-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="515761" data-time="1442235083">
<div><br><p>As to Corbyn he is the result of a natural back lash against New Labour and the phoniness of same. it's really no surprise that the grass roots of the party went further left; the larger problem for Labour though is that the populace are further right. British politics is in a wretched state with a weak Tory party, a non existent middle ground, independence parties gaining ground and still Labour couldn't get near to parity. As they lurch further to the left amid the inevitable back stabbing and in-fighting they will be less and less likely to be electable. And that is the real problem for British politics over the next 5 to 10 years - having a weak Tory leadership with no real challengers.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The Economist was pointing out that this might actually fracture the Tories. They are pretty divided on stuff like Europe, so without an actual opposition there is less reason to toe the line, so you'll get more party revolts within the tories.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That "just pretend to agree or Labour will get in" is gone.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="515728" data-time="1442224100">
<div>
<p>Please get it right. People do not send money home. They would use £s to buy NZ$'s. The money stays in the UK. This is very different to Euro countries. And its one of the keys to understanding why countries like Greece are in the shit</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Still really looking forward to hearing how GBP, earned in the UK, switched into NZ $, sent to NZ, spent in NZ, stays in the UK economy... you know, so in future I can get it right...</p> -
<p>That's pretty much part of what I was alluding to Gollum as British politics being in a wretched place. Strong leadership and a strong opposition is the ideal. What we are heading for is the antithesis of that.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="515769" data-time="1442241767">
<div>
<p>That's pretty much part of what I was alluding to Gollum as British politics being in a wretched place. Strong leadership and a strong opposition is the ideal. What we are heading for is the antithesis of that.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The Uk had a Government and a me too main opposition.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Its like the NZ flag debate. Two almost identical flags and two others that have no chance of winning</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now we hopefully have some real choice. Scotland did and see how the Scots voted.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="515761" data-time="1442235083"><p>
Winger, the trouble with your argument about the difference between MS Govt and an irresponsible person is that often you have an irresponsible person running the economy of an MS Govt. Much of your economic arguments pre-suppose A) The argument being fundamentally correct in the first place and That everything works out just the way you want it. Your arguments remind me of Gordon Brown's "prudent" economic policies, spending billions based on ever spiralling tax revenues that were blatantly over optimistic when he raised the issue and then of course things didn't work out just the way he wanted either and they failed to materialise - guess what? We then owed billions which had been pissed away on an every increasing Government AND the world turned to ratshit.<br><br>
Build houses (nice cuddly feel). Save the migrants (nice cuddly feel). Scrap Trident (nasty horrible weapons). Soak the rich (nasty profiteering bastards preying on the working man). All good emotive soundbites. Try and get a bit of perspective or heaven forbid facts and figures into such policies and see the result.<br><br>
As to Corbyn he is the result of a natural back lash against New Labour and the phoniness of same. it's really no surprise that the grass roots of the party went further left; the larger problem for Labour though is that the populace are further right. British politics is in a wretched state with a weak Tory party, a non existent middle ground, independence parties gaining ground and still Labour couldn't get near to parity. As they lurch further to the left amid the inevitable back stabbing and in-fighting they will be less and less likely to be electable. And that is the real problem for British politics over the next 5 to 10 years - having a weak Tory leadership with no real challengers.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Change a few words and you have labour here , their current leader is so afraid of having his own "dead snapper " moment he says and does next to nothing . They think the way electoral cycles work they'll simply get in next time by default , in the meantime they'll scrap with each other and campaign on twitter . The twitter thing astounds me , it's not he real world but they treat it like it is . -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="515720" data-time="1442222277">
<div>
