The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Jeremy Crbyn

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 602 times Debate No: 79689
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Jeremy Corbyn being elected leader of the Labour Party is a positive for British Politics


I accept and shall be arguing that he is detramental to British politics.
Debate Round No. 1


The recent election of Jeremy Corbyn as the new Labour leader is the most positive event in British politics for a generation. At last the voters of the United kingdom will have a genuine choice. The fact that Jeremy is a true Socialist will spark off a national debate that has been a long time in coming. The question of whether or not the electorate of this Island will embrace Socialism over Capitalism will unfold over the next four and a half years. Most political opinion as well as media opinion thinks he and the Labour party have no chance of achieving this. I for one am not so sure this will be the case. I think over this period of time before the next election, both he and his supporters will pose some fundamental questions. Do we want a fairer society? Is there another way to deal with the current economic crisis? Should public transport and energy production be Nationalised? Should we get rid of the Trident nuclear program. Should we introduce a National Education system based on the same principals of the NHS? Should we redistribute wealth more equally. Should it be made law to vote? These and many other questions will be asked and presumably answered.
Surely that has to be healthy and positive for the nation as a whole? I have total faith in the people of the United Kingdom and their ability to make a choice, which they have been denied for so long.


I'll note to my opponent that I'm an American, so I'm not well read in British politics, but I'll give it a good shot.

First I would like to point out that it would be highly impossible for Jeremy Corbyn to get elected Prime Minister due to the fact that very little Leftwingers actually get elected in Britian. We have to look at the Blairite rule which shows that everytime the Labour Party moves left it loses elections. [1] We can see is the reason for this is that the general base is more moderate than not. When the Labour Party moves left, even Socialist left, it worries much of the Middle Class. People look to perserve Captialism and being able to work well and abandon their party for that of the Conservative Party.

Labour's Logic

My opponent brings up a great deal of questions about nationalization and other things. We have to remember last time Britian had such a large government. Margerate Thatcher had to come in and clean house. Doing this Thatcher broke up unions and saved the UK from a great economic collapse and helped nail down Inflation in the UK. Continuing with the Labour Party, especially a socialist, you'll wind up in a heep of trouble.

1. (
Debate Round No. 2


I accept you are American and that you may not be actually aware of Labour History in this country, but frankly to say "It would be highly impossible" for him to be elected as the next British Prime Minister is foolish in the highest degree. He was given no chance to be elected leader and looked what happened. I will also inform you that 17 million voters did not vote in this years election. Who knows how these people will vote in the next one? Since Jeremy Corbyn won the leadership election last Saturday 50,000 new members have joined the labour Party, this is a significant number.
I disagree with your view that Blair was Left , he was definitely centre if not kicking to the right. On what do you base your opinion with regards the 'Middle Class' ? What on earth do you mean by "People look to preserve Capitalism and being able to work well and abandon their party for that of the Conservative Party" ? With respect you have totally no idea that this is the case and have no evidence to back it up. You make an assumption.
As regards Margaret Thatcher "Cleaning the House" as you put it, she certainly did that. She used the Police Force like A Fascist Dictator would have done to break the Miners Strike. Thanks to that woman this country has never recovered from the effects. She also took this country to an unnecessary war with Argentina which could easily been prevented, just so she could win the next Election, which she won on a landslide. Her Cabinet then proceeded to get rid of her before the country did.
My argument is this, Jeremy Corbyn is good for British Politics because it WILL get people talking and asking questions as to whether or not there is a GENUINE alternative to the present system? Because as I said, it's about time we had one! By the way, we must not forget the 17 million people that did not exercise their right to vote in the last election, they might just be this space.


I thank my opponent for this debate.

There is a huge similiarity between Crbyn and Obama in 2008. (Outside of the fact Crbn won't get elected PM). It's that of Change. Crbyn ran his entire campaign on change and hope much as Obama did in 2008. The thing we have to realize here is that it is easy to say that you are going to change something, but it is impossible to do so. Another huge issue is there is no large expierence that Crbyn can chose from. [1] He doesn't have people that can help him out as there's not a whole lot of of Socialists in power. With that he really cannot mobalize much against David Cameron. [2] So even if people no showed to the polls we can see that such an event will happen regardless in a Democracy unless you make voting complusery. My opponent is just simply caught up in the whole "Change" surge as many Americans were in 2008 when they voted Obama. Corbyn is just making a general threat to purge out his opponnents though just about every canidate says that making it a bland promise. [3]

There are many things that the Middle Class in the UK still want. Leaving the Euro isn't one of them amongst many of Corbyn's bold moves. [4] My opponent claims I have no evidence to back my Moderation claim (source 4), but we can see that with over 100 Labour Party MPs defying Corbyn and going against him is already showing a fracture in the party of which I perdicted last round.

My opponent goes to slam Ms. Thatcher, but we have to look at the economy. He says that the UK hasn't recovered, but if we observe the chart bellow we can see that when she took over the economy was crashing and in a terrible state, but she increased UK profit margins in the economy by 12% in her regin as Prime Minister.

s://; alt="" />

With that I have refuted all of my opponent's points and have shown how Corbyn is a terrible choice and I showed how he's already splitting the Labour Party.

With that I thank you and please vote Con!

1. (
2. (
3. (
4. (
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by OracleNot 2 years ago
It is always good to get a perspective from people from other countries and it is always appreciated and informative as you have proved. Thank you once again for your participation in this debate and your valuable contribution.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
I tried, but then again, I'm not British.
Posted by OracleNot 2 years ago
I would like to thank my opponent for a well argued and fair debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to Con because he only used them. In this debate, Pro needed to show that Jeremy Corbyn is a positive for British politics. In his first round, he doesn't really analyse the poltiical positions of jeremy corbin, but he just lists them. I need a better reason to consider these a positive. Lannan actually showed evidence and proof such as the rising inflation rate from labour party members when it moves left. i don't have to analyse Pro's rebutall, because he had the BOP of showing Jeremy Corbyn was a positive, but he simply just listed his political positions without explanation.