# New UK Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn: 21st century socialism for Britain!



## anotherlife

Jeremy Corbyn wins UK's Labour Party leadership race - CNN.com

On his victory speech, Corbyn has announced that what the British want is 21st century socialism. And to pay for it, he promptly proposed to lift the borrowing cap of each municipal district.

So, if you ever wondered why your local taxes always go up and where they go, wonder no more.  The pretence is off.  And in the UK it is not only the home owners but every resident must pay the local tax, called council tax.

Also, Corbyn said that the Labor party is the party of the disadvantaged workers and not the banks.

How stupid are people that they don't see through this?

This is the first legislative proposal to take advantage of the newly gained isolation of the post brexit British public.

Discuss.


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Jeremy Corbyn wins UK's Labour Party leadership race - CNN.com
> 
> On his victory speech, Corbyn has announced that what the British want is 21st century socialism. And to pay for it, he promptly proposed to lift the borrowing cap of each municipal district.
> 
> So, if you ever wondered why your local taxes always go up and where they go, wonder no more.  The pretence is off.  And in the UK it is not only the home owners but every resident must pay the local tax, called council tax.
> 
> Also, Corbyn said that the Labor party is the party of the disadvantaged workers and not the banks.
> 
> How stupid are people that they don't see through this?
> 
> This is the first legislative proposal to take advantage of the newly gained isolation of the post brexit British public.
> 
> Discuss.







 How soon before he brings back the "POLL TAX" that made each individual responsible for paying their own way. The biggest failure of the Tories as people just stopped registering and so were not on any list and so unaccounted for. The best system was paying local taxes on the size/value of your home, so Lord Muck and his mansion would pay £10,000 a year while his gardner would pay £10 a year.  After all Lord muck would need the full police force and every fire engine if his home caught fire, so his costs would so much higher. 

The champagne Socialists would destroy Britain in a second and see no harm in doing so, they would borrow from anywhere to fund their lavish spending on proven failures. leaving each person in the UK with massive bills and closure of their place of work.


----------



## Mindful

Why didn't he talk about Brexit?

The most important referendum the British have made.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Mindful said:


> Why didn't he talk about Brexit?
> 
> The most important referendum the British have made.



It looks like a decent programme to rebuild our shattered economy.
I would like to see them go further in rolling back the privatisation of the NHS, abolishing the wretched academy schools and increasing pensions.


----------



## Challenger

Mindful said:


> Why didn't he talk about Brexit?
> 
> The most important referendum the British have made.



Not his fault. That's a Tory cock up we and future generations will have to live with, what's to talk about? The fact that Cameron called the vote, lost it then legged it to let someone else clean up the mess? Worst Prime Minister we've ever had. President Obama was spot on when he said, "who *is* this lightweight?"


----------



## anotherlife

It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

anotherlife said:


> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.


Makes me nervous but interest rates are at record lows and the economy needs a stimulus.
The fear is that the money will be controlled by fuckwits who dont know what they are doing.


----------



## Challenger

anotherlife said:


> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.



Seems with the neocon influence worldwie, people have forgotten basic Keynsian economics, the same economics that pulled the USA out of the great recession of the 20's and 30's. In the simplest possible terms the government spends money to stimulate economic growth increasing production and creating more jobs and the resultant taxation revenues pay off any extra debt incurred. The current model gives the wealth to the rich in the hope they provide the necessary growth and create jobs, etc. THe fallacy with this model is that it doesn't factor in to the equation, the fact that the rich will keep the wealth and grow richer, while the poorer members of society go to the wall.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't he talk about Brexit?
> 
> The most important referendum the British have made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a decent programme to rebuild our shattered economy.
> I would like to see them go further in rolling back the privatisation of the NHS, abolishing the wretched academy schools and increasing pensions.
Click to expand...







 And even further than that in kicking out wales so that he will have even more money to waste. His policies are a passport to disaster that will result in loss of Jobs and tax revenues as the wealthy leave for new pastures, closure of hospitals, black outs, riots, closures and a bankrupt country all so you can have a pension with no actual spending power. What good is a pension that increases by 20% a year and paid in arrears if inflation is running at 30% a year. But then you welsh neo marxist dummies never were any good when it came to maths were you


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't he talk about Brexit?
> 
> The most important referendum the British have made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not his fault. That's a Tory cock up we and future generations will have to live with, what's to talk about? The fact that Cameron called the vote, lost it then legged it to let someone else clean up the mess? Worst Prime Minister we've ever had. President Obama was spot on when he said, "who *is* this lightweight?"
Click to expand...








 So you dont believe in democracy then, and that the people should have a saw in how they are governed. You just want a totalitarian state with the people used as slave labour to increase the wealth of the dictators in charge. How soon into the next neo marxist government would it be before they decided to throw our young girls to the muslims again and start to dissappear people from the streets for complaining about the crime


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me nervous but interest rates are at record lows and the economy needs a stimulus.
> The fear is that the money will be controlled by fuckwits who dont know what they are doing.
Click to expand...






 Like you brainless neo marxist goons that borrow to get out of debt and then complain that you cant afford the rates. That is what he is proposing to do bankrupt the country to fulfill his pipe dream and then sell it off to fund his next failure. Makes me happy that interest rates are low as the wages are kept under control and inflation is going down. The economy is doing fine, in fact better than most other nations that have higher interest rates and inflation.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems with the neocon influence worldwie, people have forgotten basic Keynsian economics, the same economics that pulled the USA out of the great recession of the 20's and 30's. In the simplest possible terms the government spends money to stimulate economic growth increasing production and creating more jobs and the resultant taxation revenues pay off any extra debt incurred. The current model gives the wealth to the rich in the hope they provide the necessary growth and create jobs, etc. THe fallacy with this model is that it doesn't factor in to the equation, the fact that the rich will keep the wealth and grow richer, while the poorer members of society go to the wall.
Click to expand...








 Nor does it factor in that the government has to have the money, or the collateral, in the first place. The last neo marxist government put paid to that when it sold the Gold reserves leaving the UK penniless. Then they tried to stimulate the economy by opening the doors to uncontrolled migration  and allowed in those unable to work and fill the coffers for them. So instead of showing a surplus it showed a steady deficit and still the unemployable streamed in to the country. We are now starting to run over the sides as we are full and all you can do is blame the current government for your neo marxist cock ups


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems with the neocon influence worldwie, people have forgotten basic Keynsian economics, the same economics that pulled the USA out of the great recession of the 20's and 30's. In the simplest possible terms the government spends money to stimulate economic growth increasing production and creating more jobs and the resultant taxation revenues pay off any extra debt incurred. The current model gives the wealth to the rich in the hope they provide the necessary growth and create jobs, etc. THe fallacy with this model is that it doesn't factor in to the equation, the fact that the rich will keep the wealth and grow richer, while the poorer members of society go to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does it factor in that the government has to have the money, or the collateral, in the first place. The last neo marxist government put paid to that when it sold the Gold reserves leaving the UK penniless. Then they tried to stimulate the economy by opening the doors to uncontrolled migration  and allowed in those unable to work and fill the coffers for them. So instead of showing a surplus it showed a steady deficit and still the unemployable streamed in to the country. We are now starting to run over the sides as we are full and all you can do is blame the current government for your neo marxist cock ups
Click to expand...

On which planet would Blairs government be marxists ?


----------



## Challenger

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems with the neocon influence worldwie, people have forgotten basic Keynsian economics, the same economics that pulled the USA out of the great recession of the 20's and 30's. In the simplest possible terms the government spends money to stimulate economic growth increasing production and creating more jobs and the resultant taxation revenues pay off any extra debt incurred. The current model gives the wealth to the rich in the hope they provide the necessary growth and create jobs, etc. THe fallacy with this model is that it doesn't factor in to the equation, the fact that the rich will keep the wealth and grow richer, while the poorer members of society go to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does it factor in that the government has to have the money, or the collateral, in the first place. The last neo marxist government put paid to that when it sold the Gold reserves leaving the UK penniless. Then they tried to stimulate the economy by opening the doors to uncontrolled migration  and allowed in those unable to work and fill the coffers for them. So instead of showing a surplus it showed a steady deficit and still the unemployable streamed in to the country. We are now starting to run over the sides as we are full and all you can do is blame the current government for your neo marxist cock ups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On which planet would Blairs government be marxists ?
Click to expand...


That would probably be planet Phoney? You know he makes things up don't you and tries to move the goalposts? The reality from Tax research UK
"Labour invariably borrows less than the Conservatives. The data always shows that.
"Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives, and has always repaid more debt, on average." The Conservatives have been the biggest borrowers over the last 70 years






Go Phoney!


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Challenger said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems with the neocon influence worldwie, people have forgotten basic Keynsian economics, the same economics that pulled the USA out of the great recession of the 20's and 30's. In the simplest possible terms the government spends money to stimulate economic growth increasing production and creating more jobs and the resultant taxation revenues pay off any extra debt incurred. The current model gives the wealth to the rich in the hope they provide the necessary growth and create jobs, etc. THe fallacy with this model is that it doesn't factor in to the equation, the fact that the rich will keep the wealth and grow richer, while the poorer members of society go to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does it factor in that the government has to have the money, or the collateral, in the first place. The last neo marxist government put paid to that when it sold the Gold reserves leaving the UK penniless. Then they tried to stimulate the economy by opening the doors to uncontrolled migration  and allowed in those unable to work and fill the coffers for them. So instead of showing a surplus it showed a steady deficit and still the unemployable streamed in to the country. We are now starting to run over the sides as we are full and all you can do is blame the current government for your neo marxist cock ups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On which planet would Blairs government be marxists ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would probably be planet Phoney? You know he makes things up don't you and tries to move the goalposts? The reality from Tax research UK
> "Labour invariably borrows less than the Conservatives. The data always shows that.
> "Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives, and has always repaid more debt, on average." The Conservatives have been the biggest borrowers over the last 70 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go Phoney!
Click to expand...

He is truly the King of the made up assertion. The fellow in the pic looks just as I imagined, muttering to himself about foreign made goal posts and neo marxist astroturf.


----------



## anotherlife

Tommy Tainant said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me nervous but interest rates are at record lows and the economy needs a stimulus.
> The fear is that the money will be controlled by fuckwits who dont know what they are doing.
Click to expand...


I think they know what they are doing.  It is called lining their pockets.


----------



## anotherlife

Challenger said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems with the neocon influence worldwie, people have forgotten basic Keynsian economics, the same economics that pulled the USA out of the great recession of the 20's and 30's. In the simplest possible terms the government spends money to stimulate economic growth increasing production and creating more jobs and the resultant taxation revenues pay off any extra debt incurred. The current model gives the wealth to the rich in the hope they provide the necessary growth and create jobs, etc. THe fallacy with this model is that it doesn't factor in to the equation, the fact that the rich will keep the wealth and grow richer, while the poorer members of society go to the wall.
Click to expand...


That is the exact purpose why this current model was invented.  I think that unlike in the 1930's, there is no will now to work for the people.  It is very hard to argue with money.  That's why they want the economy just like this.  

Also, technology would invalidate Keynesian practices in the 21st century.


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't he talk about Brexit?
> 
> The most important referendum the British have made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a decent programme to rebuild our shattered economy.
> I would like to see them go further in rolling back the privatisation of the NHS, abolishing the wretched academy schools and increasing pensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even further than that in kicking out wales so that he will have even more money to waste. His policies are a passport to disaster that will result in loss of Jobs and tax revenues as the wealthy leave for new pastures, closure of hospitals, black outs, riots, closures and a bankrupt country all so you can have a pension with no actual spending power. What good is a pension that increases by 20% a year and paid in arrears if inflation is running at 30% a year. But then you welsh neo marxist dummies never were any good when it came to maths were you
Click to expand...


It would be interesting to know how Wales voted on brexit.  I think the 40 % of Wales residents who speak Welsh, all voted against brexit.  The winning pro brexit vote was all from the 60 % English there.

An advantage of hyper inflation is that it clears insane debt such as the student loan epidemic and the national housing mortgage based money laundering.  Doesn't work too well for individuals with high unemployment statistics, but ...


----------



## Tommy Tainant

anotherlife said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me nervous but interest rates are at record lows and the economy needs a stimulus.
> The fear is that the money will be controlled by fuckwits who dont know what they are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think they know what they are doing.  It is called lining their pockets.
Click to expand...

