|
Breath Ray posted:Are independents allowed to get involved in BEs or do they have to wait for GEs? They can stand buddy. You better check this for yourself, but I'm sure if you hurry and start renting a flat in the constituency in the next week or so then you'll be eligible to give it a go.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
Paxman posted:They can stand buddy. You better check this for yourself, but I'm sure if you hurry and start renting a flat in the constituency in the next week or so then you'll be eligible to give it a go. THats pretty cool. And they say the political class is too out of touch with everyday lives. What sort of MP was Gerald? Sounds like kinnock era to me?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 10:19
|
|
|
Breath Ray posted:THats pretty cool. And they say the political class is too out of touch with everyday lives. What sort of MP was Gerald? Sounds like kinnock era to me? He was indeed Kinnock era and would almost certainly have been foreign secretary if Labour had won the 1992 election with Kinnock as leader. He was firmly on the side of the reformers, or whatever one prefers to call them, in the 1980s. He was a Jew. Also, an outspoken critic of Israel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 10:49
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:if Labour find a way to lose Manchester Gorton, it won't be to the government... I'll be so bummed if the Liberals beat the Greens into 2nd place. Honestly, I'd be quite OK with the Greens winning the seat. It'd be funny, but it'd also put a left-wing MP in Parliament while also giving Corbyn a defeat in an ultra-safe Labour seat that he surely couldn't come back from. The last time Labour got under 50% there was at a 1967 by-election. Last time they lost the seat was in the great collapse of '31.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:01
|
|
|
Someone post the "The Lib Dems Aren't Going To Save You" article again
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I'll be so bummed if the Liberals beat the Greens into 2nd place. Honestly, I'd be quite OK with the Greens winning the seat. It'd be funny, but it'd also put a left-wing MP in Parliament while also giving Corbyn a defeat in an ultra-safe Labour seat that he surely couldn't come back from. The last time Labour got under 50% there was at a 1967 by-election. Last time they lost the seat was in the great collapse of '31. the kind of swing to lose them the seat would have to be even worse than the swings they got against them in Scotland in 2015, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:18
|
|
|
John McDonnell has had a meltdown.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Imagine if you posted about this eh? Got any polls? We're all waiting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
That quote at the end where the anonymous MP says McDonnell has been undermining Corbyn, what's that about?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
Except, y'know, it's pretty obvious that the usual suspects are gearing up for another run on the leadership. McDonnell's being a fair bit more tinfoil hat than necessary, I'd be stunned if folks are in cahoots with the Murdoch press and not just interested in the same end goal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
hand-fed baby bird posted:Imagine if you posted about this eh? Got any polls? We're all waiting. No new polls today but there will be some more before too long.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:No new polls today but there will be some more before too long. Can't wait.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
Are Labour's strategists too stupid to realise that things being "rigged" or "FAKE NEWS" sound exactly like they've been cadged from the American right to the British ear or do they just not care?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:40
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Are Labour's strategists too stupid to realise that things being "rigged" or "FAKE NEWS" sound exactly like they've been cadged from the American right to the British ear or do they just not care? Corbyn is the new populist bad boy in town
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
Corbyn's weekly meeting with Labour MPs has been cancelled as he's taking the day off because he worked over the weekend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Corbyn's weekly meeting with Labour MPs has been cancelled as he's taking the day off because he worked over the weekend.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
It is not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
jam waits for no man.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:53
|
|
|
I wish we had some 'hard left' politicians who weren't of pension age. And actually hard left.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
why are so many people right wing anyway? public opinion for things like nationalisation of railways is pretty high iirc are they just so scared of immigrants that they'll accept whatever neoliberal bullshit as long as the browns are kept out?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
and i must meme posted:why are so many people right wing anyway? public opinion for things like nationalisation of railways is pretty high iirc Far more people than you think are selfish cunts
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
and i must meme posted:why are so many people right wing anyway?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
i don't believe stewart lee has ever explained concisely
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
and i must meme posted:why are so many people right wing anyway? public opinion for things like nationalisation of railways is pretty high iirc The only way to test this thesis would be to offer them a credible left-wing alternative and see if they support it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
Jose posted:i don't believe stewart lee has ever explained concisely
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Okay, do you understand what the mislabelling of debt represents? It represents people in the US packaging stuff like subprimes into apparently safe assets that are then sold on. The result is that banks, including UK banks, bought these 'toxic assets' that were labelled as safe when they weren't. How exactly does UK government policy change that? When the issue is literally financial products being mislabelled? I can't really see how without literally banning financial transactions with the US. My impression of the financial crisis was one where the debts weren't even being mislabelled, but were packaged with non-toxic debts and then correctly labelled by the regulator given the strength of the banks that were buying and selling them. Unfortunately this ignored the systemic risk from the sheer numbers of these things being bandied about. The problem wasn't one of anyone doing anything illegal so much as stretching the bounds of legality using flaws within the system. The question then is what Brown could have done and my thought is "Push for Dodd Frank but ahead of the thing that made Dodd Frank exist." The key to the financial crisis was a bunch of failings at the regulators alongside the banks acting in a way to maximise profit. How are you meant to prepare for a crisis that literally involves you consistently being told everything is fine? JFairfax posted:As for the Financial Crisis of 2008 it is important to note that there was regulation put in place after the crash of 1929 called the Glass-Stegal act which: I mean, this ignores that there were recessions with Glass-Steagall in play. A lot of people go to Glass-Steagall as the magic bullet that would have stopped the financial crisis and to an extent they're right, the contagion resulting from the financial crisis would have been more limited with a seperation of investment and saving banks. However, the reason it was considered sensible to get rid of Glass-Steagall is that in allowing investment banks to diversify their operations, each investment bank became individually more stable. What I'm basically leading up to is this: Given that the failure to classify subprime correctly was a result of failings at the regulator, investment banks would have almost certainly have fallen into this trap with or without Glass-Steagall. In a world with Glass-Steagall, each investment bank would have been smaller, so Lehman's collapse for example would have been less bad on an individual basis. But equally, given each investment bank would be less diverse, they would be more liable to collapse from a smaller shock. So I guess the question is do you want one big collapse or lots of small collapses and how does one quantify what's worse than the other. To be clear, my understanding of the financial crisis is limited (everyone's is and will be for a long time), but I think this is a fair assessment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
and i must meme posted:are they just so scared of immigrants that they'll accept whatever neoliberal bullshit as long as the browns are kept out? They don't accept neoliberal bullshit - support for nationalization is still widespread. It's just less important to them than their need for a group it's safe to despise and blame and attack. That can be browns or communists or gays or treehuggers or unemployed people or (as we have recently discovered) disabled people. I think it just can't be rich people because they're too well protected and remote. Without some way to hurt them, there's no joy in hating them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:
Good thing trump has repealed this while being helpfully watched by a former Goldman Sachs COO
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OijPrseKNhM
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:They don't accept neoliberal bullshit - support for nationalization is still widespread. It's just less important to them than their need for a group it's safe to despise and blame and attack. That can be browns or communists or gays or treehuggers or unemployed people or (as we have recently discovered) disabled people. I think it just can't be rich people because they're too well protected and remote. Without some way to hurt them, there's no joy in hating them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
Jose posted:Good thing trump has repealed this while being helpfully watched by a former Goldman Sachs COO It's honestly really depressing. Dodd Frank is overblown as hell, don't get me wrong, but it's well intentioned and has decent fundamental principles behind it. It just needed tweaking to be a genuinely good piece of regulation for the promotion of financial stability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
Dodd Frank needed to be repealed and Glass Stiegel reinstated. Dodd Frank was full of so many intentional holes and weak fundamentals it was barely even a token gesture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/836154494870241280 https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/836163287171620865 The Labour leadership really are a farce. ukle fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
Here, have another reason for Neo-Liberalism killing the global economy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxBvbLq5MEg Talks about the US, as well as Japan, the UK and the EU.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Dodd Frank needed to be repealed and Glass Stiegel reinstated. Dodd Frank was full of so many intentional holes and weak fundamentals it was barely even a token gesture. There's a reason Dodd Frank existed instead of Glass Stiegel though, and the answer to that is "The Wall Street Lobby". In the words of Mark Blythe, if you tried to bring back Glass Stiegel, Jamie Dimon drops $1 billion on the laps of his lobbyists and gets it to go away forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
ukle posted:https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/836154494870241280 John said of those seeking to topple Jeremy 'It is more important to them that they regain control of the Party than it is to win elections.'
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
Breath Ray posted:John said of those seeking to topple Jeremy 'It is more important to them that they regain control of the Party than it is to win elections.' Given the poo poo that Neo-Lberals pulled with the Democratic party primary and general election campaign, this is absolutely true for most centrists internationally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
So it's almost like most people would like a voice to represent them and are less fussed about winning elections
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
A voice to represent them... nowhere... because they aren't elected to positions of responsibility...
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 13:36
|
|