Jeremy Corbyn

Mike are you nuts? If we'd had better scrutiny and comment instead of just reporting the lies during brexit we might not be in this mess.

The BBC isn't right wing, if anything it's traditional been seen to have leftist bias. Why are the BBC seen to be so critical of Corbyn?

1. Corbyn tries to articulate some policies (Maybot has the sense to have no policies), unfortunately they tend to be full of holes.
2. Corbyn is a gift to experienced interviewers as he's not slick like Maybot, easy pickings.
3. The prevailing wind is anti Corbyn, there will be an element of following the herd.
4. Corbyn supporters are so wrapped up in their own confirmation bias world they just can't believe others don't see him as they do and they'really desperate for someone to blame.

We need a stronger more critical media, something the BBC seems to be attempting to do after they let us down over Brexit with their fact checking drive. Wanting to curtail the media is a very slippery slope towards Trumpton.

Disclaimer: I do not in any way support chairman May, she's the absolutely worst sort of Middle England narrow minded Tory, she really doesn't like people who are different, it's personal. Unfortunately Corbyn has let us all down by first not opposing Brexit through apathy in the referendum and more recently by giving May an easy ride.

I used to buy the Telegraph before it degenerated into The Mail for people with red trousers.

But the crossword.
And of course, it's always wise to know your enemy.
🙂

Aubron Waugh and Craig Brown were always brilliant, even to a 'humourless' lefty like me.
I hate Polly Toynbee almost as much as AW did.
🙂

And the sports, gardening and motoring coverage was excellent too.

I do wonder why no-one can find anyone who can put together a decent rousing speech. I reckon I could do loads better than any of this lot. So could a good slice of STW.

I do wonder why no-one can find anyone who can put together a decent rousing speech. I reckon I could do loads better than any of this lot. So could a good slice of STW.

Indeed Molls. They're both as dull and uninspiring as each other. Lyndon Crosby is telling the Maybot exactly which 6 words she's allowed to repeat endlessly, and Corbny's are the opposite, just a string of consciousness. Literally thinking aloud. Aimlessly ambling through whatever is going on his head at the time. Somewhere between the two there is probably a happy medium.

Whats evident is why they're both playing to safe, controlled, adoring audiences. May actually encountered a member of the public on camera today, and they asked her a question she didn't have a prepared answer for.Still a tame question, delivered in an unthreatening manner, about childcare. She looked like a rabbit in the headlights!

And of course, it's always wise to know your enemy.

I don't like the word enemy but STW is perfect for that 😉

@molgrips the Labour Party has many people capable of making a powerful speech but they elected Corbyn and he has installed his cronies. The Corby-istas aren't seasoned winners of elections or used to being in the public eye. They are used to preeching to the converted and opposing things whilst being very shouty.

They are used to preeching to the converted and opposing things whilst being very shouty.

Unlike Mummy who's properly facing the public in York right now.

She didn't even manage to make eye contact with the first reporter whose question was invited - but strangely, she knew her name.

If I was a Tory, I'd be hoping she gets an easy ride like this for another month. I'd actually kinda believed she was "safe" (not in any kind of positive way) at first, but the facade is slipping. She's like a rabbit in the headlights whenever she's caught off guard. And actually comes across as quite creepy - well, creepier than your everyday Tory, which is quite creepy indeed.

@molgrips the Labour Party has many people capable of making a powerful speech but they elected Corbyn

None of the candidates were any good at speaking really were they?

Calling a general elecfion in which her opponents voted to trigger and which will lead to her having a significant majority

Having previously said many times that she wouldn't. A liar in other words.

Of course she's a liar, that's goes without saying. But it's more relevant that it totally undermines "stable". It couldn't be any less so

Working for a long time with great determination to get Al Hamza extradited

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! MY LIFE IS SO MUCH BETTER!

I don't think Theresa May is stable but it could be argued that someone happy to change their mind when confronted with spanners is more stable than someone sticking to the original plan regardless

But it's more relevant that it totally undermines "stable".