There is a shabby history of public money being diverted into private pockets. All the way back to De Lorean. There are a huge number of scams available.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems with the neocon influence worldwie, people have forgotten basic Keynsian economics, the same economics that pulled the USA out of the great recession of the 20's and 30's. In the simplest possible terms the government spends money to stimulate economic growth increasing production and creating more jobs and the resultant taxation revenues pay off any extra debt incurred. The current model gives the wealth to the rich in the hope they provide the necessary growth and create jobs, etc. THe fallacy with this model is that it doesn't factor in to the equation, the fact that the rich will keep the wealth and grow richer, while the poorer members of society go to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does it factor in that the government has to have the money, or the collateral, in the first place. The last neo marxist government put paid to that when it sold the Gold reserves leaving the UK penniless. Then they tried to stimulate the economy by opening the doors to uncontrolled migration  and allowed in those unable to work and fill the coffers for them. So instead of showing a surplus it showed a steady deficit and still the unemployable streamed in to the country. We are now starting to run over the sides as we are full and all you can do is blame the current government for your neo marxist cock ups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On which planet would Blairs government be marxists ?
Click to expand...








 This one as he appointed only neo marxists like Brown and Copper to the cabinet, or should I say the union bosses did and he rubber stamped them


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems with the neocon influence worldwie, people have forgotten basic Keynsian economics, the same economics that pulled the USA out of the great recession of the 20's and 30's. In the simplest possible terms the government spends money to stimulate economic growth increasing production and creating more jobs and the resultant taxation revenues pay off any extra debt incurred. The current model gives the wealth to the rich in the hope they provide the necessary growth and create jobs, etc. THe fallacy with this model is that it doesn't factor in to the equation, the fact that the rich will keep the wealth and grow richer, while the poorer members of society go to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does it factor in that the government has to have the money, or the collateral, in the first place. The last neo marxist government put paid to that when it sold the Gold reserves leaving the UK penniless. Then they tried to stimulate the economy by opening the doors to uncontrolled migration  and allowed in those unable to work and fill the coffers for them. So instead of showing a surplus it showed a steady deficit and still the unemployable streamed in to the country. We are now starting to run over the sides as we are full and all you can do is blame the current government for your neo marxist cock ups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On which planet would Blairs government be marxists ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would probably be planet Phoney? You know he makes things up don't you and tries to move the goalposts? The reality from Tax research UK
> "Labour invariably borrows less than the Conservatives. The data always shows that.
> "Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives, and has always repaid more debt, on average." The Conservatives have been the biggest borrowers over the last 70 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go Phoney!
Click to expand...








 A blog is the best you can do, and you expect to be taken seriously. Was it one of your fellow neo marxists that posted the details by any chance ?


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't he talk about Brexit?
> 
> The most important referendum the British have made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a decent programme to rebuild our shattered economy.
> I would like to see them go further in rolling back the privatisation of the NHS, abolishing the wretched academy schools and increasing pensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even further than that in kicking out wales so that he will have even more money to waste. His policies are a passport to disaster that will result in loss of Jobs and tax revenues as the wealthy leave for new pastures, closure of hospitals, black outs, riots, closures and a bankrupt country all so you can have a pension with no actual spending power. What good is a pension that increases by 20% a year and paid in arrears if inflation is running at 30% a year. But then you welsh neo marxist dummies never were any good when it came to maths were you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know how Wales voted on brexit.  I think the 40 % of Wales residents who speak Welsh, all voted against brexit.  The winning pro brexit vote was all from the 60 % English there.
> 
> An advantage of hyper inflation is that it clears insane debt such as the student loan epidemic and the national housing mortgage based money laundering.  Doesn't work too well for individuals with high unemployment statistics, but ...
Click to expand...







 There isnt 60% English there at all, more like 10% to 15%. Not many English move to Wales or Scotland because of the systematic racism and hatred. Part of my job was to travel to Wales twice a year and instruct the workers on how to achieve maximum yields on the product, the coldness was palpable as soon as we walked in the room and the hate was obvious. No wonder they lost money with a brand new plant that should have been a world beater. Our old plant achieved yields of 95%, the welsh could not better 89% on one proven to be better than 98%.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me nervous but interest rates are at record lows and the economy needs a stimulus.
> The fear is that the money will be controlled by fuckwits who dont know what they are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think they know what they are doing.  It is called lining their pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a shabby history of public money being diverted into private pockets. All the way back to De Lorean. There are a huge number of scams available.
Click to expand...







 The biggest being the hand out to the Scots, Welsh and Irish to smooth the way. How much have you had spent on you since it came into operation again ?


----------



## Challenger

Tommy Tainant said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems with the neocon influence worldwie, people have forgotten basic Keynsian economics, the same economics that pulled the USA out of the great recession of the 20's and 30's. In the simplest possible terms the government spends money to stimulate economic growth increasing production and creating more jobs and the resultant taxation revenues pay off any extra debt incurred. The current model gives the wealth to the rich in the hope they provide the necessary growth and create jobs, etc. THe fallacy with this model is that it doesn't factor in to the equation, the fact that the rich will keep the wealth and grow richer, while the poorer members of society go to the wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does it factor in that the government has to have the money, or the collateral, in the first place. The last neo marxist government put paid to that when it sold the Gold reserves leaving the UK penniless. Then they tried to stimulate the economy by opening the doors to uncontrolled migration  and allowed in those unable to work and fill the coffers for them. So instead of showing a surplus it showed a steady deficit and still the unemployable streamed in to the country. We are now starting to run over the sides as we are full and all you can do is blame the current government for your neo marxist cock ups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On which planet would Blairs government be marxists ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would probably be planet Phoney? You know he makes things up don't you and tries to move the goalposts? The reality from Tax research UK
> "Labour invariably borrows less than the Conservatives. The data always shows that.
> "Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives, and has always repaid more debt, on average." The Conservatives have been the biggest borrowers over the last 70 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go Phoney!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is truly the King of the made up assertion. The fellow in the pic looks just as I imagined, muttering to himself about foreign made goal posts and neo marxist astroturf.
Click to expand...


When he starts to name call and post in CAPITALS, you know he's getting hysterical. Here's some more figures to chew on. Deficit facts 1997 – 2015

Oh, and if all he can do is dismiss a blog by a world ackowledged expert:

"He is Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City University, London and Director of Tax Research UK. He is a non-executive director of Cambridge Econometrics. 

According to International Tax Review Richard was the 7th most influential person in global tax in 2013. In 2016 Richard was in the same journal’s Global Top 50 in tax, one of only two people to have been so for the whole five years it had published such a list."

You know he's got nothing, what a tosser. As I said, not worth engaging with; seems he's that stupid he doesn't realise that the Welsh people hated *him* personaly and not English people in general. I've been to Wales and Scotland lots of times and never met more friendly and welcoming people. That says it all.


----------



## Challenger

anotherlife said:


> Also, technology would invalidate Keynesian practices in the 21st century.



How so?


----------



## frigidweirdo

anotherlife said:


> Jeremy Corbyn wins UK's Labour Party leadership race - CNN.com
> 
> On his victory speech, Corbyn has announced that what the British want is 21st century socialism. And to pay for it, he promptly proposed to lift the borrowing cap of each municipal district.
> 
> So, if you ever wondered why your local taxes always go up and where they go, wonder no more.  The pretence is off.  And in the UK it is not only the home owners but every resident must pay the local tax, called council tax.
> 
> Also, Corbyn said that the Labor party is the party of the disadvantaged workers and not the banks.
> 
> How stupid are people that they don't see through this?
> 
> This is the first legislative proposal to take advantage of the newly gained isolation of the post brexit British public.
> 
> Discuss.



21st Century Socialism looks rather like 20th Century Socialism, i.e. the Tories in power. 

Corbyn isn't a leader of the Labour Party, he's the leader of a faction who has somehow managed to convince a lot of Labour supporters that not winning an election is what it's all about.

In the last 35 years and more there has only been one leader of the Labour Party elected to become PM, and many in the Labour Party hated him because he wasn't Socialist. But that was why he got elected. 

21st Century Socialism is Corbyn not talking about all the Socialism, but answering in a very political way. I saw him answer a question about Socialism and answer something like "well we want the trains to run, who doesn't want that? We want the hospitals to function, who doesn't want that?" without actually stating what his Socialism actually is. It's more than likely getting most things under govt control.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't he talk about Brexit?
> 
> The most important referendum the British have made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a decent programme to rebuild our shattered economy.
> I would like to see them go further in rolling back the privatisation of the NHS, abolishing the wretched academy schools and increasing pensions.
Click to expand...


A decent program that A) won't convince enough voters to vote for him, he's got 300,000 votes in the bag, he needs like 11 million, there's the first problem and B) wouldn't solve the problem of the shattered economy. Socialism has never helped any shattered economy to get off its feet, unless you can provide an example I'm not aware of.

Yes, getting the NHS away from privatization would be a good thing. Academies aren't the problem with education, the problem is each successive govt comes in and decides that it's program of rebranding of schools will somehow deal with the problems that could more easily be solved by an educational task force being set up.


----------



## Challenger

frigidweirdo said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn wins UK's Labour Party leadership race - CNN.com
> 
> On his victory speech, Corbyn has announced that what the British want is 21st century socialism. And to pay for it, he promptly proposed to lift the borrowing cap of each municipal district.
> 
> So, if you ever wondered why your local taxes always go up and where they go, wonder no more.  The pretence is off.  And in the UK it is not only the home owners but every resident must pay the local tax, called council tax.
> 
> Also, Corbyn said that the Labor party is the party of the disadvantaged workers and not the banks.
> 
> How stupid are people that they don't see through this?
> 
> This is the first legislative proposal to take advantage of the newly gained isolation of the post brexit British public.
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21st Century Socialism looks rather like 20th Century Socialism, i.e. the Tories in power.
> 
> Corbyn isn't a leader of the Labour Party, he's the leader of a faction who has somehow managed to convince a lot of Labour supporters that not winning an election is what it's all about.
> 
> In the last 35 years and more there has only been one leader of the Labour Party elected to become PM, and many in the Labour Party hated him because he wasn't Socialist. But that was why he got elected.
> 
> 21st Century Socialism is Corbyn not talking about all the Socialism, but answering in a very political way. I saw him answer a question about Socialism and answer something like "well we want the trains to run, who doesn't want that? We want the hospitals to function, who doesn't want that?" without actually stating what his Socialism actually is. It's more than likely getting most things under govt control.
Click to expand...


Sounds like the standard mantra, "We've got to convince Tory voters to vote for us in order to win". Only 24% of the country voted Tory, and thats about as good as it will ever get for them in the U.K. (+/- 10%)   It's the emaining 76% Labour needs to attract, including the 34% who didn't bother to vote at all. If the majority of that 34% can be inspired to vote Labour, we're in with a chance to consign the Tories to the dustbin of history where they belong, depite the best efforts of the mainstream media and Tory gerrymandering of constituencies.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Challenger said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn wins UK's Labour Party leadership race - CNN.com
> 
> On his victory speech, Corbyn has announced that what the British want is 21st century socialism. And to pay for it, he promptly proposed to lift the borrowing cap of each municipal district.
> 
> So, if you ever wondered why your local taxes always go up and where they go, wonder no more.  The pretence is off.  And in the UK it is not only the home owners but every resident must pay the local tax, called council tax.
> 
> Also, Corbyn said that the Labor party is the party of the disadvantaged workers and not the banks.
> 
> How stupid are people that they don't see through this?
> 
> This is the first legislative proposal to take advantage of the newly gained isolation of the post brexit British public.
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21st Century Socialism looks rather like 20th Century Socialism, i.e. the Tories in power.
> 
> Corbyn isn't a leader of the Labour Party, he's the leader of a faction who has somehow managed to convince a lot of Labour supporters that not winning an election is what it's all about.
> 
> In the last 35 years and more there has only been one leader of the Labour Party elected to become PM, and many in the Labour Party hated him because he wasn't Socialist. But that was why he got elected.
> 
> 21st Century Socialism is Corbyn not talking about all the Socialism, but answering in a very political way. I saw him answer a question about Socialism and answer something like "well we want the trains to run, who doesn't want that? We want the hospitals to function, who doesn't want that?" without actually stating what his Socialism actually is. It's more than likely getting most things under govt control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the standard mantra, "We've got to convince Tory voters to vote for us in order to win". Only 24% of the country voted Tory, and thats about as good as it will ever get for them in the U.K. (+/- 10%)   It's the emaining 76% Labour needs to attract, including the 34% who didn't bother to vote at all. If the majority of that 34% can be inspired to vote Labour, we're in with a chance to consign the Tories to the dustbin of history where they belong, depite the best efforts of the mainstream media and Tory gerrymandering of constituencies.
Click to expand...


