An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Good grief.

1) Elections are usually won by convincing the electorate to vote for one party over another using reasoned argument. This is impossible to deploy over the propaganda of the Tory controlled media therefore social media and direct campaigning is being used as an alternative. Most successfully, as ths SNP found out.

2) Money comes from fractional reserve banking. A nationalised state bank would bring more of it back into the public realm and allow for greater investment in capacity building and infrastructure development. Endeavours that have been shown to have a greater effect over GDP than pumping private banks full of liquidity and hoping they do something other than spend it on yachts for themselves.

3) I would like him to be, or someone else who has the same views as the Party membership

2. What the hell does that actually mean in your head?

First thing you need to know is that banks are only needed by the little guys. The big guys including governments and larger corps issue their own paper why do you need to add another layer in the form of a bank? So your first idea is that the government issues more paper and borrows more.

Your second idea is that the government builds more 'infrastructure' and 'capacity building'. Again what the hell does that mean in your head?

Fella

ruggedtoast wrote: »

1) Elections are usually won by convincing the electorate to vote for one party over another using reasoned argument. This is impossible to deploy over the propaganda of the Tory controlled media

This line is repeated often & yet by far the majority of headlines I see (for example on Google News or Facebook) tend to come from the Mirror or the Guardian, both of whom love an attention-grabbing headline that portrays some tory or other as evil etc. Closely followed by the Huffington Post & The Independent, both of whom are left of centre.

Then of course there is the BBC. People can & will argue all day long whether they are biased to the left but there's no argument as far as I'm concerned. Their very existence (the licence fee) is predicated on enforced socialism. Not to mention for example, that their Economics Editor who reported daily throughout the economic crisis was Robert Peston, son of a Labour Peer. He was closely followed by Stephanie Flanders, erstwhile girlfriend of David Miliband. So no Labour bias there then.

It's a fallacy to pretend that the Media all support the Tories & that Labour are at a disadvantage because of it.

Moby

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Well, he has a party which is in open rebellion, where 170 MPs are committed to some kind of childish protest of non cooperation, and where they actually heckle and insult him while he is trying to argue against the Conservative bench, when they aren't undermining him and the membership constantly to the Press.

He was given 10 months to make his case against a sceptical PLP and he was found wanting. Conspiracy theories are convenient for the acolytes but not necessary. Longstanding left wing MP's have turned against him. All the former leaders, Miliband, Harman, Kinnock; the Scottish labour leader, the Mayor of London etc. Have you read what many of them say about his leadership? It is stunning arrogance for Corbyn to ignore such feedback and is actually quite concerning! I mean who would he listen to in power? Can you imagine him listening to military advisers during a crisis or instead taking a 'longstanding principled position'. Putin would love that!

While this was going on he still returned 65% Remain for Labour voters and Remain for his own constituency - which Owen Smith didn't manage.

Nothing to do with Corbyn! Islington North and Pontypridd have different demographics, Wales has gone quite UKIP in large areas. How do you think Corbyn's message of unfettered immigration is going down in my home country?

According to Angela Eagle he was racing up and down the country for Remain with an "energy that would have exhausted a 25 year old", until she decided she wanted his job when suddenly he did nothing at all and was completely to blame for Brexit.

If Angela Eagle said that she was wrong. He did nothing of value during the campaign and spoke with forked tongue out of the side of his mouth in 'support' of remain.....while idiots like me trudged the streets. :mad:

65% is also more than the SNP managed for apparently eurofanatical SNP voters, and the Tory government didn't even get 50% support for their own referendum with their own voters.

If we'd had a real pro remain Labour leader the vote could have been won.

I fully agree with you that the farce that has taken over the PLP is terrible and that the endless, pointless, failed coups from MPs who should know better, is infuriating and damaging to the country at a critical time, and that after September there needs to a pretty thorough sweeping out.

They either need to get behind him and their members, or go and form another party.

People like me are going nowhere. This is my party and we are campaigning through Saving Labour. Corbyn is 67 and will be left to swing in the wind after his phyrric victory for as long as it takes for him to get the message. He continually embarrasses himself in parliament and there will be plenty of opportunities to further that in the coming year or so....then we can have another leadership election....if he is still there! Thinking there will be a 'thorough sweeping out' is naive. De-selection is a long, fraught process. MP's threatened with such a move can stand as 'independent' Labour candidates. A few of these candidates standing against the Corbyn acolytes in a bi-election may attract quite a bit of support from the general electorate....even if they lose...the Labour vote will split letting in another parties candidate. Are we going to have 172 of these prior to the next election.....I think not!

A good 'fly on the wall' documentary on Corbyn was made by Vice. This idealistic documentary maker went into it sympathetic to the man and then like most people who actually have to work with him changed his perspective. Its an interesting watch:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94ptAcbfKP0

westernpromise

ruggedtoast wrote: »

1) Elections are usually won by convincing the electorate to vote for one party over another using reasoned argument.

So which 50 Tory and ~50 SNP seats are Labour going to take? Perhaps you could list a few.

bobbymotors

Elections are usually won by convincing the electorate to vote for one party over another using reasoned argument. This is impossible to deploy over the propaganda of the Tory controlled media therefore social media and direct campaigning is being used as an alternative. Most successfully, as ths SNP found out.