<p>This is the mistake that many economists also make.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>They see a monetary sovereign Govt like the UK as no different to a household or company (or non monetary sovereign Govt like Greece,Spain or the UK in the ECM etc). This mistake could destroy the West. Due to ignorance about money and debt</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Debt is needed. To back money. To back our saving as we age. And to back company profit. Otherwise one companies profit is offset by other companies losses. This is just an unavoidable fact of life. And at present individuals have taken on almost all the debt they can. There is a limit to how much more we can all pay for property. Or debt students or companies etc can take on. So the only option is monetary sovereign Govts who can take on debt without limit. (despite what some ignorant economists and politicians believe). The question is how best to do this so we all benefit not just a few without creating inflation or currency depreciation.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Winger, it's pretty clear you don't even read my posts, just scan them for things you want to cherry pick.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I made a pretty long-winded point about the fact that people mistakenly equate government debt to their own circumstances. I said that QE (and by inference debt) are not in themselves a bad thing. And yet you still blithely claim that I see household and UK debt as the same, and that I can't see that debt can be good.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Go back and read my reasons for thinking that DESPITE household and UK debt being different I still think that expanding the debt and not paying it down over time is a bad idea.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The whole point about deferring repayment is to extend the debt until inflation reduces that debt in real terms into something more manageable, the standard future value of money argument. And with reasonable debt loadings that's fine. But Corbyn is already talking about funding any number of unicorn farms: a huge but unspecified number of state funded houses, millions more state jobs, renationalised utilities (the railways??) and God knows what else. We're not talking chicken feed here. How much will Corbyn have to borrow - another few hundred billion? And then where is the room for the routine cyclic borrowing that is part of the government's function that would be on top I guess.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And this isn't in isolation; the UK already has £1.5tr in debt and even at historic low rates it is paying 8% of tax income just to repay the interest. That's OK, although he's a weird bloke George Osborne seems to have a handle on managing it. But expanding it wholesale, having to service the debt at inevitably higher interest rates and locking it in as a permanent part of the economy by never addressing the repayment of principle doesn't seem like a good idea to me.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Of course the unspoken part of all this policy is Corbyn thinks he can increase the tax take by soaking the "rich", by which he really means the middle class who already fund pretty much everything anyway.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Winger, please don't make the mistake of thinking I don't understand the socialist mindset. The younger me was a socialist. But I now know he was a fantasist.</p> -
<p>I take issue with people saying that Corbyns policies and future for Britain cannot be compared to Venezuela, Greece and Argentina. yes they bloody well can.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>They are exactly the same Socialist BS.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="515775" data-time="1442250173">
<div>
<p>The Uk had a Government and a me too main opposition.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Its like the NZ flag debate. Two almost identical flags and two others that have no chance of winning</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now we hopefully have some real choice. Scotland did and see how the Scots voted.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>No, I think you misunderstand my point. Yes, in the UK we had a choice that was no choice, plain vanilla options of Government and that was not good. What we have now (potentially and very likely IMO) is even worse in that we have the vanilla non option without any real strength of leadership and a loony vacuum elsewhere. For sure now we have a choice or at least a divergence of policy but it is so far away from anything remotely sane that it will not be electable or even a danger to the miserable status quo that we have. It's a choice that is no choice except in that fictional socialist utopia.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Scotland and how they voted? Do you mean in the referendum or the General Election? If it's the former let's face it. The result was a no to independence and outside of Glasgow it was a bloody resounding no. If it's the General Election you are referring to, well, the Conservatives did not lose a single seat. The Scots voted against Labour more so than for SNP. If the SNP vote was indicative of the Scottish will for independence then the referendum would have been a yes.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="515813" data-time="1442268340">
<div>
<p>So Cameron has now claimed Labour is a threat to national security, economic security, and family security. That's a little OTT.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href=''>
</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>National security? Downgrade the army, get rid of Trident, leave Nato, open the borders, handing the Falklands back..... yeah that is a threat to national security.</p>
<p>Economic Security? Quantitive easing, ntaionalisation, huge tax increases on the middle class, punitive taxes on banks, massive strengthening of unions - yeah that is threat to economic security</p>
<p>Family security? Not sure about that one.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But you are appearing to be basing your position based solely on.. 'he cannot be that bad surely?' yeah he can. Look what happened to Venezuela.</p> -
