You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
November 22 2024 1.48pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Jeremy Corbyn

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 14 of 464 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >

  

Stuk Flag Top half 12 Aug 15 1.23pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 1.08pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 12 Aug 2015 12.54pm

The debate about 'Corbynomics' is academic.

The electorate, faced with Miliband, gave Cameron a majority. They wouldn't vote in Corbyn in a million years.

The idea that economics and any political party is a worth discussing is questionable. Politics is popularism, sadly not evidence driven.

Its sad really that its seen really as being about the 'prime ministerial candidate'. Anyone who uses phrases like Corbynomics or Camernomics should be immediately sterilized as they're a danger to humanity



Agreed. I was very close to replying with just "what a w***y phrase".

Same goes for that silly bitch at BBC finance.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
chris123 Flag hove actually 12 Aug 15 1.29pm Send a Private Message to chris123 Add chris123 as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 1.08pm

Quote Johnny Eagles at 12 Aug 2015 12.54pm

The debate about 'Corbynomics' is academic.

The electorate, faced with Miliband, gave Cameron a majority. They wouldn't vote in Corbyn in a million years.

The idea that economics and any political party is a worth discussing is questionable. Politics is popularism, sadly not evidence driven.

Its sad really that its seen really as being about the 'prime ministerial candidate'. Anyone who uses phrases like Corbynomics or Camernomics should be immediately sterilized as they're a danger to humanity



I wonder whether people are getting less party political and more interested in the issues of the day.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 12 Aug 15 2.26pm


Most people vote for the party and leader that they think will best serve their own interests and those of their family. Often of course that means voting against whoever is in power as they have usually f-upd big time. I think the minority of people that stay loyal to a given party is in decline. It is hard to see who would vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party apart from dyed-in-the-wool lefties (ie: educated middle class young white people) and immigrants).

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
matt_himself Flag Matataland 12 Aug 15 2.41pm Send a Private Message to matt_himself Add matt_himself as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 1.05pm

Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 6.54am

Ideologically driven agenda, with no basis in the reality of economics.

[Link]

I was told once that if socialists were made to read economics, there would be no socialists.

Edited by matt_himself (12 Aug 2015 7.09am)

They'd presumably never heard of the lange-lerner model or theory for establishing equilibrium in a market.

Its impossible really to study economics without understanding basic principles of Marxist and Webberian social theory of conflict and status.

I said that 'if socialists were made to read economics, there would be no socialists'.

The context of your post seems to be way out of whack with that.

 


"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 12 Aug 15 3.35pm

Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 2.41pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Aug 2015 1.05pm

Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 6.54am

Ideologically driven agenda, with no basis in the reality of economics.

[Link]

I was told once that if socialists were made to read economics, there would be no socialists.

Edited by matt_himself (12 Aug 2015 7.09am)

They'd presumably never heard of the lange-lerner model or theory for establishing equilibrium in a market.

Its impossible really to study economics without understanding basic principles of Marxist and Webberian social theory of conflict and status.

I said that 'if socialists were made to read economics, there would be no socialists'.

The context of your post seems to be way out of whack with that.

I was being very pretentious and flippant, as the lange-lerner model is a socialist economic model.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 13 Aug 15 1.19am Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote leggedstruggle at 12 Aug 2015 2.26pm


Most people vote for the party and leader that they think will best serve their own interests and those of their family. Often of course that means voting against whoever is in power as they have usually f-upd big time. I think the minority of people that stay loyal to a given party is in decline. It is hard to see who would vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party apart from dyed-in-the-wool lefties (ie: educated middle class young white people) and immigrants).


Nice! Two targets with one fell unsupported swoop! Pretty sure the gays like Labour too, you could probably throw them in as well Derbs...

People talk about how Corbyn's unelectable but maybe it would be better looking at it the other way round. The centre left across Europe is on its knees and has been since the crash, because they have no coherent narrative in which they can offer hope while accepting austerity. That's why Pasok were wiped out by Syriza in Greece, why the Spanish Worker's Party have been overtaken by Podemos, and even why Labour were crushed by the Scots Nats north of the border, with Sturgeon playing heavily on Labour's lack of social justice.

What I think your seeing across Europe is the youth looking at their parents' houses, jobs and standards of living and for the first time since WW1 realising that they probably won't have it as good as them. All the while they're being peddled this crap by the right about paying back for an economic mess they played no part in, and they're rightly sticking 2 fingers up at it and increasingly turning to the far left. The condescending tone of people like Blair, Campbell and those in the media towards what's happening is only fuelling the flames, and that's why I really wouldn't be surprised if those on the right aren't sowing the seeds for their own destruction and Corbyn does a lot better than people think he will.

