Jeremy Corbyn

Hmm the Bank of England is also politically motivated in its writing - so of course it will respond to the allegation that the money is just going to the banks
I think I prefer the Wikipedia definition "A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying financial assets from commercial banks and other financial institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the money supply."
It has formed a cornerstone of the the gov't economic (aka austerity) policy against the recession. So it's disingenous to try and separate fiscal from monetary policy and perhaps better to join them under the term economic policy.

The key question is has it really worked? From a financial stability POV perhaps, from a growth POV not much and from a majority POV not much but for the top 1% it has worked very well.

My 2 pence. QE was a measure to try and stabilise financial markets to stop even more companies going bust. It was resisted but the EU (especially Germany) initially but after they'd seen it work well in the US and the EU economies where still stagnating it was introduced here too. I think most of the money lent to banks was to prevent them withdrawing overdrafts and loans to business, they where being asked to reduce their balance sheets (i.e. lending) in fact the regulatory changes demand it. Also banks stopped lending to each other, they put their cash deposits with the BoE and the BoE then lent them out thus transferring the risk of default to the government.

News night last night focusing on the Conservative decision about whether to occupy the middle ground vacated by Labour or move further right, general consensus was they would do so as well as introducing more right leaning policy. The "do both" option.

Boris is tremendous

"Vested interests and interesting vests" 😀 "Edstone the worlds heaviest suicide note" 🙂 as well as his remarks about young people who weren't around in the 1970's when the UK and other countries tried more leftwing politics and discovered it was a disaster. I think spitting protesters outside the hall is a PR disaster particularly as Corbyn is in town and becomes associated with it even if he denounces them, they are his fellow protestors from Stop the War, Anti Austerity etc.

The key question is has it really worked? From a financial stability POV perhaps, from a growth POV not much and from a majority POV not much but for the top 1% it has worked very well.

IMO no QE/bank support would have lead to unprecedented levels of small business failure and a much bigger negative impact on the broader population.

Its not about whether we had growth but whether we avoided a much deeper recession.

The BoE paper is a technical paper - but if you prefer Zoe's (inaccurate) analysis, fair enough. You decide which is more likely to be objective!

(FWIW, the BoE paper is v good as it turns the accepted notion of how money is created on its head)

Ditto, if you want to confuse monetary and fiscal policy, your choice.

I think spitting protesters outside the hall is a PR disaster

Indeed, this rent-a-mob only turned up to hear Corbyn speak because they were given a free pie and pea supper by the socialist workers party.

[img] ?oh=45853e3794a3e4a096652ede97dc2036&oe=5691DF4C[/img]

if you want to confuse monetary and fiscal policy

No they are separate and easy to understand, furthermore responsibilities relating to each type are (partly) in different hands. No reason to confuse them at all - although it is important to understand how they might conflict with each other (most years that is the last question in AS macro paper 😉 )

Growth is one objective, but not the only one.

Interestingly back in 2012, the then Gov of BoE commented in response to arguments about QPE or "helicopter money":

I suspect that the advocates of “helicopter money” and related ideas [b]are really talking about a relaxation of fiscal policy. It would be better to be open about that.[/b]

Exactly. Rather than straight talking we have gimmicks designed to obscure. It all sounds so simple too, which is why politicians get away with it.

Of course, put simply it's obvious why Keynesian economists like Stiglitz and Krugman are in favour - its simply the same effect as relaxing fiscal policy in a recession which is standard response for them. No need to make it complicated.

jambalaya - Member

I think spitting protesters outside the hall is a PR disaster particularly as Corbyn is in town and becomes associated with it even if he denounces them, they are his fellow protestors from Stop the War, Anti Austerity etc.

Or more precisely because 60000 peaceful protestors don't merit a mention but a small number of miscreants do. Same old.

60000 peaceful protestors don't merit a mention but a small number of miscreants do.

