The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Chavez was pure scum. The people who defend him are reminiscent of the British Communists who used to adore Stalin.

 

46 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Indeed. A lecturer I once saw in Mexico city called him a Hitler hiding in Lenin's clothing.

This looks like a sensible discussion 

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

On 05/08/2017 at 11:07, colhint said:

I have to respond this. First why the need to be so condescending toward my daughter, she has done nothing to you.  Secondly no way was she the leader of the group and there were over 100 of them. Third they don't just click their fingers . Forth the overwhelming majority were all for voting to end school fees and historic debt. You could argue that's not was said, but as I mentioned it earlier, two front benchers were going along these lines. Fifth loads of these 17 and 18 year olds have siblings two or three  years older than themselves who have debt, so its not selfless its personal within the family. Sixth These 17 and 18 year old school leavers about 350 ish all think Corbyn is a liar,  so it maybe a small percentage to you but well over 90% of the school leavers  at her school this year don't trust him. Seventh I couldn't care less what you believe, I showed her the post and all she said is " he needs to speak with more students then"

Unfortunately first hand opinion isn't important. Brexit anyone?
The best thing you can do with the entrenched on here is show them a Guardian video or article, I've lost count of the times it's moved the conversation on.

Glad your daughter caught on early, we must find a way to reduce misinformation and get people involved in policy and not politics. Clearly many on here are too long in the tooth to change.
If she has any ideas on how I might do that please pass them on!

[StefanAVFC]

A 17/18 year old being brainwashed and misinformed and then unwillingly brainwashing her peers is not admirable. It's sinister.

Because no matter how many times one can state 'Corbyn didn't say x' with the proof, it's much easier to completely ignore it for the sake of an easy win.

Edited August 7, 2017 by StefanAVFC

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

The best thing you can do with the entrenched on here is show them a Guardian video or article, I've lost count of the times it's moved the conversation on.

Yawn

[chrisp65]

I met a guy in Texaco that had anecdotes.

 

[veloman]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Village of the Damned from The Midwich Cuckoos by John Wyndham perhaps  ?

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

16 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

A 17/18 year old being brainwashed and misinformed and then unwillingly brainwashing her peers is not admirable. It's sinister.

Because no matter how many times one can state 'Corbyn didn't say x' with the proof, it's much easier to completely ignore it for the sake of an easy win.

Hear hear, that's why Labour should be heavily criticised by all for trying to misinform people. From their undeliverable manifesto to their vague answers to secure votes.  

They say this is a new type of politics but so far, all I'm seeing is an amplification of the absolute worse kind of politics!. I think Corbyn could be stronger but I feel it's his party who are pulling the strings, just like they pulled him away from the EU referendum debate. 

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

From their undeliverable manifesto to their vague answers to secure votes.  

Sounds more like the Tories to be honest.

[JB]

**** hell. I mean, seriously, it's got to be trolling surely? Although I guess Labour's manifesto pledges are technically undeliverable seeing as, you know, they didn't get elected. 

[tonyh29]

7 minutes ago, JB said:

**** hell. I mean, seriously, it's got to be trolling surely? Although I guess Labour's manifesto pledges are technically undeliverable seeing as, you know, they didn't get elected. 

 the Evening Standard rather helpfully had a summary

[One million people will be taken off NHS waiting lists by "guaranteeing access to treatment within 18 weeks".[/quote]

is that deliverable ?  ..unless they continue Burnham's model of outsourcing these ops to the private sector , which would be rather embarrassing all in all  after all the rhetoric around the Tory party and  NHS privatisation

 Launch ‘fresh negotiating priorities’ – with emphasis on retaining access to the Single Market and Customs Union over immigration ...  which is weird seeing as they helped defeat a motion tabled by Umunna on just that

NHS will receive more than £30 billion in extra funding over the next parliament .. add that to buying back the post Office and renationalising the railways  , triple lock , free tuition (£11.2 bn according to figures)  , 10,000 more police officers (which as we know is £300,000 over 4 years  )  and a German style bank to  deliver £250bn of lending power .... all whilst  promising to reduce debt as a fraction of national income .... I dunno , it sounds undeliverable to me 

A part of me looks at the promises they made and thinks heck why not , lets see if they can pull a Homer and do it , it's radical , it's certainly offering something that the Tories didn't   .... but genuinely I just don't see the how behind it all unless they received an email from a prince in Nigeria who has promised to fund it all for them in exchange for their bank account details

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

 the Evening Standard rather helpfully had a summary

[One million people will be taken off NHS waiting lists by "guaranteeing access to treatment within 18 weeks".[/quote]

is that deliverable ?  ..unless they continue Burnham's model of outsourcing these ops to the private sector , which would be rather embarrassing all in all  after all the rhetoric around the Tory party and  NHS privatisation

