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

[Manonthestreet]

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.

Fake money doesnt work.....

Whats fake about it ?

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

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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.

Fake money doesnt work.....

Whats fake about it ?

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

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

 

[Manonthestreet]

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.

Fake money doesnt work.....

Whats fake about it ?

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

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

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

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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.....

Whats fake about it ?

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

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

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

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]

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]

Fake money doesnt work.....

Whats fake about it ?

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

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

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

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

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".

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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

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]

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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]

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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...

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

Look again.

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.

OK perhaps we both see what we want to see.

 

[Challenger]

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

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[anotherlife]

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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...

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

Look again.

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.

OK perhaps we both see what we want to see.

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

 

[Challenger]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

 

[Challenger]

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.

Look again.

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.

OK perhaps we both see what we want to see.

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

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