But they won't vote for Corbyn. It's that simple. His message is the sort of message that lost Labour elections in the past. The Middle Class will look at the Tories and May and if everything isn't so bad, they'll vote for them again.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Full Speech: Jeremy Corbyn addresses conference

Watching his speech.... good for insomnia maybe, but 14:30 in he thanks the Mayor of London who acts like he's been praised by a Tory, he doesn't smile. Kind of sums up Labour right now.


----------



## Challenger

frigidweirdo said:


> Socialism has never helped any shattered economy to get off its feet, unless you can provide an example I'm not aware of.



Attlee Government 1945 to 1951: The period from 1946 to 1951 saw continuous full employment and steadily rising living standards, which increased by about 10% each year. During that same period, the economy grew by 3% a year, and by 1951 the UK had "the best economic performance in Europe, while output per person was increasing faster than in the United States." Bizzarrely despite getting 250,000 more votes than the Tories they lost the 1951 election and the subsequent Tory govermnent managed to capitalise on the work done in that period.


----------



## Challenger

frigidweirdo said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn wins UK's Labour Party leadership race - CNN.com
> 
> On his victory speech, Corbyn has announced that what the British want is 21st century socialism. And to pay for it, he promptly proposed to lift the borrowing cap of each municipal district.
> 
> So, if you ever wondered why your local taxes always go up and where they go, wonder no more.  The pretence is off.  And in the UK it is not only the home owners but every resident must pay the local tax, called council tax.
> 
> Also, Corbyn said that the Labor party is the party of the disadvantaged workers and not the banks.
> 
> How stupid are people that they don't see through this?
> 
> This is the first legislative proposal to take advantage of the newly gained isolation of the post brexit British public.
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21st Century Socialism looks rather like 20th Century Socialism, i.e. the Tories in power.
> 
> Corbyn isn't a leader of the Labour Party, he's the leader of a faction who has somehow managed to convince a lot of Labour supporters that not winning an election is what it's all about.
> 
> In the last 35 years and more there has only been one leader of the Labour Party elected to become PM, and many in the Labour Party hated him because he wasn't Socialist. But that was why he got elected.
> 
> 21st Century Socialism is Corbyn not talking about all the Socialism, but answering in a very political way. I saw him answer a question about Socialism and answer something like "well we want the trains to run, who doesn't want that? We want the hospitals to function, who doesn't want that?" without actually stating what his Socialism actually is. It's more than likely getting most things under govt control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the standard mantra, "We've got to convince Tory voters to vote for us in order to win". Only 24% of the country voted Tory, and thats about as good as it will ever get for them in the U.K. (+/- 10%)   It's the emaining 76% Labour needs to attract, including the 34% who didn't bother to vote at all. If the majority of that 34% can be inspired to vote Labour, we're in with a chance to consign the Tories to the dustbin of history where they belong, depite the best efforts of the mainstream media and Tory gerrymandering of constituencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they won't vote for Corbyn. It's that simple. His message is the sort of message that lost Labour elections in the past. The Middle Class will look at the Tories and May and if everything isn't so bad, they'll vote for them again.
Click to expand...


How do you know? Labour have 4 years to put their message across unless May calls a snap election (which may or may not be illegal unless she changes the law meantime) and even if she does there is a huge swathe of the Middle Class totally fed up with the Tories at the moment, especially those who voted for "remain".


----------



## anotherlife

Phoenall said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't he talk about Brexit?
> 
> The most important referendum the British have made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a decent programme to rebuild our shattered economy.
> I would like to see them go further in rolling back the privatisation of the NHS, abolishing the wretched academy schools and increasing pensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even further than that in kicking out wales so that he will have even more money to waste. His policies are a passport to disaster that will result in loss of Jobs and tax revenues as the wealthy leave for new pastures, closure of hospitals, black outs, riots, closures and a bankrupt country all so you can have a pension with no actual spending power. What good is a pension that increases by 20% a year and paid in arrears if inflation is running at 30% a year. But then you welsh neo marxist dummies never were any good when it came to maths were you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know how Wales voted on brexit.  I think the 40 % of Wales residents who speak Welsh, all voted against brexit.  The winning pro brexit vote was all from the 60 % English there.
> 
> An advantage of hyper inflation is that it clears insane debt such as the student loan epidemic and the national housing mortgage based money laundering.  Doesn't work too well for individuals with high unemployment statistics, but ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isnt 60% English there at all, more like 10% to 15%. Not many English move to Wales or Scotland because of the systematic racism and hatred. Part of my job was to travel to Wales twice a year and instruct the workers on how to achieve maximum yields on the product, the coldness was palpable as soon as we walked in the room and the hate was obvious. No wonder they lost money with a brand new plant that should have been a world beater. Our old plant achieved yields of 95%, the welsh could not better 89% on one proven to be better than 98%.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that the English speaking welsh that don't speak welsh are still welsh and not English?  This may be possible but doubtful because pretty much every welsh decision is an echo of English decisions.  The easiest approach to find the boundaries of this perfect alignment is linguistic,  interesting how this worked out in the plant management scenario.


----------



## Challenger

frigidweirdo said:


> Full Speech: Jeremy Corbyn addresses conference
> 
> Watching his speech.... good for insomnia maybe, but 14:30 in he thanks the Mayor of London who acts like he's been praised by a Tory, he doesn't smile. Kind of sums up Labour right now.



Maybe not a broad grin but he does smile and wink at some people nearby. Early days...


----------



## anotherlife

Challenger said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, technology would invalidate Keynesian practices in the 21st century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...


Keynesian economy assumes a linear relationship between work and output, that is the more work, the more output.  But it is not true in an automated high tech economy.  All the work is in machine maintenance and product design, which are negligible small compared to the old productive work, but the output is unlimited, limited only by market capitalization, as soon as one guy designs something.


----------



## Challenger

frigidweirdo said:


> Watching his speech.... good for insomnia maybe



Most political speeches that last more than an hour, are.


----------



## anotherlife

frigidweirdo said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn wins UK's Labour Party leadership race - CNN.com
> 
> On his victory speech, Corbyn has announced that what the British want is 21st century socialism. And to pay for it, he promptly proposed to lift the borrowing cap of each municipal district.
> 
> So, if you ever wondered why your local taxes always go up and where they go, wonder no more.  The pretence is off.  And in the UK it is not only the home owners but every resident must pay the local tax, called council tax.
> 
> Also, Corbyn said that the Labor party is the party of the disadvantaged workers and not the banks.
> 
> How stupid are people that they don't see through this?
> 
> This is the first legislative proposal to take advantage of the newly gained isolation of the post brexit British public.
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21st Century Socialism looks rather like 20th Century Socialism, i.e. the Tories in power.
> 
> Corbyn isn't a leader of the Labour Party, he's the leader of a faction who has somehow managed to convince a lot of Labour supporters that not winning an election is what it's all about.
> 
> In the last 35 years and more there has only been one leader of the Labour Party elected to become PM, and many in the Labour Party hated him because he wasn't Socialist. But that was why he got elected.
> 
> 21st Century Socialism is Corbyn not talking about all the Socialism, but answering in a very political way. I saw him answer a question about Socialism and answer something like "well we want the trains to run, who doesn't want that? We want the hospitals to function, who doesn't want that?" without actually stating what his Socialism actually is. It's more than likely getting most things under govt control.
Click to expand...


Very interesting.  So looks like the British future will be aligned lock step with everything in the USA.  For example, the next election will be won by the Tories to fully discredit brexit after it has been fully implemented.  The second election after that and from then forever, Labour will win with possibly Corbyn on top.  

Looks like it is easier to understand 21st century elections and referendums if we look at them as hired middle men, like HR departments and such.


----------



## Eloy

New Labour under Tony Blair lost Labour's working class base. The final straw was the invasion of Iraq when socialists gave-up on the party. It was to be a monumental task to get back to its socialist roots, too much for Ed Miliband. Jeremy Corbyn, by undoing the harm done by Blair is winning back old Labour's supporters and gaining many new members, especially the youth who are inspired by the socialist message. He is just the man for the job.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Challenger said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism has never helped any shattered economy to get off its feet, unless you can provide an example I'm not aware of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attlee Government 1945 to 1951: The period from 1946 to 1951 saw continuous full employment and steadily rising living standards, which increased by about 10% each year. During that same period, the economy grew by 3% a year, and by 1951 the UK had "the best economic performance in Europe, while output per person was increasing faster than in the United States." Bizzarrely despite getting 250,000 more votes than the Tories they lost the 1951 election and the subsequent Tory govermnent managed to capitalise on the work done in that period.
Click to expand...


But that doesn't mean it would happen in the modern era. That was post WW2 and it was going to rise every year unless there was a major disaster.

Labour have to realize that when things are going well, people who talk about tax cuts etc are going to do well. When the NHS is working, people aren't wowed by talk of improving the NHS, when education works they're not wowed by talk of improving education. They start looking at how to get their own pockets deeper in the short term. That's the reality. 

Corbyn's talking about things like full employment, benefits for (what seems like) lots of people and so on, but he's not talking about how you do this and make kids have the desire to go out there and work hard in order to earn what they've grown up to believe will just come to them. That's a big problem for Labour.


----------



## anotherlife

frigidweirdo said:


> Full Speech: Jeremy Corbyn addresses conference
> 
> Watching his speech.... good for insomnia maybe, but 14:30 in he thanks the Mayor of London who acts like he's been praised by a Tory, he doesn't smile. Kind of sums up Labour right now.



He also says something that he is like proud that the mayor is a Muslim, the 1st Muslim governor of the west.  Hmmm.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Challenger said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn wins UK's Labour Party leadership race - CNN.com
> 
> On his victory speech, Corbyn has announced that what the British want is 21st century socialism. And to pay for it, he promptly proposed to lift the borrowing cap of each municipal district.
> 
> So, if you ever wondered why your local taxes always go up and where they go, wonder no more.  The pretence is off.  And in the UK it is not only the home owners but every resident must pay the local tax, called council tax.
> 
> Also, Corbyn said that the Labor party is the party of the disadvantaged workers and not the banks.
> 
> How stupid are people that they don't see through this?
> 
> This is the first legislative proposal to take advantage of the newly gained isolation of the post brexit British public.
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21st Century Socialism looks rather like 20th Century Socialism, i.e. the Tories in power.
> 
> Corbyn isn't a leader of the Labour Party, he's the leader of a faction who has somehow managed to convince a lot of Labour supporters that not winning an election is what it's all about.
> 
> In the last 35 years and more there has only been one leader of the Labour Party elected to become PM, and many in the Labour Party hated him because he wasn't Socialist. But that was why he got elected.
> 
> 21st Century Socialism is Corbyn not talking about all the Socialism, but answering in a very political way. I saw him answer a question about Socialism and answer something like "well we want the trains to run, who doesn't want that? We want the hospitals to function, who doesn't want that?" without actually stating what his Socialism actually is. It's more than likely getting most things under govt control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the standard mantra, "We've got to convince Tory voters to vote for us in order to win". Only 24% of the country voted Tory, and thats about as good as it will ever get for them in the U.K. (+/- 10%)   It's the emaining 76% Labour needs to attract, including the 34% who didn't bother to vote at all. If the majority of that 34% can be inspired to vote Labour, we're in with a chance to consign the Tories to the dustbin of history where they belong, depite the best efforts of the mainstream media and Tory gerrymandering of constituencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they won't vote for Corbyn. It's that simple. His message is the sort of message that lost Labour elections in the past. The Middle Class will look at the Tories and May and if everything isn't so bad, they'll vote for them again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know? Labour have 4 years to put their message across unless May calls a snap election (which may or may not be illegal unless she changes the law meantime) and even if she does there is a huge swathe of the Middle Class totally fed up with the Tories at the moment, especially those who voted for "remain".
Click to expand...


4 years to put across a message which hasn't succeed in how long?

One elected Labour PM in how many years?

