|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Jeremy Corbyn out?
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
And like many members, I am furious with the shadow cabinet for letting down, not just labour, but the country at a crucial moment. I don't ever want to see a front bench try that again - and therefore I don't want it to succeed.
And if they genuinely thought it was not in the national interest for Mr Corbyn to be Leader of the Opposition?
quote:
Moreover, Owen Smith is not more electable of effective than Corbyn. And therefore giving my vote to him is even more futile.
He may or may not be more electable, but regarding his effectiveness I would refer you to the comments of Danny Blanchflower. If you are serious about wanting an alternative to the economics of austerity, why would you support a candidate whom anti-austerity economists have lost confidence in?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am suffering from iPad typing constraints - I'll try to do a more detailed post tomorrow night.
In the meanwhile, if they didn't think he could function as a leader, they should have launched a leadership challenge - and as the tories demonstrated, that doesn't mean you have to fuck off out of the cabinet and stop doing your job. It is this in particular that was so self-defeating, opposition is not just policy making, it is also policy scrutiny - they should simply not have walked away from that in the middle of a national crisis. It was incredibly irresponsible.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
What you are saying is that the leadership challenge should have been the first response instead of the last resort.
I don't see it. A leadership challenge was always going to drag on for months. If, on the other hand, Mr Corbyn had accepted the compromise proposed by the PLP -- if he had stood down like a normal person, in exchange for continued support of his key policies -- then the whole issue could have been resolved in a week.
Imagine what that could have been like! Bearing in mind that at this point everyone assumed the Tory leadership crisis would drag on into September. So while some permutation of Mr Johnson, Mr Gove, Ms May and Ms Leadsom spent the summer reminding the country how ghastly they all are, a professional and focused Opposition could have provided a coherent alternative to how the country should be run, bolstered by the expertise of the economists whom Mr Corbyn claims to like but doesn't talk to.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Geoffrey Howe 1 364 Economists NIL
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
In a contest between Owen Who and Jeremy Corbyn, there's only ever going to be one winner. Why Smith is even bothering is a different question.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
A moment for his ego in the sun. Something he can tell his grandchildren, "I knorr, coz I was THERE!".
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
- and as the tories demonstrated, that doesn't mean you have to fuck off out of the cabinet and stop doing your job.
Point of order - the tory leader stepped down so all that could happen.
But having said that the scenario was different. The Tory cabinet was not claiming they couldn't work with their current leader. I think that if one is a member of a team where difficulties have become intractable and one is no longer able to support it then resigning probably is the only thing to do.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In a contest between Owen Who and Jeremy Corbyn, there's only ever going to be one winner. Why Smith is even bothering is a different question.
Because any parliamentary party has to both reflect its members and the general electorate that voted each MP in. This is often a difficult thing to do, but in order for a party to function it has to do it. To emphasise one to the exclusion of the other is too misunderstand how democracy works.
The irony is that so many of his supporters have suddenly found they really believe in parliamentary discipline.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In a contest between Owen Who and Jeremy Corbyn, there's only ever going to be one winner. Why Smith is even bothering is a different question.
If we're going to get all Highlander about this one the same is true about Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May. Which may answer your question.
I don't think Smith can win either, to anticipate your obvious retort, but given the choice of another defeat on the scale of 2015 and another defeat on the scale of 1983, it seems reasonable to prefer the former.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In a contest between Owen Who and Jeremy Corbyn, there's only ever going to be one winner. Why Smith is even bothering is a different question.
I guess that it's partly the logic of a coup - you have to have a figure head, and also, that Smith is a patsy. I mean, presumably serious challengers are standing at the back shouting forwards, biding their time.
On the other hand, it is all so cack-handed, that even that vaguely logical scenario may be wide of the mark, well, 'somebody has to do it, it's your turn'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
Jeremy Corbyn used to be in favour of annual leadership elections, so it's odd that his supporters now talk of a 'coup' one year into his leadership. Or is it that Our Jezza has gone off the idea of them now that he's leader himself?