Utter nonsense. The left have always blamed the 'biased' media, when in fact there are right, centre and left papers...except the left ones don't really sell all that well, presumably because not many people want to read them. Anyway, if it's that biased, why not set up a left wing newspaper and publish it....hang on, ahh socialist worker already do don't they?

2) Money comes from fractional reserve banking. A nationalised state bank would bring more of it back into the public realm and allow for greater investment in capacity building and infrastructure development. Endeavours that have been shown to have a greater effect over GDP than pumping private banks full of liquidity and hoping they do something other than spend it on yachts for themselves.

Even Stephen Hawking wouldn't know what this means

I would like him to be, or someone else who has the same views as the Party membership

yes, but do you seriously think he will be or not?


As an aside can you give us a decent example of a country in the world where left wing socialism actually works? I can't think of one, perhaps you can enlighten us

seven-day-weekend

[QUOTE=bobbymotors;7............................

As an aside can you give us a decent example of a country in the world where left wing socialism actually works? I can't think of one, perhaps you can enlighten us[/QUOTE]

Nail. Head.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Well, he has a party which is in open rebellion, where 170 MPs are committed to some kind of childish protest of non cooperation, .

And if he stays on as leader the Conservatives will win many or most of those seats at the next GE.

bobbymotors

Actually, on one thing at least, rugged toast is correct. The Labour party should, by and large, represent the wishes and aspirations of its members. If those aspirations and wishes lead to electoral oblivion, that is their choice.

But socialism, however ideal it sounds and appears, simply doesn't work, or if it does, i can't think of a place...but it is still a socialist's right to express their views.

But to express a view, for example, let's give the NHS a billion pounds a week, you need to demonstrate where that £52bn a year is going to come from, otherwise those dreams are just fantasy.

simiar to giving workers 'rights' to sit on a board of directors...err...why? If i owned a company that i had built using my own money and risk why should someone else who din't take any risk or use any of their money tell me how to run it?

The simple fact is that for all its faults - and it has many - capitalism, by and large works reasonably well and improves everyone's lot, although not at the same rate.

unless of course someone can tell us of a country where left wing socialism works better?

seven-day-weekend

bobbymotors wrote: »

Actually, on one thing at least, rugged toast is correct. The Labour party should, by and large, represent the wishes and aspirations of its members. If those aspirations and wishes lead to electoral oblivion, that is their choice.

But socialism, however ideal it sounds and appears, simply doesn't work, or if it does, i can't think of a place...but it is still a socialist's right to express their views.

But to express a view, for example, let's give the NHS a billion pounds a week, you need to demonstrate where that £52bn a year is going to come from, otherwise those dreams are just fantasy.

simiar to giving workers 'rights' to sit on a board of directors...err...why? If i owned a company that i had built using my own money and risk why should someone else who din't take any risk or use any of their money tell me how to run it?

The simple fact is that for all its faults - and it has many - capitalism, by and large works reasonably well and improves everyone's lot, although not at the same rate.

unless of course someone can tell us of a country where left wing socialism works better?

Yes, absolutely. You decide how it is to be run, they 'sell' you their labour to run it. It is in everyone's interest to have a harmonious working relationship, so therefore the workers are given decent pay and conditions and you get a return on the money, time and expertise that you have invested.

But then again Corbyn doesn't think there should be any private enterprise, it should all be nationalised, therefore the worker would, by default, be a director anyway.

(I do know there are some places that still don't have decent pay and conditions. No system is perfect and this must be something that is worked on).

BobQ

bobbymotors wrote: »

Actually, on one thing at least, rugged toast is correct. The Labour party should, by and large, represent the wishes and aspirations of its members. If those aspirations and wishes lead to electoral oblivion, that is their choice.

But socialism, however ideal it sounds and appears, simply doesn't work, or if it does, i can't think of a place...but it is still a socialist's right to express their views.

But to express a view, for example, let's give the NHS a billion pounds a week, you need to demonstrate where that £52bn a year is going to come from, otherwise those dreams are just fantasy.

simiar to giving workers 'rights' to sit on a board of directors...err...why? If i owned a company that i had built using my own money and risk why should someone else who din't take any risk or use any of their money tell me how to run it?

The simple fact is that for all its faults - and it has many - capitalism, by and large works reasonably well and improves everyone's lot, although not at the same rate.

unless of course someone can tell us of a country where left wing socialism works better?

That is not the point. The Labour Party has never really believed in socialism as pure ideology. From the start it was about using the power of labour to improve the lot of the working classes and of the socially disadvantaged in general.

So the issue is not whether a truly socialist society exists, it is what form of capitalism can deliver the best deal for the majority of the population. It it one in which unconstrained market forces exist, where working people are treated as a commodity and where social justice is subservient to the power of those with capital? Or is it about a market economy where working people are treated fairly and justly and the power of capital is constrained?

You clearly favour the former. For years, Labour has believed in the latter. The present Labour membership are of course off the scale and planet and probably believe in your £52b/year. But there is a political debate to be had on whether the NHS gets more or less funding and whether you should be required to have a worker representative on the board (as they do in places like Sweden, Germany).

So where would you say is the shining example of capitalism benefiting the majority of the population in a fair and just way?