Corbynomics: A Dystopia

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

Ah ha! Now we have it. It's The New Economics, not the New Economic Forum.

You'll excuse my confusion when you post stuff that is just...wrong. From getting the initial point of the thread wrong to your very last post you've either been wrong or abusive or both.....

Yes, it pays to get things right. It took me a few minutes to track down what he was on about. But I managed it.:)

Generali wrote: »

...It's odd really because you seem like quite a nice guy when you lose the chip on the shoulder. Most of your posts make you look like an embittered person, a person that for whatever reason has taken it on that everyone that disagreed with you is some kind of closet Pinochet.....

I think he is .... conflicted.

If I remember correctly, he thinks that Corbyn will stand down sometime before 2020, allowing someone else to step forward to lead the nation into the promised land, etc, and that Corbyn is only here to shake things up in the meantime. The trouble is, he also feels obliged to defend 'Corbynism' in the meantime, for fear of the damage that is being done to the Labour Party overall, otherwise his successor may well have a devil of a job.

Thus whilst Corbyn's Trident plan might well be "ridiculous" ( to quote Ms Sturgeon ) , he feels obliged to tie himself up in all sorts of logical knots in order to try and convince people that it isn't completely insane.

Generali wrote: »

...I started this thread to laugh at a silly article in the Daily Mail. You ascribe me with far too much intelligence to think that it was some sort of Machiavellian plot to abuse Mr Corbyn. That he inspires derision is hardly my fault.

It was massively OTT. But quite funny. Which I think is the problem. Whether specific politicans are liked or disliked is often neither nor there. But it's the kiss of death if a politician gets laughed at.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

...I don't know Antrobus....why don't you google it to find out and come up with a few choice quotes to back up your confirmation bias.:)

Oh, you mean, you didn't attend? You should have made the effort, Mazzucato has some quite interesting things to say about public investment and technological change.:)

Not necessarily the correct things, you understand, but interesting things nonetheless.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Yes, it pays to get things right. It took me a few minutes to track down what he was on about. But I managed it.:)

I merely Googled it, you antrobused it :T

It was massively OTT. But quite funny. Which I think is the problem. Whether specific politicans are liked or disliked is often neither nor there. But it's the kiss of death if a politician gets laughed at.

I agree with that. Thatcher was roundly hated and won every election she fought. Major was mocked and just about managed one. I sometimes wonder whether Kinnock would have won without the Sheffield rally. I was a mild Labour supporter living in Paris in 1992 and I remember cringing and thinking, "Oh [dear] there goes the [dearing] election".

I think he is .... conflicted.

If I remember correctly, he thinks that Corbyn will stand down sometime before 2020, allowing someone else to step forward to lead the nation into the promised land, etc, and that Corbyn is only here to shake things up in the meantime. The trouble is, he also feels obliged to defend 'Corbynism' in the meantime, for fear of the damage that is being done to the Labour Party overall, otherwise his successor may well have a devil of a job.

Thus whilst Corbyn's Trident plan might well be "ridiculous" ( to quote Ms Sturgeon ) , he feels obliged to tie himself up in all sorts of logical knots in order to try and convince people that it isn't completely insane.

If what we read is to be believed, Moby isn't a fan of Mr Corbyn, in fact he doesn't support Mr Corbyn at all.

Goodness only knows how Moby reconciles not being a Corbyn supporter with the pretty rough and ready posts (s)he puts on here.

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

...no real discussion at all of John Mc Connells new Economic Forum!

antrobus wrote: »

I believe that it might be a reference to McDonnells 'New Economics' debate tour. Yanis Varoufakis will be making an appearance.

http://labourlist.org/2016/01/john-mcdonnell-launches-new-economics-public-debate-tour/

That'll be all those economists, like Danny Blanchflower, that said George Osborne's policies wouldn't work....

.....Yes I bet there is a big queue to listen to them.....

But really....just lots of Labour supporters, who happen to be economists ,who want to give the Labour Party reasons to borrow loads of money.....

setmefree2

Labour 'may need bigger swing than in 1997 to win next election'

Labour may need a swing in England larger than it managed in 1997 to win a bare overall majority at the next election, with its challenge made steeper because of the government’s boundary changes, according to a new analysis. The scale of the electoral challenge facing Labour has been calculated by Lewis Baston, the political analyst and election expert, who found winning in England would be more important than ever for the party in 2020.