Also, isn't this a proper leadership challenge, like in accordance with the rules and stuff? 'Coup' suggests tanks on the street and seizing the post office, which doesn't quite seem apt here (to me, anyway).
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Actually, I think one of the problems with Corbyn is that he loves contests like this (the leadership challenge). I think he could go on for years having hustings with people like Smith, and he would tend to wipe the floor with them.
This is easy for Corbyn; it's the other stuff where he looks cack-handed.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Actually, I think one of the problems with Corbyn is that he loves contests like this (the leadership challenge). I think he could go on for years having hustings with people like Smith, and he would tend to wipe the floor with them.
This is easy for Corbyn; it's the other stuff where he looks cack-handed.
I think you are right - he loves the adoring crowds etc. Who are mostly adoring because he hasn't ever really done anything - which of course would have meant compromise (boo hiss!) - he is a protester first and foremost.
The question is how this plays with the wider electorate. Not something most Corbyn supporters seem to care about.
The other thing I have found interesting is how many Corbyn supporters are not treating this as 'what is the best next step from where we are?' but 'I don't think we should be where we are and so I am going to protest against that.' Fascinating!
Put simply they are trying to engage with a world that doesn't exist.
[ 05. August 2016, 11:43: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One of the interesting things about Smith is that he seems less competent, less popular, and less well known than somebody like Burnham. Of course, if he began a series of brilliant performances on the hustings, he might turn it around, but I'm not offering odds on that.
Some people have said to me that they would be interested in a challenger who was competent and authentic. As I said earlier, I suspect that there are some, but they are cheering at the back. Come on, faint heart never won fair lady.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the interesting things about Smith is that he seems less competent, less popular, and less well known than somebody like Burnham. Of course, if he began a series of brilliant performances on the hustings, he might turn it around, but I'm not offering odds on that.
Some people have said to me that they would be interested in a challenger who was competent and authentic. As I said earlier, I suspect that there are some, but they are cheering at the back. Come on, faint heart never won fair lady.
Well they can't enter the race now can they. One of the main differences between me and Corbyn supporters is they seem to value the inspirational leader. Indeed the leader is everything. Whereas I am of the view that for Labour to get back into government they need every member of the team playing to their strengths - the team is essential.
I think Owen was trying to sell the whole: I will ensure all the party are involved. I think he is ok - much better than Corbyn. But obviously with time he could prove to be just as inept.
Concerning the lack of other MPs coming forward. I think most of the party just don't want the aggression / bile / anger they'd almost certainly get should they stand. (See The Canary and Another Angry Voice for evidence.) They know there are likely to be moves to deselect them over the next four years so why make that time any more painful. Many - quite possibly a majority - are resigned to the strong probability they won't have a job in politics come 2020. Just about the worst possible scenario I'd have thought.
Labour needs to present itself as a broad church in order to get any sort of halfway decent result in the next election. (Keeping the Tory majority down to say 50!).
[ 05. August 2016, 12:10: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Point of information: When people say they want a leader who is 'authentic', what do they mean by the word?
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Not Smith.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Point of information: When people say they want a leader who is 'authentic', what do they mean by the word?
I think you have to put this in the context of the Labour party, where PR became a high art under Blair and Campbell. It's often said that Cameron and Osbourne admired this and copied it, don't know how true that is, but I think Cameron certainly has a very good PR presentational ability.
Well, some Labour members are tired of this. Of course, it's a moot point as to when anyone is being authentic, whether or not it's another presentational performance. Well, Blair could do this also, I am now being sincere, if you like.
Is there an alternative?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Quetzalcoatl - I don't know whether you were responding to me.
To clarify, when I said that Smith was ok but time would tell whether he was as inept as Corbyn, I was not referring to his presentational skills.
IME when leaders complain about their team, that normally means they are particularly poor leaders. Poor teachers always complain that it is the children that are the problem.