Edited by serial thriller (13 Aug 2015 1.20am)

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 13 Aug 15 1.26am Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 6.54am

Ideologically driven agenda, with no basis in the reality of economics.

[Link]

I was told once that if socialists were made to read economics, there would be no socialists.

Edited by matt_himself (12 Aug 2015 7.09am)


Because of course there's only one way of interpreting economics isn't there

There are still loads of great socialist economists out there, from David Graeber to Paul Mason, and the idea that they haven't read economics is really just insulting.

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
matt_himself Flag Matataland 13 Aug 15 6.45am Send a Private Message to matt_himself Add matt_himself as a friend

Quote serial thriller at 13 Aug 2015 1.26am

Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 6.54am

Ideologically driven agenda, with no basis in the reality of economics.

[Link]

I was told once that if socialists were made to read economics, there would be no socialists.

Edited by matt_himself (12 Aug 2015 7.09am)


Because of course there's only one way of interpreting economics isn't there

There are still loads of great socialist economists out there, from David Graeber to Paul Mason, and the idea that they haven't read economics is really just insulting.

If these 'household names' of socialist economic thought were so 'great', how can none of them have come up with a working, practical alternative to capitalism? Before you say they have, they clearly haven't as capitalism rules the planet.

Furthermore, 'Socialist economics' is an oxymoron performed by a bunch of elitist professors having a circle jerk about something that will never happen.

 


"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 13 Aug 15 8.14am

Quote serial thriller at 13 Aug 2015 1.19am

Quote leggedstruggle at 12 Aug 2015 2.26pm


Most people vote for the party and leader that they think will best serve their own interests and those of their family. Often of course that means voting against whoever is in power as they have usually f-upd big time. I think the minority of people that stay loyal to a given party is in decline. It is hard to see who would vote for a Corbyn led Labour Party apart from dyed-in-the-wool lefties (ie: educated middle class young white people) and immigrants).


Nice! Two targets with one fell unsupported swoop! Pretty sure the gays like Labour too, you could probably throw them in as well Derbs...

People talk about how Corbyn's unelectable but maybe it would be better looking at it the other way round. The centre left across Europe is on its knees and has been since the crash, because they have no coherent narrative in which they can offer hope while accepting austerity. That's why Pasok were wiped out by Syriza in Greece, why the Spanish Worker's Party have been overtaken by Podemos, and even why Labour were crushed by the Scots Nats north of the border, with Sturgeon playing heavily on Labour's lack of social justice.

What I think your seeing across Europe is the youth looking at their parents' houses, jobs and standards of living and for the first time since WW1 realising that they probably won't have it as good as them. All the while they're being peddled this crap by the right about paying back for an economic mess they played no part in, and they're rightly sticking 2 fingers up at it and increasingly turning to the far left. The condescending tone of people like Blair, Campbell and those in the media towards what's happening is only fuelling the flames, and that's why I really wouldn't be surprised if those on the right aren't sowing the seeds for their own destruction and Corbyn does a lot better than people think he will.

Edited by serial thriller (13 Aug 2015 1.20am)

Well, these days many educated middle class young white people are gay. (Might put off the Islamic vote though - you need to appease both presumably.)

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 13 Aug 15 10.05am Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

Quote matt_himself at 13 Aug 2015 6.45am

Quote serial thriller at 13 Aug 2015 1.26am

Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 6.54am

Ideologically driven agenda, with no basis in the reality of economics.

[Link]

I was told once that if socialists were made to read economics, there would be no socialists.

Edited by matt_himself (12 Aug 2015 7.09am)


Because of course there's only one way of interpreting economics isn't there

There are still loads of great socialist economists out there, from David Graeber to Paul Mason, and the idea that they haven't read economics is really just insulting.

If these 'household names' of socialist economic thought were so 'great', how can none of them have come up with a working, practical alternative to capitalism? Before you say they have, they clearly haven't as capitalism rules the planet.

Furthermore, 'Socialist economics' is an oxymoron performed by a bunch of elitist professors having a circle jerk about something that will never happen.


There are hundreds of libertarian economists and yet there isn't one country on the planet which is truly libertarian. Economic theory and economic reality are miles apart, and to suggest that only practical economics gets anywhere is to show a total ignorance to the history of applied economics. For example, Marxism only really rose to prominence with the Russian revolution, which occurred decades after Marx's death. Popular economists like Hayek and Rand were really fringe thinkers when they wrote.