This is because Wales may see a severe reduction in its parliamentary representation from 40 to less than 30 under the boundary review, while Labour faces obstacles to winning back seats from the SNP in Scotland.

In an analysis due to be published on LabourList this week, Baston found that Labour could win an overall English majority with 61 gains – reaching Gloucester on its target seat list.
To win Gloucester, which was lost to the Tories in 2010, he has calculated that Labour would need a lead in the popular vote of about 4.5%.

To win overall, though, Labour will need to win seats from the SNP or make gains from the Conservatives, including some seats the party has never won before, such as Basingstoke, Portsmouth South and Canterbury.
“The swing required is not far short of 10%, requiring a Labour lead in England a bit larger than the party managed in 1997, just to gain a bare overall majority,” Baston wrote.
On top of that, he said, the boundary changes will “put the targets a little further away, raising the Conservative majority from 11 in reality to somewhere between 23 and 41 on a notional basis in a smaller 600-seat parliament”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/01/labour-may-need-bigger-swing-than-in-1997-to-win-next-election

Generali

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/01/labour-may-need-bigger-swing-than-in-1997-to-win-next-election

Given that the last election was effectively Gerrymandered by the lack of a boundary change during the last Parliament due to the Lib Dems getting the hump the review is going to leave Labour needing to swing like a middle aged couple at a suburban tennis club.

How do we think that the good people of Basingstoke and Gloucester are going to take being asked to pay for nuclear weapons-carrying submarines that don't carry weapons but do provide a few thousand jobs for union members and thus let Mr Corbyn run the Labour party as his personal fief?

Labour is polling 30% roughly and we're at the point in the cycle where nobody cares. I dread to think what will happen once Labour's policies get announced in late 2019 and early 2020. It'll be like shooting fish in a barrel for Ms May or Bozza.

I predict that if Mr Corbyn is still at the helm the Labour Party will get about a quarter of the vote that turns out. English people don't want the hard left in Government and so won't vote for it.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

Given that the last election was effectively Gerrymandered by the lack of a boundary change during the last Parliament due to the Lib Dems getting the hump the review is going to leave Labour needing to swing like a middle aged couple at a suburban tennis club.

How do we think that the good people of Basingstoke and Gloucester are going to take being asked to pay for nuclear weapons-carrying submarines that don't carry weapons but do provide a few thousand jobs for union members and thus let Mr Corbyn run the Labour party as his personal fief?

Labour is polling 30% roughly and we're at the point in the cycle where nobody cares. I dread to think what will happen once Labour's policies get announced in late 2019 and early 2020. It'll be like shooting fish in a barrel for Ms May or Bozza.

I predict that if Mr Corbyn is still at the helm the Labour Party will get about a quarter of the vote that turns out. English people don't want the hard left in Government and so won't vote for it.

Good point. I don't want the hard left in power either, nor do I want to see the fundamental decency on which this country is based destroyed by Cameron and his free market cronies. Which is why I intend to vote Labour in the next election and will be campaigning for them, alongside the 200,000 other odd people who have joined since Corbyn was elected leader.

You see, a lot of people who actually live here, are getting rather tired of endlessly being told that wanting jobs,.a fair wage, education, the NHS, a place to live, and some sign of the rich actually being taxed, makes them commie crazed Stalinists.

They are also getting a bit bored of perpetually being informed of how stupid they are for daring to not like Cameron and his braying, gloating cohorts of privilege snorting in derision at PMQs when presented with real people who are suffering from their heartless policies.

The fact that the mainstream media which says this is largely owned and controlled by the Tories and their friends is not lost on us.

Latest Comres poll puts Labour 5 points behind the Tories by the way. And with 5 years to go, potential Brexit, the Blairites now falling into line, and the Tories showing every sign of having learned nothing whatsoever from their utterly disastrous handling of the Scottish referendum, I would say things are looking rather better for J.C than they are for Osborne. A man who plays about as well to the gallery as Vlad the Impaler and whom we are led to believe will be taking over.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Good point. I don't want the hard left in power either, nor do I want to see the fundamental decency on which this country is based destroyed by Cameron and his free market cronies. Which is why I intend to vote Labour in the next election and will be campaigning for them, alongside the 200,000 other odd people who have joined since Corbyn was elected leader.