He is a leader and should lead. I have already listed just how many ways in which he is incompetent / poor. Yes he is competent in some areas - indeed pretty good in a few areas. Sadly I don't think those areas matter much to the typical unengaged voter. Areas where he needs to be pretty damn fantastic he is totally out of his depth. They are areas where we won't know if Owen Smith is competent until he has a go. But at least he has the goodwill of the PLP.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Luigi - usually when I cite someone's previous post, as I did with Eirenist, that means I am responding to them. I realize that this is rather eccentric, but there you are.
[ 05. August 2016, 15:26: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I think the point of Mr Smith is that the membership have indicated that they want someone left-wing and outside the Labour establishment, and by definition the MPs outside the establishment are either career backbenchers or relative newcomers to Parliament.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Luigi - usually when I cite someone's previous post, as I did with Eirenist, that means I am responding to them. I realize that this is rather eccentric, but there you are.
Sure - very poorly worded on my part! I thought you might be indirectly commenting on something I said as well.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
But at least he has the goodwill of the PLP.
I'd rather a leader who has the best interests of the PeoPLe.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Which people and do the people agree with his assessment of their best interests?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
But at least he has the goodwill of the PLP.
I'd rather a leader who has the best interests of the PeoPLe.
So apparently he has the best interests of the people. The 9 million that voted for Labour MPs are of no consequence whereas the 251,000 (59%) that voted in the leadership election should dictate nigh on everything. The people he represents best are his followers. I am unconvinced that he speaks for my best interests, or people like me. (My income is below average - I am not one of the wealthy elite.)
[ 06. August 2016, 10:11: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I saw a TV interview many years ago with veteran left winger Dennis Skinner, in which he said that he opposed proportional representation because it would end our chances of achieving a socialist Britain. This speaks volumes. I think it's exceedingly unlikely that even our first past the post system will ever put Jeremy Corbyn in Downing St. He's unelectable, and without Scottish MP's,he's in real trouble. But suppose we get an economic crash post Brexit that really starts to hurt ordinary people, then our electoral system could just about do it. Many governments, Tory and Labour, have had parliamentary majorities on less than 50% of the popular vote. At the last election UKIP got one seat in spite of polling more votes than the SNP and Lib Dems combined.
In fact Marxist activists are presently joining the Labour party in droves, because for the first time in a generation, they see the possibility of changing British politics. This is why Skinner and his ilk would hate PR. There isn't and never will be a consensus in British politics, or among the people for Corbynista politics. They are an ideological clique whose ideology I personally despise. It could come in a moment of madness due to our distorted electoral system. PR means permanent coalition. Coalition requires compromise. Hard left politics, like hard right politics, can't tolerate compromise, or even questioning of its agenda. So what Dennis Skinner meant all those years ago, is that we have a chance, under our present system, to force a socialist(his definition of socialist) on a British public who don't want it. But of course we're the clever ones who know what's best for everybody, they can't be allowed to choose for themselves.
That's the history of hard line socialism everywhere in the world. Corbyn and his clan will try and bring it about. Many of us will oppose it with every means possible. Social democracy is another entity altogether, which I fully support.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Your analysis would be true, if Corbyn was 'hard left'.
Why don't you detail what you think are 'hard left' policies, and we can check them together?
[ 06. August 2016, 11:42: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Your analysis would be true, if Corbyn was 'hard left'.
Why don't you detail what you think are 'hard left' policies, and we can check them together?
Oh c'mon, that would be letting facts interfere with prejudices. After all, everyone knows Corbyn is a hard left crypto-commie. We read it in the daily mail (or, more worryingly these days, the Guardian), so it must be true!
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Your analysis would be true, if Corbyn was 'hard left'.
Why don't you detail what you think are 'hard left' policies, and we can check them together?
Oh c'mon, that would be letting facts interfere with prejudices. After all, everyone knows Corbyn is a hard left crypto-commie. We read it in the daily mail (or, more worryingly these days, the Guardian), so it must be true!
Indeed.
As a starter, we can take a look at Corbyn's 10 point manifesto and see if it contains such hard-left policies as seizing the means of production, a command economy and a dictatorship of the proletariat.
