100% of student loans are approved.

So the benefits of fees are mostly that the university simply has more money than it did before - and it can spend this on things like

-libraries
- new teachers
- facilities
- new computers
- support staff
- research
- laboratories

Most importantly, it can spend on bursaries, and it can spend on grants. What does this mean? This means that those who otherwise wouldn't have the facilities to live in a university town and provide for themselves now can, especially those who are intelligent and talented and as such those who deserve it.

But the question remains, wouldn't having no fees at all mean that those people can go to university for free and therefore have a lot more money to spend on themselves? The question therefore changes from "should we abolish fees" to "what happens if"we abolish fees?

Universities have less money, first off. Second, that means two really important things for the education of students. One, it means that they don't have as much "spending money" to spend on their student - they don't get as nice facilities, less nice rooms, worse food, slightly less motivated teachers. But two, they now have less money to spend on grants for lower class students. That means that what happens is that fewer lower class students go to university.

Now what happens? Well, universities have only one thing that they can accept students on, and that's grades. It's very difficult to tell apart a lot of really reasonably intelligent people. Now, who does better on exams? Middle class and upper class students. Why? They're not more intelligent, they're not brighter. No, they have more facility to study. Putting it bluntly, they have more money. They can afford expensive tutors, textbooks, private schools.

They go to university. Before, with fees, the upper class and middle classes's fees subsidised - paid for - the university tuition of lower classes. Now, in this hypothetical world, it's upside down. Because the government is paying for the education of what is now a preponderately middle and upper class student base. And that money comes from the taxes of the lower class. The lower class is subsidising the upper class to go to university.

What if I'm wrong? What if this doesn't happen? Well, as it happens, you don't have to believe me. But there's one thing that cannot be denied, and that's the evidence. [4]

In 1980, there were only 68,000 people starting university - this year there will be 500,000."
Women are 35% more likely to go to university than men.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, raising fees to "9,000 brought universities 25% more funding per student. But for arts and humanities, they made an extra 47% on each student.

Here's the most important statistic of all. Since the introduction of fees, 35% more people from lower income backgrounds are now attending university. In other words, they work!

But before we get out the confetti and throw a ticker tape parade, we need to look at other countries. Maybe there's been a general upswing in those from lower socioeconomic background attending university? We need to look at some countries where there aren't any fees. And let's look at two vaguely comparable ones.

++Scotland++

In England the application rate for lowest group has decreased by 2.5 percentage points. This is against a trend of annual increases since 2006 of between 0.5 and 3.0 percent each year. However, it's not as black and white as that, because Scotland only has no fees for native Scots.

So let"s look at Germany. Another country with no fees. One of the most economically strong countries in the world. And yet a far smaller percentage of people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds go to universities there. Universities have complained that they cannot provide certain essential facilities. But every time that tuition fees have been proposed, they've been denied by a very strong youth lobby.

So, tuition fees aren"t perfect, especially with the abolishment of the maintenance grant and the new interest rate rise, but they"re the best system. They enable the poor to go to university, they tax people who generally earn more anyway and they don"t stop anyone going to university.

In other words, Corbyn's Labour proposes to spend 100bn on making fewer lower class people go to university.

So this is emblematic of the problem with Labour, which is that it spends money on things like this, which sound really nice, but actually don't work. Other examples of this is things like nationalisation, which drives up prices and screws consumers over, and the most key example of this which is rent controls which sounds nice but is the reason why Trump owns a quarter of Manhattan and drive up prices for homeowners.

Over to you, Pro.

1.)http://www.independent.co.uk...
2.)https://www.ifs.org.uk...
3.)http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk.../
4.)http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
Atheistvoice

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate.

My opponent starts by claiming that, "According to Labour's own admissions, the costs of tuition fees being abolished would be 100 Billion in the long run". I checked his source for this and it appears that he was either very mistaken or deceptive. Angela Rayner, (the Shadow Education Secretary) was in fact talking about wiping student debt. Since the election Corbyn has ruled out wiping student debt on economic grounds.
My opponents source which con wrongly quoted from - http://www.independent.co.uk...

It is true that scrapping tuition fees would cost a decent amount of money but it would also benefit society dramatically. Everyone in society benefits from university graduates because they are educated and can benefit society by doing jobs that require that higher education. Furthermore tuition fees hinder bright working class students from attending university. Now over 8% of working class students drop out of university in their first year and high costs are predominantly stated as the reason for this. As for the Browne report this was published at a time of recession where the Government was looking to make as many savings as possible and is less relevant today when the economy is growing.
http://metro.co.uk...

