|
Oberleutnant posted:This is completely incorrect but nice job winging it out there as a "fact" upon which to base your next declaration in the hopes that nobody would remember. I'm not sure what the second part of this post means, but my claim that "most of Labour's policies cited here are pretty much the same as they were before Corbyn became leader" is based on looking at the policies cited in the post I quoted and comparing them to the policies before Corbyn became leader, ie when Ed Miliband was leader. Eg Tweet: "banning zero hours employment contracts" Before Corbyn: "Labour will end 'epidemic' of zero-hours contracts" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32147715 Tweet: "renationalising Britain's railways" Before Corbyn: "Michael Dugher promises "public control" of railways under Labour" (He was the Shadow Transport Secretary at the time) http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/exclusive-michael-dugher-promises-public-control-railways-under-labour Tweet: "keeping the ban on fox hunting" Before Corbyn: "Labour pledges to tackle animal cruelty, including foxhunting" (NB the story makes it clear this means "defending the ban"). https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/18/labour-tackle-animal-cruelty-hunt-circus-puppy-farm-badger-cull-election Tweet: "renationalising the energy industry" I said in the post you seem to object to that this is a new policy and I stand by that, although the policy is actually to create new firms, not to renationalise the old ones. I do think Corbyn has moved the party to the left a bit, just not as much as some posters here like to imagine.
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I don't know of one, but the last manifesto promised a freeze on rail fares, giving the energy regulator more powers, reducing the deficit by cutting spending, a cut on business rates, CONTROLS ON IMMIGRATION, a reduction in tuition fees, etc. Basically all slightly watered down versions of Tory policy so as to be marginally less shite. you gonna get an icepick to the back of the head if you continue with this talk mister
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
But ok perhaps I'm being disingenous because there's a subtext to what I'm saying which I should acknowledge. I think there's a view that basically goes something like 'ok Corbyn is going to lead Labour to disaster in this election (it's the fault of the PLP and the media and possibly stupid voters rather than Jeremy Corbyn but I can't deny it's happening) but it's worth it because in the long run it's turning Labour into a proper socialist party which it wasn't before'. <- this is what I think some of you believe. And I think that's wrong because it depends on vastly exagerating how poo poo Labour was before. Also, it depends on believing that at some point in the future the massive help the Tories are getting now will be worth it because it will result in a proper left-wing Labour government at last. Well maybe it will I dunno but it seems unlikely.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Some absolutely bonkers Eurovision entries: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBAdOlQPbwg (2006, 6th) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfjHJneVonE (2007, 2nd) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT6yOIC6ihI (2007, 24th) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHAY_OVN_gY (2011, 12th)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Paxman posted:I'm not sure what the second part of this post means, but my claim that "most of Labour's policies cited here are pretty much the same as they were before Corbyn became leader" is based on looking at the policies cited in the post I quoted and comparing them to the policies before Corbyn became leader, ie when Ed Miliband was leader. Why don't you just compare it to Miliband's manifesto instead of a bunch of random quotes and articles? That seems fairer.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Paxman posted:I'm not sure what the second part of this post means, but my claim that "most of Labour's policies cited here are pretty much the same as they were before Corbyn became leader" is based on looking at the policies cited in the post I quoted and comparing them to the policies before Corbyn became leader, ie when Ed Miliband was leader. Based on the 2015 manifesto I think youre right. However it did bring home to me that Labour needs a normal looking leader without too much baggage.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Bigot. not at all. you see, if left unchecked the tory population can be very damaging to the countryside and the environment in general. it's important to keep the numbers down.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Paxman posted:
Or lying about how not poo poo it was.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Corbs talking foreign policy. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/12/corbyn-sets-out-a-better-way-to-live-together-in-foreign-policy-revamp
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
A few of Corbyns policies are indeed similar to Milliband, but the big picture stuff, particularly about billions of borrowed infrastructure investment, is diametrically opposed. Milliband was entirely behind the narrative of austerity and of cutting benefits for skivers. People comparing the two are conveniently ignoring ex shadow cabinet ministers literally saying they were going to be tougher on benefits recipients and criminals than the Tories, and even making a weaker pledge on NHS funding than the Tories.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Eurovision should kick out Australia.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1l1XGiXgo0