I'm somewhat disappointed that he didn't suggest the internment of counter-revolutionaries in 're-education centres', but I suppose it's early days.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I agree Mr Corbyn is closer to Mr Miliband than to, say, Lenin, but there must be some qualitative difference between his leftiness and the leftiness of, say, Ms Cooper or Mr Burnham, or else why would his supporters talk about the PLP running scared of him because of the form of socialism he represents?
What word would you use to describe him that you couldn't use for Mr Miliband?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I'd put him on the left end of social democrat. He might well believe in more socialist principles, but his policies are generally moderate, mixed-economy, marginally redistributive, and pro-environment.
You'd have to ask Cooper and Burnham what they find so terrifying about that.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'd put him on the left end of social democrat. He might well believe in more socialist principles, but his policies are generally moderate, mixed-economy, marginally redistributive, and pro-environment.
You'd have to ask Cooper and Burnham what they find so terrifying about that.
This seems undeniable to me. But people who use the 'hard left' term, rarely define what they mean, and rarely look at Corbyn's policies in detail. I suppose it's a kind of scare tactic, look at the beardy man, he's going to nationalize all the women, and your favourite beer.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I agree Mr Corbyn is closer to Mr Miliband than to, say, Lenin, but there must be some qualitative difference between his leftiness and the leftiness of, say, Ms Cooper or Mr Burnham, or else why would his supporters talk about the PLP running scared of him because of the form of socialism he represents?
What word would you use to describe him that you couldn't use for Mr Miliband?
I would think that quite a lot hinges on the fabled neo-liberalism, which involves deregulation, privatization, low taxes for the rich, cuts in welfare, and so on. I think the left allege that Blair (and the Blairites) flirt with these policies. Well, Miliband and Balls certainly supported austerity.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose it's a kind of scare tactic, look at the beardy man, he's going to nationalize all the women, and your favourite beer.
you joke
[MP's (unnamed) talked of a forced takeover of single pub to act as temporary commons bar, and decided against it, so not really the same]
[ 06. August 2016, 14:05: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Your analysis would be true, if Corbyn was 'hard left'.
Why don't you detail what you think are 'hard left' policies, and we can check them together?
Oh c'mon, that would be letting facts interfere with prejudices. After all, everyone knows Corbyn is a hard left crypto-commie. We read it in the daily mail (or, more worryingly these days, the Guardian), so it must be true!
Indeed.
As a starter, we can take a look at Corbyn's 10 point manifesto and see if it contains such hard-left policies as seizing the means of production, a command economy and a dictatorship of the proletariat.
I'm somewhat disappointed that he didn't suggest the internment of counter-revolutionaries in 're-education centres', but I suppose it's early days.
There's a dearth of hard figures here but the first point is going to cost the Exchequer a cool £500 billion. I'd be intrigued to know where the money for all this is coming from.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
There's a dearth of hard figures here but the first point is going to cost the Exchequer a cool £500 billion. I'd be intrigued to know where the money for all this is coming from. [/qb]
It would be nice to have the details.
It's invest and over 10 years* (in theory, which does suppose it working). Which still leaves it it at £50B, about the same size as the deficit.
I guess £10 bill comes back from the benefit bill (in theory everyone in decent job, cuts Jobseekers, income support, council tax).
The houses will be worth around £100B (at least) and I presume 1/2 of that is to be realised short term, and the other half kept as listed assets. So after the first year that's probably £5B back.
Some of the money invested in companies should find it's way back (although part of that is already counted). Similarly I'm not sure how quick Trans/Energy/Comms... would repay, it's presumably not too quick or else it would have happened. But on the other hand unlike a pure bank loan 'repayments' happen via other channels.
And lets be honest some of the money is probably already counted in a different fashion. The BOE just pledged to buy £10bil of corporate debt this year (and 100B for something else). So it may be, for instance, that this could be replaced be investing £15bil in the company, for instance (with presumably the hope of at least £5b of other good outcome).