My opponent claims that universities would have less money if tuition fees were abolished. However the figure of 8 Billion would be giving universities the money that Tuition Fees would take away. My opponent contradicts himself because either abolishing tuition fees would cost 8 Billion and universities would have the same funding they have now or it would cost less than that and university funding would be cut. Con cannot have it both ways. The truth is that abolishing tuition fees would cost roughly 8 Billion but Universities would have the same spending money, and the same facilities, same rooms, same food and just as motivated teachers. The real change is that you would have more working class students staying in University.

My opponent makes a good point by saying that richer students are more likely to get good grades and this is true. It is also why Labour committed to more spending on comprehensive schools in their 2017 manifesto to even out that gap.
http://www.labour.org.uk...

It is ridiculous of my opponent to claim it would be better for universities to accept people on the basis of money and grades than just grades. Once again my opponent quotes dozens of figures about how wonderful tuition fees are but doesn't address the fact that nothing would change other than the government paying for tuition fees rather than students.

My first argument in favour of a Prime Minister Corbyn would be that he has shown incredible foresight in being on the right side of history so many times.
1) Corbyn was a staunch opponent of the Apartheid when Thatcher was calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist,
2) Corbyn supported LGBT rights from the time when it was very much out of the political norm.
3) Corbyn campaigned against selling weapons to Sadam Hussein and then went on to campaign against the Iraq war on the basis that it would create huge instability and increase the risk of terrorism within the region. In 2015 most of Northern Iraq was under the control of Islamic State.
4) Corbyn was heavily criticised for advocating negotiations with Sinn Fein to end the Irish troubles. The good friday agreement was the result of a negotiation between Sinn Fein and the British government and that treaty brought an end to the Irish troubles.
5) Corbyn and McDonnell argued in favour of further regulation on the banks in the run up to the recession of 2008 and we now know that had the Banks been properly regulated the UK would have been in a far better state that it was in real life.
If you want my source type into google 15 times Jeremy Corbyn has been on the right side of history. It is the word press article.

Furthermore a Prime Minister Corbyn would ban unpaid internships which would be fantastic for furthering the cause of meritocracy in Britain. These are extremely unfair because they require participants to work for free all the while paying for their accommodation, food etc. Only people living off the bank off mum and dad would be able to pay for this.

There are a raft of other progressive policies used by the Labour Party which I will comment on in future rounds.
I now await my opponents response.
PointyDelta

Con

Thanks for answering, Pro!

Rebuttal

>Everyone in society benefits from university graduates because they are educated

Correct, but the entire point of my argument was that tuition fees do not reduce the amount of lower class students going to university and have in fact increased it. Regardless, the amount of people going to university does not and will not change. The only thing that changes is how many lower class students go to university.

>. Furthermore tuition fees hinder bright working class students from attending university

You've provided no evidence for this. This is because the evidence states that you're incorrect.

> Now over 8% of working class students drop out of university in their first year and high costs are predominantly stated as the reason for this.

Regrettable, but not a problem with fees. This is a problem with the lack of a maintenance grant. University cities are expensive, no doubt about it, but the fees are paid for by a loan which you don't even have to pay back until you get a reasonably well paying job, doesn't affect your credit score.

The problem here is a lack of education around the matter, which is easily remediable.

>As for the Browne report this was published at a time of recession where the Government was looking to make as many savings as possible

Not relevant to what the Browne report actually concluded, which is that at any time fees being raised was the correct decision.

>My opponent claims that universities would have less money if tuition fees were abolished. However the figure of 8 Billion would be giving universities the money that Tuition Fees would take away.

First, let me clarify that it's in fact 8 billion per year being spent. Second of all, where the government spends on things like abolishing tuition fees it's in fact paying the bare minimum. This means that where universities already have a "funding gap"[1] this would further increase. Borrowing and donations from alumni usually fill this gap but where the government is spending it *cannot* possibly spend as much as £9250 per pupil. This means universities have less money.


>The real change is that you would have more working class students staying in University.

This contention is based on the premise that tuition fees stop working class students going to university or cause them to drop out. My round one argument and most of my rebuttal thus far has shown that this contention is false.

>My opponent makes a good point by saying that richer students are more likely to get good grades and this is true.