Does it though? And don't misunderstand, I agree with what you say, I'm just sceptical that any if this gets through. In a liberal-progressive bubble (tentatively raises "guilty" hand), everyone sees through it. The question is how does the amount of voters that needs to see through it, erm, see through it? Dunno...just fatalistic as I prepare to hear soundbites of "ordinary voters" saying "Oh, I'll be voting for Theresa, she seems much stronger." 🙂

it could be argued that someone happy to change their mind when confronted with spanners is more stable than someone sticking to the original plan regardless

It may be wise but it is not stable to reverse your position and do something you said you would not do. that is clearly "unstable"- ie not firmly fixed in position

I am not saying it was not politically astute it was but it is not stable

Well, that's 2 parts. Yes it undermines it- she's an unstable, blows-with-the-wind leader. But the facts of it aren't enough, people need to believe it.

In the same vein, the whole "give me a strong mandate so I can negotiate harder in europe"- every leader she's against has exactly the same mandate, they've all won elections, it's not going to dazzle them. It's just gibberish. But again that doesn't matter, if people can be persuaded it's true.

For me it seems really weird that "strong leader" is more important than what the person does. Genghis Khan was a strong leader, if he turned up today and said yes I'll burn your houses and rape your women but I'm a strong leader- look I just rode Jeremy Corbyn down on my tiny horse- people'd probably vote for him. It's like how you do it is more important than what you do- people will vote for her to strongly do stuff they don't like, rather than Corbyn to weakly do things they do.

A liar in other words

A liar is someone who makes a statement knowing at that time it is untrue. If at a latter date due to altered circumstances you change your mind, well everyone does that at some point. Especially ALL politicians.
How do you know that when TM made the statement that she wouldn't call an election she didn't mean it at that point. The ability to change and adapt to changing circumstances is what politics is all about.

it could but you would have to not understand what stable means

Sane and sensible are not words I would use to describe Mrs May or the Government but it could be considered a sane and sensible reversal of previous policy.
Therefore one could describe the government as stable.

Having previously said many times that she wouldn't. A liar in other words.

No, she just changed her mind

Woman's prerogative isn't it!

You could do anything but stable still wont be an accurate description of a PM [ or any other person] reversing their stated opinion- no one calls folk who regularly change their opinions "stable" or "strong".

Strong and stable people definitely change their minds and reverse decisions.
You seem to be suggesting 'stable' can only mean fixed which is obviously untrue.

Are you sure you wouldn't consider a person stable if they changed their mind based on new evidence or wise process. That doesn't sound like something you would agree with.

I do agree that people can suggest it is also unstable but it's not black and white and becomes opinion rather than fact.

Strong and stable. Ok - what about competent?

It's a meaningless soundbite, stop talking about it.

How do you know that when TM made the statement that she wouldn't call an election she didn't mean it at that point.

You seem to be suggesting 'stable' can only mean fixed which is obviously untrue.

I think mine is a better definition than yours.
Molly point is true as well its a meaningless soundbite and i shall stop.

Molgrips said whaaaatt..

It's a meaningless soundbite, stop talking about it.

Boom Boom. 😆 😆 Somebody's hijacked molgrips account, can the mods sort it asap

Yes of course a competent person can still make u turns and change their mind regularly. Odd question..

you seem to be suggesting it means not fixed and movable.

It isn't the biggest issue in the world but many here continually call out others for making opinion sound like fact but are happy to wear the posh slipper when it suits their own bias.

I don't think Theresa May is stable but it could be argued that someone happy to change their mind when confronted with spanners is more stable than someone sticking to the original plan regardless

It could be. Unfortunately this logic was not applied when Laura Toryburg insisted on asking Corbyn over and over and over and over if he would take Britain out of the EU whatever. Of course he could not truthfully say yes, and it would be foolish to do so - things can change in unpredictable ways.

If Maybot had anything but a passing realtionship with the truth, she would have acknowledged as much when asked about a snap election. She dd not.

The biggest problem with Strong And Stable (apart from the fact that she's neither) is that it makes up such a large percentage of what she and the rest of the party are pledging, just seems somewhat lacking in substance.

Strong: Her leadership is light-years ahead of her primary rival, Corbyn.

Stable: the more I think about this the cleverer it is. Stable in terms of Government continuity but I think there is a second "hidden" meaning as Corbyn is un-stable, a crazy Marxist liable to off the cuff lunacy like Police shouldn't shoot terrorists or nuclear subs without missiles.

the more I think about this the cleverer it is.