Since 1976, FORTY YEARS since a Labour PM was elected who wasn't Tony Blair. He had problems with the Unions, strikes that effectively killed his chance of winning in 1979. 

I looked at Ed Milliband and I saw a guy who was too left wing to win a General Election. He lost. In fact he lost worse than Brown did by a long way. He took Labour backwards. What's going to change from 2015? Suddenly as the economy gets better, the Tories got out of the EU, what's going to turn people towards a guy way, way over on the left? More left than Milliband, who lost, more left than Brown, who lost, more left than many of the previous leaders who lost like Kinnock.


----------



## Challenger

anotherlife said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, technology would invalidate Keynesian practices in the 21st century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keynesian economy assumes a linear relationship between work and output, that is the more work, the more output.  But it is not true in an automated high tech economy.  All the work is in machine maintenance and product design, which are negligible small compared to the old productive work, but the output is unlimited, limited only by market capitalization, as soon as one guy designs something.
Click to expand...


A bit dated but nevertheless still more relevant today;

Joseph Stiglitz: Keynesian economics finds new relevancy in the 21st century global economy

...and this from Wiki

2008–09 Keynesian resurgence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unfortunately from experience when you talk to 3 or more economists, you get 3 or more contradictory opinions; it's an inexact science. One thing is clear though, politically forced "Austerity" hasn't worked and doesn't seem likely to. We need something different/new.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Challenger said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Full Speech: Jeremy Corbyn addresses conference
> 
> Watching his speech.... good for insomnia maybe, but 14:30 in he thanks the Mayor of London who acts like he's been praised by a Tory, he doesn't smile. Kind of sums up Labour right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not a broad grin but he does smile and wink at some people nearby. Early days...
Click to expand...


I didn't see a smile, I didn't see a wink, I'm talking from Khan here.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Challenger said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, technology would invalidate Keynesian practices in the 21st century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keynesian economy assumes a linear relationship between work and output, that is the more work, the more output.  But it is not true in an automated high tech economy.  All the work is in machine maintenance and product design, which are negligible small compared to the old productive work, but the output is unlimited, limited only by market capitalization, as soon as one guy designs something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bit dated but nevertheless still more relevant today;
> 
> Joseph Stiglitz: Keynesian economics finds new relevancy in the 21st century global economy
> 
> ...and this from Wiki
> 
> 2008–09 Keynesian resurgence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Unfortunately from experience when you talk to 3 or more economists, you get 3 or more contradictory opinions; it's an inexact science. One thing is clear though, politically forced "Austerity" hasn't worked and doesn't seem likely to. We need something different/new.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying I don't agree with you, or that Corbyn is right when he says there are problems with the current system. I'm saying Corbyn doesn't stand a chance of being elected with his message for the SOLUTION to the problem. Socialism isn't the solution. It's a disaster.


----------



## Challenger

anotherlife said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Full Speech: Jeremy Corbyn addresses conference
> 
> Watching his speech.... good for insomnia maybe, but 14:30 in he thanks the Mayor of London who acts like he's been praised by a Tory, he doesn't smile. Kind of sums up Labour right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He also says something that he is like proud that the mayor is a Muslim, the 1st Muslim governor of the west.  Hmmm.
Click to expand...

First Muslim mayor of a capital city, no mention of "governor".


----------



## Challenger

frigidweirdo said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Full Speech: Jeremy Corbyn addresses conference
> 
> Watching his speech.... good for insomnia maybe, but 14:30 in he thanks the Mayor of London who acts like he's been praised by a Tory, he doesn't smile. Kind of sums up Labour right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not a broad grin but he does smile and wink at some people nearby. Early days...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see a smile, I didn't see a wink, I'm talking from Khan here.
Click to expand...

Look again.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Challenger said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Full Speech: Jeremy Corbyn addresses conference
> 
> Watching his speech.... good for insomnia maybe, but 14:30 in he thanks the Mayor of London who acts like he's been praised by a Tory, he doesn't smile. Kind of sums up Labour right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not a broad grin but he does smile and wink at some people nearby. Early days...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see a smile, I didn't see a wink, I'm talking from Khan here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look again.
Click to expand...


Yep, I looked again. No smile, someone turns around to look at him and still no smile, no wink. A steely face as if he doesn't want to be praised by this guy.


----------



## anotherlife

Challenger said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, technology would invalidate Keynesian practices in the 21st century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keynesian economy assumes a linear relationship between work and output, that is the more work, the more output.  But it is not true in an automated high tech economy.  All the work is in machine maintenance and product design, which are negligible small compared to the old productive work, but the output is unlimited, limited only by market capitalization, as soon as one guy designs something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bit dated but nevertheless still more relevant today;
> 
> Joseph Stiglitz: Keynesian economics finds new relevancy in the 21st century global economy
> 
> ...and this from Wiki
> 
> 2008–09 Keynesian resurgence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Unfortunately from experience when you talk to 3 or more economists, you get 3 or more contradictory opinions; it's an inexact science. One thing is clear though, politically forced "Austerity" hasn't worked and doesn't seem likely to. We need something different/new.
Click to expand...


Your observation is correct, economy is not a science or anything, maybe it is politics, otherwise there would be provable concepts in it.  Economy is a good game though, because you can justify with it whatever the biggest lenders do.  Politically driven austerity is probably the worldwide future, because that is what protects the new nobility the most.


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems with the neocon influence worldwie, people have forgotten basic Keynsian economics, the same economics that pulled the USA out of the great recession of the 20's and 30's. In the simplest possible terms the government spends money to stimulate economic growth increasing production and creating more jobs and the resultant taxation revenues pay off any extra debt incurred. The current model gives the wealth to the rich in the hope they provide the necessary growth and create jobs, etc. THe fallacy with this model is that it doesn't factor in to the equation, the fact that the rich will keep the wealth and grow richer, while the poorer members of society go to the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nor does it factor in that the government has to have the money, or the collateral, in the first place. The last neo marxist government put paid to that when it sold the Gold reserves leaving the UK penniless. Then they tried to stimulate the economy by opening the doors to uncontrolled migration  and allowed in those unable to work and fill the coffers for them. So instead of showing a surplus it showed a steady deficit and still the unemployable streamed in to the country. We are now starting to run over the sides as we are full and all you can do is blame the current government for your neo marxist cock ups
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On which planet would Blairs government be marxists ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would probably be planet Phoney? You know he makes things up don't you and tries to move the goalposts? The reality from Tax research UK
> "Labour invariably borrows less than the Conservatives. The data always shows that.
> "Labour has always repaid debt more often than the Conservatives, and has always repaid more debt, on average." The Conservatives have been the biggest borrowers over the last 70 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go Phoney!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is truly the King of the made up assertion. The fellow in the pic looks just as I imagined, muttering to himself about foreign made goal posts and neo marxist astroturf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When he starts to name call and post in CAPITALS, you know he's getting hysterical. Here's some more figures to chew on. Deficit facts 1997 – 2015
> 
> Oh, and if all he can do is dismiss a blog by a world ackowledged expert:
> 
> "He is Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City University, London and Director of Tax Research UK. He is a non-executive director of Cambridge Econometrics.
> 
> According to International Tax Review Richard was the 7th most influential person in global tax in 2013. In 2016 Richard was in the same journal’s Global Top 50 in tax, one of only two people to have been so for the whole five years it had published such a list."
> 
> You know he's got nothing, what a tosser. As I said, not worth engaging with; seems he's that stupid he doesn't realise that the Welsh people hated *him* personaly and not English people in general. I've been to Wales and Scotland lots of times and never met more friendly and welcoming people. That says it all.
Click to expand...






As does your relying on a blog for your information, shows that you dont have an argument that will hold water


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't he talk about Brexit?
> 
> The most important referendum the British have made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a decent programme to rebuild our shattered economy.
> I would like to see them go further in rolling back the privatisation of the NHS, abolishing the wretched academy schools and increasing pensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A decent program that A) won't convince enough voters to vote for him, he's got 300,000 votes in the bag, he needs like 11 million, there's the first problem and B) wouldn't solve the problem of the shattered economy. Socialism has never helped any shattered economy to get off its feet, unless you can provide an example I'm not aware of.
> 
> Yes, getting the NHS away from privatization would be a good thing. Academies aren't the problem with education, the problem is each successive govt comes in and decides that it's program of rebranding of schools will somehow deal with the problems that could more easily be solved by an educational task force being set up.
Click to expand...







 Allowing too many non paying migrants to use the NHS is a major problem and is costing those paying taxes more than it should. Start to charge foriegn visitors who dont have medical insurance underwritten by their nation before any treatment takes place. Show that we mean to be hard on thieves, fraudsters and medical tourists and they will stop coming. Education is a shambles because we let far too many illiterate people come here and we ended up educating them first before our own. What good is a doctor who cant speak English to the country, any benefits will be lost in translation costs. This is what the man on the street is worried about and if they can see it why cant the politicians ?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn wins UK's Labour Party leadership race - CNN.com
> 
> On his victory speech, Corbyn has announced that what the British want is 21st century socialism. And to pay for it, he promptly proposed to lift the borrowing cap of each municipal district.
> 
> So, if you ever wondered why your local taxes always go up and where they go, wonder no more.  The pretence is off.  And in the UK it is not only the home owners but every resident must pay the local tax, called council tax.
> 
> Also, Corbyn said that the Labor party is the party of the disadvantaged workers and not the banks.
> 
> How stupid are people that they don't see through this?
> 
> This is the first legislative proposal to take advantage of the newly gained isolation of the post brexit British public.
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21st Century Socialism looks rather like 20th Century Socialism, i.e. the Tories in power.
> 
> Corbyn isn't a leader of the Labour Party, he's the leader of a faction who has somehow managed to convince a lot of Labour supporters that not winning an election is what it's all about.
> 
> In the last 35 years and more there has only been one leader of the Labour Party elected to become PM, and many in the Labour Party hated him because he wasn't Socialist. But that was why he got elected.
> 
> 21st Century Socialism is Corbyn not talking about all the Socialism, but answering in a very political way. I saw him answer a question about Socialism and answer something like "well we want the trains to run, who doesn't want that? We want the hospitals to function, who doesn't want that?" without actually stating what his Socialism actually is. It's more than likely getting most things under govt control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the standard mantra, "We've got to convince Tory voters to vote for us in order to win". Only 24% of the country voted Tory, and thats about as good as it will ever get for them in the U.K. (+/- 10%)   It's the emaining 76% Labour needs to attract, including the 34% who didn't bother to vote at all. If the majority of that 34% can be inspired to vote Labour, we're in with a chance to consign the Tories to the dustbin of history where they belong, depite the best efforts of the mainstream media and Tory gerrymandering of constituencies.
Click to expand...







 And if we let Labour win we can say goodbye to our country and be forced to welcome sharia laws, forced conversion to islam or become 4th class citizens. Imagine Liverpool looking like gaza with the warring factions mass murdering each other. That is the scenario under labour if they win and the people are looking for another party to follow.

 Now why didnt the Labour faithful get out and vote do you think, could it be they are sick of the hard left running the show and so dont want them to get into power. I note you ignored the labour voting figures that would show you are manipulating again. If the tories won with 24% of the country Labour must have polled less than this to lose, or does neo marxist maths work differently?


----------



## Phoenall

frigidweirdo said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn wins UK's Labour Party leadership race - CNN.com
> 
> On his victory speech, Corbyn has announced that what the British want is 21st century socialism. And to pay for it, he promptly proposed to lift the borrowing cap of each municipal district.
> 
> So, if you ever wondered why your local taxes always go up and where they go, wonder no more.  The pretence is off.  And in the UK it is not only the home owners but every resident must pay the local tax, called council tax.
> 
> Also, Corbyn said that the Labor party is the party of the disadvantaged workers and not the banks.
> 
> How stupid are people that they don't see through this?
> 
> This is the first legislative proposal to take advantage of the newly gained isolation of the post brexit British public.
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21st Century Socialism looks rather like 20th Century Socialism, i.e. the Tories in power.
> 
> Corbyn isn't a leader of the Labour Party, he's the leader of a faction who has somehow managed to convince a lot of Labour supporters that not winning an election is what it's all about.
> 
> In the last 35 years and more there has only been one leader of the Labour Party elected to become PM, and many in the Labour Party hated him because he wasn't Socialist. But that was why he got elected.
> 
> 21st Century Socialism is Corbyn not talking about all the Socialism, but answering in a very political way. I saw him answer a question about Socialism and answer something like "well we want the trains to run, who doesn't want that? We want the hospitals to function, who doesn't want that?" without actually stating what his Socialism actually is. It's more than likely getting most things under govt control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the standard mantra, "We've got to convince Tory voters to vote for us in order to win". Only 24% of the country voted Tory, and thats about as good as it will ever get for them in the U.K. (+/- 10%)   It's the emaining 76% Labour needs to attract, including the 34% who didn't bother to vote at all. If the majority of that 34% can be inspired to vote Labour, we're in with a chance to consign the Tories to the dustbin of history where they belong, depite the best efforts of the mainstream media and Tory gerrymandering of constituencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they won't vote for Corbyn. It's that simple. His message is the sort of message that lost Labour elections in the past. The Middle Class will look at the Tories and May and if everything isn't so bad, they'll vote for them again.
Click to expand...