It's not only because they go to private schools, which are better, but also that they can afford private tutors et cetera. It is impossible to close this gap short of literally taking away money from rich people so they cannot do these things.


>It is ridiculous of my opponent to claim it would be better for universities to accept people on the basis of money and grades

I never claimed this. I claimed that tuition fees permit universities to choose on the basis of just grades because the fees help to make up the funding gap.

>doesn't address the fact that nothing would change other than the government paying for tuition fees rather than students

I quoted dozens of figures about how this does actually make a difference because of widening the funding gap meaning there are fewer bursaries.

The first argument is based off nothing more than a few cherry-picked examples of where Corbyn said things which are now consensus.

Furthermore, this is a fallacious argument because essentially it is stating that because on this side of history, Corbyn is correct, therefore there was some undetermined date where these things were indeed on the correct side of history. In that reality, Corbyn was incorrect. This is a completely nonsensical argument - measuring historical actions by the standards of today is no basis for morality.

Just in case we need more proof, we can apply this fallacious argument to such a person as Joseph Stalin.

1.)He turned Russia from agricultural country into superstate with atomic bomb and so he had the foresight to know that he needed to unify Russia under one banner
2.)He built thousands of factories
3.)He encouraged science where others said that it was the wrong course of action.

This is clearly a nonsensical line of argument. If we wished to take this further, we could also state that Corbyn is on the wrong side of history for not condemning Venezuela.

I just want to draw attention quickly to the last of Pro's contentions on this matter, and then we can leave it.

>Corbyn and McDonnell argued in favour of further regulation on the banks in the run up to the recession of 2008 and we now know that had the Banks been properly regulated the UK would have been in a far better state that it was in real life.

Both of them have always been arguing for more regulation on the banks. This is completely nonsensical.

>Furthermore a Prime Minister Corbyn would ban unpaid internships

This isn't the point of unpaid internships. The point is that they're work experience, with a view to getting hired by the same company. They're a good thing because they increase social mobility - those who don't have very good job offers can indeed take these jobs with a view to getting into the field better. It should be obvious that no one will take unpaid job for absolutely no reason.

>Only people living off the bank off mum and dad would be able to pay for this.

there's this thing called borrowing

++Substantative++

Premise:
The rich wish to keep the majority of their wealth.[2]
Therefore, if Corbyn's proposed tax rises come into effect, for those who are wealthy, they have two options. Either they can be affected by the tax rises, which could mean that some have to pay up to 70% income tax or they can simply leave the country. It's not particularly hard for rich people to leave the country.
Conclusion:
Were Corbyn's tax policies to be enacted, it would cause capital flight.

Trickle-down economics is incorrect, but it's the case that you cannot tax the rich if they aren't in the country. This leads us to two conclusions.

Firstly, we can conclude that the revenue required for Corbyn's policies would not be there - thereby either meaning that it couldn't happen or that borrowing would go up, effectively bankrupting the country.

Secondly, we can conclude that spending in the economy would considerably decrease, meaning the loss of many jobs and the vast shrinkage of the luxury sector.


1.)https://www.timeshighereducation.com...
2.)http://www.lse.ac.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Atheistvoice

Pro

Firstly my opponent failed to address the fact that in his opening argument he lied. He needs to explain why he did this because this lie was the basis of arguments he has used later on in the debate. He should also apologise for that lie.

He claims that working class pupils have gone up directly because of the rise in tuition fees. This is not only illogical it is also factually incorrect. While the numbers of working class people attending university have gone up in recent years it is not to do with the rise in tuition fees. Under the Blair government there was huge investment in comprehensive school and while private school and grammar schools are still on average better in the UK the standard of comprehensive education has gone up dramatically. For instance by 2006/2007 record numeracy and literacy levels had been seen within comprehensive schools. When you take into account that the vast majority of comprehensive students are from the working class that means you are going to have a far better educated working class. Therefore it stands to reason that more people from the working class will get the grades required to enter university. If my opponent is going to claim that tuition fees bring more working class students into university then he will have to prove it. That is something he has so far been unable to do.

My opponent rightfully mentions that the lack of maintenance grants at university could be the reason why many working class young people quit university within their first year. What he doesn't mention is that Labours 2017 manifesto advocated the reintroduction of maintenance grants. The average student leaves university with a debt of "44,000 and that is expected to rise as the cost of living gets more expensive. This is a tremendous amount of money to be in debt off this early in life.

