Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
Timmy40 said:
Digga said:
Timmy40 said:
Ha ha, you carry on thinking that. All I know is that the only thing standing between this country and a Labour Govt is Corbyn.
He seems to attract a hardocre of supporters. They are the sort of people who have very strong (read also often loud) opinions about the 'right' topics, but not a clue about fairly important facts and figures relating to both the UK and other economies. Basically, they think the world owes them a living or, at the very least, owes them a few quid to supplement their living, but they have no clue how it's actually going to be paid for - above or beyond the usual nonsense the McDonald spouts like no debt, just issue govt bonds sort of rubbish.2xChevrons said:
Timmy40 said:
Indeed. With anyone else in charge after the appalling string of cock ups that was Ms Mays election campaign there would have been a Labour landslide. As it was losing was hailed a great victory for Socialism. Long may he continue with his self proclaimed Govt in waiting.
I know you can't prove a negative, but I'd love to know your reasoning for that. It was the first time Labour had a net gain of seats in a GE since 1997 and the largest vote swing to Labour since the Attlee election of 1945. Given the completely lukewarm reception of Milliband and Brown's centrism I don't quite see how the nation was crying out for more of the same. Labour started the election campaign 20 points behind the Conservatives by some polls. The more of an airing that Corbyn and the Labour manifesto got the more ground they gained until they were essentially level-pegging. And most of that gain didn't come from people abandoning the Tories due to their utter disaster of a campaign (it would take a special sort of person to swing from 'Theresa May's Team' to Labour in that election!) but from gaining from the 'Don't Knows' and the 'Never Voted', plus a decent swing from the Greens and Lib Dems. A failure to win is a failure, especially against such hopelessly incompetent and ideologically bankrupt opponents (which also applies to everything that's happened since then). But considering that plenty of commentators (and lots of the centrist bits of the Labour party) were predicted that the party would face electoral annihilation under Corbyn, the result showed that the manifesto and Corbyn have traction in the general public - and far more traction than the limp Third Way strand of thought that had been Labour's previous offering.
Had Labour not had that 20-point lead to make up (caused in no small part by the Labour right spending the previous year telling everyone who'd listen that Corbyn was unelectable, and then trying their damnedest to make that a reality by staging a hilariously lackluster coup) then the GE could have easily gone the other way. I really don't think that had there been another 'sensible centrist' at Labour's tiller in 2017 they would have cost the Conservatives their majority.
IMO Corbyn consolidated the left and added all the hard left voters to those who would usually back Labour and indeed many undecided voters as well.
The reason why they still didn't win is that there are many centrist voters who would never vote for him.
This is not based on the manifesto but who he is in himself, as someone actively opposed to western interests, including our own.
JagLover said:
2xChevrons said:
Timmy40 said:
Indeed. With anyone else in charge after the appalling string of cock ups that was Ms Mays election campaign there would have been a Labour landslide. As it was losing was hailed a great victory for Socialism. Long may he continue with his self proclaimed Govt in waiting.
I know you can't prove a negative, but I'd love to know your reasoning for that. It was the first time Labour had a net gain of seats in a GE since 1997 and the largest vote swing to Labour since the Attlee election of 1945. Given the completely lukewarm reception of Milliband and Brown's centrism I don't quite see how the nation was crying out for more of the same. Labour started the election campaign 20 points behind the Conservatives by some polls. The more of an airing that Corbyn and the Labour manifesto got the more ground they gained until they were essentially level-pegging. And most of that gain didn't come from people abandoning the Tories due to their utter disaster of a campaign (it would take a special sort of person to swing from 'Theresa May's Team' to Labour in that election!) but from gaining from the 'Don't Knows' and the 'Never Voted', plus a decent swing from the Greens and Lib Dems. A failure to win is a failure, especially against such hopelessly incompetent and ideologically bankrupt opponents (which also applies to everything that's happened since then). But considering that plenty of commentators (and lots of the centrist bits of the Labour party) were predicted that the party would face electoral annihilation under Corbyn, the result showed that the manifesto and Corbyn have traction in the general public - and far more traction than the limp Third Way strand of thought that had been Labour's previous offering.
Had Labour not had that 20-point lead to make up (caused in no small part by the Labour right spending the previous year telling everyone who'd listen that Corbyn was unelectable, and then trying their damnedest to make that a reality by staging a hilariously lackluster coup) then the GE could have easily gone the other way. I really don't think that had there been another 'sensible centrist' at Labour's tiller in 2017 they would have cost the Conservatives their majority.