 They will also remember the crimes of Labour when over 1 million underage children were groomed and raped by muslim men in the name of islam. And Labour protected them to secure a measly 5000 votes across the whole country. They will remember the note left saying " spent it all on parties and the money is all gone" We remember such things and ask is the country safe in labours hands ?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn wins UK's Labour Party leadership race - CNN.com
> 
> On his victory speech, Corbyn has announced that what the British want is 21st century socialism. And to pay for it, he promptly proposed to lift the borrowing cap of each municipal district.
> 
> So, if you ever wondered why your local taxes always go up and where they go, wonder no more.  The pretence is off.  And in the UK it is not only the home owners but every resident must pay the local tax, called council tax.
> 
> Also, Corbyn said that the Labor party is the party of the disadvantaged workers and not the banks.
> 
> How stupid are people that they don't see through this?
> 
> This is the first legislative proposal to take advantage of the newly gained isolation of the post brexit British public.
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21st Century Socialism looks rather like 20th Century Socialism, i.e. the Tories in power.
> 
> Corbyn isn't a leader of the Labour Party, he's the leader of a faction who has somehow managed to convince a lot of Labour supporters that not winning an election is what it's all about.
> 
> In the last 35 years and more there has only been one leader of the Labour Party elected to become PM, and many in the Labour Party hated him because he wasn't Socialist. But that was why he got elected.
> 
> 21st Century Socialism is Corbyn not talking about all the Socialism, but answering in a very political way. I saw him answer a question about Socialism and answer something like "well we want the trains to run, who doesn't want that? We want the hospitals to function, who doesn't want that?" without actually stating what his Socialism actually is. It's more than likely getting most things under govt control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the standard mantra, "We've got to convince Tory voters to vote for us in order to win". Only 24% of the country voted Tory, and thats about as good as it will ever get for them in the U.K. (+/- 10%)   It's the emaining 76% Labour needs to attract, including the 34% who didn't bother to vote at all. If the majority of that 34% can be inspired to vote Labour, we're in with a chance to consign the Tories to the dustbin of history where they belong, depite the best efforts of the mainstream media and Tory gerrymandering of constituencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they won't vote for Corbyn. It's that simple. His message is the sort of message that lost Labour elections in the past. The Middle Class will look at the Tories and May and if everything isn't so bad, they'll vote for them again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know? Labour have 4 years to put their message across unless May calls a snap election (which may or may not be illegal unless she changes the law meantime) and even if she does there is a huge swathe of the Middle Class totally fed up with the Tories at the moment, especially those who voted for "remain".
Click to expand...








 So you are now saying that calling an election before you neo marxists are ready is illegal. What next a continual re-run until you get the re4sult you so desperately want, and then abolish elections all together


----------



## Phoenall

anotherlife said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't he talk about Brexit?
> 
> The most important referendum the British have made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a decent programme to rebuild our shattered economy.
> I would like to see them go further in rolling back the privatisation of the NHS, abolishing the wretched academy schools and increasing pensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even further than that in kicking out wales so that he will have even more money to waste. His policies are a passport to disaster that will result in loss of Jobs and tax revenues as the wealthy leave for new pastures, closure of hospitals, black outs, riots, closures and a bankrupt country all so you can have a pension with no actual spending power. What good is a pension that increases by 20% a year and paid in arrears if inflation is running at 30% a year. But then you welsh neo marxist dummies never were any good when it came to maths were you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know how Wales voted on brexit.  I think the 40 % of Wales residents who speak Welsh, all voted against brexit.  The winning pro brexit vote was all from the 60 % English there.
> 
> An advantage of hyper inflation is that it clears insane debt such as the student loan epidemic and the national housing mortgage based money laundering.  Doesn't work too well for individuals with high unemployment statistics, but ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isnt 60% English there at all, more like 10% to 15%. Not many English move to Wales or Scotland because of the systematic racism and hatred. Part of my job was to travel to Wales twice a year and instruct the workers on how to achieve maximum yields on the product, the coldness was palpable as soon as we walked in the room and the hate was obvious. No wonder they lost money with a brand new plant that should have been a world beater. Our old plant achieved yields of 95%, the welsh could not better 89% on one proven to be better than 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the English speaking welsh that don't speak welsh are still welsh and not English?  This may be possible but doubtful because pretty much every welsh decision is an echo of English decisions.  The easiest approach to find the boundaries of this perfect alignment is linguistic,  interesting how this worked out in the plant management scenario.
Click to expand...






 Why not there is no law that says the Welsh have to speak Welsh is there. I am English yet I cant speak Latin which was the language of England for many centuries, and still is when it comes to legal terms


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn wins UK's Labour Party leadership race - CNN.com
> 
> On his victory speech, Corbyn has announced that what the British want is 21st century socialism. And to pay for it, he promptly proposed to lift the borrowing cap of each municipal district.
> 
> So, if you ever wondered why your local taxes always go up and where they go, wonder no more.  The pretence is off.  And in the UK it is not only the home owners but every resident must pay the local tax, called council tax.
> 
> Also, Corbyn said that the Labor party is the party of the disadvantaged workers and not the banks.
> 
> How stupid are people that they don't see through this?
> 
> This is the first legislative proposal to take advantage of the newly gained isolation of the post brexit British public.
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21st Century Socialism looks rather like 20th Century Socialism, i.e. the Tories in power.
> 
> Corbyn isn't a leader of the Labour Party, he's the leader of a faction who has somehow managed to convince a lot of Labour supporters that not winning an election is what it's all about.
> 
> In the last 35 years and more there has only been one leader of the Labour Party elected to become PM, and many in the Labour Party hated him because he wasn't Socialist. But that was why he got elected.
> 
> 21st Century Socialism is Corbyn not talking about all the Socialism, but answering in a very political way. I saw him answer a question about Socialism and answer something like "well we want the trains to run, who doesn't want that? We want the hospitals to function, who doesn't want that?" without actually stating what his Socialism actually is. It's more than likely getting most things under govt control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the standard mantra, "We've got to convince Tory voters to vote for us in order to win". Only 24% of the country voted Tory, and thats about as good as it will ever get for them in the U.K. (+/- 10%)   It's the emaining 76% Labour needs to attract, including the 34% who didn't bother to vote at all. If the majority of that 34% can be inspired to vote Labour, we're in with a chance to consign the Tories to the dustbin of history where they belong, depite the best efforts of the mainstream media and Tory gerrymandering of constituencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if we let Labour win we can say goodbye to our country and be forced to welcome sharia laws, forced conversion to islam or become 4th class citizens. Imagine Liverpool looking like gaza with the warring factions mass murdering each other. That is the scenario under labour if they win and the people are looking for another party to follow.
> 
> Now why didnt the Labour faithful get out and vote do you think, could it be they are sick of the hard left running the show and so dont want them to get into power. I note you ignored the labour voting figures that would show you are manipulating again. If the tories won with 24% of the country Labour must have polled less than this to lose, or does neo marxist maths work differently?
Click to expand...

Mental.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn wins UK's Labour Party leadership race - CNN.com
> 
> On his victory speech, Corbyn has announced that what the British want is 21st century socialism. And to pay for it, he promptly proposed to lift the borrowing cap of each municipal district.
> 
> So, if you ever wondered why your local taxes always go up and where they go, wonder no more.  The pretence is off.  And in the UK it is not only the home owners but every resident must pay the local tax, called council tax.
> 
> Also, Corbyn said that the Labor party is the party of the disadvantaged workers and not the banks.
> 
> How stupid are people that they don't see through this?
> 
> This is the first legislative proposal to take advantage of the newly gained isolation of the post brexit British public.
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21st Century Socialism looks rather like 20th Century Socialism, i.e. the Tories in power.
> 
> Corbyn isn't a leader of the Labour Party, he's the leader of a faction who has somehow managed to convince a lot of Labour supporters that not winning an election is what it's all about.
> 
> In the last 35 years and more there has only been one leader of the Labour Party elected to become PM, and many in the Labour Party hated him because he wasn't Socialist. But that was why he got elected.
> 
> 21st Century Socialism is Corbyn not talking about all the Socialism, but answering in a very political way. I saw him answer a question about Socialism and answer something like "well we want the trains to run, who doesn't want that? We want the hospitals to function, who doesn't want that?" without actually stating what his Socialism actually is. It's more than likely getting most things under govt control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the standard mantra, "We've got to convince Tory voters to vote for us in order to win". Only 24% of the country voted Tory, and thats about as good as it will ever get for them in the U.K. (+/- 10%)   It's the emaining 76% Labour needs to attract, including the 34% who didn't bother to vote at all. If the majority of that 34% can be inspired to vote Labour, we're in with a chance to consign the Tories to the dustbin of history where they belong, depite the best efforts of the mainstream media and Tory gerrymandering of constituencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they won't vote for Corbyn. It's that simple. His message is the sort of message that lost Labour elections in the past. The Middle Class will look at the Tories and May and if everything isn't so bad, they'll vote for them again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know? Labour have 4 years to put their message across unless May calls a snap election (which may or may not be illegal unless she changes the law meantime) and even if she does there is a huge swathe of the Middle Class totally fed up with the Tories at the moment, especially those who voted for "remain".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4 years to put across a message which hasn't succeed in how long?
> 
> One elected Labour PM in how many years?
> 
> Since 1976, FORTY YEARS since a Labour PM was elected who wasn't Tony Blair. He had problems with the Unions, strikes that effectively killed his chance of winning in 1979.
> 
> I looked at Ed Milliband and I saw a guy who was too left wing to win a General Election. He lost. In fact he lost worse than Brown did by a long way. He took Labour backwards. What's going to change from 2015? Suddenly as the economy gets better, the Tories got out of the EU, what's going to turn people towards a guy way, way over on the left? More left than Milliband, who lost, more left than Brown, who lost, more left than many of the previous leaders who lost like Kinnock.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with this.
Labour lost the last election, and the one before, because they offered no real alternative to the tories. It was a tory lite agenda set out. You could argue that Brown was punished for the recession as well.

Corbyns policies are not really revolutionary, and are probably not as radical as Plaid Cymru or even the Greens.

The tories are so awful that it should be an open goal. But Corbyn needs to do two things.
One is to get the labour pp facing the same way. That should not be impossible.

The second is to overcome the shocking tory controlled media. That is impossible.

I know a few people who have rejoined the party on the back of it. People who left because Labour brought in the likes of atos and academy schools, backed the Iraq war and so on.

The current leadership are moving in the right direction but overturning decades of a tory lite drift will take some doing.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Tommy Tainant said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me nervous but interest rates are at record lows and the economy needs a stimulus.
> The fear is that the money will be controlled by fuckwits who dont know what they are doing.
Click to expand...

Fake money doesnt work.....


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Manonthestreet said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me nervous but interest rates are at record lows and the economy needs a stimulus.
> The fear is that the money will be controlled by fuckwits who dont know what they are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake money doesnt work.....
Click to expand...

Whats fake about it ?