 Launch ‘fresh negotiating priorities’ – with emphasis on retaining access to the Single Market and Customs Union over immigration ...  which is weird seeing as they helped defeat a motion tabled by Umunna on just that

NHS will receive more than £30 billion in extra funding over the next parliament .. add that to buying back the post Office and renationalising the railways  , triple lock , free tuition (£11.2 bn according to figures)  , 10,000 more police officers (which as we know is £300,000 over 4 years  )  and a German style bank to  deliver £250bn of lending power .... all whilst  promising to reduce debt as a fraction of national income .... I dunno , it sounds undeliverable to me 

A part of me looks at the promises they made and thinks heck why not , lets see if they can pull a Homer and do it , it's radical , it's certainly offering something that the Tories didn't   .... but genuinely I just don't see the how behind it all unless they received an email from a prince in Nigeria who has promised to fund it all for them in exchange for their bank account details

Guaranteeing access within 18 weeks wouldn't be from the day they got in gov. It would scale up to that by hiring more front line staff and paying them adequately. Not an especially complicated concept. So yes, completely deliverable.

The emphasis would be on retaining access to the single market and customs union if they were in government and negotiating Brexit themselves. Starmer has always maintained that. It was the amendment itself that was the problem. It was never going to pass and only had the potential to damage Labour. It did anyway to an extent but not as much as if it got defeated and left Labour as the losing party completely divided with no idea on Brexit, as opposed to both parties looking (and are) like that.

It sounds undeliverable to you because (tell me if I'm wrong) you're not an economist with advanced knowledge of microeconomics, MMT and Keynesianism. As it turns out, lots of people who are say that public infrastructure borrowing and spending is the only way to growth and Labour's plans work, Tory austerity doesn't. I'm quite shocked some people are so far behind that I have to keep posting this http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/guws3cyv3ctq9g7vg754p2zyymvc2f 

Quote

In contrast, Labour’s manifesto proposals are much better designed to strengthen and develop the economy and ensure that its benefits are more fairly shared and sustainable, as well as being fiscally responsible and based on sound estimations.

We point to the proposed increases in investment in the future of the UK and its people, labour market policies geared to decrease inequality and to protect the lower paid and those in insecure work and fair and progressive changes in taxation.

But hey, don't listen to them. I'm sure Murdoch has your best interests at heart

But hey, don't listen to them. I'm sure Murdoch has your best interests at heart

Edited August 8, 2017 by darrenm

[magnkarl]

Talking of hypocritical politicians, I sat in on a lecture by a professor in Image and Communication strategy today. He wanted to explain how modern politics are full of propaganda.

 

Go back 60 years and look at most German propaganda posters and they said something very similar. "Nur für Deutsche". We will put the Arian race first. Comical and at best racist.

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by magnkarl

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

 

It sounds undeliverable to you because (tell me if I'm wrong) you're not an economist with advanced knowledge of microeconomics, MMT and Keynesianism. As it turns out, lots of people who are say that public infrastructure borrowing and spending is the only way to growth and Labour's plans work, Tory austerity doesn't. I'm quite shocked some people are so far behind that I have to keep posting this http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/guws3cyv3ctq9g7vg754p2zyymvc2f 

But hey, don't listen to them. I'm sure Murdoch has your best interests at heart

No it sounds un-deliverable because Labour have shown in the past they are able to put us in financial trouble in the past. Therefore how can you trust them?

They deliver a lot of "sweet spot suprises" in their manifesto, when the country is suffering financially already with massive cuts. I can't believe anyone actually thinks that labour will be bale to deliver 75% of that manifesto. Its completely unrealistic in my view simply because of the cost it would be 

[Chindie]

Labour, for all their faults, didn't cause American banks to lend money to people incapable of paying it back, then bundle the debt together, to sell and bet on between themselves globally, and then bundle the bundles together and sell and bet on that, until the bottom inevitably fell out and every country on the planet took a tumble.

The cuts aren't the way things have to be. The Tories have spent a decade telling you that, telling you the country is just like your household budget and the figures have to add up or we'll be Greece. But that's not the way it works. It's a bloody successful line though, because it's so simple.

I'd also argue I'd quite happily vote for a manifesto I liked that could do 75% of what it promised. Because that could be well 75% of stuff that is a damn sight better than is going on now, which seems only to serve to make things worse.

I don't really like Labour, or Corbyn, either.

Edited August 8, 2017 by Chindie

[HanoiVillan]

47 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Comical and at best racist.

'At best racist'!! One wonders what it is at worst. 

And surely 'comical' and 'racist' are an either/or proposition?

[magnkarl]

18 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

'At best racist'!! One wonders what it is at worst. 