IMO Corbyn consolidated the left and added all the hard left voters to those who would usually back Labour and indeed many undecided voters as well.
The reason why they still didn't win is that there are many centrist voters who would never vote for him.
This is not based on the manifesto but who he is in himself, as someone actively opposed to western interests, including our own.
All the ex Labour voters who switched to UKIP went back to Labour as they campaigned on leaving the EU.
That's where the gains came from and that's where the losses will come from in 2022.
JagLover said:
The reason why they still didn't win is that there are many centrist voters who would never vote for him.
It's not just the centre. My father-in-law is a life time Labour voter and TGWU convener of 30 years; according to him very few of his union palls voted for Corbyn because they remember the mess the last time Militant infiltrated the Labour party! Those under 40/50 don't. FWIW mother-in-law volunteers in an OAP community centre and recons the Tory's inexplicably stupid attack on pensions swung her old dears from mostly Tory to mostly Labour. At this point if they have to buy the OAP vote to keep the communists from wrecking the rest of the economy then I can live with that.Digga said:
Timmy40 said:
Digga said:
Timmy40 said:
Ha ha, you carry on thinking that. All I know is that the only thing standing between this country and a Labour Govt is Corbyn.
He seems to attract a hardocre of supporters. They are the sort of people who have very strong (read also often loud) opinions about the 'right' topics, but not a clue about fairly important facts and figures relating to both the UK and other economies. Basically, they think the world owes them a living or, at the very least, owes them a few quid to supplement their living, but they have no clue how it's actually going to be paid for - above or beyond the usual nonsense the McDonald spouts like no debt, just issue govt bonds sort of rubbish.Trolleys Thank You said:
This is far far more common amongst the Tory right. Anything which challenges their selfishness is autolabelled as Socialism. The fear is palpable which is why certain types fill their pants at a politician who wants to even things up a bit.
And that my friends is a wonderful insight into the sad, spiteful, small, petty minds of his supporters. It's never about raising people up, but always about bringing people down.Francois de La Rochefoucauld said:
Trolleys Thank You said:
This is far far more common amongst the Tory right. Anything which challenges their selfishness is autolabelled as Socialism. The fear is palpable which is why certain types fill their pants at a politician who wants to even things up a bit.
And that my friends is a wonderful insight into the sad, spiteful, small, petty minds of his supporters. It's never about raising people up, but always about bringing people down.Trolleys Thank You said:
...certain types fill their pants at a politician who wants to even things up a bit.
Those would be economically literate types who realise that the solutions offered to 'even things up a bit' have all been done before and invariably make everyone poorer. You're right, I am very worried because the UK's precarious finances are not ready for another Labour government, let alone the group of open mouthed idiots Corbyn has surrounded himself with.Trolleys Thank You said:
This is far far more common amongst the Tory right. Anything which challenges their selfishness is autolabelled as Socialism. The fear is palpable which is why certain types fill their pants at a politician who wants to even things up a bit.
We all differ on which way we think things are skewed. The majority of British households are a net drain on the state, that tells me that as one of the minority I’m already carrying more than my fair share of the load and the last thing we need to be doing is giving away more.It’s not selfish to want to keep what you’ve worked for. If Corbyn and McDonnell implemented their plans for increased taxes I for one would just take unpaid leave or go part time, I’m not working for 30p on the £.
fblm said:
Those would be economically literate types who realise that the solutions offered to 'even things up a bit' have all been done before and invariably make everyone poorer. You're right, I am very worried because the UK's precarious finances are not ready for another Labour government, let alone the group of open mouthed idiots Corbyn has surrounded himself with.
When interest rates are so low for so long, surely it's prudent for government to borrow NOW for large national infrastructure projects instead of the future. Will also help boost our piss poor growth rates. Instead, we have a government cutting taxes and funding it by selling off the family silver. Tory financial incompetence robbing us all of a stronger economy.djc206 said:
Trolleys Thank You said:
This is far far more common amongst the Tory right. Anything which challenges their selfishness is autolabelled as Socialism. The fear is palpable which is why certain types fill their pants at a politician who wants to even things up a bit.