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy Corbyn wins UK's Labour Party leadership race - CNN.com
> 
> On his victory speech, Corbyn has announced that what the British want is 21st century socialism. And to pay for it, he promptly proposed to lift the borrowing cap of each municipal district.
> 
> So, if you ever wondered why your local taxes always go up and where they go, wonder no more.  The pretence is off.  And in the UK it is not only the home owners but every resident must pay the local tax, called council tax.
> 
> Also, Corbyn said that the Labor party is the party of the disadvantaged workers and not the banks.
> 
> How stupid are people that they don't see through this?
> 
> This is the first legislative proposal to take advantage of the newly gained isolation of the post brexit British public.
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21st Century Socialism looks rather like 20th Century Socialism, i.e. the Tories in power.
> 
> Corbyn isn't a leader of the Labour Party, he's the leader of a faction who has somehow managed to convince a lot of Labour supporters that not winning an election is what it's all about.
> 
> In the last 35 years and more there has only been one leader of the Labour Party elected to become PM, and many in the Labour Party hated him because he wasn't Socialist. But that was why he got elected.
> 
> 21st Century Socialism is Corbyn not talking about all the Socialism, but answering in a very political way. I saw him answer a question about Socialism and answer something like "well we want the trains to run, who doesn't want that? We want the hospitals to function, who doesn't want that?" without actually stating what his Socialism actually is. It's more than likely getting most things under govt control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the standard mantra, "We've got to convince Tory voters to vote for us in order to win". Only 24% of the country voted Tory, and thats about as good as it will ever get for them in the U.K. (+/- 10%)   It's the emaining 76% Labour needs to attract, including the 34% who didn't bother to vote at all. If the majority of that 34% can be inspired to vote Labour, we're in with a chance to consign the Tories to the dustbin of history where they belong, depite the best efforts of the mainstream media and Tory gerrymandering of constituencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if we let Labour win we can say goodbye to our country and be forced to welcome sharia laws, forced conversion to islam or become 4th class citizens. Imagine Liverpool looking like gaza with the warring factions mass murdering each other. That is the scenario under labour if they win and the people are looking for another party to follow.
> 
> Now why didnt the Labour faithful get out and vote do you think, could it be they are sick of the hard left running the show and so dont want them to get into power. I note you ignored the labour voting figures that would show you are manipulating again. If the tories won with 24% of the country Labour must have polled less than this to lose, or does neo marxist maths work differently?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mental.
Click to expand...






 Just go back 20 years and that is exactly what we faced, this is why we now have sharia enclaves in many of our major cities. The evidence of the decline of Labour is there if you but look, with many of their backers leaving and looking elsewhere.


 And yes we all know you are mental, it comes out in every single post you make


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me nervous but interest rates are at record lows and the economy needs a stimulus.
> The fear is that the money will be controlled by fuckwits who dont know what they are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake money doesnt work.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats fake about it ?
Click to expand...







 What supports it after Broon sold the gold because he could not steal anything else from the pensioners. Ever thought that his theft of pensions is what caused them to crash and be worthless ?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Tommy Tainant said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me nervous but interest rates are at record lows and the economy needs a stimulus.
> The fear is that the money will be controlled by fuckwits who dont know what they are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake money doesnt work.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats fake about it ?
Click to expand...

Its not driven by the economy expanding its just airdropped in.......


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Manonthestreet said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me nervous but interest rates are at record lows and the economy needs a stimulus.
> The fear is that the money will be controlled by fuckwits who dont know what they are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake money doesnt work.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats fake about it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not driven by the economy expanding its just airdropped in.......
Click to expand...

The economy is in a lot of trouble and people are suffering. If the government doesnt do anything then who will ?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Tommy Tainant said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that he claims he is not the bankers' man, yet his entire financial balance plan for all his proposals is just more debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me nervous but interest rates are at record lows and the economy needs a stimulus.
> The fear is that the money will be controlled by fuckwits who dont know what they are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fake money doesnt work.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats fake about it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not driven by the economy expanding its just airdropped in.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The economy is in a lot of trouble and people are suffering. If the government doesnt do anything then who will ?
Click to expand...

I heard Brexit boosted the economy.......maybe you should take a look at how govt is draining your economy....eh


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Manonthestreet said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me nervous but interest rates are at record lows and the economy needs a stimulus.
> The fear is that the money will be controlled by fuckwits who dont know what they are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Fake money doesnt work.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whats fake about it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not driven by the economy expanding its just airdropped in.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The economy is in a lot of trouble and people are suffering. If the government doesnt do anything then who will ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I heard Brexit boosted the economy.......maybe you should take a look at how govt is draining your economy....eh
Click to expand...

Brexit hasnt happened yet and when, and if, it does happen we are still not being told what it will look like. Until it is a clearer picture the extent of the damage is still uncertain.
The current government is absolutely thrilled with the economy. A low wage insecure workforce is nectar to their big business backers.


----------



## Manonthestreet

I know it hasnt happened..still was an uptick when the vote went thru....why........cause you're going to be shoveling money down one less rathole


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Manonthestreet said:


> I know it hasnt happened..still was an uptick when the vote went thru....why........cause you're going to be shoveling money down one less rathole


If only it were that simple.
After Nissan ultimatum, Jaguar Land Rover says Brexit must be fair for all
All of these companies will move to mainland Europe if there are tariffs imposed.
The only way to avoid the tariffs is to allow freedom of movement which was probably the main appeal of brexit to many.
Its a mess.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fake money doesnt work.....
> 
> 
> 
> Whats fake about it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not driven by the economy expanding its just airdropped in.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The economy is in a lot of trouble and people are suffering. If the government doesnt do anything then who will ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I heard Brexit boosted the economy.......maybe you should take a look at how govt is draining your economy....eh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brexit hasnt happened yet and when, and if, it does happen we are still not being told what it will look like. Until it is a clearer picture the extent of the damage is still uncertain.
> The current government is absolutely thrilled with the economy. A low wage insecure workforce is nectar to their big business backers.
Click to expand...








 In English you mean that you were fed a pack of lies and now cant decide if the new stories are true or not . A low wage insecure workforce is a civil disturbance in the making that could destroy the country, just look at the miners strikes. Someone would have to feed, house and clothe the people if things went sour, better to have them working and looking after themselves.

The economy is rising every day over and above the rest of Europe as you were told would happen, and the detractors are now waiting to see how much better of they are before jumping ship.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it hasnt happened..still was an uptick when the vote went thru....why........cause you're going to be shoveling money down one less rathole
> 
> 
> 
> If only it were that simple.
> After Nissan ultimatum, Jaguar Land Rover says Brexit must be fair for all
> All of these companies will move to mainland Europe if there are tariffs imposed.
> The only way to avoid the tariffs is to allow freedom of movement which was probably the main appeal of brexit to many.
> Its a mess.
Click to expand...







 Which has already been shown to be a fallacy and a toothless threat, whatever Europe imposes on Britain will be imposed on them and they lose more than the UK will. Let them leave and see where it gets them as in the long run they will come back begging when they lose the US markets


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Phoenall said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it hasnt happened..still was an uptick when the vote went thru....why........cause you're going to be shoveling money down one less rathole
> 
> 
> 
> If only it were that simple.
> After Nissan ultimatum, Jaguar Land Rover says Brexit must be fair for all
> All of these companies will move to mainland Europe if there are tariffs imposed.
> The only way to avoid the tariffs is to allow freedom of movement which was probably the main appeal of brexit to many.
> Its a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which has already been shown to be a fallacy and a toothless threat, whatever Europe imposes on Britain will be imposed on them and they lose more than the UK will. Let them leave and see where it gets them as in the long run they will come back begging when they lose the US markets
Click to expand...

You embarrass yourself when you spout such gibberish. Do you actually understand how the balance of trade works ?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 21st Century Socialism looks rather like 20th Century Socialism, i.e. the Tories in power.
> 
> Corbyn isn't a leader of the Labour Party, he's the leader of a faction who has somehow managed to convince a lot of Labour supporters that not winning an election is what it's all about.
> 
> In the last 35 years and more there has only been one leader of the Labour Party elected to become PM, and many in the Labour Party hated him because he wasn't Socialist. But that was why he got elected.
> 
> 21st Century Socialism is Corbyn not talking about all the Socialism, but answering in a very political way. I saw him answer a question about Socialism and answer something like "well we want the trains to run, who doesn't want that? We want the hospitals to function, who doesn't want that?" without actually stating what his Socialism actually is. It's more than likely getting most things under govt control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the standard mantra, "We've got to convince Tory voters to vote for us in order to win". Only 24% of the country voted Tory, and thats about as good as it will ever get for them in the U.K. (+/- 10%)   It's the emaining 76% Labour needs to attract, including the 34% who didn't bother to vote at all. If the majority of that 34% can be inspired to vote Labour, we're in with a chance to consign the Tories to the dustbin of history where they belong, depite the best efforts of the mainstream media and Tory gerrymandering of constituencies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they won't vote for Corbyn. It's that simple. His message is the sort of message that lost Labour elections in the past. The Middle Class will look at the Tories and May and if everything isn't so bad, they'll vote for them again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know? Labour have 4 years to put their message across unless May calls a snap election (which may or may not be illegal unless she changes the law meantime) and even if she does there is a huge swathe of the Middle Class totally fed up with the Tories at the moment, especially those who voted for "remain".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4 years to put across a message which hasn't succeed in how long?
> 
> One elected Labour PM in how many years?
> 
> Since 1976, FORTY YEARS since a Labour PM was elected who wasn't Tony Blair. He had problems with the Unions, strikes that effectively killed his chance of winning in 1979.
> 
> I looked at Ed Milliband and I saw a guy who was too left wing to win a General Election. He lost. In fact he lost worse than Brown did by a long way. He took Labour backwards. What's going to change from 2015? Suddenly as the economy gets better, the Tories got out of the EU, what's going to turn people towards a guy way, way over on the left? More left than Milliband, who lost, more left than Brown, who lost, more left than many of the previous leaders who lost like Kinnock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure I agree with this.
> Labour lost the last election, and the one before, because they offered no real alternative to the tories. It was a tory lite agenda set out. You could argue that Brown was punished for the recession as well.
> 
> Corbyns policies are not really revolutionary, and are probably not as radical as Plaid Cymru or even the Greens.
> 
> The tories are so awful that it should be an open goal. But Corbyn needs to do two things.
> One is to get the labour pp facing the same way. That should not be impossible.
> 
> The second is to overcome the shocking tory controlled media. That is impossible.
> 
> I know a few people who have rejoined the party on the back of it. People who left because Labour brought in the likes of atos and academy schools, backed the Iraq war and so on.
> 
> The current leadership are moving in the right direction but overturning decades of a tory lite drift will take some doing.
Click to expand...


Did they offer a real alternative in 2005? Wait, they went to war in Iraq, the sort of thing the Tories would do. In 2010 with Brown they offered for of an alternative than they did in 2005. 

It's not about offering an alternative to the Tories. The people who decide elections aren't looking for an alternative. Those looking for an alternative are angry people with rubbish jobs, working class people who are at the bottom of the pile somewhere. The Middle Class like Capitalism, sure, they get fed up in the recessions, but overall they prefer this system to what they've seen coming out of Eastern Europe in the Cold War. 

Labour can harp on about being an alternative, and "real change" as Corbyn is putting it. But changing your toilet for a sofa is "real change" and it'll end up killing you if you're taking a dump on it every day. 

You call Corbyn's policies "revolutionary". Yes, revolutionary as in they cause civil war, not revolutionary as in no one has ever thought them up before. He's not dealing with the issues that matter right now, he's not offering solutions for the 21st century problems, he's just offering an alternative, not a good one either.

The Tories aren't awful. They're bad for those who don't want the destruction of the NHS and state Education. They cause problems in the long term, but Labour do the same thing too, immigration, welfare etc. What's Corbyn saying about those? No doubt he's pro-immigration, then complaining about house prices as if there's no link there. He wants to increase welfare without considering the social costs of people EXPECTING to be given money for free, which for me is a massive problem in the UK. 

I disagree about the media being Tory. The media is the media and they sell papers, some will be pro-Labour if they like what Labour has to say, and some will be pro-Tory and many will switch between the two. You have to play the game, and Corbyn doesn't seem like he can play the game. After years of hearing UKIP and the BNP complain about the media, now Labour go with some wacky destabilizing policies, they're going to complain about the media too? 