Trouble makers infiltrating peaceful protests is a long standing problem. 😀

[img] [/img]

lovely hand writing

The Daily Telegraph seem to have gone into complete panic mode over Jeremy Corbyn, the sheer quantity of articles they have published about Corbyn and the prominence they given to them is quite frankly staggering, they really have become obsessed with Corbyn.

And in a remarkably unusual development for the press they've gone so much over the top in slagging off Corbyn that they've ended getting a bollocking from the press regulator.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/06/daily-telegraph-jeremy-corbyn-antisemite-ipso ]Daily Telegraph censured over Jeremy Corbyn 'antisemite' story[/url]

[i]Press regulator Ipso orders paper to run prominent correction after it ‘distorted’ comments made by a prominent Labour MP in a front-page story

Ipso ruled that the article stated “prominently and without qualification” that Corbyn was “antisemitic”.

“The coverage was therefore significantly misleading,” said Ipso. “This misleading impression was not remedied by the quotation of the [full] remarks elsewhere in the article. The newspaper had distorted [Lewis’s] comment on this issue.”[/i]

The Daily Telegraph really has joined tabloids such as the Mail and Sun in the gutter.

The Daily Telegraph really has joined tabloids such as the Mail and Sun in the gutter.

I don't think there's a single decent paper any more - they're all about opinion and factually incorrect headlines to entice buyers rather than presenting news in a factual way.

We had the telegraph on campus today, if you bought a copy for 70p you got a free dairy milk bar worth a quid. Even then, they were getting shunned. If you can't buy a student for 30p, you've lost the argument.

I went and bought a galaxy caramel, because I'm that edgy. Damn the man!

Trouble makers infiltrating peaceful protests is a long standing problem.

Demanding the right to demonstrate against apartheid was the work of trouble makers ? I can't remember any anti-apartheid protest not being peaceful. Most ended up in Trafalgar Square right opposite South Africa House - home of the High Commission/South African gov. rep)

Were you gutted when the biggest trouble maker of all Nelson Mandela was released from prison outofbreath ?

they're all about opinion

Because it is alot cheaper than running bureaux overseas and other reporter networks.

I think spitting protesters outside the hall is a PR disaster particularly as Corbyn is in town and becomes associated with it even if he denounces them, they are his fellow protestors from Stop the War, Anti Austerity etc.

Something negative happened somewhere near corbyn and you think it taints him

I wonder if this is just your bias at work here?

Something negative happened somewhere near corbyn and you think it taints him

Well it certainly tainted Corbyn when his driver assaulted a BBC cameraman :

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11868234/Jeremy-Corbyns-driver-assaults-BBC-cameraman-in-scuffle-outside-his-Islington-home.html ]Jeremy Corbyn's driver 'assaults' BBC cameraman in scuffle outside his Islington home[/url]

[i]He pulls open the door of the car to chastise Mr Corbyn for the behaviour of his driver, saying “That’s bang out of order!”

A photographer tells Mr Corbyn: “That is disgusting behaviour of someone who is working for you”.

Mr Corbyn does not respond as he sits in the silver Ford Galaxy. [/i]

I think Corbyn sitting there saying nothing says it all - guilty and unable to explain what is clearly indefensible.

As it happens the driver wasn't working for Corbyn but for the present Tory government, but that's not the point - Corbyn was sitting right next to him, if that doesn't prove his guilt then I don't know what does.

Has the Telegraph ever been popular on a Uni campus? Doubt it. All the papers have terrible mistakes, look at how bad the Guardian is at times and their Apple lovefest, sheesh.

Just save yourself the hassle of looking at the papers and go direct to their source e.g. Reuters.

The Telegraph has become esp rabid lately.

Partly Hodges!

I like the way only at the bottom do you see the truth of who the driver worked for- piss poor journalism

Given the BBC reporter was able to remonstrate with Jeremy only to end up later in hospital in a neck brace i assume he is a retired footballer and not someone just looking for an insurance scam

look at how bad the Guardian is at times

I wish that the Guardian would tell lies about David Cameron on their front pages, sadly Tory Party leaders are always spared that sort of treatment.

