RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
if the supply of money isn't controlled then the result is hyper inflation.

The 'money supply' is not controlled. It can't be because it is a function of numerous factors out of the control of any single entity or group.

Yet we don't have hyperinflation.

morepork wrote:Len you should negotiate to sell your knob cheese to the UK as a bit of value added gold, spicing up the dairy industry.

If I told them eating it would get the Muslims out and get their country back they'd buy it. They're literally that thick.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

The 'money supply' is not controlled. It can't be because it is a function of numerous factors out of the control of any single entity or group.

Yet we don't have hyperinflation.

Except the government could print more paper money, which was the point Zhivago was making.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

The 'money supply' is not controlled. It can't be because it is a function of numerous factors out of the control of any single entity or group.

Yet we don't have hyperinflation.

Except the government could print more paper money, which was the point Zhivago was making.

I don't think it was.

The government issues the currency by marking up numbers in private bank accounts by computer keystroke. It doesn't spend in cash.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

The 'money supply' is not controlled. It can't be because it is a function of numerous factors out of the control of any single entity or group.

Yet we don't have hyperinflation.

Except the government could print more paper money, which was the point Zhivago was making.

a) Why aren't you up in arms at Quantitative Easing?
b) Print is so anachronistic - modern money is credit in 1s and 0s - electronic. Just a term, don't get hung up on it.
c) Money supply is not controlled at the moment - money supply is endogenous and is created in response to demand for loans, by private banks. This demand is mostly not investment, but speculation or desire for basic necessities such as housing. Most of the money created at the moment is created for speculation. It's highly damaging to the economy.
d) Have you not heard of the idea of helicopter money? It's something mainstream economists are starting to consider now. But you are still living in the past mainstream because you are an unthinking believer of orthodox ideology.

Sandydragon wrote:Relative poverty is s nonsense, the only measure should be absolute poverty.

On the contrary. Relative poverty measures are a good indicator of how well people in the lower deciles of the income range are able to participate in any meaningful way in society.

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.

The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.

The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.

They use AV

Good point well made. In which case they've probably got the optimal number of candidates to get rid of him.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.

The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.

The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.

They use AV

Good point well made. In which case they've probably got the optimal number of candidates to get rid of him.

Well McTernan is backing Owen Smith and he's never been right about anything.

I don't think they have any rabbits to pull out of their hats.

JC has the overwhelming support of the membership.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Anyway, back on topic. The NEC says Corbyn can stand - on the report of the rules that seemed inevitable and I'm mystified that someone apparently thought otherwise.

The anti - Corbyn votes currently look to be split.

The election rules look bizarrely complicated as to who can vote, but the headline is that £25 is now the cost of entryism.

They use AV

Good point well made. In which case they've probably got the optimal number of candidates to get rid of him.

Slight problem that the options being run against him aren't the big hitters, Cooper and Burnham may have blown their chance with the inept campaign Vs Corbyn, I can't say I much to take the Balls, but they need a Jarvis or Umunna to make them relevant again

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
They use AV

Good point well made. In which case they've probably got the optimal number of candidates to get rid of him.

Slight problem that the options being run against him aren't the big hitters, Cooper and Burnham may have blown their chance with the inept campaign Vs Corbyn, I can't say I much to take the Balls, but they need a Jarvis or Umunna to make them relevant again

It's kind of funny to see Tories demanding that Labour select closet Tories to make them 'relevant'.

Labour doesn't need to be relevant to you, buddy. You're a Tory.

Labour needs to be relevant to labour. Your boys Chukka and Dan aren't.

The Blair wing of the Labour Party is done. They're hated.

Donny osmond wrote:

Stom wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Exactly what it says. All these other attributes are great and desirable but don't mean anything if a politician isn't intelligent enough to know how to use them. Perfect example: allowing his words at the publication of a report into antisemitism to be construed as antisemitic. He had the decency and courage to stand up for his beliefs, but is too dumb to be able to do that and construct a sentence that couldn't be misconstrued. My problem with Corbyn isn't his beliefs, a lot of which I probably share, its that he's too thick +/or self-centered to be able to inspire anyone to go along with him.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

I could understand your point, but that example is bollox. Find me a clearer way to say the same thing. The problem was the transcript, which made it sound wrong. Accident or sabotage?

Well, if he was intelligent enough to be a leader then he would've changed the transcript...?

But Ok, you want another example, witness his bullshit attempt to support an EU remain campaign that he clearly disagreed with.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

The irony of zionists accusing people of racism seems to have escaped you Donny.

UGagain wrote:

The irony of zionists accusing people of racism seems to have escaped you Donny.

Would that be akin to assuming zionists are themselves racist?

Digby wrote:

UGagain wrote:

The irony of zionists accusing people of racism seems to have escaped you Donny.

Would that be akin to assuming zionists are themselves racist?

Zionists are racists.

The only problem with the statement is that you don't like the label.

Seems convenient to you avoiding the bank credit issue.

So hows about you get on that old bean?

Sent off the application for full membership, seems a waste of £25 even before Jeremy is likely to win, but there isn't much else to be done. I'm hoping if Jeremy does win this ballot another challenge is announced with a more serious alternative putting their name forward.

Digby wrote:Sent off the application for full membership, seems a waste of £25 even before Jeremy is likely to win, but there isn't much else to be done. I'm hoping if Jeremy does win this ballot another challenge is announced with a more serious alternative putting their name forward.

Id be amazed if there were. I think this leadership election is a one time deal. Lose and the rebels will either need to play very nicely or move along the green benches.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Sent off the application for full membership, seems a waste of £25 even before Jeremy is likely to win, but there isn't much else to be done. I'm hoping if Jeremy does win this ballot another challenge is announced with a more serious alternative putting their name forward.

Id be amazed if there were. I think this leadership election is a one time deal. Lose and the rebels will either need to play very nicely or move along the green benches.

It's reached an absurd point, and if they're not going to strike out on their own then they may as well launch a new challenge as soon as an unsuccessful one is over. And I'd certainly expect another challenge if Corbyn takes about 55% of the vote or lower absent of £3 voters, and that might perhaps come from a serious candidate

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Sent off the application for full membership, seems a waste of £25 even before Jeremy is likely to win, but there isn't much else to be done. I'm hoping if Jeremy does win this ballot another challenge is announced with a more serious alternative putting their name forward.

Id be amazed if there were. I think this leadership election is a one time deal. Lose and the rebels will either need to play very nicely or move along the green benches.

It's reached an absurd point, and if they're not going to strike out on their own then they may as well launch a new challenge as soon as an unsuccessful one is over. And I'd certainly expect another challenge if Corbyn takes about 55% of the vote or lower absent of £3 voters, and that might perhaps come from a serious candidate

Maybe, although the longer this goes on for the more absurd the rebels become. If the party membership does vote to maintain Corbyn, then risking another election is likely to annoy supporters as much as tempt them to their side.

To the wider electorate, this will look like Labour pissing about whilst there are more important things to deal with.

Given what is at stake, I would have thought that a serious candidate would have put themselves forward by now. With the vote of no confidence, a stalking horse candidate is a bit pointless.

Great study by LSE about how the corporate press has systematically delegitimised Corbyn

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research ... -FINAL.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 40681.html

Zhivago wrote:Great study by LSE about how the corporate press has systematically delegitimised Corbyn

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research ... -FINAL.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 40681.html

If it helps I know a decent number who thought he was a loon as a back bencher, so no media sway there.

Zhivago wrote:Great study by LSE about how the corporate press has systematically delegitimised Corbyn

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research ... -FINAL.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 40681.html

Forgive me for not reading it, does it compare his treatment with that of other politicians from other parties or is it solely about him?

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Great study by LSE about how the corporate press has systematically delegitimised Corbyn

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research ... -FINAL.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 40681.html

If it helps I know a decent number who thought he was a loon as a back bencher, so no media sway there.

So anyone who isn't a neoliberal and a warmonger is a loon in your little view of the world?

"Seeking to outline his policies to lead Labour, Smith said were he prime minister, he would order a nuclear strike if it were needed"

How can anyone be so casual about such an action??

Zhivago wrote:"Seeking to outline his policies to lead Labour, Smith said were he prime minister, he would order a nuclear strike if it were needed"

How can anyone be so casual about such an action??

How can anyone infer he is being so casual about it just from that?

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:"Seeking to outline his policies to lead Labour, Smith said were he prime minister, he would order a nuclear strike if it were needed"

How can anyone be so casual about such an action??

How can anyone infer he is being so casual about it just from that?

Quite. Surely the question is "In what circumstances would you say it is needed?"

Angela Eagle has pulled out "in the interestd of the Party"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36838808