My opponent does rebut my argument on history but what I was saying is that Corbyn stood up for his beliefs at a time when those beliefs were laughed at. In my opinion that shows he is a man of principle.

My opponents claims Labour would like to raise the highest rate of income tax to 70%. He needs to produce evidence for this or we will all have to assume he has once again lied. Labour's manifesto states that the highest rate of income tax under a Labour government would be 60%. Not 70%, 60%. It is unlikely that rich individuals and corporations would leave Britain because in most major nations corporations tax is much higher than it is in Britain. The UK corporation tax is 19% and being lowered whereas the average global corporation tax is 22% and the corporation tax per GDP is 29%. Furthermore as the Professor of Economics at Cambridge University, Ha-Joon-Chang says, "if tax really were a pure burden, all rich individuals and companies would move to Paraguay or Bulgaria, where the top rate of income tax is 10%. Of course, this does not happen because, in those countries, in return for low tax you get poor public services. Conversely, most rich Swedes don"t go into tax exile because of their 60% top income tax rate, because they get a good welfare state and excellent education in return". This shows that major economists don't agree with the premise that increased taxation means that wealthy individuals will leave.
https://www.gov.uk...
https://taxfoundation.org...
https://www.theguardian.com...

Joseph Stiglitz, a recipient of the Noble Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences said this in support of Labour's economic policy. "In an economy, when the government spends more and invests in the economy, that money circulates, and recirculates again and again. So not only does it create jobs once: the investment creates jobs multiple times." He continued by saying.
"The result of that is that the economy grows by a multiple of the initial spending, and public finances turn out to be stronger: as the economy grows, fiscal revenues increase, and demands for the government to pay unemployment benefits, or fund social programmes to help the poor and needy, go down. As tax revenues go up as a result of growth, and as these expenditures decrease, the government"s fiscal position strengthens".
https://www.theguardian.com...

These renowned economists do not share my opponents unevidenced dire predictions of Corbyn Britain and neither should those who will vote on this debate. Labour has committed to investment in Health, in Infrastructure, in Transport and much more. This investment will grow Britain's economy, this will create jobs thereby increasing tax revenue and decreasing the welfare budget.

Nationalising the Railways are another signature promise within the Labour Manifesto. This will allow passengers to get just as good services on the railways for the a lesser price, 10% less in fact. In the last six years while wages have been stagnating prices have risen by 25%. In 2015 Customer Satisfaction was higher than in 2016 and the policy of re nationalisation of the railways in extremely popular among the public. According to a recent You Gov poll 58% of the public were in favour of nationalising the railways compared to 17% who opposed the policy.
https://yougov.co.uk...
PointyDelta

Con

Thanks, Pro!


++Rebuttal++
It's, er, a little sanctimonious to claim that I lied because it was a simple mistake, whereas lies require intent, but I apologise for that misrepresentation. It's not really the basis of the argument I'm making in that case, the IFS's figure on tuition fees is, but I suppose you're correct in this instance..

The rebuttal on fees relating to primary school education is nonsensical because the tuition fee raise and therefore the data that I'm using occured in 2011. It's also completely bloody nonsensical to claim that just because people can read and write that they are more likely to go to university. This argument also misses my point, which is that fees mean that the middle class don't crowd out the lower class - because let's face it, the middle class can offer more to universities than the lower class do.

My opponent also misses the point which is that the funding gap is just filled at the moment, but were the government to begin paying for it there would be shortfalls, meaning fewer working class students go to university. This is backed by actual evidence.

The way in which the effective tax rate will be 70% for some high earners will be that the personal allowance and other tax breaks will be cut and as such even though the maximum rate of tax will be 60% the effective rate will reach 70%. [1][2]

> This shows that major economists don't agree with the premise that increased taxation means that wealthy individuals will leave.

False. This shows that one major economist thinks that taxation means that some wealthy individuals will leave. This isn't relevant to my larger point, which is that a Corbyn government would create an atmosphere which would be hostile to business, including leaving the single market [3] and other such measures.

Regarding the Stiglitz point, this is basically the foundation of most left-wing thought - that spending within the economy is a good thing. However, this isn't terribly relevant to to the motion at hand, which is whether Jeremy Corbyn will be a good PM. It's therefore not a relevant point that you're making here. Note that the source for this assertation comes from a Guardian article about how public spending is important in a time of low growth and austerity is not the correct path - not necessarily that spending is always good. Furthermore, note that Stiglitz states that

"As tax revenues go up as a result of growth, and as these expenditures decrease, the government"s fiscal position strengthens"

In other words, continued and sustained spending is not sustainable, and neither is overspending of the type that Corbyn would introduce.