We all differ on which way we think things are skewed. The majority of British households are a net drain on the state, that tells me that as one of the minority I’m already carrying more than my fair share of the load and the last thing we need to be doing is giving away more.It’s not selfish to want to keep what you’ve worked for. If Corbyn and McDonnell implemented their plans for increased taxes I for one would just take unpaid leave or go part time, I’m not working for 30p on the £.
djc206 said:
We all differ on which way we think things are skewed. The majority of British households are a net drain on the state, that tells me that as one of the minority I’m already carrying more than my fair share of the load and the last thing we need to be doing is giving away more.
It’s not selfish to want to keep what you’ve worked for. If Corbyn and McDonnell implemented their plans for increased taxes I for one would just take unpaid leave or go part time, I’m not working for 30p on the £.
Agreed.It’s not selfish to want to keep what you’ve worked for. If Corbyn and McDonnell implemented their plans for increased taxes I for one would just take unpaid leave or go part time, I’m not working for 30p on the £.
I am sure that if the UK game public behemoths like the NHS had 100% of every net contributor's wages, that still wouldn't be enough, and they'd still be screaming for more.
In fact, if you gave them all the money in the world, they'd still find a way of spunking the whole lot up the wall.
Edited by chris watton on Wednesday 25th April 17:07
Francois de La Rochefoucauld said:
And that my friends is a wonderful insight into the sad, spiteful, small, petty minds of his supporters. It's never about raising people up, but always about bringing people down.
"The evil that we do does not attract to us so much persecution and hatred as our good qualities." Sorry, I saw the username and couldn't resist. Perhaps worth dwelling on, especially in the context of both the posts and the thread.
As for socialism "never [being] about raising people up, but always about bringing people down." Complete hogwash. Socialist philosophy and policies (in various strands) have been about the only way the vast majority of people have advanced (note; advanced, not enriched) themselves since the Industrial Revolution.
Of course it involves (in a broad sense) taking from the top and giving to the bottom. If you hold everyone to have an equal stake in society and its wealth, and you're living in a country where 20% of that wealth is held by 1% of the people, then some redistribution is inevitable. Because that 1% certainly didn't put in 20x more effort or sacrifice than the other 99%. And you can take 10% of the richest man's wealth without harming his quality of life in any way and make massive improvements to the lives of 1000 people at the bottom. There is no logical or moral reason not to.
The thing - the key thing - which made me switch from being a wishy-washy Cameron-loving One Nation Conservative to being a socialist was realizing that all the Tory talk about level playing fields, equal opportunities and bettering yourself was complete and utter lies. Nothing they've done in the past 40 years has done anything to facilitate those worthy goals, except by enriching a small chosen minority at the expense of a broader demographic and making the world a slightly more barbarous place as they go.
We all, rich or poor, employee or employer, blue or white collar, old or young, benefit from having a prosperous, healthy, safe and well-educated population. Homelessness, poverty and poor education are not just morally indefensible in the fifth richest nation on earth but a brake on our mutual prosperity. The Tories used to get this - that, even under capitalism, you need the bottom of the edifice to be strong, productive and engaged otherwise the top has nothing supporting it - but the adherents of that philosophy are now virtually all in their graves. For all the talk of 'personal responsibility' there is precious little sign that they encourage any sort of responsibility for your fellow man, or that when you pay out to improve someone's lot they are not the only one to benefit. Now it's just a cruel philosophy that provides a moral framework to excuse personal callousness and greed, based on the ridiculous idea that our attainments in life are due to our personal effort and choices.
Even when I was a Tory voter I felt that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was a perfectly good way of organising the world. It just seems so obviously right. Perhaps that's why I slid to the left - because I'm just not wired to be a Conservative voter.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Wednesday 25th April 17:35
andymadmak said:
The Dangerous Elk said:
Barry the Gardener on BBC Breakfast trying to defend Jessa, what a mess
Yes, I heard that. Barry desperately trying to walk the impossible line between justifying his leader's responses in yesterdays meeting and making it absolutely clear how he himself felt about the situation. I thought Barry did quite well under what were utterly impossible circumstances. He failed (of course) but 10 out of 10 for effort.
How anyone can support a party and a leader so clearly riddled with anti semitism and so utterly unable to deal with it is beyond me.
