The Labour Leadership Campaign

[Rayvin 4964]

29 is young. When you're young you're idealistic. Previous generations of young people actually rioted because of perceived injustices (I'm talking about things like poll tax here, not meadow well or toxteth). This generation? Nah, not so much, you can smell the apathy. I'd say social media is a part cause of this, rather than a solution.

 

Apologies if I sound patronising saying this but that's my impression. We'll soon see who's right.

 

Fair enough - I'm perhaps given to idealism as you say. For me though, this felt like a victory - and I support his policies because they're workable, because I understand the theories behind them, and because they're fair.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Rayvin

[strawb 3660]

I don't claim to be a political heavyweight but this debate has shown me two things.

 

Hastily googled statistics are only useful if you actually understand statistics.

 

CT remains king angler, long live the king.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

 

His MPs are shit scared of the RW media - I'm not obsessing about them, they are an actual, highly influential factor in the way in which people vote. Where does all of the information that informs people's votes come from? The media. Which newspaper has the highest readership in the country? The Mail. Which individual owns the largest proportion of UK media outlets? Murdoch. Who do these two factors support in elections? The Tories.

 

There, I've addressed your concern.

 

I'm still waiting on the robust criticism on Keynesian economics by the way. You said you'd vote for him if his ideas were feasible - Keynesian economics proves they are.

 

Unless feasible in this sense means 'once everyone else has decided what's right and I've read it in the papers' - which I suspect it does. That's not going to happen because of the above bit about the RW media. See how this works?

Your simply dodging the point. If his MP's believed Corbyn could solve all he says then they would back him and a triumphant election win would follow, REGARDLESS of Murdoch.

 

The truth is, as they have made clear throughout this election, they don't buy it. They think it's a croc of shit.

[Rayvin 4964]

 

CT remains king angler, long live the king.

 

Absolutely no arguments there. But sometimes it's good to have it out on these points It's shored up my belief in my own views.

[Rayvin 4964]

Your simply dodging the point. If his MP's believed Corbyn could solve all he says then they would back him and a triumphant election win would follow, REGARDLESS of Murdoch.

 

The truth is, as they have made clear throughout this election, they don't buy it. They think it's a croc of shit.

 

How am I dodging the point - your point is, his MPs don't back him. My response was, this is because they feel Labour has no political traction with which to make that point, and that to stand any chance of winning, they have to fight the battle along the Tory lines.

 

That's my response to your point. Is this clear?

 

If so, then the rest of my previous point still stands. I await your response.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Rayvin

[Happy Face 29]

No evidence this generation will vote for anything otheer than the X factor.

 

You've all gone mad.

 

 

Almost half 18-24 voted Labour lite, less than a quarter of over 65s. That's exactly the opposite of Tory.

 

18-24 demographic voted 3% less Tory and 12% more Labour.

 

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3575/How-Britain-voted-in-2015.aspx?view=wide

[Renton 17829]

 

 

Almost half 18-24 voted Labour lite, less than a quarter of over 65s. That's exactly the opposite of Tory.

 

18-24 demographic voted 3% less Tory and 12% more Labour.

 

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3575/How-Britain-voted-in-2015.aspx?view=wide

You're missing the point I think. What proportion voted at all?

[Christmas Tree 3997]

 

How am I dodging the point - your point is, his MPs don't back him. My response was, this is because they feel Labour has no political traction with which to make that point, and that to stand any chance of winning, they have to fight the battle along the Tory lines.

 

That's my response to your point. Is this clear?

 

If so, then the rest of my previous point still stands. I await your response.

I'm not sure it is clear.

 

Corbyn has found this winning formula, backed by unions and the grass roots, backed by the young and Kensyian, 5 years to get home the message, including social media......

 

Surely they would be all over it.

 

The alternative of course is that they don't believe it. (As they have said over and over again).

 

As for your other point I answered that in my reply to HF. That debate has raged since 2007 and is argued back and forth by all sorts of highly qualified people.

 

The bottom line is a different path has been taken and it's not going to change.

[Happy Face 29]

You're missing the point I think. What proportion voted at all?

How can I miss my own point you disagreed with

 

43% it says.

 

Down 1%

[ChezGiven 0]

I'm not sure it is clear.

 

Corbyn has found this winning formula, backed by unions and the grass roots, backed by the young and Kensyian, 5 years to get home the message, including social media......

 

Surely they would be all over it.

 

The alternative of course is that they don't believe it. (As they have said over and over again).

 

As for your other point I answered that in my reply to HF. That debate has raged since 2007 and is argued back and forth by all sorts of highly qualified people.

 

The bottom line is a different path has been taken and it's not going to change.

You opened the Merlot about 2 hours ago, right?

[Christmas Tree 3997]

You opened the Merlot about 2 hours ago, right?

Difference in political views must be drunk shocker

[Rayvin 4964]

I'm not sure it is clear.

 

Corbyn has found this winning formula, backed by unions and the grass roots, backed by the young and Kensyian, 5 years to get home the message, including social media......

 

Surely they would be all over it.

 

The alternative of course is that they don't believe it. (As they have said over and over again).

 

As for your other point I answered that in my reply to HF. That debate has raged since 2007 and is argued back and forth by all sorts of highly qualified people.

 

The bottom line is a different path has been taken and it's not going to change.

 

 

I'm not saying he has found a winning formula... I don't expect him to win.

 

What I hope, is that he'll force the debate leftwards, which will have a higher positive impact than anything that I believe the other three could have done.

 

And no, a debate has not 'raged' since 2007 - not in the media anyway. The media has churned out a narrative since 2007 that many ignorant British people have swallowed whole. The fact of the matter is, I'm yet to see anyone provide a convincing economic argument for why withholding spending in a recession is considered a good way of sorting out the country's finances. There is, on the other hand, a wealth of information available on why this is not a good idea.