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-39894643 That's it, I'm voting Tory.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:40
|
|
I can't get enough of are Dan
|
Miliband specifically proposed a national investment bank lending to infrastructure products though, capitalised by the government with powers to borrow on foreign markets
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Also look at the difference between North Sea Oil and what the British Govt did with that and what the Norwegians did with their oil money, started a Sovereign Wealth Fund instead of letting shareholders of private companies extract all the profits.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Miliband specifically proposed a national investment bank lending to infrastructure products though, capitalised by the government with powers to borrow on foreign markets I was thinking the same thing
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Also look at the difference between North Sea Oil and what the British Govt did with that and what the Norwegians did with their oil money, started a Sovereign Wealth Fund instead of letting shareholders of private companies extract all the profits. Ignoring the can of worms that is "exploitation of developing countries", all western countries are lands of plenty. And could all be utopias. We're not utopias by choice. Which is chilling.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
jabby posted:A few of Corbyns policies are indeed similar to Milliband, but the big picture stuff, particularly about billions of borrowed infrastructure investment, is diametrically opposed. Milliband was entirely behind the narrative of austerity and of cutting benefits for skivers. People comparing the two are conveniently ignoring ex shadow cabinet ministers literally saying they were going to be tougher on benefits recipients and criminals than the Tories, and even making a weaker pledge on NHS funding than the Tories. In Red Ed's defense it was Balls who drove that economic stuff and apparently they disagreed about it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Has anyone throwin a child dressed & smelling like a fox at the dogs to see what happens? I imagine that the best way to cause a scandal involving fox hunting is to have rich posh twats be responsible for the killing of a small white boy. The Prime Minister trying to support Fox Hunting while that happened would be good to watch.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:In Red Ed's defense it was Balls who drove that economic stuff and apparently they disagreed about it. Yeah I'm not having a go at Ed, I genuinely feel he would have loved to put forward the current manifesto if he had the guts. And yes he did make some noises about an investment bank, but it was extremely timid and unless I'm much mistaken he never committed to how much would be borrowed to make it work. It was very much a 'we also might do this but don't pay attention to it' rather than the current flagship policy.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
HJB posted:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-39894643 Ok I'm really confused. How is it that "Corbyn PM" is 12/1 but Labour winning most seats is 20/1? (And then Labour majority is 40/1 - which I guess is them saying he won't win without a coalition)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
I thought Ed was good and I'm not sure why that's quite as controversial as it is in the UK Mega Marxism Thread but at least we can look forward to the day we get a new leader and we can all be friends again.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Ewan posted:Ok I'm really confused. It's possible for Labour to win more seats than any other party without having an absolute majority. Depending on how many the Lib Dems win and if Labour go into coalition with the SNP, it's also possible for Corbyn to become PM while having fewer seats than the Tories.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
It's not that Ed was terrible (I voted for Labour for the first time under Ed) but this notion that Miliband's and Corbyn's manifestos were basically the same that people have a problem with. Not to mention that unlike Corbyn, Ed was fundamentally unwilling to do things like challenge austerity narratives and was happy to have people like Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper in vital shadow cabinet positions.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
So apparently there's a large scale "cyber attack" going on, targeting hospitals: https://mobile.twitter.com/brobertson2010/status/863016453209038848 Sounds like a ransomware infection.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Paxman posted:I thought Ed was good and I'm not sure why that's quite as controversial as it is in the UK Mega Marxism Thread but at least we can look forward to the day we get a new leader and we can all be friends again. Ed was by no means a Blairite and would have probably made a good Prime Minister, but pretending he ran on a similar platform to Corbyn is just rewriting history. Even if some of the individual policies are similar a lot aren't, and the narrative (which is in some ways as important) is a million miles different. Plus of course Ed shared many of the weaknesses of Corbyn, not being trusted to deliver his policies and being seen as a weak and incompetent leader. I blame the press for that of course, but he's simply proof that a mealy-mouthed soft-left manifesto being presented as centrist isn't going to cut through to the electorate. What you need, in my opinion, is something more like Corbyns manifesto being presented by someone with sufficient charisma and a spotless enough record that they can gain traction.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Ewan posted:Ok I'm really confused. Tories could win more seats but no majority, the Lib Dems grow a principle and back Labour instead and together they do have a majority. Or in Harry Potter terms cause apparently 90% of our population doesn't understand it in any other terms, Snape kills Dumbledore. gently caress Harry Potter.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Old Flaps probably doing burpees and starjumps somewhere, ready to get back in the posting game right now Rocky montage but instead of the Rocky music it's "things can only get better" and instead of Micky spurring him on its a life size cardboard cutout of Big Tone.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Ewan posted:Ok I'm really confused. The probability of something occurring is only part of how odds are calculated; the amount of money being wagered by punters also plays a big role. Loads of people will probably be having a punt on the next prime minster but far fewer will be betting on wonk-y stuff like number of seats.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:People have had their minds loving poisoned by the whole 'the sense of the possible' idea in liberal politics. Anybody with an ounce of sense knows you start high and negotiate to someone you want, forcing the other side to either refute your position or come to an agreement. It's not rocket science. It might stun, stun, absolutely shock you to learn this, but establishment neoliberal wisdom really is neoliberal and doesn't quite like the principle of free healthcare at the point of use. The NHS survives only because of the dynamic I described: voters care passionately about it. In any case I was defending the Corbynesque strategy of pushing tons of policy points when, as LemonDrizzle correctly pointed out, this has a remarkably reliable pattern of losing elections relative to boring-but-effective sloganeering and image control.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Biggus Dickus posted:So apparently there's a large scale "cyber attack" going on, targeting hospitals: Yeah, the hospital I work in has been hit. All computers are down. Luckily it's come at a relatively quiet time so contingency plans have gone into effect relatively smoothly. It still means lots of running around with bits of paper and doubling of workload for lots of staff though, and it's definitely putting people at risk. Hopefully they catch the people who think doing this for cash is acceptable.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
please don't need a+e in the next few hours
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
ronya posted:It might stun, stun, absolutely shock you to learn this, but establishment neoliberal wisdom really is neoliberal and doesn't quite like the principle of free healthcare at the point of use. The NHS survives only because of the dynamic I described: voters care passionately about it. I should point out I was agreeing with you and just wanted to have a rant
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LawrenceDunhill/status/863032679595421696 https://twitter.com/tomfish1989/status/863037174702383104 Pinch of salt and all that, but that's laughably low. I guess someone's just been hit with drive-by ransomware and these trusts all have some amount of common infrastructure? Be interesting to see where the buttcoin goes though! https://blockchain.info/address/115p7UMMngoj1pMvkpHijcRdfJNXj6LrLn
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
jabby posted:Hopefully they catch the people who think doing this for cash is acceptable.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:In a darkened room full of green and black LCD screens and half empty soda bottles, Jeremy Hunt smirks underneath his hoodie. Oh drat came in here to say this
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
the most criminal part is forcing people to pay in bitcoin, savages
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
"waoh" - jeremny "neo" hunt, the matric
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Take the red pill Jeremy, and find out that women are garbage creatures who aren't allowed to see my dick, says MP Philip Davies.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
JFairfax posted:Also look at the difference between North Sea Oil and what the British Govt did with that and what the Norwegians did with their oil money, started a Sovereign Wealth Fund instead of letting shareholders of private companies extract all the profits. what happened was that the British govt (i.e., Thatcher) did take the revenues, but it used it mainly to pursue deficit reduction. Both (non-oil, non-privatisation-asset-sale) revenue and spending (defense and non-defense both) as a percentage of GDP increased over the period 1979-1990. this was, if you prefer, the use of windfall revenues to buy macroeconomic peace, instead of enduring the rocky realities faced by Callaghan and Wilson. Thatcher did not have to have an incomes policy. one left-leaning perspective, emphasising the distributive impact.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 15:54
|
|