Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Moby

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Why don't you tell us about that, Clapton?

Or would that involve actually looking things up, learning something, and then being unable to promote your flimsy assertions that you attempt to create through shallow repetitive rhetoric?

Rugged......Im no right wing loon. Im in the soft left of the Labour Party. I'm very certain that Corbyn needs to resign. He is not up to the job. I dont care what his views are. He is just not good enough. He has been promoted/elected beyond his capabilities. Thats the point.

Moby

chucknorris wrote: »

It doesn't have to be 'roses' it just has to be better than Labour, which it is by some margin.

Bit small time mate. Not like you......we are in a mess but its not as bad as the mess your lot are in....whats the point of that Chuck?

Filo25

Moby wrote: »

Rugged......Im no right wing loon. Im in the soft left of the Labour Party. I'm very certain that Corbyn needs to resign. He is not up to the job. I dont care what his views are. He is just not good enough. He has been promoted/elected beyond his capabilities. Thats the point.

If he doesn't go, the party will tear itself apart in a leadership contest, and I'm not sure how many simplistic pro-Corbyn, messages I can put up with on my Facebook feed

If Corbyn wins a leadership election with the members and £3 rent an SWPer crowd, then I don't see how the party doesn't split.

The Tories might cheer that in the short term but you won't be left with a vacuum in opposition for long, who knows what might replace it, with the current mood in the country I wouldn't be against it being something a lot more nationalist and populist.

chucknorris

Moby wrote: »

Bit small time mate. Not like you......we are in a mess but its not as bad as the mess your lot are in....whats the point of that Chuck?

The point is that we are not in that much of a mess, but I that Labour are in really serious trouble.

Moby

chucknorris wrote: »

The point is that we are not in that much of a mess, but I that Labour are in really serious trouble.

........Agreed but why do you see that as a good thing?

chucknorris

Moby wrote: »

........Agreed but why do you see that as a good thing?

Because it reduces the chances of having to endure a Labour Gov. I'm surprised that you agree, your previous post seemed to state otherwise.

Rinoa

Momentum meeting in Liverpool:

Despite a few voices arguing that Momentum should stand simply on the policies on which Corbyn was elected, the meeting ended with the group voting overwhelmingly to adopt a motion to ban zero-hours contracts, introduce a £10 minimum wage, create 2m jobs in the public sector, build hundreds of thousands of council homes a year, introduce rent controls, increase taxes on the rich, bring the banking sector into public ownership, increase education funding, restore and increase benefits and reverse cuts to the NHS.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/01/momentum-and-liverpool-is-labour-heading-for-a-split-jeremy-corbyn

Moby

chucknorris wrote: »

Because it reduces the chances of having to endure a Labour Gov. I'm surprised that you agree, your previous post seemed to state otherwise.

Misunderstanding re. agree....I was just quoting you in your previous post. Re. your substantive point I'd respond by saying the country is currently 'enduring' a tory govmt that is totally paralysed by the consequences of a referendum that they decided to call for internal party reasons; a referendum that will have far more profound consequences in the coming years than the normal back and forth of normal party politics, including the break up of the union. I'm a bit gobsmacked that you think this is automatically preferable to anything the Labour Party would have done. For a start Miliband wouldn't have given us a referendum and under a Labour SNP coalition/agreement there would have been less likelihood of a break up of the union. Miliband was generally more consensual and would have been a better PM than Cameron....who is basically a believer in nothing opportunist who got burnt.

chucknorris

Moby wrote: »

Misunderstanding re. agree....I was just quoting you in your previous post. Re. your substantive point I'd respond by saying the country is currently 'enduring' a tory govmt that is totally paralysed by the consequences of a referendum that they decided to call for internal party reasons; a referendum that will have far more profound consequences in the coming years than the normal back and forth of normal party politics, including the break up of the union. I'm a bit gobsmacked that you think this is automatically preferable to anything the Labour Party would have done. For a start Miliband wouldn't have given us a referendum and under a Labour SNP coalition/agreement there would have been less likelihood of a break up of the union. Miliband was generally more consensual and would have been a better PM than Cameron....who is basically a believer in nothing opportunist who got burnt.

I can't defend the referendum, I didn't think that it was a great idea, and even worse it wasn't worded particularly well, although that might have been so that the politicians had room to maneuver, rather than have their hands tied.

I can understand you saying that some consider that they are enduring Tory leadership, but that is where a bit of selfishness comes in (both sides). I can't agree with you about Miliband and Cameron (but I don't expect that would surprise you). I think Cameron was a particularly good PM and it is a great loss to both the Tories and the country (again obviously I don't expect you to see that my way), although on a personal level I despise him for killing animals for sport.

Moby

I think his best period was the coalition.....but imo he put the referendum in the manifesto for internal tory party reasons not for the good of the country. He wanted to shoot the Farage fox but it didn't work and that will be his legacy I'm afraid....and we'll be paying the price for years to come.