You are experiencing confirmation bias.

a crazy Marxist

You are experiencing confirmation bias.

Is that what we're calling it now? 😆

you seem to be suggesting it means not fixed and movable.

That is exactly what I'm suggesting within this discussion using the context in which it is used, which is a fact as far as I'm aware. The dictionary seems to agree

NO it does not the dictionary does not say stable - a person who changes their opinion and has no fixed position , something movable and not fixed.
It really does not and that is just false.
Changing positions on issues is the antithesis of stable

What would you make if i asked for a stable base for a statue?
What does the dictionary say you should make?
You are just wrong now

Is that what we're calling it now?

He likes Tories, that's his thing, that's his position. So he looks at all this craziness and sees a clever plan. Whereas we look at it and see chaos and incompetence. No-one's immune from confirmation bias.

Strong: Her leadership is light-years ahead of her primary rival, Corbyn.

Even if that were true that doesn't mean she is strong. Cardboard is stronger than paper but that still doesn't make cardboard strong.

She still seems to have no policies and just repeating Strong and Stable means nothing. As I said, you seem to be completely fooled by her but then I guess it is impossible for you to look at her objectively.

Labour's Shadow Education Secreatry gets the LBC / Nick Ferrari treatment. Unable tonsay how many children would be affected by Labour policy pledge to reduce class sizes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/10/angela-rayner-diane-abbott-style-car-crash-interview-education/

I guess it is impossible for you to look at her objectively

Mummmmmmmmyyyyyy. 😀

jambalaya - Member

Strong: Her leadership is light-years ahead of her primary rival, Corbyn.

I'm not sure it's a positive thing though.

So the IFS came out today and said the Labour budget balances and all pledges can be paid for based on thier proposed tax changes.I wonder if the media and Tories will stop reporting thier lies that thier is a 45bn gap

So the IFS came out today and said the Labour budget balances and all pledges can be paid for based on thier proposed tax changes.I wonder if the media and Tories will stop reporting thier lies that thier is a 45bn gap

You're joking. Did they take the 350m off the bus ?

So the IFS came out today and said the Labour budget balances and all pledges can be paid for based on thier proposed tax changes.

JC's got more chance of giving up politics to open a unicorn petting zoo than a Labour budget balancing so I wouldn't spend too long speculating on that scenario.

Although to be fair, its much easier to make your budget balance when you're only paying policemen £30 a year....

You don't believe the IFS?

So the IFS came out today and said the Labour budget balances and all pledges can be paid for based on thier proposed tax changes

I would start asking how you are going to pay for the 500,000,000,000 pound
[s]Investment Bank[/s]
[s]Spending Bank[/s]
[b]Debt Bank[/b]

Yet the IFS did give the budget the all clear today, it would balance their spending Vs tax, including the proper police figures, but that bringing corporation tax back up to 26% might be risky, not as risky as a hard brexshit tho....

Junkyard. Again you still seem to be suggesting that 'stable' only has one definition 😕 even in your one definition there are many different ways of using it to describe something that is far from 'fixed and unmovable'
The first example on the oxford dictionary webby is a dinghy, I don't think anyone would describe a dinghy as fixed and unmovable.
Of course someone can create a base for a statue that isn't fixed or unmovable. I'm very confused by your argument tbh.

I'm not sure how to help explain the other many many many many reasonable and accepted uses of the word in many different contexts.
Have a read up and report back with your findings. 8)

@cranberry stop that sort of biased questioning. Anyway Labour have said £250bn government money (ie debt) and £250bn private money (which won't invest without a government guaranty - so off balance sheet debt basically). All £500bn will be tax payers money at risk.

Whatever the IFS say having a self proclaimed Marxist running the country's finances isn't going to restore economic credibility

Actual the IFS guy on radio 4 this morning was pretty balanced. When asked whether the corporation tax increases would cover the Labour spending commitments he said it would. He then went onto say it would a massive hike in a tax rate and that longer term revenue from the tax hike would reduce as companies got more tax efficient, stopped investment and moved activities to a lower tax environment.

So are the pledges funded - Yes, are they sustainable - No.

It was also pointed out that all tax increases ultimately get passed to the end user so in reality we'll all indirect pay, the war on big business is an illusion.

And as we approach Brexit, is raising corporate tax significantly a wise move ? I'd say not personally.

