You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
November 9 2026 4.41pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Jeremy Corbyn


Page 15 of 279 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >
Stirlingsays Flag 14 Aug 15 5.19pm

Good quality discussion going on here.

I've been 'out IQed'.

 

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
legaleagle Flag 14 Aug 15 6.20pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 5.13pm

It is in the interests of companies to develop new products that people want so they do research and develop. If they produce goods that do not last, people will stop buying them. If they produce a new model of something that people prefer, they will buy it and perhaps give their old model to someone who wants it. Contrast this with the one model of car available in Soviet Russia, the empty shelves and other shelves stacked with goods nobody wants – produced because some 5 years plan said people would want them.

I would not describe uncontrolled immigration as free market. It is a political policy – another great ‘plan’ of the pseudo-socialist EU. It works against what would be normal free market activity if the workforce were indigenous, organised and received decent wages. I do agree that the Capitalists do take advantage of this and exploit the cheap labour, the answer is to stop uncontrolled immigration.

I think ‘trickle down’ works compared to socialist countries, peoples’ standard of living in general gets better over the years in Capitalist countries – the reverse in Socialist countries.

Certainly monopolies are a problems and cartels and there is a role for governments to mitigate their effect. However, it is still possible for new enterprises to challenge monopolies; look how Dyson shook up the vacuum cleaner market, how Betfair challenged the big bookies, peer to peer lending taking business from the banks. In Socialist economies the only choice you have is the state offering – usually inefficient and poor quality.

Small businesses such as a greengrocers can be destroyed by a supermarket opening nearby. But the good ones find a niche and provide a service and quality that the supermarket cannot match. The state run greengrocers of course would sell stale goods, have shortages and not really give a damn about customer service or what the customer wants.

People in Capitalist countries choose to take out a student loan or a mortgage – they can choose to buy their own property. People in Socialist Russia were are allocated a flat in a concrete tower block – those that were not literally enslaved, of course, in some forced labour camp.


There is no reason why uncontrolled immigration is a political policy as opposed to being a free market in operation.The political policy may (and usually is) simply a mechanism or reasoning for bringing a freer market in labour into (greater) existence.

As an example,the immigration into the UK of EU nationals precisely reflects the broadening of such a free (freer) market in the supply of/demand for goods services and labour from one operating within the UK to one which is more EU wide.Free market capitalism in action,not "pseudo-socialism".Tariffs and import/export controls by states on goods ,services and labour,reduce the free market.That's why lifting them more was known as "free trade".

A poster may be opposed to immigration but it is difficult to argue that having no immigration controls (which very few on here accused being in favour of have ever actually advocated) would not lead to a broadening of a free market in relation to labour.

Unrestricted immigration doesn't work against a free market at all.In a free market,wages reflect supply and demand. Restricting immigration is anti-free market. The solution to low wages is a higher minimum wage and enforcement of it,which again is a restriction on a "free market".

You spoil an otherwise interesting post by not being able to resist a prejudiced "one-sided" pop at the end.People in various regimes have ended up in labour camps.Not something to be admired,wherever it happens/happened.Think Stalin,think Hitler,think Franco.Think quite a few non "socialist" and "socialist" others.To think it is a uniquely "socialist" thing that is a uniquely automatic consequence of "socialism" is simply factually wrong.As a random further example,"we" worked about 20,000 "Africans" to death in forced labour camps in S Africa at the time of the Boer war.I was not aware the UK was a socialist rather than a capitalist country at the time.

 
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 14 Aug 15 6.39pm

Quote legaleagle at 14 Aug 2015 6.20pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 5.13pm

It is in the interests of companies to develop new products that people want so they do research and develop. If they produce goods that do not last, people will stop buying them. If they produce a new model of something that people prefer, they will buy it and perhaps give their old model to someone who wants it. Contrast this with the one model of car available in Soviet Russia, the empty shelves and other shelves stacked with goods nobody wants – produced because some 5 years plan said people would want them.

I would not describe uncontrolled immigration as free market. It is a political policy – another great ‘plan’ of the pseudo-socialist EU. It works against what would be normal free market activity if the workforce were indigenous, organised and received decent wages. I do agree that the Capitalists do take advantage of this and exploit the cheap labour, the answer is to stop uncontrolled immigration.

