He won the leadership because everyone who hates labour paid £3 to make him leader and destroy the party.

Again, that's not very factual since he was already by far more popular than Owen with the old members of Labour. You only seem to bring up slander against him. Look at his policies, maybe you'll actually like him.

I do like him. Not for his policies but because there's a good chance he's going to split Labour.

Interesting to see all of the parties as an American, where we pretty much have had a constant Republican vs Democrat duopoly (or equivilant in the past) for most of our history. Though, our two main parties seem to be breaking off somewhat based on this recent election - Bernie (more classical liberal, working class) vs Hillary (more centrist, globalist) Dems on the left, as well as the traditional Cruz/Bush Repubs vs Trump and Tea Partiers on the right.

So I'm hoping soon our political system can take on something more similar to this (although it sounds like you guys still only have 2 or 3 candidates who have a realistic chance to win) at least there seems to be more political parties with a greater foothold. We do have the Libertarian Party (probably where my views are more closely aligned, combined with Bernie-esque classical liberalism). Then we've also got the far more radically liberal Greens, but both - especially Greens, are so insignificant they may as well not exist, as these two third parties usually drawing like 3% of the vote COMBINED..

The only reason Britain has so many viable parties right now is because Labour kind of destroyed its unity during the New Labour days, and because Britain is a parliamentary system there is a bit less regional interest to vote for one of two national parties. The U.S has had similar points in its history, for example when the Whig party split and it was Democrats vs. many parties until the Republicans were created around the two issues of anti-slavery and anti-polygamy. The British system still trends toward a two party system because the voting system is first past the post (like the majority of U.S states.) 

This tendency is called Duverger's Law.

In order to get a real multiparty system in the United States (not what Britain has, but something more like what the Swiss have) we need to promote voting reform in each individual state towards either a proportional, approval, or ranked-choice system. 

I'd also like to replace the presidency with a directory (group of presidents), but that would require a constitutional amendment, and therefore won't happen. 

Also Bernie isn't a classical liberal, he used to be a Democratic Socialist (he called for nationalizing the oil and telecoms in the 70's and 80's) and now seems to have moderated to supporting a moderate social-democracy as the American population move rightward since. 

This is the problem. People like you quite frankly. It doesn't take much effort to see the UK has large debts and a trading deficit we need to sort ourselves out financially before we can spend more money. Trying to push through austerity measures is trying to improve the debt situation but to people like you austerity is wrong and we just keep increasing debts. We need an electorate that frankly has some common sense. You don't spend what you haven't got.

That's why all of us should be judging how a party will run the country on a financial basis so we are not all burdened with debt. This gives a  current overview.

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedkingdom

We are having to pay £45 billion in interest a year, that's money that could have gone into the nhs and other areas if we hadn't spent beyond our means. In the end spending money now we haven't got means greater austerity in the future and spending now only delays the reality of the situation. Maybe I'm alone in this but I feel its completely wrong to burden future generations with our debt.

This isn't an anti-labour post because labour's track record in government on national debt is as good as the conservatives if not better overall slightly. The issue is a left wing labour government and a right wing conservative government are both terrible for uk finances. The sensible position is in the middle. Thatcher was one of the most damaging prime ministers we ever had, sold off many public assets cheap, destroyed a huge part of our industrial base and still borrowed. Often conservatives have tax cuts we can't afford which is as irresponsible as spending money we haven't got.

My point is Labour isn't safe to vote for when it moves to a left wing position as Corbyn represents and his shadow cabinet has no one of worth for financial guidance. It just seems an incredibly dangerous and high risk choice. 

It's been a really odd election so far. The conservatives entered the election with an absolutely massive average lead (they peaked at 20+ points ahead), but that's since dropped to only 6 points. Not only is that kind of swing highly irregular, but the way it's gone down has been odd too. The conservatives themselves have only dropped about 3 points in that time (despite what i'd argue has been a terribly executed campaign), and are at about the same point as just before calling the election. The rest of Labour's gains seem to be coming from a shift away from the smaller parties, and the pollsters being in total disagreement about what the turnout will look like.

The disagreement about turnout has turned the polls into a total cluster fuck too. We've got a range of 1 point con lead all the way up to 12 points, and just yesterday we had one poll go from a 6 point conservative lead to 1 (11 to 1 if you only count their online polls), and another increase from 6 points to 9. The constituency result predictions are more consistent, 6 of them are predicting around the same numbers (a conservative majority range of 28 to 36), but then the 7th is like "fuck it, it's going to be a hung parliament".

Now, just 4 days before we're due to vote, there's been (what's currently treated as) another terror attack. This only 2 weeks after the last one.

I honestly have no idea how things are going to go down on the 8th, it's been a confusing mess from top to bottom.

With auterity our debt has gone up far more then when the wasn't austerity, this highlights that it was never about reducing debt but cutting costs for one class of people to benefit the pockets of a few at the top. We had cuts to disabled people and all yet the tax cuts for big businesses remained with the likes of Starbucks and Google even getting away with not paying any tax for years and this was with the so called mob worthy of finance. As someone who works in finance I'm going to tell you this the debts are never going to disappear because of the econmic system employed, they're always going to be there because of how banks and financial institutes operate.

I will give Corbyn his due as his plan and vision is coherant and want's to return some of what the Thatcher days got rid of.

I don't know enough about the smaller parties but I'd pick Labour over Tories and would for that reason be happy about a Labour victory. It'd also be absolutely hilarious to see May lose the election as I'm quite sure losing wasn't part of the plan.

Corbyn's solution to terrorism is cutting off their funding. Ie stop selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. We've tried bombing, all it does it make more terrorists to replace the dead ones.