And surely 'comical' and 'racist' are an either/or proposition?

Worse that racism? Many things are worse than racism, doesn't make the poster any better though. The fact that a Labour MP gets away with clear as day racism like that is beyond me. What if the poster said "The Conservatives will put White people first to preserve a diverse nation." Half the posters on here would be in uproar. The fact that it happens in one of the most ethically diverse boroughs in our country makes it even worse. A lot of my mother's Jewish family lives around Stamford Hill and they aren't voting Labour any more because of stuff like this being put out by Abbott and her team in Hackney.

Edited August 8, 2017 by magnkarl

[JB]

40 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

No it sounds un-deliverable because Labour have shown in the past they are able to put us in financial trouble in the past. Therefore how can you trust them?

FFS. How many times have we been over this? Tories have done you like a kipper. 

If someone wants to believe something badly enough, then clearly even things like facts and evidence won't change their mind.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

4 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Sounds more like the Tories to be honest.

100%, it's both of them! 

New kind of politics baby!

[tonyh29]

3 hours ago, darrenm said:

Guaranteeing access within 18 weeks wouldn't be from the day they got in gov. It would scale up to that by hiring more front line staff and paying them adequately. Not an especially complicated concept. So yes, completely deliverable.

The emphasis would be on retaining access to the single market and customs union if they were in government and negotiating Brexit themselves. Starmer has always maintained that. It was the amendment itself that was the problem. It was never going to pass and only had the potential to damage Labour. It did anyway to an extent but not as much as if it got defeated and left Labour as the losing party completely divided with no idea on Brexit, as opposed to both parties looking (and are) like that.

It sounds undeliverable to you because (tell me if I'm wrong) you're not an economist with advanced knowledge of microeconomics, MMT and Keynesianism. As it turns out, lots of people who are say that public infrastructure borrowing and spending is the only way to growth and Labour's plans work, Tory austerity doesn't. I'm quite shocked some people are so far behind that I have to keep posting this http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/guws3cyv3ctq9g7vg754p2zyymvc2f 

But hey, don't listen to them. I'm sure Murdoch has your best interests at heart

you were doing so well and then had to end it with a Murdoch , I don't read his rags anymore than you do

you are correct I'm not an economist , nor I suspect are most of us and I don't see that excluding anyone else from having an opinion , but that letter you are quoting possibly deserves no more attention than remainers gave the economists and business leaders who came out with a letter in favour of Brexit  .. i.e. it's one view but not everyone agrees

a quick google on yahoo reveals for exampleTorygraph (yeah I know)

Quote

 

Ahead of this week’s general election, the panel gave scores out of 10 to the parties on the topics of taxes and spending; immigration; jobs and pay; industrial strategy; and social care and pensions

Overall the Conservative plans received an average vote of 4.6 compared to 3.6 for Labour.

The panel backed the Conservatives’ industrial strategy over that of Labour,

Even in pensions and social care - where Ms May suffered an embarrassing climb down on her plans to pay for care - the Conservatives came out ahead with a score of five beating Labour’s three.

 

but even without a degree in economics ( or whatever qualification you feel suitable to allow me to comment  ) I do know that labours plans centre hugely around the corporation tax rise ( 40% in some estimates)  at a time of economic uncertainty over Brexit , they've made a huge amount on assumptions on what this will bring in for them ... ..as per Labours 50p rate previously higher tax rates generally result in lower than expected revenues , so there is some  evidence to support this (same also happened in the USA for another example)

Now I'm sure they already know this but  the current corp tax rate is significantly lower than it was in 2011, yet the amount of tax collected is actually higher (even adjusted for inflation etc)  , presumably  because the lower rates have encouraged companies to expand or  in some case to even to set up in the UK ...so taking a very massive assumption that the  trend works the same in reverse, the proposed rate increase to 26% could actually reduce corporation tax revenues , not increase them by £20 billion, as the UK becomes a less attractive place for business investment ( see also the Brexit argument )

that's before we look at the impact of Corporation tax on workers  ... it was the view of one economist I read somewhere ( might have been some economist bod from Oxford University but I cant recall exactly  now  ) that If 75% of the burden of increasing the tax rate falls on the workforce, the proposed £20 billion a year from extra corporation tax receipts would reduce wages by £15 billion a year.... which of course would result in less tax revenues for the government

it's all there to be knocked down , and I'm sure the 130 would easily do so  as could many on VT , and I accept that , but I'll accept that more if it comes without a Murdoch comment.

[bickster]

50 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

because Labour have shown in the past they are able to put us in financial trouble ... Therefore how can you trust them?

1

I'm sure this has been disproved time and time again

Tories have borrowed far more and taxed higher than Labour have, pretty consistently since WW2