But that's a lot of speculation...and it would be good to have the numbers (OTOH if we did, no doubt we'd still complain)
*that was tricky to find
[ 06. August 2016, 15:21: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
There's a dearth of hard figures here but the first point is going to cost the Exchequer a cool £500 billion. I'd be intrigued to know where the money for all this is coming from.
Yes, I'd like to see some figures too.
But we pissed £1trn against the wall bailing the banks out, and £375bn between 2009 and 2012 in QE. That's almost £100bn a year just by rolling the presses, and we've precious little to show for it.
His shopping list is a decent one. I'd want more detail, but on paper, it's viable.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In fact Marxist activists are presently joining the Labour party in droves
I think at this point the idea that there are 100s of thousands of Marxists in this country is a fantasy only believed by subscribers to the Morning Star and retired readers of the Telegraph.
[ 06. August 2016, 17:03: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
But at least he has the goodwill of the PLP.
I'd rather a leader who has the best interests of the PeoPLe.
So apparently he has the best interests of the people. The 9 million that voted for Labour MPs are of no consequence whereas the 251,000 (59%) that voted in the leadership election should dictate nigh on everything. The people he represents best are his followers. I am unconvinced that he speaks for my best interests, or people like me. (My income is below average - I am not one of the wealthy elite.)
Voting is a complicated thing at best, but many people don't do a proper reckoning of what their interests are. Brexit would be a good example. Trump another.
I'll repost
Corbyn's manifesto. What parts don't represent you?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
Well before we get to Corbynomics, lets add up the cost of 'moderate' Labour and its neo liberal policies shared with the Tories shall we !
1) Bank de-regulation. £375 billion in QE to bail out private banks.
2) Private finance initiative. Good news for bankers, bad news for taxpayers. £300 billion wasted.
3) Wars to fight terrorism that cause more terrorists. £75 billion and hundreds of thousands killed. Only ISIS to show for it.
4) Austerity cuts. Thousands dying after benefits removed (often incorrectly). 1 million using foodbanks. Huge rises in homelessness.
5) Privatisation. Now we are unable to build our own nuclear reactors and have to rely on the Chinese ! Our railways offer poor value, our post office sold off at a loss to the tax payer. Housing has been 'privatised' with disastrous consequences. Rents are sky high and a generation are priced out. Exactly what happened before we had council housing.
In 2010 I voted Tory. This year I joined Labour and support Corbyn. I have lost a relative to these cuts and I have nothing but utter contempt for neo liberal politicians. They claim we can't afford to feed the poor, or provide decent mental health care - but they can ALWAYS print money to bail out feckless bankers and their ponzi house price bubble.
If we can print money to kill people and to keep pushing up house prices, we can print money to re-build our industrial base. Put it this way - when (not if) the house price bubble collapses - ask yourself what we will have to show for the half a trillion in QE ?(Carney has just added another £150 billion to the pile). I'll tell you - absolutely nothing except savers and pensions robbed.
You are being lied to by the press. The needs of the 1% are being put ahead of the needs of the rest of us. Tax havens are booming, corporate tax avoidance is rife. New Labour, and the majority of the PLP did NOTHING to stop any of these neo liberal policies - instead voting for them at every opportunity. I sincerely hope the whole rotten lot of them are deselected.
Corbyn's policies would mostly be considered pretty mainstream in Germany. Its a mark of the biased media in this country that he's portrayed so inaccurately. The recent LSE research confirmed this.
And finally - if anyone thinks the present state of capitalism where 80 people own 51% of the wealth of planet earth is in any way acceptable as a Christian you are living in dream land. Jesus clearly stated that the rich had responsibilities to the poor - and he didn't mean ripping them off as a business opportunity through austerity.
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
Well before we get to Corbynomics, lets add up the cost of 'moderate' Labour and its neo liberal policies shared with the Tories shall we !
quote:
4) Austerity cuts. Thousands dying after benefits removed (often incorrectly). 1 million using foodbanks. Huge rises in homelessness.
