An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

setmefree2

Jeremy Corbyn expected to lose majority support of Labour NEC

Nominations from Scottish and Welsh Labour leaders set to tip the balance in favour of anti-Corbyn faction

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/27/jeremy-corbyn-expected-to-lose-majority-support-of-labour-nec

ruggedtoast

bobbymotors wrote: »

Still unable to answer aren't you?

Where has hard left socialism ever worked or is working now? UNANSWERED

where's the money going to come from? 2% ANSWERED

Which 60 seats is the new leader going to capture from the vile Tories? UNANSWERED

Socialism...another word for envy, spite, hatred, vitriol and rhetoric without answers to anything.

RT THERE ARE NO SOCIALIST ANSWERS to the vital questions. Are you stupid? Or blind? Can you not see that its failed everywhere its been attempted?

Why don't you explain why an ideological system that systematically disenfranchises a growing majority to the favour of a shrinking minority is something that we should vote for?

Based on your, rather assumptive logic, everyone should be a Tory voter because you are giving them 3/1 on poor people being gits who deserve everything they get.

Not very appealing to the large majority of the county that doesn't share your politics, doesn't vote for it, and wouldn't return it to government other than through the gerrymandered first past the post system from which you appear to benefit now.

ruggedtoast

bugslet wrote: »

I've said that if Mr Corbyn got in, I'd close the business there and then. I suspect that all the years of being paid less than staff, having your house up against finance blah, blah, won't get factored in:cool:

If can't run your business well enough to pay your staff a living wage then it's a failure anyway and you should go and do something at which you are more capable.

The era of sweatshops being staffed by serfs, run by cigar smoking fat cats is over.

bugslet

setmefree2 wrote: »

He's proposing that at the point of any change in ownership or winding down of a company, the workers would be given a first-refusal right to take the company over – effectively stripping every company owner of the right to dispose of their property as they please.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If can't run your business well enough to pay your staff a living wage then it's a failure anyway and you should go and do something at which you are more capable.

The era of sweatshops being staffed by serfs, run by cigar smoking fat cats is over.

I was replying, as should have been evident by the use of the first quotation, to the idea that I might not have a choice to dispose of something that I have built up. None of my staff have ever had to put their house up against finance, never used their own personal credit cards during tough times, never worked for less than a £1.00 an hour, nor worked over a 100 hours a week, nor had the stress of running a company. Since I created it in my own way, I get to dispose of it in my own way.

And what on earth has minimum wage got to do with anything I posted? Even the lowest paid of my staff are well above NLW. As for fat cat, must be why at the end of the year, my pay was less than one of the drivers. Having been in business for over 25 years, with a member of staff still with me from the start, I think I've done pretty well, considering my sector has one of the highest failure rates. let me know when you achieve anything remotely similar.

Take one set of blinkered beliefs and apply randomly and at will to anyone.

bobbymotors

Why don't you explain why an ideological system that systematically disenfranchises a growing majority to the favour of a shrinking minority is something that we should vote for?

Because, you numbskull, by and large capitalism works...markets, currencies, labour costs, it all gets put where it should be by the free market economies and everyone's wealth increases.

Based on your, rather assumptive logic, everyone should be a Tory voter because you are giving them 3/1 on poor people being gits who deserve everything they get.

Nope,I have never claimed that nor ever will. Genuine people in genuine need should be given a safety net of welfare benefits until they can sort themselves out. If they are disabled etc for life then benefits for life.
As for voting, it's a democracy, you should for whoever is best for you and your own feelings and ideas.
Which means I do not have to agree with you or you with me.
However I have used reasoned argument here,all we have had from you is envy, jealousy and hatred of anyone who has worked hard, risked their money in business and managed to get hold of a few quid

Not very appealing to the large majority of the county that doesn't share your politics, doesn't vote for it, and wouldn't return it to government other than through the gerrymandered first past the post system from which you appear to benefit now.

Well, I never heard Harold Wilson, Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, John Smith, Blair, Brown or Milliband claim it was gerrymandered. Nor is it perfect by any means as it is. But as it is is the best we have got, and has worked here very well so far. Would you still say it was gerrymandered if JC won an outright majority?

Well I've answered your questions.

