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
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. đ
@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.... đ
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 - MemberAbuses animals. Oh no, that's Cameron.
Edit: "Great minds think alike" with Marcus posting similar before I refreshed/posted đ
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'ĂȘtre 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 đ 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.
They say "Do you want better schools - Yes/No"? Really?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.
Are you sure you're not confusing polls from the likes of YouGov, etc with facebook?
So if the economy isn't affording it, what is?At election time we factor that against what we think the economy can actually support which is very different to a fairytale wish list.
It's not whether we can afford better schools or not, it's whether we want our better schools to come from taxation, or from 'the market'.
Both amounts of money are from the same 'economy'.
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... đ
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 đ
ninfan - MemberThat second one seems somewhat simplified
according to that, the UK and Canada are more right wing than the USA
Agreed - the dry data is easier to get than pretty maps, but not as easy to digest.
One map that I've lost now had Ireland as more democratic than UK, which I was interested in.
I also would like to investigate Norway more.
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.
I'd be interested in that. What's the best example so far? (You can't have Norway, they have free energy.)
You mean from hydroelectric?
Currently looking at the following:
Denmark
New Zealand
Finland
Sweden
Norway
Singapore
Some of these are 'Conservative' governments, but would be seen as slightly left of Milliband đ
I can't honestly say I've found a good example yet. Many fascinating examples have essentially been authoritarian and eventually been overthrown by capitalists.
The more I read about Cuba, the more interested I am. I'm going to have to get a good book.
Some of these are 'Conservative' governments, but would be seen as slightly left of Milliband
Maybe on some issues but right of Cameron on others. For instance, Sweden's right introduced profit making free schools - although they have a minority left government now because the right has split.
Yes - afaik healthcare isn't the NHS model in Denmark either.
Maybe on some issues but right of Cameron on others. For instance, Sweden's right introduced profit making free schools - although they have a minority left government now because the right has split.
Sure, but taken as a whole, it seems pretty clear that the Scandinavian countries are to the left of us on tax and welfare.
The Corbyn effect? A distraction at a time when a real effective opposition is needed.
The Tory repositioning is not due to any Corbyn effect, certainly not yet. It's about repositioning for their leadership campaign and CMD wanting to leave a softer legacy. All would have happened with or without Corbyn and his crew.
It's about repositioning for their leadership campaign and CMD wanting to leave a softer legacy.
At the moment, he's talking in doublespeak: his rhetoric being the polar opposite of his policy.
I dunno why you think Corbyn's not a real opposition?
What would you prefer?
ninfan - Member
That second one seems somewhat simplifiedaccording to that, the UK and Canada are more right wing than the USA
Seems fair. The USA does not have an unelected upper house.
No opinion on Canada, though they do lip service to the Queen.
Yes - afaik healthcare isn't the NHS model in Denmark either.
I think it pretty much is. Except they have a lot more resources.