Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:49 pm
It always feels as if you’re trying to make a point in the direction of all the rabid Corbyn fans on here. Are there actually any though?
Hey little Progress fanboy, you sure do love sucking propagandist cock, don't you?Digby wrote:Labour's Glorious Leader™ has quite reasonably condemned Trump for sharing social media content of a far-right group, and yet he remains silent on the far-left groups (largely Momentum) going councillor by councillor to de-select and force out Labour candidates who don't hold suitably pious views on the left.
One extremism good, one extremism bad, just depends whether Glorious Leader™ likes it when it comes to speaking out against it.
Oh I'm sorry I thought someone wanted a 'rabid' leftie... To stoke up the dying embers here.Mellsblue wrote:I know it’s the weekend but it seems a bit early to be on the grog.
Let’s hear it for ideological purity!Zhivago wrote:Hey little Progress fanboy, you sure do love sucking propagandist cock, don't you?Digby wrote:Labour's Glorious Leader™ has quite reasonably condemned Trump for sharing social media content of a far-right group, and yet he remains silent on the far-left groups (largely Momentum) going councillor by councillor to de-select and force out Labour candidates who don't hold suitably pious views on the left.
One extremism good, one extremism bad, just depends whether Glorious Leader™ likes it when it comes to speaking out against it.
Let's hear it for democratic accountability!Sandydragon wrote:Let’s hear it for ideological purity!Zhivago wrote:Hey little Progress fanboy, you sure do love sucking propagandist cock, don't you?Digby wrote:Labour's Glorious Leader™ has quite reasonably condemned Trump for sharing social media content of a far-right group, and yet he remains silent on the far-left groups (largely Momentum) going councillor by councillor to de-select and force out Labour candidates who don't hold suitably pious views on the left.
One extremism good, one extremism bad, just depends whether Glorious Leader™ likes it when it comes to speaking out against it.
You are pathetic.Digby wrote:I've not noticed anyone on here being biased against Labour's Glorious Leader™
Sadly this is all too true.Zhivago wrote:You are pathetic.Digby wrote:I've not noticed anyone on here being biased against Labour's Glorious Leader™
In the only reliable poll. Survation was the only poll to predict the outcome of the election correctly.fivepointer wrote:in one poll. In another this weekend it was neck and neck. Recent trends show Labour 1-3 pts ahead.
Fact is Labour SHOULD be at least 8 pts ahead of this appalling government.
It is a bit of a leap in the dark, the main issue of uncertainty is the reaction of capital, and how a Labour government would counter that.Digby wrote:I really have no sense of what'll happen if Labour do win and really go for it as regards Corbyn's view that what he labels liberalism has failed and socialism is the way forwards. We've never had anything like it, nor is there much in terms of a model to look to for an example. I hope if the Glorious Leader™ does go for it that they're at least honest when setting that out in their manifesto, if people are then stupid enough to vote for it then it's just a continuation of Brexit with thick people turning out in droves to vote but nonetheless it's democracy in action (ignoring the deselection of more moderate Labour candidates)
I'm assuming if we get the full Corbyn the reality will alarm one or two people who think him worth more than derision. Whether any of the moderates in the Labour party manage to show any gumption remains open to question, Blair is speaking out again but he's just going to be ignored by a huge percentage. Certainly the middle ground seems empty for now
My main issue would stem around their intent to spend money no matter taxation receipts alongside exploding debt levels and/or printing money. Hearing McDonnell ramble on about how debt would pay for itself just again puts one in mind of Trump and his boys, barking mad the lot of themZhivago wrote:It is a bit of a leap in the dark, the main issue of uncertainty is the reaction of capital, and how a Labour government would counter that.Digby wrote:I really have no sense of what'll happen if Labour do win and really go for it as regards Corbyn's view that what he labels liberalism has failed and socialism is the way forwards. We've never had anything like it, nor is there much in terms of a model to look to for an example. I hope if the Glorious Leader™ does go for it that they're at least honest when setting that out in their manifesto, if people are then stupid enough to vote for it then it's just a continuation of Brexit with thick people turning out in droves to vote but nonetheless it's democracy in action (ignoring the deselection of more moderate Labour candidates)