Tory Party leaders are always spared that sort of treatment.

I don't know if it was lies or not, but pig gate...

Well if you don't know if it was lies or not why are you offering it as an example of lies? 😆

I can't remember any anti-apartheid protest not being peaceful.

Really?

[i]"With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country"[/i]

[img] http://conservativehome.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451b31c69e2014e86fea757970d-pi [/img]

@Northwind, then why don't the 60,000 (really ?!?) do something to tell the miscreants to cut it out ?

JY, Corbyn decided the "radical new politics" included appearing in the same city at the same time as the annual conference of another party. This is a break from tradition and accepted smart practice (as it makes you look like a sideshow) as such he's going to run into a certain amount of flak. It's just too easy to associate the two and he himself felt the need to denounce the spitters and egg throwers.

I think you need to break with tradition to be radical so thanks for the tautology

Its only easy to associate him with everyone present[ despite him criticising them an appealing for calm* if you are as myopic as you are]]Can i associate every Jew with what Israel does?
Can I associate every Israeli with what Israel does?
Can I say denouncing them proves my point?

Wonders aloud if changing every Jam post into something about Israel makes him see how daft his points are

* you are watching spurs some fans make hissing noises [ or shout yid army] you distance yourself for them but I say you are just like them as you were there - its a really crap point for me to make and the fact you despise their actions and denounce them is not proof that its reasonable to associate with you Its ludicrous 🙄

LOL @ ninfan making I out that I was talking about protests in South Africa ! 😆

Yes my Tory troll, the Sharpeville or Soweto massacres were definitely not peaceful events - well done. People risked their lives protesting in South Africa.

jambalaya - Member

@Northwind, then why don't the 60,000 (really ?!?)

Ah yeah, the other thing you do with a protest, pretend it's smaller than it was. But according to Chief Superintendent John O'Hare, "Today around 60,000 people took part in a demonstration and I would like to thank them for their cooperation. The overwhelming majority of people have exercised their democratic right to protest with dignity and good grace. The fact that only four arrests have been made throughout the day so far was particularly pleasing"

Why didn't the 60000 do anything about it? Restrict their free speech? Silence them? It's not for individuals to tell others what they can and can't do, especially when the police are right there and not acting.

Why are people going "crazy" about this JC(not Jesus Christ) bloke to make him up as if he is the new savior?

FFS! JC(not Jesus Christ) has been in politics for a while now so where has he been all these years? Finding himself like Jesus Christ (not JC)?

Nothing revolutionary about his views etc at all. The wheel has been invented so it is impossible for him to reinvent the wheel again you get my drift? 🙄

The bloke is a no hopper but merely there to warm the seat until the next comedian take the post.

🙄

Off topic but the quote above took me to this:

Her reputation was damaged by such rhetoric as that displayed in a speech she gave in Munsieville on 13 April 1986, where she endorsed the practice of necklacing (burning people alive using tyres and petrol) by saying: "[W]ith our boxes of matches and our necklaces we shall liberate this country."[13] Further tarnishing her reputation were accusations by her bodyguard, Jerry Musivuzi Richardson, that she had ordered kidnapping and murder.[14] On 29 December 1988, Richardson, who was coach of the Mandela United Football Club (MUFC), which acted as Mrs. Mandela's personal security detail, abducted 14-year-old James Seipei (also known as Stompie Moeketsi) and three other youths from the home of a Methodist minister, Rev. Paul Verryn, claiming she had the youths taken to her home because she suspected the reverend was sexually abusing them. The four were beaten to get them to admit to having had sex with the minister. Seipei was accused of being an informer, and his body later found in a field with stab wounds to the throat on 6 January 1989.

Off topic but.......