 

Anyway, at the very least you have indeed answered my point - you're saying you don't believe in Keynesian economics because someone highly educated hasn't come along and told you that it works. I think you probably actually mean that the paper you read hasn't told you that it works, as many Professors of Economics have in fact spoken out in favour of it:

 

Among academic economists, an important distinction of relevance to the resurgence is between economists who have a prominent presence in mainstream political and popular debate, and those who do not. A marked shift towards Keynesian thinking took place among prominent economists (2008). Some such as Paul Krugman, James Galbraith and Brad Delong were already Keynesians, but in 2008 began to get considerably more attention for their advocacy of Keynesian policy. Others such as Richard Posner and Martin Feldstein, had previously been associated with anti-Keynesian thinking, yet by 2009 publicly converted to Keynesian economics with considerable impact on other economists.^[5][105] Posner's 2009 book, A Failure of Capitalism, was not so much an endorsement ofprogressive government policies but a critique of laissez-faire capitalism and its ideologues.^[106]

 

Paul Krugman - Economist from Princeton and London School of Economics

James Galbraith - Texas University (studied at both Yale and Harvard)

Brad Delong - University of California, Berkeley.

Richard Posner - University of Chicago (and a judge for the US Court of Appeals)

Martin Feldstein - Harvard University.

 

So these guys all support it and the last two actually converted to it as soon as 2008 hit. These are the guys, to be clear, who support Corbyn's thinking on the economy. Are these guys smart enough for you CT? Or would you rather trust Osborne (history degree) and some hacks who write for the Daily Mail?

[Christmas Tree 3997]

 

 

I'm not saying he has found a winning formula... I don't expect him to win.

 

What I hope, is that he'll force the debate leftwards, which will have a higher positive impact than anything that I believe the other three could have done.

 

And no, a debate has not 'raged' since 2007 - not in the media anyway. The media has churned out a narrative since 2007 that many ignorant British people have swallowed whole. The fact of the matter is, I'm yet to see anyone provide a convincing economic argument for why withholding spending in a recession is considered a good way of sorting out the country's finances. There is, on the other hand, a wealth of information available on why this is not a good idea.

 

Anyway, at the very least you have indeed answered my point - you're saying you don't believe in Keynesian economics because someone highly educated hasn't come along and told you that it works. I think you probably actually mean that the paper you read hasn't told you that it works, as many Professors of Economics have in fact spoken out in favour of it:

 

Among academic economists, an important distinction of relevance to the resurgence is between economists who have a prominent presence in mainstream political and popular debate, and those who do not. A marked shift towards Keynesian thinking took place among prominent economists (2008). Some such as Paul Krugman, James Galbraith and Brad Delong were already Keynesians, but in 2008 began to get considerably more attention for their advocacy of Keynesian policy. Others such as Richard Posner and Martin Feldstein, had previously been associated with anti-Keynesian thinking, yet by 2009 publicly converted to Keynesian economics with considerable impact on other economists.^[5][105] Posner's 2009 book, A Failure of Capitalism, was not so much an endorsement ofprogressive government policies but a critique of laissez-faire capitalism and its ideologues.^[106]

 

Paul Krugman - Economist from Princeton and London School of Economics

James Galbraith - Texas University (studied at both Yale and Harvard)

Brad Delong - University of California, Berkeley.

Richard Posner - University of Chicago (and a judge for the US Court of Appeals)

Martin Feldstein - Harvard University.

 

So these guys all support it and the last two actually converted to it as soon as 2008 hit. These are the guys, to be clear, who support Corbyn's thinking on the economy. Are these guys smart enough for you CT? Or would you rather trust Osborne (history degree) and some hacks who write for the Daily Mail?

Dear me, what a sneering little post

[Rayvin 4964]

Krugman also won a Nobel prize for Economics. Do you see what utter balls you're talking here? I agree on the wider point about Corbyn not being electable. But the reason for that is because most people are brainwashed into thinking that his views on the economy, despite being endorsed by some of the leading economics thinkers in the whole fucking world, are completely ridiculous.

 

Do you see how your view on this economic policy being unfeasible and idealistic is now wrong? Or do you consider yourself the intellectual equal of the above academics? Key point - I'm not saying you have to think that his view is right, as there are counter arguments, but his view sure as shit isn't idealistic nonsense.

[Howmanheyman 26983]

You opened the Merlot about 2 hours ago, right?

 

7.3% abv, CT's on bottle number two.

 

[Rayvin 4964]

Dear me, what a sneering little post

 

You wanted evidence that his views are feasible. I just gave you it. I assume he now has your vote?

[Christmas Tree 3997]

 

7.3% abv, CT's on bottle number two.

 

I could just murder one of them. Off tomorrow as well so could have had two.

[NJS 3986]

You're missing the point I think. What proportion voted at all?

The prevailing hope is the way corbyn generated a grassroots campaign involved many non-voters - non-voters who would have absolutely no incentive to vote for the Blairite candidates in 2020.

[Gemmill 34640]

Kensyian

[Gemmill 34640]

Listen to what this man says about the economy. He knows Ken-Fu.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Listen to what this man says about the economy. He knows Ken-Fu.

I know his brother Fuk yu as well!

[PaddockLad 14638]

 

"Of the Kens"

 

[Rayvin 4964]

I could just murder one of them. Off tomorrow as well so could have had two.

 

I accept your surrender

[Howmanheyman 26983]

Kensyian

 

 

 

"Is that the Dickensyian man, Father?"

 

"Yes, Son."

 

"God bless us, everyone."

[strawb 3660]

 

If this was the deadliest catch CT would be fucking loaded and not on the breadline.