5) Privatisation. Now we are unable to build our own nuclear reactors and have to rely on the Chinese ! Our railways offer poor value, our post office sold off at a loss to the tax payer. Housing has been 'privatised' with disastrous consequences. Rents are sky high and a generation are priced out. Exactly what happened before we had council housing.
I don't think it's fair to conflate even New Labour with the Tories. Darling's policy at the 2010 election was to put off cutting spending until the economy was in full recovery. At which point, according to Keynesian orthodoxy of the kind I believe Corbyn adheres to, the spending wouldn't be needed. The problems of austerity are down to being austere in a weak economy.
Obviously that's harder to explain to a hostile press than Osborne's version of austerity. But it doesn't help to have the left wing of the Labour Party treat Darling and Osborne as essentially interchangeable.
While it's true that Brown oversaw the introduction of private enterprise into state provision - and that set a bad precedent - what happened under New Labour is little compared to what happened under the coalition and the Tories unchecked.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
In 2010 I voted Tory. This year I joined Labour and support Corbyn. I have lost a relative to these cuts and I have nothing but utter contempt for neo liberal politicians. They claim we can't afford to feed the poor, or provide decent mental health care - but they can ALWAYS print money to bail out feckless bankers and their ponzi house price bubble.
My question above still stands:
quote:
If you are serious about wanting an alternative to the economics of austerity, why would you support a candidate whom anti-austerity economists have lost confidence in?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'll repost Corbyn's manifesto. What parts don't represent you?
Speaking for myself I'd sign up to all of it. It is the impracticality of actually implementing any of it that doesn't represent me. He can't do it for all the reasons discussed up the thread.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Speaking for myself I'd sign up to all of it. It is the impracticality of actually implementing any of it that doesn't represent me. He can't do it for all the reasons discussed up the thread.
I'd sign up to it all too. I don't even think any of it is impractical. It just needs to be implemented by someone whose colleagues can actually work with them.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
That's what I meant by impractical. I didn't think it was intrinsically impractical (at least no in the detail that I read) but in this context think it is not a viable manifesto for Corbyn or the current Labour party to deliver.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
So, a viable manifesto would be one that swung the party back towards the right?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Not necessarily. The viable manifesto needs a guy behind it who looks like he understands how to lead a party.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
But at least he has the goodwill of the PLP.
I'd rather a leader who has the best interests of the PeoPLe.
So apparently he has the best interests of the people. The 9 million that voted for Labour MPs are of no consequence whereas the 251,000 (59%) that voted in the leadership election should dictate nigh on everything. The people he represents best are his followers. I am unconvinced that he speaks for my best interests, or people like me. (My income is below average - I am not one of the wealthy elite.)
Voting is a complicated thing at best, but many people don't do a proper reckoning of what their interests are. Brexit would be a good example. Trump another.
I'll repost
Corbyn's manifesto. What parts don't represent you?
I looked at it - again - and I still got that sinking feeling. About the only thing he didn't promise was free Chocolate for everyone in the world forever. It was just a set of aspirations with little or know indication of how he is going to get there.
Linked to that my other criticism is that so much of his agenda doesn't acknowledge the current context - e.g. in the current Brexit context is a 1% rise in Corporation Tax a great idea. We are going to struggle to hang on to many of he larger companies as it is. He almost makes out that only the Labour party under him will unpick neo-Liberal globalisation - as if companies cannot relocate.
I think quite a few of the aspirations are going will be really hard to make much headway on particularly in 5 years. That is because they are tough challenges. He might even look a little Blairite!
Finally I don't see any deviation from what he is suggesting, as a move to the right. In many areas thinking 'is this policy a move to the right or the left?' is incredibly unhelpful and misleading.
[ 10. August 2016, 08:21: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I looked at it - again - and I still got that sinking feeling. About the only thing he didn't promise was free Chocolate for everyone in the world forever. It was just a set of aspirations with little or know indication of how he is going to get there. ....
Couldn't agree more.That gets a ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Arminan
Couldn't agree more. That gets a
[ 10. August 2016, 09:09: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