It's completely off topic. Would you like a link regarding how disgraced Tory MP Harvey Proctor paid underage rent boys to allow him to spank their arses? That too is completely off topic and has absolutely nothing to do with Jeremy Corby.

Would you like a link regarding how disgraced Tory MP Harvey Proctor paid underage rent boys to allow him to spank their arses?

Things you don't expect to be offered on STW. 🙂 Or hear. Ever. 🙂

Call me unadventurous but I'll stick to youporn, thanks.

teamhurtmore - Member
lovely hand writing

Actually,it is isn't it? A black mark for capitalisation though and any anagram of the word capitalist is a bad thing for Jezza I would think.

Anyone see Panorama last night ? Will post up elsewhere but it revealed another side of Tom Watson than the one I've encountered at Hacked Off events. Very self serving and cynical manipulation of the press at the expense of an innocent man dying of cancer. Now we have the new politics perhaps he and Corbyn can energise the investigation into what happened in Rotherham and to what extent the Labour run council is complicit.

Now we have the new politics perhaps he and Corbyn can energise the investigation into what happened in Rotherham and to what extent the Labour run council is complicit.

Beyond pathetic, jamba, beyond pathetic. According to what logic does the political orientation of the council have any bearing whatsoever on the alleged activities of some of its members?

Very self serving and cynical manipulation of the press at the expense of an innocent man dying of cancer. Now we have the new politics perhaps he and Corbyn can energise the investigation into what happened in Rotherham and to what extent the Labour run council is complicit.

How on earth do you expect Tom Watson and Jeremy Corbyn to "energise" an independent inquiry ? What a remarkably dumb suggestion.

And as for you describing Leon Brittan as "an innocent man" some people might beg to differ. His death might have cheated those who wanted him to face trial but the same is true with regards to Jimmy Savile. It's been a while since I've heard anyone describe Jimmy Savile as "an innocent man".

And since you seem keen on inquiries jambalaya how about one into why Margret Thatcher when she was PM ignored a warning from the security services that an MP had a "penchant for small boys" ?

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11757279/Spy-chiefs-warned-Thatcher-government-about-claims-MP-had-penchant-for-small-boys.html ]Spy chiefs warned Thatcher government about claims MP had 'penchant for small boys'[/url]

[i] Spy chiefs warned the Thatcher government that allegations an MP had a "penchant for small boys" risked causing it political embarrassment, documents have revealed.

Child abuse investigators found no consideration had been given to the threat to children the politician posed but MI5 had warned senior officials that the accusations could be damaging for the administration. [/i]

It doesn't look very good specially when considering Thatcher's very close friendship with another prolific paedophile who had a penchant for young girls.

chewkw - Member
FFS! JC(not Jesus Christ) has been in politics for a while now so where has he been all these years?

If you've ever watch any debates in parliament, Corbyn is a face you'll know. I never actually knew his name till recently, but he's always been pretty involved in parliamentary debates.

@ernie - did you watch the programme ? Watson and Corbyn could do much to investigate the local Labour Party's role in Rotherham

I don't know what you're waffling on about jambalaya, what do you think a man who has been the job for less than a month should be doing with regards to the Rotherham abuse scandal? What would you like to see from Alexis Jay inquiry implemented?

Apart from attempting to score cheap party political points why have you raised the Rotherham abuse scandal and what has it got to do with the Corbyn?

Apart from attempting to score cheap party political points why have you raised the Rotherham abuse scandal and what has it got to do with the Corbyn?

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/08/31/corbyns-silence-over-child-abuse-in-islington-is-typical-of-how-he-picks-and-chooses-his-causes/

nothing to see here, move along......

After what was undoubtedly relentless googling big_n_daft you are totally unable to explain what the Rotherham abuse scandal has it to do with the Corbyn, so you completely abandon that smear and dig up some dirt involving Islington hoping that will stick to Corbyn !