The argument from authority is fallacious and frankly lazy - to state that simply because two economists agree that spending in moderation sometimes boosts the economy and that sometimes taxes going up doesn't always mean capital flight means that they think that Corbyn would be a good prime minister (the actual topic of this debate).

Finally, let's tackle the nationalisation argument you're making.


>just as good

This is a completely unsupported assumption, so let's counter it with some supported statements.
  • In countries where railways have been nationalised, customer satisfaction has gone down a long way. [4]
But maybe it's not the case that nationalisation is inherently a bad thing. I've already examined the counter to this in the tuition fees argument in the first round, but I'll state it again - the government cannot and will not spend anywhere near as much on the railways as a private company. This leads to two possible outcomes, neither of which are particularly good things.

Outcome 1
The government-owned business has to lay off and fire workers to cut costs in order to not go hideously over-budget - or it can borrow excessively, putting itself into debt.
Outcome 2
The government-owned business has to cut costs on the actual running of the business itself. This means things like running fewer trains, scrapping some of the trains, having less food. This means that consumers get a lower quality of experience.

Remember, just because the status quo isn't great doesn't mean the alternative is automatically good.

>10% less in fact

It seems that you don't realise that there are only two ways in which you can cut prices. One, you can lay off workers and slash their wages or two, you can reduce the customer experience. So either the experience gets better and the price goes up or it gets slightly less good and the price goes down. It is basically not possible to make both wages and customer satisfaction go up by literally any means otherwise it would have already happened. This is because a company which has better value is chosen more. This means that they become dominant, meaning they earn more of a profit. Et cetera. Government ownership does not necessarily make something better.

> the last six years while wages have been stagnating prices have risen by 25%. In 2015 Customer Satisfaction was higher than in 2016

The reason that prices have risen is because only 3% of the ticket is actually profit. It's become more expensive to run the railways because there are more people using it. This means your costs go up. Both wages and prices of tickets cannot both go up because a significant part of the tickets is in fact going into the wages of those who work on the railways.

> According to a recent You Gov poll 58% of the public were in favour of nationalising the railways compared to 17% who opposed the policy

Popular doesn't mean good. This should be obvious. We're not debating whether Jeremy Corbyn's policies are popular. We're debating whether he would be a good PM.


Substantative to follow next round, I'm out of characters to make the argument I wanted. R4 will be substantative in which I will contend that Jeremy Corbyn's weakness on anti-Semitism within his party makes him unsuitable for the role of Prime Minister, especially dealing with Israel.

R5 will be more rebuttal and summary.

1.)http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
2.)https://www.theguardian.com...
3.)https://www.theguardian.com...
4.)http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 3
Atheistvoice

Pro

My opponent requested I wait at least a day so he will be able to respond and I have now done that.

"It's also completely bloody nonsensical to claim that just because people can read and write that they are more likely to go to university." That is not what I was saying. I was saying that when you have a better educated working class as you would have done by 2011 then more of them are going to go to university meaning you have more working class students. My opponent has once again failed to prove the rise in working class students entering university is due to the rise in tuition fees.

If the highest tax rate is 60% it is nonsensical to claim it would effectively be 70%. It is true that Labour would cut some tax breaks but that would mean the full 60% would be paid. Not 70%.

"Regarding the Stiglitz point, this is basically the foundation of most left-wing thought - that spending within the economy is a good thing. However, this isn't terribly relevant to to the motion at hand, which is whether Jeremy Corbyn will be a good PM. It's therefore not a relevant point that you're making here." It is extremely relevant because Jeremy Corbyn's economic plan involves large scale investment, an economic strategy endorsed by Stiglitz. Whether Jeremy Corbyns economic strategy will work or not is extremely relavant as to whether he would be a good Prime Minister. You have previously argued it would not work and I was making a counter argument.

My opponent earlier on presented capital flight as a certainty if Corbyn became Prime Minister. I was making the point that some very respected economists thought that increased spending would improve the economy. They also condemned the pro austerity argument and Corbyn is very much an anti Austerity politician.

My opponent makes the point that the government cannot and will not spend the same amount of money on the rail as a private company as he did for tuition fees. But he offered no evidence then and he offers none now.