Depends on what Brexit

Have a read up and report back with your findings.

Please don't.

Whatever the IFS say having a self proclaimed Marxist running the country's finances isn't going to restore economic credibility

Prejudice.

Re the taxation, would the increased spending grow the economy? Even if it increases inflation it brings down debt held in GBP doesn't it?

[url= http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/ ]Tories biggest borrowers over last 70 years[/url]

Same old crap - Labour put forward polices and all of a sudden everyone is a financial and economic expert.
Tories put forward policies and the costs are not questioned.

[quote=kerley said]Same old crap - Labour put forward polices and all of a sudden everyone is a financial and economic expert.

excluding Diane Abbott obvs.

having a self proclaimed Marxist running the country's finances isn't going to restore economic credibility

You keep mentioning this, jamba, but as a matter of interest, how much of Marx's work have you actually read? Or are you just blethering?

(Yes, that was a rhetorical question)

McDonnell talking about the plan to scrap tuition fees said "I call it socialism."

So he might be a self proclaimed Marxist, but he's not issuing Marxist policies, is he?

Some light-ish relief that hopefully folk on all sides may enjoy:

I take being called a Marxist as a compliment. Still waiting for someone to explain to me how a capitalist society is better for the average person.

uk corporation tax is at a record low right now
[img] [/img]

and below average
[img] [/img]

of course turning us into a tax haven is a dream of many right wingers

Corporation Tax is arguably worthless theee days with countries vying to be the low cost centre. Junker turned Lixembourg into Europe's richest country (gdp/head) that way. Any graphs have to be relative

@molgrips Common Sense. Just show me a single succeasful country run by Maxists. A real country not a utopian fantasy

uk corporation tax is at a record low right now

Isn't that only half the story?

[img] [/img]

Corporation Tax is arguably worthless theee days

£40bn in 2013/14. Worthless?

Common Sense. Just show me a single succeasful country run by Maxists. A real country not a utopian fantasy

1) Anyone who uses the words 'common sense' to try and win an argument has actually lost it already.

2) There can quite easily be a big difference between someone's personal philosophy and how they run a country. McDonnell might agree with Marx but wouldn't necessarily be trying to convert the UK to a Marxist state.

3) There are lots of successful countries that are strongly influenced by Marx. Scandinavian social democracies - you know, the ones that keep coming top in quality of life and happiness surveys? And have low inequality? I'd even go so far as to say the UK was strongly influenced by Marxism when it created the NHS.

Still waiting for someone to explain to me how a capitalist society is better for the average person.

Its better, because its based on a principle that actually works (albeit with flaws).

I wasn't very familiar with Marxism, so I unleashed the power of google and started to educate myself a little. Didn't take long before I came across this little nugget of joy:

Marx explained his belief that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity

Now using myself as your average person, i can tell you for sure that work isn't pleasurable, nor do I (or would I) do it for the good of society.
I like riding my bike, playing computer games and watching the odd TV show with a triple measure of Highland Park, and if our current mechanisms tying us to a NEED to work (home ownership, pension, utility bills etc) didn't exist, then I just wouldn't work.

So lets assume that 20% of the population just really can't be arsed with working, but thats all good, bacause its societies job to provide for us because they all REALLY like working. How long do you suppose before the other 80% get bitter about the 20% of folks watching netflix all day in their underwear? And when the injustice really settles in and more people decide they'll not bother working? What percentage of slackers before the whole thing falls on its head?
And then what? Use the military to compel us to work? At that point the idea has pretty much failed already.

So lazyness has already broken the ideal, but what about when our enthusiastic workforce realises they all get the same regardless of the work they do?

Marx intended the initial part of his slogan, "from each according to his ability" to suggest not merely that each person should work as hard as they can, but that each person should best develop their particular talents.

At what point does Jimmy the cyber security expert responsible for fending off those terrible capitalists think 'well maybe i deserve a bit more' than Bob who's sole responsibility is not letting the fries burn at the fast food joint?

So whilst i've got a lot more reading to do to educate myself on the subject, i'll summarise: Marxism - great idea if it wasn't for those pesky humans.