I have no idea what size you are but your username is at least part true for certain 😆

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11917236/David-Cameron-is-the-new-leader-of-the-British-Left.html ]David Cameron is the new leader of the British Left[/url]

[i]There will be some “traditionalists” dismayed by what they will see as his dangerous socially progressive dilettantism. But one interesting thing I noticed in the aftermath of Theresa May’s Enoch Powell tribute turn was the way it jarred with the tone of the rest of the conference. A Conservative Home Secretary delivering a hard anti-immigration message suddenly felt out of place. And as a result, I suspect Cameron will be able to take his party with him on his new progressive journey. [/i]

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-macintyres-sketch-was-that-david-cameron-or-some-left-wing-lookalike-a6685336.html ]Was that David Cameron, or some left-wing lookalike?[/url]

[i]It was hard, after it was all over, to figure out which had been the greater culture shock: was it a Conservative Prime Minister angrily denouncing a litany of injustices against black workers, abused Muslims, gays in loving partnerships and underpaid women? Or the conference giving him a standing ovation when he rounded off the passage by declaring: “I want us to end discrimination and finish the fight for real equality in our country.” [/i]

The Corbyn effect ?

Almost certainly.

That "leader of the new left" isn't quite accurate is it? IDS and Theresa May are members of the Conservative party,the idea of anybody being to the right of either of them is terrifying. So,yeah; I will deny he is leader of the new left.

The Corbyn effect ?

Almost certainly.

Or just a load of horrible liars who have no way to judge what the truth is any more?

http://m.slashdot.org/story/300955

Approx 50% of papers on economics cannot be replicated. Hmmm, I wonder which ones?

Edited - I think what I posted was fake

Liked this:
http://www.danrebellato.co.uk/spilledink/2015/10/8/privy

Britain-hating Corbyn hates this country he actually wants to make it a better place, whereas tub-thumping patriot Hameron is determined to drive it to Indian levels of poverty.

Britain-hating Corbyn. I heard he's a muslim atheist too, and I've never seen his birth certificate.

hates the Jews as well as loving terrorists

Frankie Boyle has done a great job of balancing satire and analysis in this one:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/08/frankie-boyles-conference-roundup-haunted-tennis-ball-slytherin-chancellor-politics

I haven't read his column before (only twitter), but I shall be from now on if they're as good as this one.

hates the Jews as well as loving terrorists

Abuses animals. Oh no, that's Cameron.

The Corbyn effect ?

Interesting isn't it! If you take Cameron's and Osborne's speeches at face value, which admittedly is a big leap of faith, then you'd come to the conclusion that the traditional tory right is as marginalised as it has ever has been. Which is odd, because if Corbyn is so unelectable and his policies so extreme, you'd expect them to be making hay while the sun shines and indulging their wildest rightwing fantasies. And they say there's been no shift to the left. 🙄

@ernie, I don't think Corbyn is involved in Rotherham. Why his inaction is relevant is he's already been "called out" by a fellow Labour party member for his "selective selection of vpcauses to support" due to his inaction over a child abuse case in his Islington constituency. It's also relevant to query Tom Watson who was very happy to get involved in having Leon Brittan arrested for a 1967 race allegation (which he well knew meant the press would name him) in a case whuch had nothing to do with his constituency or his parliamentary role. The police have now apologised to Brittans wife and family and Tom Watson has been critised (as per Panormama) over what looks very much like a political point scoring intervention. When it comes to "Westminster" abuse allegations involving mementos if the Tory government Watson is all over it, when it comes to Rotherham less so !

Corbyn and Watson could make a very positive contribution by looking into the Labour Party's role in the Rotherham a use scandal as their absolute inaction over many years. They can do this given their leadership positions in the Labour Party

@JY Corbyn has shared platforms, described as friends and given significant credibility to those that are homophobic and anti-Semitic. He has chaired the "Stop the War" coalition which is riddled with such people as well as terrorist sympathisers

if Corbyn is so unelectable and his policies so extreme, you'd expect them to be making hay while the sun shines and indulging their wildest rightwing fantasies.