But you cant answer mine.

ruggedtoast

bugslet wrote: »

I was replying, as should have been evident by the use of the first quotation, to the idea that I might not have a choice to dispose of something that I have built up. None of my staff have ever had to put their house up against finance, never used their own personal credit cards during tough times, never worked for less than a £1.00 an hour, nor worked over a 100 hours a week, nor had the stress of running a company. Since I created it in my own way, I get to dispose of it in my own way.

And what on earth has minimum wage got to do with anything I posted? Even the lowest paid of my staff are well above NLW. As for fat cat, must be why at the end of the year, my pay was less than one of the drivers. Having been in business for over 25 years, with a member of staff still with me from the start, I think I've done pretty well, considering my sector has one of the highest failure rates. let me know when you achieve anything remotely similar.

Take one set of blinkered beliefs and apply randomly and at will to anyone.

Sounds more like you are running a charity than a business.

Thankfully for you, under a Corbynised economy, investment in capital infrastructure and education will empower the little man to take on the mega corporations who outcompete you while hiding their profits in offshore tax havens.

Rejoice!

bugslet

Gosh, moved from enslaving my workforce to being a charity - now I am confused.

They earn good money. Now that the business is established, I earn good money. That's the point, you risk a lot for future gain. I risked a lot in the past, now things are all bobbing along nicely. At some point, I will want to retire and dispose of the business as I see fit. That will include getting the best deal for my staff.

bobbymotors

bugslet wrote: »

Gosh, moved from enslaving my workforce to being a charity - now I am confused.

They earn good money. Now that the business is established, I earn good money. That's the point, you risk a lot for future gain. I risked a lot in the past, now things are all bobbing along nicely. At some point, I will want to retire and dispose of the business as I see fit. That will include getting the best deal for my staff.

Me too. Had two successful businesses. Slept in my car for a month when I was 21. Worked harder than my competitors, did well, paid my staff well, did it all properly and now very happily receiving the benefits.

It wasn't easy. In fact it was bl00dy difficult, and i too have done the 18 hour days and got nothing for it at the time. Thats how business works.

ruggedtoast

bobbymotors wrote: »

Why don't you explain why an ideological system that systematically disenfranchises a growing majority to the favour of a shrinking minority is something that we should vote for?

Because, you numbskull, by and large capitalism works...markets, currencies, labour costs, it all gets put where it should be by the free market economies and everyone's wealth increases.

Based on your, rather assumptive logic, everyone should be a Tory voter because you are giving them 3/1 on poor people being gits who deserve everything they get.

Nope,I have never claimed that nor ever will. Genuine people in genuine need should be given a safety net of welfare benefits until they can sort themselves out. If they are disabled etc for life then benefits for life.
As for voting, it's a democracy, you should for whoever is best for you and your own feelings and ideas.
Which means I do not have to agree with you or you with me.
However I have used reasoned argument here,all we have had from you is envy, jealousy and hatred of anyone who has worked hard, risked their money in business and managed to get hold of a few quid

Not very appealing to the large majority of the county that doesn't share your politics, doesn't vote for it, and wouldn't return it to government other than through the gerrymandered first past the post system from which you appear to benefit now.

Well, I never heard Harold Wilson, Callaghan, Foot, Kinnock, John Smith, Blair, Brown or Milliband claim it was gerrymandered. Nor is it perfect by any means as it is. But as it is is the best we have got, and has worked here very well so far. Would you still say it was gerrymandered if JC won an outright majority?

Well I've answered your questions.

But you cant answer mine.

Oh I see, personal abuse. The first resort of the man who is concerned he might be sounding too intelligent. Well, don't bother, you have nothing to worry about on that score.

Incidentally, the fiat money supply is predicated on debt, not wealth.

Or in other words, you having more money doesn't mean that everyone's wealth has increased. Quite the opposite.

I would suggest the fact you don't know this (on a forum dedicated to discussing economics), might make you somewhat the numbskull?

Ouchie.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Oh I see, personal abuse. The first resort of the man who is concerned he might be sounding too intelligent. Well, don't bother, you have nothing to worry about on that score.

Incidentally, the fiat money supply is predicated on debt, not wealth.

Or in other words, you having more money doesn't mean that everyone's wealth has increased. Quite the opposite.

I would suggest the fact you don't know this (on a forum dedicated to discussing economics), might make you somewhat the numbskull?

Ouchie.

what's Corbyn, DcDonnell's position on fiat money?