I'm assuming if we get the full Corbyn the reality will alarm one or two people who think him worth more than derision. Whether any of the moderates in the Labour party manage to show any gumption remains open to question, Blair is speaking out again but he's just going to be ignored by a huge percentage. Certainly the middle ground seems empty for now
You haven't a clue. The rates are at a historic low, it is precisely the time to borrow, and if you borrow for investment in infrastructure, then yes, that will generate a higher return than the interest on the bonds. Only the economically illiterate would disagree.Digby wrote:My main issue would stem around their intent to spend money no matter taxation receipts alongside exploding debt levels and/or printing money. Hearing McDonnell ramble on about how debt would pay for itself just again puts one in mind of Trump and his boys, barking mad the lot of themZhivago wrote:It is a bit of a leap in the dark, the main issue of uncertainty is the reaction of capital, and how a Labour government would counter that.Digby wrote:I really have no sense of what'll happen if Labour do win and really go for it as regards Corbyn's view that what he labels liberalism has failed and socialism is the way forwards. We've never had anything like it, nor is there much in terms of a model to look to for an example. I hope if the Glorious Leader™ does go for it that they're at least honest when setting that out in their manifesto, if people are then stupid enough to vote for it then it's just a continuation of Brexit with thick people turning out in droves to vote but nonetheless it's democracy in action (ignoring the deselection of more moderate Labour candidates)
I'm assuming if we get the full Corbyn the reality will alarm one or two people who think him worth more than derision. Whether any of the moderates in the Labour party manage to show any gumption remains open to question, Blair is speaking out again but he's just going to be ignored by a huge percentage. Certainly the middle ground seems empty for now
Economists can disagree on almost anything, other than Brexit is a daft idea from an economic standpoint. You will get a return on investment, but not all (extra) borrowing is going to end up in investment, politicians are too weak and would never hold to that, and you might not generate the returns you're after, and you might crowd private economic activity, and so on and so on. Many economically literate folk aren't going to agree with McDonnell's take on what to do, especially when he can't (perhaps will not) even answer questions on how much his plans will cost.Zhivago wrote:You haven't a clue. The rates are at a historic low, it is precisely the time to borrow, and if you borrow for investment in infrastructure, then yes, that will generate a higher return than the interest on the bonds. Only the economically illiterate would disagree.Digby wrote:My main issue would stem around their intent to spend money no matter taxation receipts alongside exploding debt levels and/or printing money. Hearing McDonnell ramble on about how debt would pay for itself just again puts one in mind of Trump and his boys, barking mad the lot of themZhivago wrote:
It is a bit of a leap in the dark, the main issue of uncertainty is the reaction of capital, and how a Labour government would counter that.
And in addition, it is likely that McDonnell would rapidly increase interest rates in an attempt to prevent the pound crashing in post-brexit socialist utopia, and as part of his attempts at stemming capital outflow.Digby wrote:Economists can disagree on almost anything, other than Brexit is a daft idea from an economic standpoint. You will get a return on investment, but not all (extra) borrowing is going to end up in investment, politicians are too weak and would never hold to that, and you might not generate the returns you're after, and you might crowd private economic activity, and so on and so on. Many economically literate folk aren't going to agree with McDonnell's take on what to do, especially when he can't (perhaps will not) even answer questions on how much his plans will cost.Zhivago wrote:You haven't a clue. The rates are at a historic low, it is precisely the time to borrow, and if you borrow for investment in infrastructure, then yes, that will generate a higher return than the interest on the bonds. Only the economically illiterate would disagree.Digby wrote:
My main issue would stem around their intent to spend money no matter taxation receipts alongside exploding debt levels and/or printing money. Hearing McDonnell ramble on about how debt would pay for itself just again puts one in mind of Trump and his boys, barking mad the lot of them
Again the current Labour leadership's view on seems worryingly in line with Trumps take on his tax cuts. They only see the sunlit uplands, and they have no heed that all mayn't be made by glorious by the Glorious Leader™, and thus ignore they might simply be saddling the country with massive extra debt.
How would he get the BoE to do that? I suppose they could take back the powers, or have Momentum position supporters of the Glorious Leader™ across the entire MPC?Stones of granite wrote:And in addition, it is likely that McDonnell would rapidly increase interest rates in an attempt to prevent the pound crashing in post-brexit socialist utopia, and as part of his attempts at stemming capital outflow.Digby wrote:Economists can disagree on almost anything, other than Brexit is a daft idea from an economic standpoint. You will get a return on investment, but not all (extra) borrowing is going to end up in investment, politicians are too weak and would never hold to that, and you might not generate the returns you're after, and you might crowd private economic activity, and so on and so on. Many economically literate folk aren't going to agree with McDonnell's take on what to do, especially when he can't (perhaps will not) even answer questions on how much his plans will cost.Zhivago wrote:
You haven't a clue. The rates are at a historic low, it is precisely the time to borrow, and if you borrow for investment in infrastructure, then yes, that will generate a higher return than the interest on the bonds. Only the economically illiterate would disagree.
Again the current Labour leadership's view on seems worryingly in line with Trumps take on his tax cuts. They only see the sunlit uplands, and they have no heed that all mayn't be made by glorious by the Glorious Leader™, and thus ignore they might simply be saddling the country with massive extra debt.
I think taking control of the BoE is a given. How else is he going to control the evil capitalists?Digby wrote:How would he get the BoE to do that? I suppose they could take back the powers, or have Momentum position supporters of the Glorious Leader™ across the entire MPC?Stones of granite wrote:And in addition, it is likely that McDonnell would rapidly increase interest rates in an attempt to prevent the pound crashing in post-brexit socialist utopia, and as part of his attempts at stemming capital outflow.Digby wrote:
Economists can disagree on almost anything, other than Brexit is a daft idea from an economic standpoint. You will get a return on investment, but not all (extra) borrowing is going to end up in investment, politicians are too weak and would never hold to that, and you might not generate the returns you're after, and you might crowd private economic activity, and so on and so on. Many economically literate folk aren't going to agree with McDonnell's take on what to do, especially when he can't (perhaps will not) even answer questions on how much his plans will cost.
Again the current Labour leadership's view on seems worryingly in line with Trumps take on his tax cuts. They only see the sunlit uplands, and they have no heed that all mayn't be made by glorious by the Glorious Leader™, and thus ignore they might simply be saddling the country with massive extra debt.
As it happens I think interest rates should be increased, by another 1.5 or so, but I'd phase that in just 'cause any rapid changes tend to cause problems
Governor is appointed by the executive anyway so there's no need to have direct control. They can just appoint someone in line with their economic plans.Stones of granite wrote:I think taking control of the BoE is a given. How else is he going to control the evil capitalists?Digby wrote:How would he get the BoE to do that? I suppose they could take back the powers, or have Momentum position supporters of the Glorious Leader™ across the entire MPC?Stones of granite wrote: And in addition, it is likely that McDonnell would rapidly increase interest rates in an attempt to prevent the pound crashing in post-brexit socialist utopia, and as part of his attempts at stemming capital outflow.
As it happens I think interest rates should be increased, by another 1.5 or so, but I'd phase that in just 'cause any rapid changes tend to cause problems
Natural monopolies.Stom wrote:This has taken on a more civil tone again.
I do think Labour are making the right chpice by mainly shutting up right now. They just need to highlight and underline any obvious feck ups better.
On the crowding of private economic activity, I would imagine/hope they would target sectors with very low/non-existant competition...where government intervention has the highest chance to actually improve things.