Is Jeremy Corbyn sexy?

Of course he is! He has integrity and he’s kind and you won’t find sexier qualities than these. If I were a member of the Labour party, which I am not, I would be voting for Jeremy Corbyn. I hope he wins!

I found this video of him from 1984 and any 35-year-old man who proudly wears his mother’s knitted jumper on national television is definitely hot prime minister material as far as I’m concerned 🙂

I’ve created a poll. Please vote!

20 Replies to “Is Jeremy Corbyn sexy?”

  1. Well, you know my vote. I wish we had his clone in Australia. I hope he wins the leadership of the Labour party. Will be interested to see how your poll progresses. 🙂

  2. I don’t know about JC being sexy, but his politics are…he has my vote (when I get my ballot papers !!)

    1. Yes, the mud slinging does not look good. This is something Corbyn seems to be avoiding, which is partly why I like him. He’s also got personality which is more than can be said for the other three faceless candidates. I don’t necessarily agree with all his policies and I’m not even sure whether I’ll vote Labour next election, but I like him. He’s unlike most other politicians I’ve seen on TV.

      1. Didn’t do the poll as I’m unsure about it all. SNP seem to be more for social justice up here than labour, but for the UK as a whole very different.

  3. I dunno who this dude is. Too exhausted to Google him but from the video, he sounded cool. So, hey, I just think he’s sexy!

    He he.

    1. I looked up his views on climate change and found this:

      “We must take action now to keep fossil fuels in the ground – end dirty energy
      handouts, ban fracking and set a target date to end new fossil fuel extraction, and
      begin to phase out high polluting coal power stations with support for workers to
      re-train.
      Britain should scrap the ‘capacity market’ which subsidises coal, gas and nuclear
      power at greater expense.”

      https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/jeremyforlabour/pages/119/attachments/original/1438938988/ProtectingOurPlanet_JeremyCorbyn.pdf?1438938988

      This conflicts a bit with the report that he wants to reopen coal mines. From what I understand, he would only do it if it was clean coal with carbon storage and capture and I would not oppose that.

      I don’t necessarily agree with all his policies. For instance, I would worry about what might happen to inflation and interest rates with a Labour-led government given that I’ve just taken on a large mortgage. So I may not vote for him or Labour at all. I’ve always been a swing voter. I like him because he’s not a phoney.

      1. Clean Coal doesn’t really exist. He’s also promoting solar, which is the most expensive way to reduce CO2 emissions there is in the UK.

        I think his ideas on energy generally are emblematic of his whole approach – superficially attractive, but entirely lacking in credibility.

        I completely understand where you’re coming from on phoney, but for me, pushing ideas which are not credible is every bit as phony as the glib approach of other career politicians.

        Mind you, I don’t find him sexy 😉

      2. Yes, I’ll admit I don’t know very much about his policies other than what I read online. I’m in favour of renationalising the railways, increasing the top rax rate, and reducing University tuition fees (it’s already free to go to University in Scotland) which are all things he supports. But I do support nuclear power which I think Britain probably needs and I’m not a fan of reckless government spending which tends to drive up interest rates. I also wouldn’t be surprised if in a decade or two we had some viable carbon capture and storage solutions.

    2. Just out of curiosity, VTG, which party does have the right energy policy? If climate change is high on the list of priorities for an eligible voter, who should they vote for? None of the parties has an adequate response to it from what I can tell. Even the Green party, which should put environmental concerns at the top of the agenda, opposes nuclear power which isn’t going to help the climate very much.

      1. I agree – all are bad on climate change, huge promises, minimal delivery, and even going backwards. I picked on Corbyn because his views are explicitly awful (IMHO), but the alternatives are all poor. Probably the Tories are worst of the rest as they’re actively subsidising unconventional fossil fuel extraction and removing regulations on building efficiency, but I think Corbyn’s ideas are much worse than current govt policy, both much more expensive and worse on emissions.

        On your other post, CCS is in my view highly questionable. It requires massive infrastructure investment, has not been proved at any scale and very significantly increases demand for fossil fuels and therefore cost (as it reduces the efficiency of generation). I’d be very surprised if it’s implemented as a significant proportion of UK electricity generation within a couple of decades. Note how glacial even pilot projects have been with it.

      2. How can Corbyn’s ideas be much worse than current govt policy when he wants to “scrap the ‘capacity market’ which subsidises coal, gas and nuclear
        power”?

        I don’t want to turn this into me defending Jeremy Corbyn, because like I said, I’m not even a Labour voter, but what you are saying seems at odds with what I’ve read.

        I’ve just read this – http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2978777/jeremy_corbyn_the_green_britain_i_want_to_build.html – which he appears to have written, and he’s not just promoting solar at the expense of all else but also wind in addition to improved insulation and better public transport amongst other things. There isn’t one golden solution to this problem but lots. Do you think Britain should completely abandon solar power?

        I also think we should continue to research into carbon capture and storage as well as investing in carbon-free energy sources. It would of course be unwise to presume we’ll find a carbon capture and storage solution and depend on that happening, but there’s no harm in putting some money into R&D in this field.

      3. CCS progress

        The Government launched a ‘competition’ in 2007 to kick-start CCS in the UK by offering capital support to winning pilot projects. Seven years on, however, it has only delivered initial FEED funding to two projects and the expected start date of CCS has been pushed back from 2014 to 2020

        FEED = Front end engineering design.

        http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/news/carbon-capture-storage-substantive/

      4. Rachel,

        yes, I agree we should invest in CCS. I just don’t see much evidence of it happening (seven years into our current not particularly ambitious programme, and a delay of six years to date…) so to promise it in order to reopen coal mines seems rather unrealistic.

        Corbyn promises to scrap nuclear, That adds hugely to our emissions. and is absolutely incompatible with an 80% emissions reduction. It also means baseload must be added to elsewhere.

        Corbyn promises to extract more coal to other audiences, though he conveniently doesn’t mention that in this article.

        The “socialisation of energy” sounds great, but what does it actually mean? I can’t see why it would drive more renewables. If anything it implies, together with his committment to remove subsidies, more gas.

        More wind, better buildings regs, more public transport, yes, absolutely.

        Solar is an out and out waste of money. Very expensive electricity generated at the wrong time of day. (so yes, I think we should avoid it in this country, or at least stop subsidising it).

        Overall a mishmash of utterly unrealistic wishful thinking and some good ideas, all of which have great soundbites attached.

        What makes it worse than current policy is the nuclear, coal and solar, and the massive increase in spending implied but uncosted. It would also probably hugely increase gas imports – gas would be needed to cover intermittency, and he’s both reducing nuclear *and* not fracking. Double whammy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s