My opponent claims that if more people are buying tickets and that is because only 3% of the ticket is actually profit. But if the railways was owned by the government then that profit could go back into the railways and the prices would be able to be lowered. This would be able to help pay for any shortfall in funding created by nationalisation.

I would like to mention my opponent avoided my point about maintenance grants.

My opponent mentioned how he would structure his final arguments and I would ask that he doesn't put any new arguments in his round 5 piece as I would be unable to respond.
PointyDelta

Con

First off, thanks to Pro for holding off a day - had they not done that I'd have forfeited the debate. I'd ask the judges to award conduct to Pro for this reason.


As promised, no rebuttal this round, that'll wait for round 5 and my summary.


Premise of this round's argument:
Jeremy Corbyn is weak on anti-Semitism within his party.
Evidence comes in three parts.

First, the lack of decisive action on Ken Livingtone.

Second, the presence of extreme elements within the Labour Party that have come to the fore recently, and as such the logical conclusion that Corbyn's election inflamed these elements.

Finally, Corbyn's comments toward Hamas and other such terrorist groups.


Let's tackle them in order.

[1][2]

Ken Livingstone has made comments which are clearly anti-Semitic.

This includes such things as his most publicised one - "Hitler was a Zionist", and further such comments which are against the ideals Jeremy Corbyn claims to stand for. The only action that was taken was a suspension of him from the party. Let's look at two examples from the two main opposing parties.

First, David Ward, an MP for the Lib Dems who made anti-Semitic comments. He was immediately expelled from the party by the leader.[3]

Second, Obaid Khan, who published tweets using Jew as an insult. He was also immediately expelled from the party.

I'm not denying that there are certainly a few anti-Semites within the opposing parties, but where they rear their heads they are immediately kicked out. Ken Livingstone was simply suspended.

Next, during the conference [5], a group known as the "Labour Party Marxists" distributed leaflets making oddly similar claims to those made by Ken Livingstone, including comparing Israel to the Nazis which is a textbook definition of anti-Semitism. They have not been expelled. No action has been taken.

Finally, Corbyn's much politicised statement he made at a speech - being “I welcomed our friends from Hezbollah to have a discussion and a debate" shows that he has an incorrect attitude toward what is clearly a terrorist organisation. The defense that he uses - that this is language that you use to attempt to entice the other side to the table is weak.

The conclusion that we can draw from this? Corbyn isn't an anti-Semite by any means but he and his closest advisors are weak on it. This is not acceptable in any prospective PM.

R5 to be rebuttal and conclusion. Over to you, Pro.

1.)https://www.theguardian.com...
2.)http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
3.)http://news.sky.com...
4.)http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com...
5.)https://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com...
6.)https://www.timesofisrael.com...

Debate Round No. 4
Atheistvoice

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

1) Rebuttal
I agree that Jeremy Corbyn's handling of the Ken Livingstone case was poor. However it is not unusual by any means for senior politicians not to be expelled from the party after making questionable comments. For instance the current Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson was not expelled or suspended from the conservative Party after calling Black People, "Piccaninies with Water Melon smiles". No action was taken against him and he is now foreign secretary. Tory MP Aiden Burley was cleared of any Racism or Anti Semetism by the Tory Party after he organised a Nazi themed stag do. I am not saying that what Ken Livingstone did was acceptable or that not expelling him was acceptable but that my opponents cherry picked examples do not represent how things are done in other parties. One example of Labour being tough on Anti Semetism was when earlier this year Newham Councillor Obaid Khan was banned from the party for making anti semetic remark and in the last few days Labour expelled Moche Machover for an anti semetic article he wrote. My point is simply that Labour under Jeremy Corbyn is nothing out of the norm in this regard.

I couldnt find anything online about the Labour Party Marxist's anti semetic leaflets and that is why I have not challenged that point. In terms of Corbyn's hezbollah comments it is true that he made those comments. However this was at a meeting where he was advocating peaceful resolution and he needed to get people round the table to discuss peace. He may have been insensitive with those comments but I think it is fair he say he said them to try and bring about peace in the region.
https://www.unitetheunion.org...(JN7434)%20A4%20Tory%20Racism%20Brochure%20SIN11-26629.pdf
http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk...

2) Conclusion

Before I start my conclusion I would like to thank my opponent for what has been an interesting debate.