The leadership is going massively in the wrong direction. Blair proved that you need to be center left in order to into power, in order to implement some left wing policies. If you don't do this, then you get right wing policies all the way. It's two choices and the fact that 300,000 Labour supporters can't see this is rather worrying.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know it hasnt happened..still was an uptick when the vote went thru....why........cause you're going to be shoveling money down one less rathole
> 
> 
> 
> If only it were that simple.
> After Nissan ultimatum, Jaguar Land Rover says Brexit must be fair for all
> All of these companies will move to mainland Europe if there are tariffs imposed.
> The only way to avoid the tariffs is to allow freedom of movement which was probably the main appeal of brexit to many.
> Its a mess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which has already been shown to be a fallacy and a toothless threat, whatever Europe imposes on Britain will be imposed on them and they lose more than the UK will. Let them leave and see where it gets them as in the long run they will come back begging when they lose the US markets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You embarrass yourself when you spout such gibberish. Do you actually understand how the balance of trade works ?
Click to expand...







 Much better than you do it seems after your posts in regards to the same subject 3 months ago. Remind me again how the UK will lose money when it stops buying EU goods at inflated prices ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

frigidweirdo said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the standard mantra, "We've got to convince Tory voters to vote for us in order to win". Only 24% of the country voted Tory, and thats about as good as it will ever get for them in the U.K. (+/- 10%)   It's the emaining 76% Labour needs to attract, including the 34% who didn't bother to vote at all. If the majority of that 34% can be inspired to vote Labour, we're in with a chance to consign the Tories to the dustbin of history where they belong, depite the best efforts of the mainstream media and Tory gerrymandering of constituencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they won't vote for Corbyn. It's that simple. His message is the sort of message that lost Labour elections in the past. The Middle Class will look at the Tories and May and if everything isn't so bad, they'll vote for them again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know? Labour have 4 years to put their message across unless May calls a snap election (which may or may not be illegal unless she changes the law meantime) and even if she does there is a huge swathe of the Middle Class totally fed up with the Tories at the moment, especially those who voted for "remain".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4 years to put across a message which hasn't succeed in how long?
> 
> One elected Labour PM in how many years?
> 
> Since 1976, FORTY YEARS since a Labour PM was elected who wasn't Tony Blair. He had problems with the Unions, strikes that effectively killed his chance of winning in 1979.
> 
> I looked at Ed Milliband and I saw a guy who was too left wing to win a General Election. He lost. In fact he lost worse than Brown did by a long way. He took Labour backwards. What's going to change from 2015? Suddenly as the economy gets better, the Tories got out of the EU, what's going to turn people towards a guy way, way over on the left? More left than Milliband, who lost, more left than Brown, who lost, more left than many of the previous leaders who lost like Kinnock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure I agree with this.
> Labour lost the last election, and the one before, because they offered no real alternative to the tories. It was a tory lite agenda set out. You could argue that Brown was punished for the recession as well.
> 
> Corbyns policies are not really revolutionary, and are probably not as radical as Plaid Cymru or even the Greens.
> 
> The tories are so awful that it should be an open goal. But Corbyn needs to do two things.
> One is to get the labour pp facing the same way. That should not be impossible.
> 
> The second is to overcome the shocking tory controlled media. That is impossible.
> 
> I know a few people who have rejoined the party on the back of it. People who left because Labour brought in the likes of atos and academy schools, backed the Iraq war and so on.
> 
> The current leadership are moving in the right direction but overturning decades of a tory lite drift will take some doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they offer a real alternative in 2005? Wait, they went to war in Iraq, the sort of thing the Tories would do. In 2010 with Brown they offered for of an alternative than they did in 2005.
> 
> It's not about offering an alternative to the Tories. The people who decide elections aren't looking for an alternative. Those looking for an alternative are angry people with rubbish jobs, working class people who are at the bottom of the pile somewhere. The Middle Class like Capitalism, sure, they get fed up in the recessions, but overall they prefer this system to what they've seen coming out of Eastern Europe in the Cold War.
> 
> Labour can harp on about being an alternative, and "real change" as Corbyn is putting it. But changing your toilet for a sofa is "real change" and it'll end up killing you if you're taking a dump on it every day.
> 
> You call Corbyn's policies "revolutionary". Yes, revolutionary as in they cause civil war, not revolutionary as in no one has ever thought them up before. He's not dealing with the issues that matter right now, he's not offering solutions for the 21st century problems, he's just offering an alternative, not a good one either.
> 
> The Tories aren't awful. They're bad for those who don't want the destruction of the NHS and state Education. They cause problems in the long term, but Labour do the same thing too, immigration, welfare etc. What's Corbyn saying about those? No doubt he's pro-immigration, then complaining about house prices as if there's no link there. He wants to increase welfare without considering the social costs of people EXPECTING to be given money for free, which for me is a massive problem in the UK.
> 
> I disagree about the media being Tory. The media is the media and they sell papers, some will be pro-Labour if they like what Labour has to say, and some will be pro-Tory and many will switch between the two. You have to play the game, and Corbyn doesn't seem like he can play the game. After years of hearing UKIP and the BNP complain about the media, now Labour go with some wacky destabilizing policies, they're going to complain about the media too?
> 
> The leadership is going massively in the wrong direction. Blair proved that you need to be center left in order to into power, in order to implement some left wing policies. If you don't do this, then you get right wing policies all the way. It's two choices and the fact that 300,000 Labour supporters can't see this is rather worrying.
Click to expand...

No, I stated that Corbyns policies are not revolutionary. And in fact are quite moderate when measured against the right wing hysterical rhetoric.

We live in an unfair society where people who are not bright and not skilled are told they are worthless. Their rewards are minimum wages and zero hours contracts. 50 years ago these guys would be making a decent living down pit and on a production line. They had a decent standard of living and wanted a better life for their kids.   

They now scrape by from week to week, they will never be able to retire because they will not have a pension. Their must be a scapegoat for this and it is obviously the foreigner.

That is the social problem we face today. It wont get solved by a tory party detached from it or a labour party that apes the tories for fear of upsetting Murdoch.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they won't vote for Corbyn. It's that simple. His message is the sort of message that lost Labour elections in the past. The Middle Class will look at the Tories and May and if everything isn't so bad, they'll vote for them again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know? Labour have 4 years to put their message across unless May calls a snap election (which may or may not be illegal unless she changes the law meantime) and even if she does there is a huge swathe of the Middle Class totally fed up with the Tories at the moment, especially those who voted for "remain".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4 years to put across a message which hasn't succeed in how long?
> 
> One elected Labour PM in how many years?
> 
> Since 1976, FORTY YEARS since a Labour PM was elected who wasn't Tony Blair. He had problems with the Unions, strikes that effectively killed his chance of winning in 1979.
> 
> I looked at Ed Milliband and I saw a guy who was too left wing to win a General Election. He lost. In fact he lost worse than Brown did by a long way. He took Labour backwards. What's going to change from 2015? Suddenly as the economy gets better, the Tories got out of the EU, what's going to turn people towards a guy way, way over on the left? More left than Milliband, who lost, more left than Brown, who lost, more left than many of the previous leaders who lost like Kinnock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure I agree with this.
> Labour lost the last election, and the one before, because they offered no real alternative to the tories. It was a tory lite agenda set out. You could argue that Brown was punished for the recession as well.
> 
> Corbyns policies are not really revolutionary, and are probably not as radical as Plaid Cymru or even the Greens.
> 
> The tories are so awful that it should be an open goal. But Corbyn needs to do two things.
> One is to get the labour pp facing the same way. That should not be impossible.
> 
> The second is to overcome the shocking tory controlled media. That is impossible.
> 
> I know a few people who have rejoined the party on the back of it. People who left because Labour brought in the likes of atos and academy schools, backed the Iraq war and so on.
> 
> The current leadership are moving in the right direction but overturning decades of a tory lite drift will take some doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they offer a real alternative in 2005? Wait, they went to war in Iraq, the sort of thing the Tories would do. In 2010 with Brown they offered for of an alternative than they did in 2005.
> 
> It's not about offering an alternative to the Tories. The people who decide elections aren't looking for an alternative. Those looking for an alternative are angry people with rubbish jobs, working class people who are at the bottom of the pile somewhere. The Middle Class like Capitalism, sure, they get fed up in the recessions, but overall they prefer this system to what they've seen coming out of Eastern Europe in the Cold War.
> 
> Labour can harp on about being an alternative, and "real change" as Corbyn is putting it. But changing your toilet for a sofa is "real change" and it'll end up killing you if you're taking a dump on it every day.
> 
> You call Corbyn's policies "revolutionary". Yes, revolutionary as in they cause civil war, not revolutionary as in no one has ever thought them up before. He's not dealing with the issues that matter right now, he's not offering solutions for the 21st century problems, he's just offering an alternative, not a good one either.
> 
> The Tories aren't awful. They're bad for those who don't want the destruction of the NHS and state Education. They cause problems in the long term, but Labour do the same thing too, immigration, welfare etc. What's Corbyn saying about those? No doubt he's pro-immigration, then complaining about house prices as if there's no link there. He wants to increase welfare without considering the social costs of people EXPECTING to be given money for free, which for me is a massive problem in the UK.
> 
> I disagree about the media being Tory. The media is the media and they sell papers, some will be pro-Labour if they like what Labour has to say, and some will be pro-Tory and many will switch between the two. You have to play the game, and Corbyn doesn't seem like he can play the game. After years of hearing UKIP and the BNP complain about the media, now Labour go with some wacky destabilizing policies, they're going to complain about the media too?
> 
> The leadership is going massively in the wrong direction. Blair proved that you need to be center left in order to into power, in order to implement some left wing policies. If you don't do this, then you get right wing policies all the way. It's two choices and the fact that 300,000 Labour supporters can't see this is rather worrying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I stated that Corbyns policies are not revolutionary. And in fact are quite moderate when measured against the right wing hysterical rhetoric.
> 
> We live in an unfair society where people who are not bright and not skilled are told they are worthless. Their rewards are minimum wages and zero hours contracts. 50 years ago these guys would be making a decent living down pit and on a production line. They had a decent standard of living and wanted a better life for their kids.
> 
> They now scrape by from week to week, they will never be able to retire because they will not have a pension. Their must be a scapegoat for this and it is obviously the foreigner.
> 
> That is the social problem we face today. It wont get solved by a tory party detached from it or a labour party that apes the tories for fear of upsetting Murdoch.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, speed reading skills on the blink. 

Corbyn's policies are quite moderate because he's playing the game. The more he feels secure in his position, the more left wing, socialist etc he's going to become. Since re-election he's becoming more and more left wing socialist. 

Yes, we live in an unfair world. Nothing will change that. Humans have only ever progressed when they've been pushed to progress. War is a big progresser. No, I'm not calling for more war. However my argument is that a lot of kids who grow up believing they will just be given stuff. Given a house, given money for kids, for this that and the other, and they don't bother. 

I've seen kids who at the age of 15 didn't want to do anything. I've also seen those who wanted to be doctors, businessmen and women etc. Some push themselves so they can earn more money, others don't care. That's not equal, the amount of work they're willing to put into studying and then into their work life is different. Some have skills and others don't have. Is it fair? Still it's not fair. A person at the top of their game can earn their company millions. A person at the bottom of their game might not earn their company anything. Should they be paid the same? No. We need those who want to push themselves to be allowed to push themselves because they will be the ones who make the economy grow.

I was reading a thing the other day about why the US is going downhill. Part of it is reduced production from the labor force. So the dollar is worth less than it would otherwise be. The point here is that production makes someone worth something, lack of production makes them not worth anything. We make the choice to look after those who can't work. But with those who can work, we're making them less productive by offering them incentives not to work. 

To make things "fair" in my view you offer people a decent education. Now the Tories are saying "Grammar Schools" and Labour are saying "no Grammar Schools". In my view this ignores the reality of what kids need to be learning in order to be productive members of society. The type of school is neither here nor there. It's UNFAIR to all kids to have the current system that's in place where kids go to school and learn stuff that is, quite frankly, useless to their life after school. 

Having kids choose a direction in school from like the age of 13, with the possibility to change, flexibility is important, we can have kids leave school at 16 or 18 and walk into jobs. Rather than do what Labour did which was to try and cram universities with students when most of them won't need the degree they've got, and won't have learned much, other than how to drink, that is important for their adult life.

We need plumbers, builders, electricians. They can earn a decent wage. But kids are being told either you go to university or you're hopeless, and then kids get put off trying to do a decent job. 