<p>I don't actually have a position. Just noting the strong language.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Someone from the Russian embassy in the UK asked when retweeting the above, words to the effect of: "What would people say if Putin made this remark about an opponent?"</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="515876" data-time="1442286089">
<div>
<p>I don't actually have a position. Just noting the strong language.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Someone from the Russian embassy in the UK asked when retweeting the above, words to the effect of: "What would people say if Putin made this remark about an opponent?"</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you think that is srong language.. you havent listened to Corbyn.</p>
<p>Just one example.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">'It would be wrong to ‘make value judgments’ about Brits who travel to Syria to join IS.'</span></span><br>
</p> -
Or killing Bin Laden was a tragedy , or chumming up to Hamas or being mates with Muslim hate preachers . He's an old school leftard who believes West= bad ( insert backward shithold or culture here) = good . Some in depth analysis of the people that support him would be interesting.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="515787" data-time="1442261602">
<div>
<p>Winger, it's pretty clear you don't even read my posts, just scan them for things you want to cherry pick.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I made a pretty long-winded point about the fact that people mistakenly equate government debt to their own circumstances. I said that QE (and by inference debt) are not in themselves a bad thing. And yet you still blithely claim that I see household and UK debt as the same, and that I can't see that debt can be good.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:#ff0000;">Go back and read my reasons for thinking that DESPITE household and UK debt being different I still think that expanding the debt and not paying it down over time is a bad idea.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The whole point about deferring repayment is to extend the debt until inflation reduces that debt in real terms into something more manageable, the standard future value of money argument. And with reasonable debt loadings that's fine. But Corbyn is already talking about funding any number of unicorn farms: a huge but unspecified number of state funded houses, millions more state jobs, renationalised utilities (the railways??) and God knows what else. We're not talking chicken feed here. <span style="color:#0000ff;">How much will Corbyn have to borrow </span>- another few hundred billion? And then where is the room for the routine cyclic borrowing that is part of the government's function that would be on top I guess.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And this isn't in isolation; the UK already has £1.5tr in debt and even at historic low rates it is paying 8% of tax income just to repay the interest. That's OK, although he's a weird bloke George Osborne seems to have a handle on managing it. But expanding it wholesale, having to service the debt at inevitably higher interest rates and locking it in as a permanent part of the economy by never addressing the repayment of principle doesn't seem like a good idea to me.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Of course the unspoken part of all this policy is Corbyn thinks he can increase the tax take by soaking the "rich", by which he really means the middle class who already fund pretty much everything anyway.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Winger, please don't make the mistake of thinking I don't understand the socialist mindset. The younger me was a socialist. But I now know he was a fantasist.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>HE WON'T HAVE TO BORROW MONEY IF HE DOESN'T WANT TO</p>
<p>That's the difference between a monetary sovereign Govt like the UK and a company, you and me, Euro countries, state Governments etc. Selling bonds is a practice that does not have to be done (its a hangover from the gold standard days) for MS Govts.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But you have also completely ignored what I have posted and still continue believing that all debt is bad hence the red highlighted comment above. You have only focused on the liability half of debt and completely ignored the critically important asset half.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I know its hard to put aside strongly held beliefs. But increasing Govt debt WITHIN REASON is in fact a good thing. More than that its essential to stop a collapse of the West (now that the non Govt sector can't take on too much more debt)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But just stop focusing on meaningless MS UK Govt debt (a liability) and instead focus on the critical equal asset side (i.e. money held by us or pension savings or company profits) and it becomes clear. All of these will not continue to exist or grow without increasing debt.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Or read Warren Moslers book on the 7 deadly economic fraud</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is also a good article to read (credit expansion = debt expansion)</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://moslereconomics.com/2014/02/06/bill-gross-on-credit-expansion/'>http://moslereconomics.com/2014/02/06/bill-gross-on-credit-expansion/</a></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="515796" data-time="1442263182">
<div>