Welcome back ruggedtoast, it says much for you that you intend to fight for a losing cause.

The 200k are mostly wealthy urbanites so not the people that will swing an election. To win you need the people that read the Sun and The Mirror, the people that don't really care so much for fights between different varieties of socialism but simply want a vision of a better Britain. Mr Corbyn seems more interested in fighting the battles of the 1980s, I mean Las Malvinas and the Polaris replacement is very 1984.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You see, a lot of people who actually live here, are getting rather tired of endlessly being told that wanting jobs,.a fair wage, education, the NHS, a place to live, and some sign of the rich actually being taxed, makes them commie crazed Stalinists.

Oh I get it. I live abroad so I'm a damn foreigner now. I'm getting beyond myself sticking my nose into your business, getting uppity.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

They are also getting a bit bored of perpetually being informed of how stupid they are for daring to not like Cameron and his braying, gloating cohorts of privilege snorting in derision at PMQs when presented with real people who are suffering from their heartless policies.

Not that bored if we believe the polls. Speaking of which...

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The fact that the mainstream media which says this is largely owned and controlled by the Tories and their friends is not lost on us.

I know. If it wasn't for those newspaper moguls, getting their henchmen to stand in every convenience store and garage, forcing people to buy newspapers that they don't agree with. And have you seen what they do to office workers with a few minutes to kill at lunchtime? They want to look up the Morning Star and are forced to read the Daily Mail instead.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Latest Comres poll puts Labour 5 points behind the Tories by the way. And with 5 years to go, potential Brexit, the Blairites now falling into line, and the Tories showing every sign of having learned nothing whatsoever from their utterly disastrous handling of the Scottish referendum, I would say things are looking rather better for J.C than they are for Osborne. A man who plays about as well to the gallery as Vlad the Impaler and whom we are led to believe will be taking over.

So the latest poll that is the best you can find from your POV shows Mr Corbyn's Labour 5 points behind. Let's be honest, if we look across the polls as a whole the Tories are on c.40%, Labour 30%, UKIP 10%. SNP are on 5% of the vote and 10% of the seats

To regain power Labour need to get all of those UKIP votes back plus a goodly chunk of the SNP votes too. That's a very steep hill in front of you old chap.

I hope all's well with you old friend. Your common sense approach to Scottish politics has been sorely missed.

mwpt

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Good point. I don't want the hard left in power either, nor do I want to see the fundamental decency on which this country is based destroyed by Cameron and his free market cronies.

This is just as much a lie perpetuated by the hard left as the lie that benefits cheats are responsible for our economic woes. We pay more in welfare today than we ever did. How do you reconcile that with saying the Tories destroy fundamental decency?

You see, a lot of people who actually live here, are getting rather tired of endlessly being told that wanting jobs,.a fair wage, education, the NHS, a place to live, and some sign of the rich actually being taxed, makes them commie crazed Stalinists.

Another bit of misinformation perpetuated by the left wing twitterati. The rich pay the majority of tax. In fact, even this elusive top 1% that is so hated, pay more than the bottom 50% if I'm recalling correctly. This share has actually grown over time. To be fair, this is also because inequality has grown in the UK but still, the state services are funded mostly by the top 10% of earners and in that top 10% most is funded by the top 1 percentile.

They are also getting a bit bored of perpetually being informed of how stupid they are for daring to not like Cameron and his braying, gloating cohorts of privilege snorting in derision at PMQs when presented with real people who are suffering from their heartless policies.

The problem is, it is very easy to point out people who are directly negatively impacted by change in social policies. It is less easy to show the positive impact to wider society. I asked this of another poster but never gave an answer, would you sacrifice the happiness of wider society to save the happiness of a small group of people?

gadgetmind

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You see, a lot of people who actually live here, are getting rather tired of endlessly being told that wanting jobs,.a fair wage, education, the NHS, a place to live, and some sign of the rich actually being taxed, makes them commie crazed Stalinists.

I'm sure they do, but the majority of people who broadly fit your description are ordinary working men and women, most of whom think the conservatives are doing a good job, and regard Labour as being a party for dropouts.

Read the study that Labour commissioned regards how the blew it so badly. It's people on the left trying to turn this into some class war, some great heroic struggle, that's causing people to regard Labour as not fit for power, so they really do need to change.

Oh, and it also makes them sound like commie crazed Stalinists to moderates.