Jeremy Corbyn
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 We are goin up!  Coulsdon 13 Aug 15 4.15pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 4.08pm
At least 15% of the Parliamentary and European Party (ie the MPs elected for Labour) have to back you to get on the ballet, which means a minimum of 35 MPs. Bloke seems popular with a large and significant percentage of those capable of voting for a new Labor leader. He's not really all that Left Wing either, just to the left of John Smith and Tony Blair (ie not a center right New Labour Old Tory).
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| matt_himself Matataland 13 Aug 15 4.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote serial thriller at 13 Aug 2015 10.05am
Quote matt_himself at 13 Aug 2015 6.45am
Quote serial thriller at 13 Aug 2015 1.26am
Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 6.54am
Ideologically driven agenda, with no basis in the reality of economics. I was told once that if socialists were made to read economics, there would be no socialists. Edited by matt_himself (12 Aug 2015 7.09am)
There are still loads of great socialist economists out there, from David Graeber to Paul Mason, and the idea that they haven't read economics is really just insulting. If these 'household names' of socialist economic thought were so 'great', how can none of them have come up with a working, practical alternative to capitalism? Before you say they have, they clearly haven't as capitalism rules the planet. Furthermore, 'Socialist economics' is an oxymoron performed by a bunch of elitist professors having a circle jerk about something that will never happen.
There is a dogmatism to your posts which I find worrying. You assume that those with a different ideological standpoint to you are merely ignorant, hence claiming that no economists can be socialist even when this flies in the face of reality. Socialism has happened, is happening and will probably happen again, yet your last paragraph highlights that you aren't willing to engage on an intellectual level with its ideas, instead wishing to smear the views held be millions, purely because they are at odds with your own. You love brandishing us on the left as totalitarian, fascist and blinkered, but I wonder what terminology you would use of your own views on tho thread if you were to take a step back?
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Aug 15 4.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote We are goin up! at 13 Aug 2015 4.15pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 4.08pm
At least 15% of the Parliamentary and European Party (ie the MPs elected for Labour) have to back you to get on the ballet, which means a minimum of 35 MPs. Bloke seems popular with a large and significant percentage of those capable of voting for a new Labor leader. He's not really all that Left Wing either, just to the left of John Smith and Tony Blair (ie not a center right New Labour Old Tory).
Interestingly, I read a survey during the election that a majority of people support renationalisation of power and rail industries. Highest proportion was among UKIP supporters.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| topcat Holmesdale / Surbiton 13 Aug 15 4.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote We are goin up! at 13 Aug 2015 4.15pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 4.08pm
At least 15% of the Parliamentary and European Party (ie the MPs elected for Labour) have to back you to get on the ballet, which means a minimum of 35 MPs. Bloke seems popular with a large and significant percentage of those capable of voting for a new Labor leader. He's not really all that Left Wing either, just to the left of John Smith and Tony Blair (ie not a center right New Labour Old Tory). As you've quite rightly said before, politics isn't about what you do so much as how you are perceived. As soon as you come out with bonkers ideas like nationalising energy companies and rail transport (at eye wateringly high sums that he's paying for by printing money, apparently), then you are of course going to be portrayed as a leftie. Why are they bonkers ideas? Neither should have been privatised in the first place. Most on the left and the right agree on this.
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 13 Aug 15 4.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 3.55pm
Quote dannyh at 13 Aug 2015 3.48pm
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 3.46pm
Quote dannyh at 13 Aug 2015 3.38pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 2.27pm
Quote dannyh at 13 Aug 2015 1.43pm
Look, even Tony Blair has come out and pleaded with Labour voters not to vote in Corbyn. As I said vote him lefties, and you have single handedly given power to the Tories for the next......... however many years you keep him at the helm for. Delusional, socialist fantasist who would bring the country to its knee's from a position of steady recovery, within months of his term in office (God forbid). And if you thought the Tory’s handed Labour their collective arses to them in the last election, wait and see what happens if gets elected. Please god let him win.
Curiously, Blair has come out against the only major candidate who actually has stated that Blair should be held accountable over the 2003 Iraq war. Unsurprisingly, he's not a fan, and would prefer the election of someone who'd be largely indistinguishable from the corporate friendly Conservative party. The democracy of the swing constituencies devalues the idea of politics in the UK. Also, it shows the caliber of Blair, commenting on a leadership election. If anyone has destroyed what the Labor Party was, it was him and New Labor, a political party who's politics were based on winning election, not the representation of the labor party supporters. He's basically handed Corbyn a lot of votes. I suspect that Corbyn will actually turn out to be less left wing than the Liberal Democrats anyhow.
Except of course Diane Abbott, who will say and literally do anything to get her fat ugly mug in the tabloids. Vote for Corbyn, for a 12-15 year tory dominated period of government.
Not from within his own party thats for damn sure. Yes, according to others running for the Labour leadership, being popular and having thousands of people turn up to listen to you speak including people being turned away or waiting on the street to hear you speak doesn't actually mean you're popular and can win an election. The trick is to have policies that people have already rejected, are similar to what the opposition is saying and having meetings that no one turns up to. So what Nick, One Direction sold out Wembley Arena, and they talk utter shyte as well. And would probably do better than Corbyn if the stood for parliment.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| We are goin up! Coulsdon 13 Aug 15 4.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote topcat at 13 Aug 2015 4.22pm
Quote We are goin up! at 13 Aug 2015 4.15pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 4.08pm
At least 15% of the Parliamentary and European Party (ie the MPs elected for Labour) have to back you to get on the ballet, which means a minimum of 35 MPs. Bloke seems popular with a large and significant percentage of those capable of voting for a new Labor leader. He's not really all that Left Wing either, just to the left of John Smith and Tony Blair (ie not a center right New Labour Old Tory). As you've quite rightly said before, politics isn't about what you do so much as how you are perceived. As soon as you come out with bonkers ideas like nationalising energy companies and rail transport (at eye wateringly high sums that he's paying for by printing money, apparently), then you are of course going to be portrayed as a leftie. Why are they bonkers ideas? Neither should have been privatised in the first place. Most on the left and the right agree on this.
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Aug 15 4.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 13 Aug 2015 4.28pm
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 3.55pm
Quote dannyh at 13 Aug 2015 3.48pm
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 3.46pm
Quote dannyh at 13 Aug 2015 3.38pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 2.27pm
Quote dannyh at 13 Aug 2015 1.43pm
Look, even Tony Blair has come out and pleaded with Labour voters not to vote in Corbyn. As I said vote him lefties, and you have single handedly given power to the Tories for the next......... however many years you keep him at the helm for. Delusional, socialist fantasist who would bring the country to its knee's from a position of steady recovery, within months of his term in office (God forbid). And if you thought the Tory’s handed Labour their collective arses to them in the last election, wait and see what happens if gets elected. Please god let him win.
Curiously, Blair has come out against the only major candidate who actually has stated that Blair should be held accountable over the 2003 Iraq war. Unsurprisingly, he's not a fan, and would prefer the election of someone who'd be largely indistinguishable from the corporate friendly Conservative party. The democracy of the swing constituencies devalues the idea of politics in the UK. Also, it shows the caliber of Blair, commenting on a leadership election. If anyone has destroyed what the Labor Party was, it was him and New Labor, a political party who's politics were based on winning election, not the representation of the labor party supporters. He's basically handed Corbyn a lot of votes. I suspect that Corbyn will actually turn out to be less left wing than the Liberal Democrats anyhow.
Except of course Diane Abbott, who will say and literally do anything to get her fat ugly mug in the tabloids. Vote for Corbyn, for a 12-15 year tory dominated period of government.
Not from within his own party thats for damn sure. Yes, according to others running for the Labour leadership, being popular and having thousands of people turn up to listen to you speak including people being turned away or waiting on the street to hear you speak doesn't actually mean you're popular and can win an election. The trick is to have policies that people have already rejected, are similar to what the opposition is saying and having meetings that no one turns up to. So what Nick, One Direction sold out Wembley Arena, and they talk utter shyte as well. And would probably do better than Corbyn if the stood for parliment.
Fact is, there are people who want to listen to Corbyn because he represents a shift away from what we've had for the past 30 or so years. Fact is there are examples of mass movements of people who want to turn away from the neo-liberal agenda.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Aug 15 4.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote We are goin up! at 13 Aug 2015 4.34pm
Quote topcat at 13 Aug 2015 4.22pm
Quote We are goin up! at 13 Aug 2015 4.15pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 4.08pm
At least 15% of the Parliamentary and European Party (ie the MPs elected for Labour) have to back you to get on the ballet, which means a minimum of 35 MPs. Bloke seems popular with a large and significant percentage of those capable of voting for a new Labor leader. He's not really all that Left Wing either, just to the left of John Smith and Tony Blair (ie not a center right New Labour Old Tory). As you've quite rightly said before, politics isn't about what you do so much as how you are perceived. As soon as you come out with bonkers ideas like nationalising energy companies and rail transport (at eye wateringly high sums that he's paying for by printing money, apparently), then you are of course going to be portrayed as a leftie. Why are they bonkers ideas? Neither should have been privatised in the first place. Most on the left and the right agree on this.
Where did you pluck that figure from? According to the Government's annual energy statement 2012, UK has a £122 billion share of the global market worth £3.3 trillion. Now I know it's 3 years ago, but I'm pretty sure the value hasn't risen by 58 Billion in 3 years.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 13 Aug 15 4.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 4.36pm
Quote dannyh at 13 Aug 2015 4.28pm
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 3.55pm
Quote dannyh at 13 Aug 2015 3.48pm
Quote nickgusset at 13 Aug 2015 3.46pm
Quote dannyh at 13 Aug 2015 3.38pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 2.27pm
Quote dannyh at 13 Aug 2015 1.43pm
Look, even Tony Blair has come out and pleaded with Labour voters not to vote in Corbyn. As I said vote him lefties, and you have single handedly given power to the Tories for the next......... however many years you keep him at the helm for. Delusional, socialist fantasist who would bring the country to its knee's from a position of steady recovery, within months of his term in office (God forbid). And if you thought the Tory’s handed Labour their collective arses to them in the last election, wait and see what happens if gets elected. Please god let him win.
Curiously, Blair has come out against the only major candidate who actually has stated that Blair should be held accountable over the 2003 Iraq war. Unsurprisingly, he's not a fan, and would prefer the election of someone who'd be largely indistinguishable from the corporate friendly Conservative party. The democracy of the swing constituencies devalues the idea of politics in the UK. Also, it shows the caliber of Blair, commenting on a leadership election. If anyone has destroyed what the Labor Party was, it was him and New Labor, a political party who's politics were based on winning election, not the representation of the labor party supporters. He's basically handed Corbyn a lot of votes. I suspect that Corbyn will actually turn out to be less left wing than the Liberal Democrats anyhow.
Except of course Diane Abbott, who will say and literally do anything to get her fat ugly mug in the tabloids. Vote for Corbyn, for a 12-15 year tory dominated period of government.
Not from within his own party thats for damn sure. Yes, according to others running for the Labour leadership, being popular and having thousands of people turn up to listen to you speak including people being turned away or waiting on the street to hear you speak doesn't actually mean you're popular and can win an election. The trick is to have policies that people have already rejected, are similar to what the opposition is saying and having meetings that no one turns up to. So what Nick, One Direction sold out Wembley Arena, and they talk utter shyte as well. And would probably do better than Corbyn if the stood for parliment.
Fact is, there are people who want to listen to Corbyn because he represents a shift away from what we've had for the past 30 or so years. * Fact is there are examples of mass movements of people who want to turn away from the neo-liberal agenda.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Aug 15 4.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote We are goin up! at 13 Aug 2015 4.15pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 4.08pm
At least 15% of the Parliamentary and European Party (ie the MPs elected for Labour) have to back you to get on the ballet, which means a minimum of 35 MPs. Bloke seems popular with a large and significant percentage of those capable of voting for a new Labor leader. He's not really all that Left Wing either, just to the left of John Smith and Tony Blair (ie not a center right New Labour Old Tory).
See he's making a liberal point, a proper leftie would be talking about nationalizing without compensation two industries that have failed to deliver competition or price savings for the end user. The advantage of state ownership of power companies is that you can control prices (if necessary by subsidization), so that power and transport for citizens is recouped through the taxation they pay, rather than privately (ie like the NHS, free at point of use). In terms of transport it encourages less use of vehicles, reduces traffic congestion etc. It'd reduce the cost of taxation as well in terms of recouped 'milage' (because individual use of vehicles is massively reduced) Personally I agree with a system where in the state actually owns operates and is accountable for the apparatus of state such as the utilities (essential functions for daily existence), and makes them available to all. Things like water, electricity, gas, public transport, schools etc should be 'free at point of use'. They're essential to daily functionality of citizens and their lives.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 13 Aug 15 4.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 4.54pm
Quote We are goin up! at 13 Aug 2015 4.15pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 4.08pm
At least 15% of the Parliamentary and European Party (ie the MPs elected for Labour) have to back you to get on the ballet, which means a minimum of 35 MPs. Bloke seems popular with a large and significant percentage of those capable of voting for a new Labor leader. He's not really all that Left Wing either, just to the left of John Smith and Tony Blair (ie not a center right New Labour Old Tory).
See he's making a liberal point, a proper leftie would be talking about nationalizing without compensation two industries that have failed to deliver competition or price savings for the end user. The advantage of state ownership of power companies is that you can control prices (if necessary by subsidization), so that power and transport for citizens is recouped through the taxation they pay, rather than privately (ie like the NHS, free at point of use). In terms of transport it encourages less use of vehicles, reduces traffic congestion etc. It'd reduce the cost of taxation as well in terms of recouped 'milage' (because individual use of vehicles is massively reduced) Personally I agree with a system where in the state actually owns operates and is accountable for the apparatus of state such as the utilities (essential functions for daily existence), and makes them available to all. Things like water, electricity, gas, public transport, schools etc should be 'free at point of use'. They're essential to daily functionality of citizens and their lives.
The moment you take the running of infrastructure and give it to (heavily subsidised by the taxpayer) private, profit motive driven organisations is the point where things turn to s***. Edited by nickgusset (13 Aug 2015 4.59pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Aug 15 5.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote We are goin up! at 13 Aug 2015 4.34pm
Quote topcat at 13 Aug 2015 4.22pm
Quote We are goin up! at 13 Aug 2015 4.15pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 13 Aug 2015 4.08pm
At least 15% of the Parliamentary and European Party (ie the MPs elected for Labour) have to back you to get on the ballet, which means a minimum of 35 MPs. Bloke seems popular with a large and significant percentage of those capable of voting for a new Labor leader. He's not really all that Left Wing either, just to the left of John Smith and Tony Blair (ie not a center right New Labour Old Tory). As you've quite rightly said before, politics isn't about what you do so much as how you are perceived. As soon as you come out with bonkers ideas like nationalising energy companies and rail transport (at eye wateringly high sums that he's paying for by printing money, apparently), then you are of course going to be portrayed as a leftie. Why are they bonkers ideas? Neither should have been privatised in the first place. Most on the left and the right agree on this.
Wow, and look how much we sold those companies for to private share holders, who then made massive rapid profits.... hmm Personally I'd nationalize them without compensation, at a fixed price per share, based on the value of the infrastructure, not the share price. Use the kind of valuation maybe that was used when selling off those shares? The government doesn't have to pay 180bn....
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.