[Jack_]

Originally Posted by jet

I did read your post with attention.
On your first point, it is to your credit imo that you would prefer a Labour leader other than Corbyn. But he is the leader and you still vote for him? Despite his reputation, because his policies suit you. Fair enough, but I couldn't personally do that, I'd rather abstain until a leader I respected was in the driving seat.
On your second point, surely a leaders policies and how successful those policies are will be a reflection of their beliefs? their morals? their fitness to lead? the respect their party members have for the leader? Corbyn would score low on all of these essentials.
Finally, you don't think that some young voters would only vote for him to get free student education? The emphasis on some. Of course they did/would. Not everyone is as interested in politics as you are; they hear 'free ed., more money in their pockets and its "he's my man".
Delivering would be another matter.
If I lived in the UK mainland I would vote for neither Con. or Labour by the way, I'm neutral in that respect, but I'm certainly not neutral about Corbyn's awful morals, lack of integrity and his proclivity for befriending and worshipping terrorists. Horrible, disgusting, dangerous man.

But I don't vote for him? I don't live in Islington North, so I vote for my local Labour candidate in the (very, very long) hope that they are elected to parliament, as an extra number in a larger Labour government. Despite however much the Tories tried to make this election campaign a presidential one, we still do not elect a Prime Minister directly. Like I said, I'm interested in policies - and I want the Labour programme enacted, a biffa bin could be the PM for all I care.

I don't agree with policies having to strictly align with the values of the leader in all honesty. Certainly the general ideology and direction of travel will in part be steered by the leader of a party, but the argument against this can be seen in two examples. Firstly, Corbyn's views on trident are well known - but the large majority of the PLP are in favour of its renewal, so that commitment was in the manifesto. As he said in his interview with Jeremy Paxman, he is a leader not a dictator - and that's exactly how manifestos and policy platforms should be put together, with contributions and consensus across the party (contrast this with the Tories' manifesto that post-election almost the entire party have criticised). Secondly, I drew attention earlier to Theresa May's inaugural speech last July where she was trying to position herself as a moderate, centrist Conservative looking to help the 'just about managing' - and yet the manifesto she campaigned on couldn't have been further from this, even attacking their core base of voters. One has to wonder what her personal values actually are, or whether she just chops and changes depending on which way the wind is sailing or how far right she thinks she can get away with being elected on.

Of course they would, I don't deny that at all - but is that such a bad thing? I'm not going to get into a debate about the specifics of that policy because it's been done ad nauseum during the campaign, but what I will say is that not every country in the world charges tuition fees so it clearly can work. Isn't it a good thing to have a bit of hope anyway? Instead of the bitter continual misery the Tories were promising? Why on earth would many young people - who have been ignored for years by political parties and yet criticised for not voting - vote for that? If he ever became PM and didn't do what he said he would, I'm sure he'd face the same fate as Nick Clegg, but until then what's wrong with giving it a shot? You never know until you try, and many people (students or otherwise) are quite clearly fed up with austerity. What I will point out however is that from my perspective a lot more young people are politically engaged than you might realise, certainly moreso than your average member of the electorate. Until the Tories actually start offering something to young people instead of attacking and ignoring them, they will continue to be seen for the Nasty Party that they are.

Finally, you say that you like neither Labour nor the Tories which is fine but it seems to me like you direct all your criticism at Corbyn and none at Theresa May. Her record in the Home Office is a disgrace (particularly on abuse in detention centres, and her reckless cuts to the police), as it is on LGBT rights (idc if she voted for equal marriage quite frankly), she indirectly funds terrorism by selling arms to the Saudis, and wants the poor and the disabled to pay for an international crisis they didn't cause. I find that just as horrible, disgusting and dangerous to be honest.