Corbyn is a man of principle. Unlike most members of parliament he did not line his pockets at the public expense during the expenses scandal of 2008. He claimed just "8:70 for an ink cartridge which put him as the lowest expenses claimer throughout the entirety of Britain. Furthermore he has consistently stuck by his beliefs even when they are very unpopular. He was arrested for protesting against the Apartheid when Thatcher, the then Prime Minister was calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist. He was one of the Labour Mps to protest against the Iraq war. He advocated for dialogue with Sinn Fein and the Ira during the troubles and was demonised in the media as a result. And it was through dialogue with Sinn Fein and the Ira that peace was achieved. He also went against the norm to protest for LGBT rights and was once again demonised as a result. An important job of whoever becomes Prime Minister should be too restore the public faith in politics and Corbyn's principle could certainly help to achieve this.

Corbyn's policy of reinstating maintenance grants will help attract more people to university. As my opponent intimated in round 2 of the debate Maintenance grants are a major reason why 8% of working class students drop out from university in the first year. A huge part of this debate has been centred around tuition fees so I will not go into it in depth but will simply say that while my opponent claims tuition fees help working class people go to university there is no evidence for this. Correlation is not causation. Furthermore all of society benefits from having better educated people coming out of university who are not saddled with high debt's.

Corbyn has promised to invest in the NHS and this will help alleviate pressures on the health service. His policy of nationalising the railways is not only very popular but will encourage green transport because it will bring prices down. I explained this in my earlier arguments and also how nationalisation will mean there is more money to invest in the railways.

On the economy it is we have both made our arguments and it is difficult to argue on way or the other simply because economists jump both ways on so many issues.

I dont really have a great deal more to say so over to you CON.
PointyDelta

Con

Thanks to Pro for a brilliant debate.


I'm not going to really tackle the rebuttal in depth, because there's only two things that are valid.
First, Obaid Khan was a Tory candidate. [1] Secondly, my opponents's arguments that other parties are "just as bad" isn't actually dealing with the issue at hand, it's just deflecting to other parties.

Let me summarise the debate in three key areas.

1.) Tuition fees and the university issue

2.)Nationalisation/economy argument

3.)"Issue of character" - and more specifically, how this is irrelevant to the debate.

Tuition fees

My opponent has repeatedly alleged that I've provided no evidence that tuition fees send more working class people to university. Let me run through the argument one more time.

- It can be observed that where tuition fees are introduced, working class attendance goes up.
- Furthermore, in comparison to other countries where the primary schooling system is just as good and if not better including Germany and Scotland there is a noticeable difference per capita in working class university attendance
-Therefore, it can be concluded that university tuition fees do significantly help in driving up working class university attendance.

Let us expand further. We can surmise that because of tuition fees, the working class attendance is going up, and as such simultaneously abolishing one and introducing a maintainance grant loses the original impetus toward poor people attending university.

Therefore, this is an expensive and illogical move, and a prime reason why Jeremy Corbyn would not make a good prime minister. The Opposition has clearly won on this point.

Nationalisation
First, it doesn't follow that nationalisation decreases prices. The evidence, in fact seems to show the opposite - that it drives prices up and reduces quality of service. It also doesn't logically follow that nationalisations make things greener - again, the evidence suggests the opposite, and logic suggests the opposite - in that the government will wish to cut costs meaning that "green" business will be the first to go.

The Proposition's assertions are negated, the Opposition have won on this point.
Character
It is clear that there are two issues at hand here.

First, is Jeremy Corbyn a man of character? We have the assertion that Jeremy Corbyn has been right in the past, and has had the courage to stand up to the government, et cetera, et cetera. This doesn't however fulfil any sort of normative judgement about whatever character is, and as such the Opposition win on this point.

Second, we've heard nothing from the Proposition about how "being a man of character" makes Jeremy Corbyn in any way qualified to be a good prime minister. Therefore, the Opposition win on this point.

It is clear that the Opposition have won on every point, and in the bargain fulfilled their BoP, where Prop has not. Vote Con.





PS: Pro - I'd be happy to debate you in the future on almost any UK politics topic.






1.)http://www.birminghammail.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by PointyDelta 3 months ago
PointyDelta
Pro: Mind holding off on posting your argument for at least a day? I'm going away with no access to internet for three days and I don't want to forfeit by mistake, and I'm sure you don't either :)
Posted by PointyDelta 3 months ago
PointyDelta
Just published: More evidence for my round 1 contention.

http://www.nber.org...
No votes have been placed for this debate.