<p>No, I think you misunderstand my point. Yes, in the UK we had a choice that was no choice, plain vanilla options of Government and that was not good. What we have now (potentially and very likely IMO) is even worse in that we have the vanilla non option without any real strength of leadership and a loony vacuum elsewhere. For sure now we have a choice or at least a divergence of policy but it is so far away from anything remotely sane that it will not be electable or even a danger to the miserable status quo that we have. It's a choice that is no choice except in that fictional socialist utopia.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Scotland and how they voted? Do you mean in the referendum or the General Election? If it's the former let's face it. The result was a no to independence and outside of Glasgow it was a bloody resounding no. If it's the General Election you are referring to, well, the Conservatives did not lose a single seat. The Scots voted against Labour more so than for SNP. If the SNP vote was indicative of the Scottish will for independence then the referendum would have been a yes.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Be honest. You prefer no choice</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Re Scotland. I referring to the Scots rejecting the almost identical Labour , Conservative options. The love of neo-liberalism hopefully will decline now.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>The main points of neo-liberalism include:</strong></p>
<ol><li>
<p><strong>THE RULE OF THE MARKET.</strong> Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES</strong> like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>DEREGULATION.</strong> Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environment and safety on the job.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>PRIVATIZATION.</strong> Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p><strong>ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY"</strong> and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."</p>
</li>
</ol> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="515955" data-time="1442295169"><p><br>
Be honest. You prefer no choice<br><br>
Re Scotland. I referring to the Scots rejecting the almost identical Labour , Conservative options. The love of neo-liberalism hopefully will decline now.<br><br><strong>The main points of neo-liberalism include:</strong></p><ul class="bbcol decimal"><li> <br><strong>THE RULE OF THE MARKET.</strong> Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much. </li><li> <br><strong>CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES</strong> like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business. </li><li> <br><strong>DEREGULATION.</strong> Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environment and safety on the job. </li><li> <br><strong>PRIVATIZATION.</strong> Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs. </li><li> <br><strong>ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY"</strong> and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."</li></ul></blockquote>
<br>
Well that's an even handed view of your opponents politics.<br><br>
Actually it's not, it's rubbish . but that will not change your opinion of it, you'll just cut and paste it again with perhaps some bold and more caps. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="515898" data-time="1442288404">
<div>
<p><span style="color:#ff0000;">Or killing Bin Laden was a tragedy </span>, or chumming up to Hamas or being mates with Muslim hate preachers . He's an old school leftard who believes West= bad ( insert backward shithold or culture here) = good . Some in depth analysis of the people that support him would be interesting.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Also interesting is why you only post part of a much longer statement. (Or badly distort the truth in your other statements)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I agree with this. Or do we move to just killing someone as a Govt sees fit</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/'>Jeremy Corbyn</a> has come under fire for saying it was a "tragedy" that Osama bin Laden was <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/11227729/What-really-happened-the-night-Osama-bin-Laden-was-killed.html'>killed by the United States</a><span style="color:#ff0000;"> rather than being put on trial.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>In a clip from the Press TV show The Agenda, Mr Corbyn is heard complaining that there had been "no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him and put him on trial, to go through that process". He went on: "This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died. Torture has come back on to the world stage, been canonised virtually into law by Guantanamo and Bagram.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"Can't we learn some lessons from this? Are we just going to sink deeper and deeper? The next stage will be an attempted assassination on Gaddafi and so it will go on. This will just make the world more dangerous and worse and worse and worse."</p>
<p>A spokesman for <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/11827586/A-charming-unreconstructed-socialist.html'>Mr Corbyn</a> said he was "a total opponent of Al-Qaeda, all it stands for".</p>
<p> </p>
</blockquote> -
In what context is Bin Laden bring killed a tragedy? Why are you trying to minimise what he said? Imagine how difficult it would have been trying to hold a trial with his suicidal supporters trying to disrupt it.<br>
That article also said the "attack " on Afghanistan was a tragedy which hardly helps your cause in trying to pretend he's not a loon. <br><br>
I can do a shorter and far more accurate summary of the politics I loathe than you . Socialism is like a man standing in a bucket trying to pull himself by the handle . Hat tip there to Winston Churchill. -
British Politics