You'd expect them to be making hay while the sun shines by consolidating the middle ground where most of the voters are.

Snapping up all the centerist voters Labour no longer wants.

@ernie, I don't think Corbyn is involved in Rotherham. Why his inaction is relevant is he's already been "called out" by a fellow Labour party member for his "selective selection of vpcauses to support" due to his inaction over a child abuse case in his Islington constituency.

Completely unsubstantiated smear. jamba - you're getting like a rather unpleasant version of chewy. Your endless repetition of baseless accusations and innuendo is leaving a very bad taste.

"DrJ - Member

@ernie, I don't think Corbyn is involved in Rotherham. Why his inaction is relevant is he's already been "called out" by a fellow Labour party member for his "selective selection of vpcauses to support" due to his inaction over a child abuse case in his Islington constituency.

Completely unsubstantiated smear. jamba - you're getting like a rather unpleasant version of chewy. Your endless repetition of baseless accusations and innuendo is leaving a very bad taste."

" DrJ - Member

hates the Jews as well as loving terrorists

Abuses animals. Oh no, that's Cameron. "

Err OK fella carry on.... 😕

Above:

DrJ - Member

[u]Completely unsubstantiated smear[/u]. jamba - you're getting like a rather unpleasant version of chewy. Your endless [u]repetition of baseless accusations and innuendo[/u] is leaving a very bad taste.

Earlier:

DrJ - Member

Abuses animals. Oh no, that's Cameron.

Edit: "Great minds think alike" with Marcus posting similar before I refreshed/posted 🙂

Snapping up all the centerist voters Labour no longer wants.

Most voters aren't actually centrist - they're told they're centrist. IIRC when polled on policies without party names attached to them, most people go left.

" DrJ - Member

[i]hates the Jews as well as loving terrorists

Abuses animals. Oh no, that's Cameron. "[/i]

Err OK fella carry on....

Maybe in your world there is some equivalence between a tasteless undergraduate jape and child abuse?

Which is odd, because if Corbyn is so unelectable and his policies so extreme, you'd expect them to be making hay while the sun shines and indulging their wildest rightwing fantasies.

It is really not that odd, you just need to understand your "enemy" better. The Tory party is a coalition of a variety of political views and through most of its history it has not been ideological but pragmatic - it's raison d'être was to be in power. It is therefore entirely natural for it to move to the left if it sees this as a way to increase its likelihood of retaining power. Corbyn is undoubtedly the cause of this shift, but for the left leaning voter - what is better the Tories moving to the left but retaining power, or a less idealogically "pure" Labour party winning the election? This is the argument against moving to the left as the Blairites and the Brownites see it. Corbyn supporters such as EL reject the premise of the question because they reject the orthodoxy that the centre ground is largely immovable.

Bottom line is - I believe what Corbyn says, I don't believe Cameron. He just says what he thinks we want to hear so we'll vote for him.

Most voters aren't actually centrist - they're told they're centrist. IIRC when polled on policies without party names attached to them, most people go left.

That is because when the left use these surveys they cherry pick the answers, the public invariably have some very left wings views and some incredibly right wings views at the same time - we are all hypocrites.

the public invariably have some very left wings views and some incredibly right wings views at the same time

Yes, and the single dimension of left/right is not enough to describe people's views, as has been posted on here many times.

Hence why UKIP poached Labour voters. And hence why Corbyn COULD poach swing voters despite being left.

There is a huge difference between the two but that really isn't the point is it? And if you have missed the point, you cant call someone out on unfounded innuendo and then use unfounded innuendo. Neither has any proof behind the allegations and that's my point as you well know. I have no real opinion on any of this but please don't try and imply that i don't consider child abuse a serious issue because it was pretty obvious that it was not what I was saying.