I suppose it depends on how you define work…

Right, ignoring fantasy politics, I want to add to Ninfan's point about Corp Tax…

[img] https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2F758afe42-299d-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7?source=next&fit=scale-down&width=600 [/img]
https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7e-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7

Question: Fifeandy.
What compels the already million / billionaires and already well off to keep on working?

ISTR Marx had quite a lot of ideas. We can incorporate some of them, but not others. You don't have to sign up to the whole package, you can pick and choose.

So we want some socialist elements and some capitalist ones - which we currently do.

So it's all a bit silly to bang on about Marxism in this context. We should talk about policies.

What compels the already million / billionaires and already well off to keep on working?

because they are hooked on being successfull and making even more money, not matter that they don't really need it.

Fifeandy is completely right, there are a lot of lazy people around, and a lot of jobsworths.

What is the point of spending hours of your own time developing your skills to earn more money, or taking big financial risks that might pay off later, to be no better off than all the slackers that watch their hours, or worse?

Most people think like that.

So whilst i've got a lot more reading to do to educate myself on the subject, i'll summarise: Marxism - great idea if it wasn't for those pesky humans.

As you said, you have quite a bit of reading to do. Might make sense to read Marx if you actually want to find out about Marxism?

So no one answering fifeandy's questions then? I thought answering the questions posed was vitally important based on posts a couple of pages ago. Or is the reality fifeandy is spot on about the average motivation of the average worker.

If I was earning the same as the people who work for me do I'd soon jack it in, the expectations on me are far higher and i certainly don't work for the fun of it. If I had a choice I'd be out building mountain bike trails. It's what I do for fun and satisfaction but it certainly doesn't put a roof over my head.

McDonnell didn't describe himself as a communist, did he?

Nope. He said he's a Marxist.

@molgrips look forwards, companies are offshoring more and more the whole internet model encourages it. As I have posted before I think the corporate tax regime needs a complete overall. We have much more control now we'll be out of the EU. Also look how receipts have gone UP when tax rates have gone DOWN. A few of us have been making similar points for the longest time here, its a tricky balance.

Marxism. Well McDonnell certainky thinks profit is a bad thing as does Corbyn. The latter wants to "reclaim" all the money he thinks has been "stolen" from "the workers" by the "bosses/bankers" etc etc

Corbyn is the communist, McDonnell is the Marxist and Abbott is just a bit thick. 😆

The latter wants to "reclaim" all the money he thinks has been "stolen" from "the workers" by the "bosses/bankers" etc etc

#jambafact

If I had a choice I'd be out building mountain bike trails. It's what I do for fun and satisfaction but it certainly doesn't put a roof over my head.

I thought the argument was about whether people would work without the fear of not having a roof over their head?

Your example is of a job that gives joy to others yet isn't rewarded with decent pay.

Perhaps Marxism has something to offer you?

But enough about fantasy politics…

No my example is of a job that doesn't exist because people aren't prepared to pay for it. In my example I'd get more satisfaction from doing an economically inactive role, for others that would be sitting on the sofa.

@dd did you hear his speech ?

@mitsu 🙂

Also look how receipts have gone UP when tax rates have gone DOWN.

[img] [/img]
https://theconversation.com/corporate-tax-cuts-help-big-business-and-small-firms-pay-the-price-39828

Whenever people ask a question on here about where to go in Thailand or how to fix a carburettor or whatever, there are always lots of people providing helpful answers. For free.

Closet Marxists!!!

We have much more control now we'll be out of the EU

We have total control of direct taxes and VAT can't be lowered past a certain amount.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39877439 ]A draft of Labour's general election manifesto has been leaked, including plans to nationalise the energy industry and scrap tuition fees.
The BBC has seen a copy of the document, which has not yet been formally signed off, with the Mirror and the Daily Telegraph also reporting details.
These include nationalising railways, bus firms and the Royal Mail and renewing the Trident weapons system.
Labour would not comment on leaks.[/url]

not a huge revelation, still embarrassing, all sensible stuff really (apart from Trident renewal 😉 )

Who thinks the utilities, mail and railways should be nationalised then?

molgrips - Member
Who thinks the utilities, mail and railways should be nationalised then?

not sure about utilities but 68% apparently....

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/04/03/voters-government-sold-Royal-Mail-too-little/

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/06/support-radical-left-and-right/

I have no idea why utilities should be privatised. The mess we have now is not really beneficial is it?