2xChevrons said:
Socialist philosophy and policies (in various strands) have been about the only way the vast majority of people have advanced
I'm sure the 10's of millions that died in Mao's cultural revolution in China, the millions sent to Gulags & those who died of starvation in Russia, the poor of Zimbabwe which was formerly known as the breadbasket of Africa prior to Mugabe's socialism, the Venezuelans who now find themselves without a way of removing the heinous tyranical regime they blindly voted for, would all disagreeI believe that it is global capitalism that has given people non-subsistence existance in the developing world and raised the standard of living almost everywhere, due to the economic growth that is at the heart of capitalism, enriching all who participate, admitedly some more than others but people need to be motivated by sucess to take the risks involved in starting / growing companies
2xChevrons said:
Of course it involves (in a broad sense) taking from the top and giving to the bottom. If you hold everyone to have an equal stake in society and its wealth, and you're living in a country where 20% of that wealth is held by 1% of the people, then some redistribution is inevitable. Because that 1% certainly didn't put in 20x more effort or sacrifice than the other 99%.
Of course, that is deplorable garbage. Do you honestly think that Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, didn't worked x20 harder and take far more risk to their personal situation, than someone who has lived a life on benefits? Or even someone who has just done a basic 9-5 job to an adequte level?2xChevrons said:
And you can take 10% of the richest man's wealth without harming his quality of life in any way and make massive improvements to the lives of 1000 people at the bottom. There is no logical or moral reason not to.
That already happens, it's called the progressive tax system. I pay 60% of some of my earnings in tax. It's a lot. Makes me wonder if it's worth bothering working harder, being a better boss, making my company more productive, when I get to keep so little of what I earn?2xChevrons said:
The thing - the key thing - which made me switch from being a wishy-washy Cameron-loving One Nation Conservative to being a socialist was realizing that all the Tory talk about level playing fields, equal opportunities and bettering yourself was complete and utter lies. Nothing they've done in the past 40 years has done anything to facilitate those worthy goals, except by enriching a small chosen minority at the expense of a broader demographic and making the world a slightly more barbarous place as they go.
This country has a huge, aspirational middle class who want to get on and better themselves fianancialy. I recently drove from the south to the north, have never seen so many brand new Mercedes, BMW, Audis everywhere. Yes there are cheap lease deals but if you think the average person in this country isn't rich, and hasn't got richer as a result of our move from industrial to service based economy in the 1980's, then you should try actually visiting a poor country. 2xChevrons said:
We all, rich or poor, employee or employer, blue or white collar, old or young, benefit from having a prosperous, healthy, safe and well-educated population.
Employment is at an all time high, even as automation / AI, home working, and the move to online shopping wipe out 10'000's of jobs2xChevrons said:
Even when I was a Tory voter I felt that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was a perfectly good way of organising the world. It just seems so obviously right.
It takes no account for people being lazy, unmotivated, or only motivated if there are rewards down the line. These traits are endemic to human nature which is why no communist country has ever succeeded and never will. In Russia people were sent for 'reeducation' to hard labor camps if they objected to this corrupt idea as it was completely against human nature. Look at Russia now. Overthrew communism at the first chance, is a mafia state, economy smaller than Spain, with a tyranical dictator who caries out high profile assasinations in foreign countries to shore up his domestic power baseYour views come across as extremely naive
LoonyTunes said:
I know, it's almost as bad as supporting a leader who's party is so clearly riddled with racists and yet is also so utterly unable to deal with it.
Thanks to nutters like you, the word 'Racist' has completely lost its meaning and power to put others down using the term.Trolleys Thank You said:
When interest rates are so low for so long, surely it's prudent for government to borrow NOW for large national infrastructure projects instead of the future. Will also help boost our piss poor growth rates. Instead, we have a government cutting taxes and funding it by selling off the family silver. Tory financial incompetence robbing us all of a stronger economy.
Soundbite nonsense. Whatever. I'll give you this, if Corbyn and his shower get in you'll be right about Bitcoin!Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 25th April 21:12
chris watton said:
LoonyTunes said:
I know, it's almost as bad as supporting a leader who's party is so clearly riddled with racists and yet is also so utterly unable to deal with it.
Thanks to nutters like you, the word 'Racist' has completely lost its meaning and power to put others down using the term.chris watton said:
LoonyTunes said:
I know, it's almost as bad as supporting a leader who's party is so clearly riddled with racists and yet is also so utterly unable to deal with it.
Thanks to nutters like you, the word 'Racist' has completely lost its meaning and power to put others down using the term.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff