Corbynomics: A Dystopia

gadgetmind

Moby wrote: »

Yes you seem to get it now.

Perhaps you'd care to quote a comment I might have made that suggests that there was a point where I didn't get it?

Its used as a theory when it's not relevant. As I said!

No, you said it had been widely discredited, which is entirely different.

You may also benefit from reading John Bowlby's theories on Maternal Attachment and the effect of this on a child's development. Far more relevant to deprivation, lack of opportunity/equality etc.

I'm afraid that I see these as being practical issues that can be addressed in practical ways. The soft sciences do have a tendency to drift off towards omphaloskepsis and miss the whole "um, so what do we actually do about it?" part of the process.

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

but I'll have a pop............it may be that he intends to try and change Labour's policy on the issue and having a pro trident defence sec. doesn't assist this plan?It's hardly rocket science is it!:)

How you can write that and stick a smiley face on the end of it is beyond me. Don't you realise this will destroy your party? The Unions won't have it. The PLP won't have it.

TBH Moby I think you are part of your party's problem - bad things happen when good people do nothing.

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

and of course they are always defended by their working class canon fodder types as well.....who are happy with the crumbs from the table of their betters.;)

You've just gone way down in my estimations......

.....a very very very very long way......

....I hate middle class people who think they know what's best for working class people....

....You've no idea what working class people want.....

And to talk about the brave people who go into our armed forces as "cannon fodder" You - you're not fit to lick their boots.....If it was left to lily livered folk like you to defend us we'd all be speaking German.....or Chinese....Russian...or Arabic...you yellow bellied surrender monkey.....

You obviously hate working class folk - and you're obviously in the wrong job.

No wonder working class people have stopped voting Labour

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

Absolute tosh! It's not about predestination.....it's about not turning away from the reality in front of you when you do a home visit to a family in chaos....like I often do! Your 'right encouragement' comment says nothing because it's patently obvious individuals will more likely reach their potential if given the 'right encouragement'. The problem is it is not there is it for so many! That's the issue!

Which is why Tony Blair et al had education at the heart of Labour policy. Corbyn has no interest in education.

Blair et al wanted to help the working classes and everyone else get on.

Corbyn and his cronies don't want everyone to get better off - they just want to redistribute wealth.

Corbyn has no interest in real people or the real working classes - (a bit like yourself?)

setmefree2

antrobus wrote: »

But the Corn Laws were abolished in 1846;

...since we seem to have meandered into a discussion on The Corn Laws might I add that the repeal of The Corn Laws led to a schism that prevented the Tories from winning an electoral majority for nearly 30 years.....

....which is probably where The Labour Party are going....

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

This debate is refreshing imo. It shouldn't be stifled and I think people should have the good grace to tackle the issues seriously, instead of just deriding him for being a terrorist sympathiser blah blah blah and harking back to the seventies! The issues he raises are as relevant now as they were then!

Enjoy your self-indulgent navel gazing.

setmefree2

How worried should Jeremy Corbyn be about Len McCluskey?

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/01/how-worried-should-jeremy-corbyn-be-about-len-mccluskey

Is Jeremy Corbyn really up for a fight with Len McCluskey over Trident?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/is-jeremy-corbyn-really-up-for-a-fight-with-len-mccluskey/

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Yes....

I'm glad you agree.

Moby wrote: »

................. but you fail to see the changes in context as does Generali above. Something that is regarded as fair now wasn't then and changes only came about as a result of protest!.....the landowners, mercantile classes etc knew that and gave enough away to avoid revolution.....unlike of course what happened in Europe at the same time......1848 revolutions etc!

I think I understand more of the changes in context than you do. For one thing, I know that as far as the dispute about the Corn Laws was concerned it was the "mercantile classes" (as you call them) that were behind the Anti Corn Law League.

By 1845, the League was the most well funded and sophisticated political organisation in Britain, having secured backing from a number of the country’s leading industrialists.
http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/history/anti-corn-law-league/

For another thing it was based on the principles of the Manchester School, or as it is known today, neo-liberalism. That's true radicalism for you, not the faux radicalism espoused by today's leftist, who would more likely to be found arguing in favour of the Corn Laws as a means of protecting farmworkers jobs.:):)

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

...Anyway, you'd hate Jacobites. Too much freedom for a socialist.

I think you mean Jacobin. A Jacobite would be something quite different.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

... The issues he raises are as relevant now as they were then!

The trouble is, whilst Corbyn might have raised many issues in terms of the Labour Party's own internal squabbles, he hasn't raised any issues that are of any interest to anyone outside the Labour Party.