Zero hour contracts are the RESULT of kids having gone through school and coming out of it with nothing. Yes, we need people to work in shops and yes, shops are always going to be on the low end of the pay spectrum. Quite frankly, most people could work in a shop. I've done it, and it was as boring as hell, and the money wasn't good. However if kids were taught how to use their money wisely, they'd see they can live off this money. If house prices weren't excessive, then there wouldn't be a problem. I've worked jobs where I could be given nothing the next week, summer jobs etc. However I worked hard enough for me not to be left with nothing. Some people can't do that. Some people can't see past the next week, and perhaps zero wage contracts are all they are actually worth because they're lazy, unreliable, and not skilled at anything much.

If they don't try and push themselves and end up without a pension, it's as fair as someone who pushed themselves and got themselves a pension. Simple as. They make their decisions. if they have a choice between a new iPhone 7 and a pension and choose the former, why the hell should hard working people spend money for that person to fund their stupidity?

I think we see the social problem differently. You see things as unfair. I see things as unfair. I see people being lazy and idle and complaining things are unfair, you might think they deserve to be given money for that, I don't know.

All I know is that socialism in the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries didn't work because too many people did jobs badly and were as lazy as hell and the people simply weren't productive.


----------



## Challenger

frigidweirdo said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Full Speech: Jeremy Corbyn addresses conference
> 
> Watching his speech.... good for insomnia maybe, but 14:30 in he thanks the Mayor of London who acts like he's been praised by a Tory, he doesn't smile. Kind of sums up Labour right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not a broad grin but he does smile and wink at some people nearby. Early days...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see a smile, I didn't see a wink, I'm talking from Khan here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I looked again. No smile, someone turns around to look at him and still no smile, no wink. A steely face as if he doesn't want to be praised by this guy.
Click to expand...


OK perhaps we both see what we want to see.


----------



## Challenger

anotherlife said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, technology would invalidate Keynesian practices in the 21st century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keynesian economy assumes a linear relationship between work and output, that is the more work, the more output.  But it is not true in an automated high tech economy.  All the work is in machine maintenance and product design, which are negligible small compared to the old productive work, but the output is unlimited, limited only by market capitalization, as soon as one guy designs something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bit dated but nevertheless still more relevant today;
> 
> Joseph Stiglitz: Keynesian economics finds new relevancy in the 21st century global economy
> 
> ...and this from Wiki
> 
> 2008–09 Keynesian resurgence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Unfortunately from experience when you talk to 3 or more economists, you get 3 or more contradictory opinions; it's an inexact science. One thing is clear though, politically forced "Austerity" hasn't worked and doesn't seem likely to. We need something different/new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your observation is correct, economy is not a science or anything, maybe it is politics, otherwise there would be provable concepts in it.  Economy is a good game though, because you can justify with it whatever the biggest lenders do.  Politically driven austerity is probably the worldwide future, because that is what protects the new nobility the most.
Click to expand...


Only if the rest of us allow it to continue, the future isn't written yet.


----------



## anotherlife

Challenger said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, technology would invalidate Keynesian practices in the 21st century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keynesian economy assumes a linear relationship between work and output, that is the more work, the more output.  But it is not true in an automated high tech economy.  All the work is in machine maintenance and product design, which are negligible small compared to the old productive work, but the output is unlimited, limited only by market capitalization, as soon as one guy designs something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bit dated but nevertheless still more relevant today;
> 
> Joseph Stiglitz: Keynesian economics finds new relevancy in the 21st century global economy
> 
> ...and this from Wiki
> 
> 2008–09 Keynesian resurgence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Unfortunately from experience when you talk to 3 or more economists, you get 3 or more contradictory opinions; it's an inexact science. One thing is clear though, politically forced "Austerity" hasn't worked and doesn't seem likely to. We need something different/new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your observation is correct, economy is not a science or anything, maybe it is politics, otherwise there would be provable concepts in it.  Economy is a good game though, because you can justify with it whatever the biggest lenders do.  Politically driven austerity is probably the worldwide future, because that is what protects the new nobility the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if the rest of us allow it to continue, the future isn't written yet.
Click to expand...


Then it is interesting that the Tora as well as the Talmud all speak about the programming of history and minds.  If people are programmed, then what they can disallow is deterministic.  I think this is interesting.


----------



## Phoenall

Tommy Tainant said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they won't vote for Corbyn. It's that simple. His message is the sort of message that lost Labour elections in the past. The Middle Class will look at the Tories and May and if everything isn't so bad, they'll vote for them again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know? Labour have 4 years to put their message across unless May calls a snap election (which may or may not be illegal unless she changes the law meantime) and even if she does there is a huge swathe of the Middle Class totally fed up with the Tories at the moment, especially those who voted for "remain".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4 years to put across a message which hasn't succeed in how long?
> 
> One elected Labour PM in how many years?
> 
> Since 1976, FORTY YEARS since a Labour PM was elected who wasn't Tony Blair. He had problems with the Unions, strikes that effectively killed his chance of winning in 1979.
> 
> I looked at Ed Milliband and I saw a guy who was too left wing to win a General Election. He lost. In fact he lost worse than Brown did by a long way. He took Labour backwards. What's going to change from 2015? Suddenly as the economy gets better, the Tories got out of the EU, what's going to turn people towards a guy way, way over on the left? More left than Milliband, who lost, more left than Brown, who lost, more left than many of the previous leaders who lost like Kinnock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure I agree with this.
> Labour lost the last election, and the one before, because they offered no real alternative to the tories. It was a tory lite agenda set out. You could argue that Brown was punished for the recession as well.
> 
> Corbyns policies are not really revolutionary, and are probably not as radical as Plaid Cymru or even the Greens.
> 
> The tories are so awful that it should be an open goal. But Corbyn needs to do two things.
> One is to get the labour pp facing the same way. That should not be impossible.
> 
> The second is to overcome the shocking tory controlled media. That is impossible.
> 
> I know a few people who have rejoined the party on the back of it. People who left because Labour brought in the likes of atos and academy schools, backed the Iraq war and so on.
> 
> The current leadership are moving in the right direction but overturning decades of a tory lite drift will take some doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they offer a real alternative in 2005? Wait, they went to war in Iraq, the sort of thing the Tories would do. In 2010 with Brown they offered for of an alternative than they did in 2005.
> 
> It's not about offering an alternative to the Tories. The people who decide elections aren't looking for an alternative. Those looking for an alternative are angry people with rubbish jobs, working class people who are at the bottom of the pile somewhere. The Middle Class like Capitalism, sure, they get fed up in the recessions, but overall they prefer this system to what they've seen coming out of Eastern Europe in the Cold War.
> 
> Labour can harp on about being an alternative, and "real change" as Corbyn is putting it. But changing your toilet for a sofa is "real change" and it'll end up killing you if you're taking a dump on it every day.
> 
> You call Corbyn's policies "revolutionary". Yes, revolutionary as in they cause civil war, not revolutionary as in no one has ever thought them up before. He's not dealing with the issues that matter right now, he's not offering solutions for the 21st century problems, he's just offering an alternative, not a good one either.
> 
> The Tories aren't awful. They're bad for those who don't want the destruction of the NHS and state Education. They cause problems in the long term, but Labour do the same thing too, immigration, welfare etc. What's Corbyn saying about those? No doubt he's pro-immigration, then complaining about house prices as if there's no link there. He wants to increase welfare without considering the social costs of people EXPECTING to be given money for free, which for me is a massive problem in the UK.
> 
> I disagree about the media being Tory. The media is the media and they sell papers, some will be pro-Labour if they like what Labour has to say, and some will be pro-Tory and many will switch between the two. You have to play the game, and Corbyn doesn't seem like he can play the game. After years of hearing UKIP and the BNP complain about the media, now Labour go with some wacky destabilizing policies, they're going to complain about the media too?
> 
> The leadership is going massively in the wrong direction. Blair proved that you need to be center left in order to into power, in order to implement some left wing policies. If you don't do this, then you get right wing policies all the way. It's two choices and the fact that 300,000 Labour supporters can't see this is rather worrying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I stated that Corbyns policies are not revolutionary. And in fact are quite moderate when measured against the right wing hysterical rhetoric.
> 
> We live in an unfair society where people who are not bright and not skilled are told they are worthless. Their rewards are minimum wages and zero hours contracts. 50 years ago these guys would be making a decent living down pit and on a production line. They had a decent standard of living and wanted a better life for their kids.
> 
> They now scrape by from week to week, they will never be able to retire because they will not have a pension. Their must be a scapegoat for this and it is obviously the foreigner.
> 
> That is the social problem we face today. It wont get solved by a tory party detached from it or a labour party that apes the tories for fear of upsetting Murdoch.
Click to expand...





 What fantasy world do you live in, 50 years ago those people were slogging away for a pittance and living hand to mouth. I know because I was one of them on 30 shillings a week. They lived in a company house, bought from a company store and owed their very existence to the company. And this was their lot even under a Labour government, who wanted slave labour to make their policies look good. It was the late 1970's that saw change when Thatcher took over and showed the men how to budget and balance the books. The workshy and lazy were the first casualties as they failed to stand up to the mark, a good example was British Steel that was just subsidised employment for the masses. The workforce saw £ signs when it was announced there were to be redundancies with payouts never before imagined, so the senior hands all volunteered to go with £30k in their pockets hoping to return after a year when that money was spent. Old and inefficient plants were closed, just as old and inefficient pits were closed and the young moved to other areas. Anyone showing signs of intelligence and an ability to work unaided were tracked through the system and promoted, the workshy were discarded every step of the way. The people left were rewarded for their abilities and many bought their own homes as a result. The lazy and feckless were left in the squalor of their social housing to moan about how unfair it all was and they had not been given a chance at the high wages on offer. Still the looney left whinge and whine over the way they were treated and should be given welfare to make up for what they lost, sounds just like the palestinians doesnt it


----------



## frigidweirdo

Challenger said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Full Speech: Jeremy Corbyn addresses conference
> 
> Watching his speech.... good for insomnia maybe, but 14:30 in he thanks the Mayor of London who acts like he's been praised by a Tory, he doesn't smile. Kind of sums up Labour right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not a broad grin but he does smile and wink at some people nearby. Early days...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see a smile, I didn't see a wink, I'm talking from Khan here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I looked again. No smile, someone turns around to look at him and still no smile, no wink. A steely face as if he doesn't want to be praised by this guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK perhaps we both see what we want to see.
Click to expand...


I really don't know if you're looking at the same part as me.


----------



## Challenger

anotherlife said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keynesian economy assumes a linear relationship between work and output, that is the more work, the more output.  But it is not true in an automated high tech economy.  All the work is in machine maintenance and product design, which are negligible small compared to the old productive work, but the output is unlimited, limited only by market capitalization, as soon as one guy designs something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bit dated but nevertheless still more relevant today;
> 
> Joseph Stiglitz: Keynesian economics finds new relevancy in the 21st century global economy
> 
> ...and this from Wiki
> 
> 2008–09 Keynesian resurgence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Unfortunately from experience when you talk to 3 or more economists, you get 3 or more contradictory opinions; it's an inexact science. One thing is clear though, politically forced "Austerity" hasn't worked and doesn't seem likely to. We need something different/new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your observation is correct, economy is not a science or anything, maybe it is politics, otherwise there would be provable concepts in it.  Economy is a good game though, because you can justify with it whatever the biggest lenders do.  Politically driven austerity is probably the worldwide future, because that is what protects the new nobility the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if the rest of us allow it to continue, the future isn't written yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it is interesting that the Tora as well as the Talmud all speak about the programming of history and minds.  If people are programmed, then what they can disallow is deterministic.  I think this is interesting.
Click to expand...


Very, are you really saying Jewish people use people programming?


----------



## Challenger

frigidweirdo said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not a broad grin but he does smile and wink at some people nearby. Early days...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see a smile, I didn't see a wink, I'm talking from Khan here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I looked again. No smile, someone turns around to look at him and still no smile, no wink. A steely face as if he doesn't want to be praised by this guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK perhaps we both see what we want to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't know if you're looking at the same part as me.
Click to expand...

Is there more than one shot of Saddiq Khan during the speech?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Challenger said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see a smile, I didn't see a wink, I'm talking from Khan here.
> 
> 
> 
> Look again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I looked again. No smile, someone turns around to look at him and still no smile, no wink. A steely face as if he doesn't want to be praised by this guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK perhaps we both see what we want to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really don't know if you're looking at the same part as me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is there more than one shot of Saddiq Khan during the speech?
Click to expand...


Dunno, this was on 14:30. I didn't watch the whole thing.


----------