Most voters aren't actually centrist - they're told they're centrist. IIRC when polled on policies without party names attached to them, most people go left.

Because left/right mean very little. So given a shopping list of lovely things like better schools and infrastructure we all say we want them all and the polsters put us down as lefties.

At election time we factor that against what we think the economy can actually support which is very different to a fairytale wish list.

So given a shopping list of lovely things like better schools and infrastructure we all say we want them all and the polsters put us down as lefties.

Yes, cos they are left policies. If you ask people if rich people and big companies should pay more tax, you'll get a lot of agreement too. That's definitely left.

At election time we factor that against what we think the economy can actually support

And how many average posters know enough about economics to make an informed decision? Virtually none. So they go on whatever spin the parties have managed to make stick. Regardless of what'll actually happen.

So the fact people have voted Tory doens't mean they actually agree with the Tories.

It is really not that odd, you just need to understand your "enemy" better.

I understand that no problem. My point was that despite all the 'extremist' rhetoric, Corbyn has moved the dividing lines decidedly to the left, not only marginalising the right of the labour party, but also the right of the tory party.

what is better the Tories moving to the left but retaining power, or a less idealogically "pure" Labour party winning the election?

I don't much care to be honest. I'm not particularly tribal when it comes to political parties, I dislike them all equally 🙂 What I do care about however is what they do when in power. And in that respect, Corbyn has had an instant positive effect for those of us who sit on the left side of the spectrum.

And how many average posters know enough about economics to make an informed decision? Virtually none. So they go on whatever spin the parties have managed to make stick. Regardless of what'll actually happen.

Yup. Economists don't really know either.

It's all a guess, and the best most of us can do is look at what other countries are doing and what the main political parties say is right and hope that's best.

Which is odd, because if Corbyn is so unelectable and his policies so extreme, you'd expect them to be making hay while the sun shines and indulging their wildest rightwing fantasies.

I'd argue that they are...

Corbyn has moved the dividing lines decidedly to the left

Between the parties certainly, but has he moved the centre ground of the electorate? My guess is no - but the jury will be out for a few years yet.

And how many average posters know enough about economics to make an informed decision? Virtually none. So they go on whatever spin the parties have managed to make stick. Regardless of what'll actually happen.

So the fact people have voted Tory doens't mean they actually agree with the Tories.

The job of politicians is to make their case, their electoral failure is their failure not the electorate's - blaming the electorate is just self pity.

Because left/right mean very little. So given a shopping list of lovely things like better schools and infrastructure we all say we want them all and the polsters put us down as lefties.

At election time we factor that against what we think the economy can actually support which is very different to a fairytale wish list.

A good example of this is the current Royal Mail situation and the fact that the 'Universal Service Obligation" is under threat. The obligation, is basically a remnant of it's time as a public-owned entity. Market forces will eventually erode this.

DrJ - Member
Abuses animals. Oh no, that's Cameron.

That's a terrible thing to say.

Why, just last week I was reading in the papers just how much Cameron LOVES animals.

The papers wouldn't put anything in that wasn't true, would they?

Oink, oink... 🙂

Alex is right.

It's a question of priorities, and approach.

For example, current politicians squeezing people on benefits with very little money instead of rich people with plenty of money. Or Gove going on about traditionalism in schools.

Whoever said that left/right was fairly meaningless was right though.
Just a quick look at current left-wing governments illustrates the massive difference that exists between versions of 'left-wing' politics.
Many aren't democracies for a start.

I've been looking at a few maps to try and determine which countries might be worth investigating in terms of successful left-wing democracies of the kind I might like to investigate.

You kind of have to combine this map:
[img] [/img]

With this map:
[img] [/img]

That second one seems somewhat simplified

according to that, the UK and Canada are more right wing than the USA 😆

ninfan - Member

That second one seems somewhat simplified

according to that, the UK and Canada are more right wing than the USA