I think ‘trickle down’ works compared to socialist countries, peoples’ standard of living in general gets better over the years in Capitalist countries – the reverse in Socialist countries.

Certainly monopolies are a problems and cartels and there is a role for governments to mitigate their effect. However, it is still possible for new enterprises to challenge monopolies; look how Dyson shook up the vacuum cleaner market, how Betfair challenged the big bookies, peer to peer lending taking business from the banks. In Socialist economies the only choice you have is the state offering – usually inefficient and poor quality.

Small businesses such as a greengrocers can be destroyed by a supermarket opening nearby. But the good ones find a niche and provide a service and quality that the supermarket cannot match. The state run greengrocers of course would sell stale goods, have shortages and not really give a damn about customer service or what the customer wants.

People in Capitalist countries choose to take out a student loan or a mortgage – they can choose to buy their own property. People in Socialist Russia were are allocated a flat in a concrete tower block – those that were not literally enslaved, of course, in some forced labour camp.


There is no reason why uncontrolled immigration is a political policy as opposed to being a free market in operation.The political policy may (and usually is) simply a mechanism or reasoning for bringing a freer market in labour into (greater) existence.

As an example,the immigration into the UK of EU nationals precisely reflects the broadening of such a free (freer) market in the supply of/demand for goods services and labour from one operating within the UK to one which is more EU wide.Free market capitalism in action,not "pseudo-socialism".Tariffs and import/export controls by states on goods ,services and labour,reduce the free market.That's why lifting them more was known as "free trade".

A poster may be opposed to immigration but it is difficult to argue that having no immigration controls (which very few on here accused being in favour of have ever actually advocated) would not lead to a broadening of a free market in relation to labour.

Unrestricted immigration doesn't work against a free market at all.In a free market,wages reflect supply and demand. Restricting immigration is anti-free market. The solution to low wages is a higher minimum wage and enforcement of it,which again is a restriction on a "free market".

You spoil an otherwise interesting post by not being able to resist a prejudiced "one-sided" pop at the end.People in various regimes have ended up in labour camps.Not something to be admired,wherever it happens/happened.Think Stalin,think Hitler,think Franco.Think quite a few non "socialist" and "socialist" others.To think it is a uniquely "socialist" thing that is a uniquely automatic consequence of "socialism" is simply factually wrong.As a random further example,"we" worked about 20,000 "Africans" to death in forced labour camps in S Africa at the time of the Boer war.I was not aware the UK was a socialist rather than a capitalist country at the time.

You seem to reject free market philosophy apart from having a free market in the movement of people. Your 3rd paragraph, I think says there should be some immigration controls. I say 'think' because it is difficult to understand your verbose cuttlefish-ink wording. If you do want some controls, why do you want them and what problems do you think are caused by having no controls? Comparing casualties in the Boer War to the mountains of corpses generated by the communist regimes is like comparing a dripping tap to the fractured water main.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
legaleagle Flag 14 Aug 15 6.55pm

I wasn't taking any personal position on free markets generally.

Just responding to your proposition that uncontrolled immigration wasn't free market but instead a political policy.Also your suggestion that free movement of labour within the EU was pseudo-socialist thing as opposed to being free market capitalism in action.

Better a cuttlefish than a sea urchin with its head stuck in the sediment at the bottom of the ocean

And (rightly) slagging Stalin (because its a "socialist" country) while (wrongly) ignoring Hitler and Franco is like... only noticing one fractured water main out the the three squirting water at you from different directions

 
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 14 Aug 15 7.03pm

Quote legaleagle at 14 Aug 2015 6.55pm

I wasn't taking any personal position on free markets generally.

Just responding to your proposition that uncontrolled immigration wasn't free market but instead a political policy.Also your suggestion that free movement of labour within the EU was pseudo-socialist thing as opposed to being free market capitalism in action.

Better a cuttlefish than a sea urchin with its head stuck in the sediment at the bottom of the ocean

And (rightly) slagging Stalin (because its a "socialist" country) while (wrongly) ignoring Hitler and Franco is like... only noticing one fractured water main out the the three squirting water at you from different directions

Well we can play the body count numbers game if you want. The Communists win hands down - or perhaps bodies down - by many millions. Also of course Hitler was a National Socialist, the clue is in the name, he was a great believer in state control too.

Any more thoughts on why we need immigration controls by the way (or any thoughts at all)?

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
legaleagle Flag 14 Aug 15 7.21pm

Glad to hear you are not biased towards failings on the left in any way as opposed towards similar failings on the right.

Am presently reviewing the effects of lack of immigration controls on the extinction of homo neanderthalens.

Did have a thought actually. Could it be possible a few homo neanderthalens remain even now,having survived the onset of "modern man", 40,000 years after they were thought to have become completely extinct?

 
Catfish Flag Burgess Hill 14 Aug 15 7.27pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 14 Aug 2015 5.19pm

Good quality discussion going on here.

I've been 'out IQed'.

I think you have been smugged.

 

Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 14 Aug 15 7.37pm

Edited by leggedstruggle (14 Aug 2015 7.38pm)

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 14 Aug 15 7.40pm

Quote legaleagle at 14 Aug 2015 7.21pm

Glad to hear you are not biased towards failings on the left in any way as opposed towards similar failings on the right.

Am presently reviewing the effects of lack of immigration controls on the extinction of homo neanderthalens.

Did have a thought actually. Could it be possible a few homo neanderthalens remain even now,having survived the onset of "modern man", 40,000 years after they were thought to have become completely extinct?

Why bring TUSC into this? Still awaiting from you why you think there should be any immigration controls and what the problems are that such controls are needed for.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
legaleagle Flag 14 Aug 15 8.09pm

Neanderthals had (have) tusks?

Well, the main reason immigration controls are needed is to ensure we keep out any people of a different race,religion or ethnicity to us ,isn't it? Or did you think that Derben bloke was some kind of bonkers neanderthal?

Edited by legaleagle (14 Aug 2015 8.13pm)

 
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 14 Aug 15 8.20pm

Quote legaleagle at 14 Aug 2015 8.09pm

Neanderthals had (have) tusks?

Well, the main reason immigration controls are needed is to ensure we keep out any people of a different race,religion or ethnicity to us ,isn't it? Or did you think that Derben bloke was some kind of bonkers neanderthal?

Edited by legaleagle (14 Aug 2015 8.13pm)

As usual you avoid answering very simple questions. If must be difficult for you to maintain the double-think that we need immigration controls but that there are no drawbacks to immigration. Come on, have the courage of what passes for your convictions and tell us why you think there should be immigration controls at all and what are the problems that such controls would address.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
legaleagle Flag 14 Aug 15 8.25pm

I answered your question.Don't you agree? Surely you don't think that Derben bloke was a bonkers neanderthal?

Now who's avoiding answering simple questions?

Edited by legaleagle (14 Aug 2015 8.30pm)

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 8.35pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 14 Aug 2015 8.20pm

Quote legaleagle at 14 Aug 2015 8.09pm

Neanderthals had (have) tusks?

Well, the main reason immigration controls are needed is to ensure we keep out any people of a different race,religion or ethnicity to us ,isn't it? Or did you think that Derben bloke was some kind of bonkers neanderthal?

Edited by legaleagle (14 Aug 2015 8.13pm)

As usual you avoid answering very simple questions. If must be difficult for you to maintain the double-think that we need immigration controls but that there are no drawbacks to immigration. Come on, have the courage of what passes for your convictions and tell us why you think there should be immigration controls at all and what are the problems that such controls would address.

Can we keep the oft repeated questions about hypothetical immigration policies or lack of to the Calais or immigrants thread please. I'm getting confused it's all starting to look the same in every thread.

 
legaleagle Flag 14 Aug 15 8.37pm

Fair point.

 
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 14 Aug 15 8.44pm

Well of course you don't want the questions asked. It highlights your impossible position. You say there should be immigration controls because you know it is ridiculous to say otherwise. Yet for politically correct reasons you cannot say why we need the controls because the true answers would contradict your dogma that immigration is an unmitigated blessing - you would have to admit that immigration causes problems, the very problems that you endlessly argue against on this forum.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Catfish Flag Burgess Hill 14 Aug 15 8.57pm

I have a serious point to make on this thread.

I have heard a rumour that the Labour Party has been infiltrated by socialists.

 

Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial
Catfish Flag Burgess Hill 14 Aug 15 9.37pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Aug 2015 2.49pm

Nick earlier on you asked why Corbyn is being criticised for promoting 1970's style policies.

Surely even you can see that it's a throwback to recommend re-nationalising the railways and energy companies without outlining the financial details of how we could afford it?