There is a dogmatism to your posts which I find worrying. You assume that those with a different ideological standpoint to you are merely ignorant, hence claiming that no economists can be socialist even when this flies in the face of reality. Socialism has happened, is happening and will probably happen again, yet your last paragraph highlights that you aren't willing to engage on an intellectual level with its ideas, instead wishing to smear the views held be millions, purely because they are at odds with your own.

You love brandishing us on the left as totalitarian, fascist and blinkered, but I wonder what terminology you would use of your own views on tho thread if you were to take a step back?

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Hoof Hearted 13 Aug 15 11.00am

Quote serial thriller at 13 Aug 2015 10.05am

Quote matt_himself at 13 Aug 2015 6.45am

Quote serial thriller at 13 Aug 2015 1.26am

Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 6.54am

Ideologically driven agenda, with no basis in the reality of economics.

[Link]

I was told once that if socialists were made to read economics, there would be no socialists.

Edited by matt_himself (12 Aug 2015 7.09am)


Because of course there's only one way of interpreting economics isn't there

There are still loads of great socialist economists out there, from David Graeber to Paul Mason, and the idea that they haven't read economics is really just insulting.

If these 'household names' of socialist economic thought were so 'great', how can none of them have come up with a working, practical alternative to capitalism? Before you say they have, they clearly haven't as capitalism rules the planet.

Furthermore, 'Socialist economics' is an oxymoron performed by a bunch of elitist professors having a circle jerk about something that will never happen.


There are hundreds of libertarian economists and yet there isn't one country on the planet which is truly libertarian. Economic theory and economic reality are miles apart, and to suggest that only practical economics gets anywhere is to show a total ignorance to the history of applied economics. For example, Marxism only really rose to prominence with the Russian revolution, which occurred decades after Marx's death. Popular economists like Hayek and Rand were really fringe thinkers when they wrote.

There is a dogmatism to your posts which I find worrying. You assume that those with a different ideological standpoint to you are merely ignorant, hence claiming that no economists can be socialist even when this flies in the face of reality. Socialism has happened, is happening and will probably happen again, yet your last paragraph highlights that you aren't willing to engage on an intellectual level with its ideas, instead wishing to smear the views held be millions, purely because they are at odds with your own.

You love brandishing us on the left as totalitarian, fascist and blinkered, but I wonder what terminology you would use of your own views on tho thread if you were to take a step back?


Yet another post full of ideological waffle.

Socialism has happened, but failed miserably, is happening, and now causing misery, and will probably happen again..... God help us!

Even the Chinese have given up on communism and are embracing capitalism, albeit with heavy state control.... but hopefully one day they'll get there.

Socialism/Communism has less chance of working than anyone building a machine with perpetual motion.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
dannyh Flag wherever I lay my hat....... 13 Aug 15 12.50pm Send a Private Message to dannyh Add dannyh as a friend

Quote serial thriller at 13 Aug 2015 10.05am

Quote matt_himself at 13 Aug 2015 6.45am

Quote serial thriller at 13 Aug 2015 1.26am

Quote matt_himself at 12 Aug 2015 6.54am

Ideologically driven agenda, with no basis in the reality of economics.

[Link]

I was told once that if socialists were made to read economics, there would be no socialists.

Edited by matt_himself (12 Aug 2015 7.09am)


Because of course there's only one way of interpreting economics isn't there

There are still loads of great socialist economists out there, from David Graeber to Paul Mason, and the idea that they haven't read economics is really just insulting.

If these 'household names' of socialist economic thought were so 'great', how can none of them have come up with a working, practical alternative to capitalism? Before you say they have, they clearly haven't as capitalism rules the planet.

Furthermore, 'Socialist economics' is an oxymoron performed by a bunch of elitist professors having a circle jerk about something that will never happen.


There are hundreds of libertarian economists and yet there isn't one country on the planet which is truly libertarian. Economic theory and economic reality are miles apart, and to suggest that only practical economics gets anywhere is to show a total ignorance to the history of applied economics. For example, Marxism only really rose to prominence with the Russian revolution, which occurred decades after Marx's death. Popular economists like Hayek and Rand were really fringe thinkers when they wrote.

There is a dogmatism to your posts which I find worrying. You assume that those with a different ideological standpoint to you are merely ignorant, hence claiming that no economists can be socialist even when this flies in the face of reality. Socialism has happened, is happening and will probably happen again, yet your last paragraph highlights that you aren't willing to engage on an intellectual level with its ideas, instead wishing to smear the views held be millions, purely because they are at odds with your own.

You love brandishing us on the left as totalitarian, fascist and blinkered, but I wonder what terminology you would use of your own views on tho thread if you were to take a step back?

What a load old woof.

 


"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 14 of 464 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn