Jeremy Corbyn

Ouch, The Economist tomorrow

All pyramid schemes collapse eventually. It is not clear when that will happen to Corbynism. Most commentators and Labour moderates expect him to lose the next general election, probably badly. But there is no guarantee that this will end the cycle; that it will not just be seen as proof the movement is not yet big enough to take on interests—media, business, defence—that have supposedly conspired against Mr Corbyn. This vicious circle helps explain why Labour’s reality-based politicians, including Mr Watson and Mr Khan, seem stuck in a cul-de-sac. None wants to split Labour: the party is too tribal for that and most doubt a new moderate party could survive under Britain’s majoritarian electoral system. Yet recruiting enough centre-left types to take on Mr Corbyn’s uncannily pyramidical movement looks like a long shot. There are no good options.

Queensbury rules?

you mean the article calling him a dodgy dealer and mocking up a picture of him as a sort of arthur daley character is a crude hatchet job- that it mocks the perception of media bias is a beautiful piece of RW irony.

WOW who could have foreseen that and that it was not a piece of impartial journalism the confirmation bias on this thread is strong

FFS look at this for an opening

Jeremy Corbyn, dodgy dealer

Light on substance and heavy on salesmanship, Corbynism is a political pyramid scheme[img] [/img]

All pyramid schemes collapse eventually. It is not clear when that will happen to Corbynism. Most commentators and Labour moderates expect him to lose the next general election, probably badly. But there is no guarantee that this will end the cycle; that it will not just be seen as proof the movement is not yet big enough to take on interests—media, business, defence—that have supposedly conspired against Mr Corbyn. This vicious circle helps explain why Labour’s reality-based politicians, including Mr Watson and Mr Khan, seem stuck in a cul-de-sac. None wants to split Labour: the party is too tribal for that and most doubt a new moderate party could survive under Britain’s majoritarian electoral system. Yet recruiting enough centre-left types to take on Mr Corbyn’s uncannily pyramidical movement looks like a long shot. There are no good options.

All true, but not really an original insight. Militant have won. Labour has left the building and losing in 2020 is not going to bring it to its senses. There was never any doubt of any of this - that's why the 'RBP's* have fought so hard, and not always fought fair. It really was an existential fight.

In other news I'm sure everyone had a chuckle at this a couple of days ago. Easy to see how it happened but even so:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/26/corbyn-calls-for-return-of-mental-health-post-he-left-unfilled

* Love that phrase.

RBP?

reality-based politicians

rbp
what do we want?
errr, nuffin really
when do we want it?
errrr... does after lunch sound ok?

*shiftily sidles off to fill out another expense claim*

JC should start the purge or be purged.

If JC misses his chance now then he will regret forever.

Purge them! Purge!

Actually if labour is to survive then maybe a purge would be the kick needed to settle things one way once and for all, otherwise it will continue as a zombie party.

Dragon - dont mention "zombies" for heaven's sake!!!

JC needs to act fast.

Purge ? How ? If you deselect MPs they still sit until 2020. Shadow Cabinet already had 60 vacant posts, he can't purge there as there's virtually nothing left, Also if he purged all his doubters the SNP really would become the second largest party and official opposition. Even Corbyn isn't that daft.

FWIW IMO the GE2017 call is a bluff from leadsrship (inc Watson) to try and force in-fighting to stop.

I see Paul Mason is on message, Q: where is the £500bn going to come from ? A: We will borrow it or print it 😯

Mason also doesn't seem to understand how borrowing works, in his view the Investment bank would be £100bn govt borrowing and £150bn-£250bn "private sector" loans. Firstly its the private sector which lends the Govt money and secondly borrowing by a govt owned investment bank is .... still govt borrowing (unless Corbyn follows the Greek model where smoke and mirrors rule, until they don"t)

jambalaya - Member
Dazh there won't be a GE before 2020 for the exact reason that the Tories won't allow one as it would deteriortae into a "Brexit is going to be a disaster" shouting match. Execute A50 in 2017, all done by 2019 and then in 2020 you have real facts to evaluate.

I see Paul Mason is on message, Q: where is the £500bn going to come from ? A: We will borrow it or print it

I see Paul Mason is on message, Q: where is the £500bn going to come from ? A: We will borrow it or print it

Remind me again how much was borrowed to fund the bank bailouts, and how much was printed in QE? The trouble with all this 'economic responsibility' stuff is that it only applies when the money is needed to fund infrastructure and services that are required by the general population, yet when it's needed to bailout the the rich, or fight wars, it's conveniently forgotten.

"Purge ? How ? If you deselect MPs they still sit until 2020."

The CLPs will do it. The MPs have to be sacked before Corbyn goes or they will just nominate moderates in the next leadership election.

Purge ? How ? If you deselect MPs they still sit until 2020

This thread is a truly desperate place for RW folk to spout contradictory BS as they mutually self gratify each other about their piss poor arguments....and then chewkw returned

Remind me again how much was borrowed to fund the bank bailouts, and how much was printed in QE? The trouble with all this 'economic responsibility' stuff is that it only applies when the money is needed to fund infrastructure and services that are required by the general population, yet when it's needed to bailout the the rich, or fight wars, it's conveniently forgotten.

While I many understand the sentiments, this is actually a load of tosh, sorry. But if you want to pursue your line of thinking, who last bailed out the rich (sic) and fought a major war? And where is the majority of government expenditure spent today?

How odd, it's sunny down south today.

But jambalaya, UBI is "free money" the key word being universal, meaning you and your VAT registered mate also get it, as well as the non existant flat screen TV wearing kestral superstregnth watching 3 generations of unemployment scrotes.

Look up marginal propensity to consume.
Those with the least tend to spend the most. Meaning the flat screen TV generation are propping up your middle class business with their low class propensity to spend money. That's how UBI stimulates the economy.
Another benefit is some entrepreneurs use the fact that taking a financial risk without the fear of failure seeing themselves starve to death, set up sometimes successful enterprise, which, you guessed it, stimulates the economy

A side benefit, also pointed out by some one above, "they get free money, they won't take my shit paying zero hours contract job"
That's right, they won't. Meaning an end to wage stagnation, that shit job will have to offer attractive remuneration, less profit for the shareholders, granted, but more in the pocket of those with the highest propensity to consume.

The only fly in the ointment is the buy to let Rentier classes seeing this free money as an excuse to raise rents to the maximum figure, just like they do now with LHA, and housing benefit, but this could be easily counteracted with rent caps and tougher landlord controls

While I many understand the sentiments, this is actually a load of tosh, sorry

Yes it's about as accurate as 'labour crashed the economy with their reckless overspending on schools and hospitals'. It's funny because in this brave new world where the likes of Jamba talk utter rubbish but present it as fact, I've come to the conclusion that there's no point trying to argue on a factual basis. Tabloid soundbites are easier and quicker to type too 🙂

UBI isn't really enough to live on so welfare top up would be required.

Jamba go away and read up about it before you say anything else that isn't based on fact. A basic prerequisite of UBI is that it is generous enough for people to live on. Maybe not your fine wine and michelin starred existence, but enough to have a roof over your head, feed your family, and pay the bills. One of the many advantages of it is it does away with the bureaucracy involved in means-testing and distributing welfare, if you have to top it up then that advantage is lost and there's no point.

The only fly in the ointment is the buy to let Rentier classes seeing this free money as an excuse to raise rents to the maximum figure

Which is why UBI would have to be implemented in tandem with a raft of other legislation and policies like rent controls to prevent profiteering.

We agree then Dazh!! But re crashing the economy, Brown has a significant responsibility whisper he in turn tried to shift to "its all the bank's fault"!! But you are correct about facts #posttruthpoilitics

To repeat, there are different forms of UBI but in its purest (and possibly most sensible form) it is not a top up to benefits. That is a bastardisation that I fear Jezza has in the back of his mind.

But don't forget that Beveridge never set out to produce benefits to "live on". The modern welfare state was founded in nothing more that a subsistence (ie v low) level of support which is/was below the levels that we talk about today in terms of living wage etc. Our whole concept of welfar has moved far, far away from its lauded origins.

teamhurtmore - Member

To repeat, there are different forms of UBI but in its purest (and possibly most sensible form) it is not a top up to benefits. [b]That is a bastardisation that I fear Jezza has in the back of his mind[/b].

Why do you think that?

Use eyes and ears....

So he's said it or written it down somewhere?

😆

The modern welfare state was founded in nothing more that a subsistence (ie v low) level of support which is/was below the levels that we talk about today in terms of living wage etc.

Have you ever tried to claim benefits?

It's still intended to be that. It's pretty brutal, generally. The only thing is that the system has some flaws that allow some people to claim a lot of money. It's not *intended* to be that.

Yes lifer - as i said you just have to use your eyes and ears (google helps too). But too early to laud or condemn as still at v early discussion stage, hence my use of the term "fear". To move to a full UBI would be a radical step for any party let alone a Socialist one.

It may be mol, but that is a different point. The original welfare system (that seems to be universally praised) was set at a very low level - well below the idea of a living wage. It was barely a subsistence amount. Welfare has morphed a great deal since its foundation without solving the root causes - odd that..

Indeed Molls. Benefits is another one of those areas where the difference between the reality, and Daily Mail fantasy-la-la-land is absolutely immense.

Anyone who's managed to play the system and claim a shitload of money is front page news, the millions living in abject poverty, and reliant on food banks, rarely warrant a mention

The original welfare system (that seems to be universally praised) was set at a very low level - well below the idea of a living wage. It was barely a subsistence amount.

Thats where we're at now Hurty, and have been for some time. No matter what the Tory press would have you believe

The original welfare system (that seems to be universally praised) was set at a very low leve

As I said - it still is.

That's right, they won't. Meaning an end to wage stagnation, that shit job will have to offer attractive remuneration, less profit for the shareholders, granted, but more in the pocket of those with the highest propensity to consume.

But the opposite of wage stagnation is the resultant wage inflation, which would, by necessity, lead to price inflation. These not only cancel out any benefit of UBI/NIT but history tells us that these price increases disproportionately effect the poorest in society,

I would also suggest that it's utopian, in the fact that while the theory may be that giving everyone a tranche of money will alleviate poverty, in reality we would still witness kids going hungry and vulnerable members of society destitute after spending/losing/gambling/wasting/drinking/smoking/injecting all their money and thereby still requiring intervention from the state or charity to clean up the mess and support them.

0.7% of fraudulent benefit claims, Molegrips, hardly an earth shattering problem?

But the opposite of wage stagnation is the resultant wage inflation, which would, by necessity, lead to price inflation. These not only cancel out any benefit of UBI/NIT but history tells us that these price increases disproportionately effect the poorest in society,

As we have been saying - it's not an easy challenge, but worth working on imo.

I would also suggest that it's utopian

Since when is utopia a bad thing btw?

in reality we would still witness kids going hungry and vulnerable

No-one's suggesting a magic bullet to fix everything. It's a principle, the basis of a system that would improve society overall. What you're doing is equivalent to claiming your new bike is crap because the trail was muddy and you had a shit ride.

0.7%, but Dirty(Richard) Desmond goes all out to parade the worst excesses of that 0.7% on TV

Benefit may be more important than fox hunting but eyes and ears tell us that its not the key issue when it comes to government spending. Put it in the immigration drawer.

Molegrips, hardly an earth shattering problem?

What do you mean? I'm not saying benefit fraud is a big problem - just that the system isn't generous in principle, just that there are some loopholes. But my point was not complaining about the loopholes, I was responding to THM who said that the benefit system was generous and allowed a comfortable life. It's not.

THM who said that the benefit system was generous and allowed a comfortable life. It's not.

Did I? Wow, i missed that.

I'm not complaining either, 0.7% gaming the system is a worthwhile consequence for the protection of the other 99 odd per cent of genuine claims. Richard Desmond only finds the worst of those fraudsters to propagandise all over Ch 5, but if you look at the reality it's not a big problem

Your style is a joy to watch what do you
When you said this then- FWIW i agree with you that you never said generous but i have no idea what you actually mean as for some reason, and its SO unlike you , you were vague to the point of obfuscation

The original welfare system (that seems to be universally praised) was set at a very low level - well below the idea of a living wage. It was barely a subsistence amount.[b] Welfare has morphed a great deal since its foundation [/b]without solving the root causes -

As for not solving the problem it was never designed to remove the inequities inherent in a capitalist system so its not surprising they still exist.

Blimey the still cant sort this anti-semitism bit out can they.

So Walker (finally) gets (re)suspended for what the BBC describe/report as controversial comments at a training event. And the comments....?

But a leaked video emerged on Wednesday of her saying at an anti-Semitism training event: "I came here... with an open mind and I was seeking information and I still haven't heard a definition of anti-Semitism that I can work with".

Reality check or controversial comments?

Odd that they suspend Walker and Ken over non-comments and ignore the more blatant versions. Of course, it could be good old smoke and fire......

Some American woman on QT yesterday, not sure who she was, going on about how socialism was a bad idea because it failed in the 70s.

Really annoys me when people say stuff like that. It's ludicrous.

I'd you kill enough people socialism can work. Stalin or Mao should give you a rough estimate. 🙂

That's communism. Not the same thing.

0.7%, but Dirty(Richard) Desmond goes all out to parade the worst excesses of that 0.7% on TV

Which would be correct if Richard Desmond actually owned Channel5. It's actually owned by Viacom and has been since early 2014 - the current CEO is American and a lawyer by background - it's unlikely this represents any improvement on toady Richard Desmond though.

Which is why UBI would have to be implemented in tandem with a raft of other legislation and policies like rent controls to prevent profiteering.

Daz this is most significant issue with the whole of the Old Labour (which btw is a slogan on a pro Corbyn T-shirt for sale at Conference). To try and make Markist / Socialist policies work you have to have a raft of other state controls and new laws. Rent, food, imports, etc all need controls and this means less freedom and more bureaucracy (probably seen as good as that's more state jobs). In today's world the Marxist model just can't work (even if it ever did) as business will just relocate and then export into the UK. So then they have to try and "fix that" etc in the face of falling national and personal wealth and tax revenues

If it really is the case that continued automation etc reduces employment then perhaps the very harsh reality is that the population needs to shrink back down again ? 1900 40m, 1950 55m, 1960 60m, today 65m