Similarly he has suggested re-opening the South wales coal mines to reduce unemployment whilst also promoting greener energy production?

That smacks of 1970's style politics to me.


This is so nostalgic. I remember Union conferences back in the 80s where the young comrades would get an automatic ripple of applause for demanding that we needed more factories and mines. Like they would ever work in one or let their nice middle class children work in one. They would spout this stuff while dropping their H's to hide their guilt at having a 2:2 in sociology from Kingston Poly.
Corbyn IS one of those Union reps all grown up. Those are the people he has always associated with in a nice pointless political career having responsibility for nothing, never having to make a difficult administrative decision or having to sully himself with real work.

 

Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial
legaleagle Flag 14 Aug 15 9.59pm

Quote Catfish at 14 Aug 2015 9.37pm


This is so nostalgic. I remember Union conferences back in the 80s where the young comrades would get an automatic ripple of applause for demanding that we needed more factories and mines. Like they would ever work in one or let their nice middle class children work in one. They would spout this stuff while dropping their H's to hide their guilt at having a 2:2 in sociology from Kingston Poly.
Corbyn IS one of those Union reps all grown up. Those are the people he has always associated with in a nice pointless political career having responsibility for nothing, never having to make a difficult administrative decision or having to sully himself with real work.


Yup,lets focus on the absolute key issues rather than policies..I mean David Cameron and George Osborne had loads of experience of "real work", didn't they?

Funnily enough Corbyn's main mentor was Dennis Skinner,who funnily enough...had um worked down a mine for 13 years.

Who couldn't reminisce for the good old days of the eighties style governance when people really knew what they were doing by introducing the loosening of regulatory controls on banks and financial services that have been seen to have so benefited us in recent times.

Not to mention the virtual abolition of rent controls that have been seen to have in no way have helped cause extra homelessness, housing problems and difficulties of young people getting on the housing ladder down the line today.

Thank goodness the good old eighties gave us such a uniformly good legacy.Definitely something to get right rosy and nostalgic about.

Edited by legaleagle (14 Aug 2015 10.02pm)

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 14 Aug 15 10.06pm

Quote legaleagle at 14 Aug 2015 9.59pm

Quote Catfish at 14 Aug 2015 9.37pm


This is so nostalgic. I remember Union conferences back in the 80s where the young comrades would get an automatic ripple of applause for demanding that we needed more factories and mines. Like they would ever work in one or let their nice middle class children work in one. They would spout this stuff while dropping their H's to hide their guilt at having a 2:2 in sociology from Kingston Poly.
Corbyn IS one of those Union reps all grown up. Those are the people he has always associated with in a nice pointless political career having responsibility for nothing, never having to make a difficult administrative decision or having to sully himself with real work.


Yup,lets focus on the absolute key issues rather than policies..I mean David Cameron and George Osborne had loads of experience of "real work", didn't they?

Funnily enough Corbyn's main mentor was Dennis Skinner,who funnily enough...had um worked down a mine for 13 years.

Who couldn't reminisce for the good old days of the eighties style governance when people really knew what they were doing by introducing the loosening of regulatory controls on banks and financial services that have been seen to have so benefited us in recent times.

Not to mention the virtual abolition of rent controls that have been seen to have in no way have helped cause extra homelessness, housing problems and difficulties of young people getting on the housing ladder down the line today.

Thank goodness the good old eighties gave us such a uniformly good legacy.Definitely something to get right rosy and nostalgic about.

Edited by legaleagle (14 Aug 2015 10.02pm)

Don't forget New Romantics- the 80's was good for them.

 
legaleagle Flag 14 Aug 15 10.20pm

Interesting YouGov survey last year indicating (shock horror) more "real people" in "real jobs" support reducing inequality than don't, even it meant less "overall" wealth.

Of course "ordinary" people like that couldn't possibly be attracted to some of Corbyn's policies,could they? After all,they are all such a minute part of the overall population and,as we all know,only middle-class sociology lecturers and the like could support those kinds of things

"56% would like to to see a more equal distribution, even if it reduces the total amount of wealth, and only 17% would choose greater overall wealth even if it leads to greater inequality.

Conservatives are the only demographic who do not favour equality by a majority, but even then they are almost split (33% equality, 39% wealth)"

Edited by legaleagle (14 Aug 2015 10.22pm)

 
Page 15 of 279 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn