Hard left Corbyn receives public backing from 41 leading economists

118 comments on “Hard left Corbyn receives public backing from 41 leading economists ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tautoko Mangō Mata 1

   24 August 2015 at 8:05 am

   “What the Corbyn moment means for the left
   At long last, the left is asking itself whether power without principle is worth having.”

   http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/what-corbyn-moment-means-left
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     24 August 2015 at 10:03 am

     The “electability” conversation is where it all becomes clear. The argument that Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable is being made by three candidates who can’t even win an election against Jeremy Corbyn.

     QFT

     That, really, is the telling point.

     And this bit:

     Across Europe and the United States, however, professional politicians of the centre left have one idea about what politics should look like and the people they claim to represent increasingly have another. Certain politicians have not properly understood the definition of “representative” democracy.

     bold mine.
   • BLiP 1.2

     24 August 2015 at 10:22 am

     ‘

     That’s a welcome change of tune from The New Statesman. It seems to be falling in line with other MSM voices, like this one from The Huffington Post . . .

     . . . “Ed Miliband was too far left, that’s why we lost!”

     Well, no. Firstly, Ed Miliband was not too far left – he was hardly left at all. Labour lost the election for a number of reasons, but mostly because no one knew what he was standing for. First he posed with a copy of the Sun, pissing lots of people off. Then he apologised for posing with the Sun, which pissed everyone else off. He swayed to every whim of the right wing press, failed to make a stand against the savagery of the welfare cuts – in short, no one really knew what, if anything, he stood for. So is it any surprise that a veteran rebel MP (with a very non-establishment beard) who is the very antithesis of ham-faced Cameron and his identikit, be-suited, PR machine cronies has met with a roar of unprecedented approval? . . .

     . . . something for Labour here to consider, perhaps.
2. Nessalt 2

   24 August 2015 at 8:39 am

   that’s a poisoned chalice.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

     24 August 2015 at 9:12 am

     Your judgement is demonstrably unsound.
3. dukeofurl 3

   24 August 2015 at 9:22 am

   How many votes do 41 leading economists have when it comes to general election time?
   The traditional labour policy is not a problem, its selling it to the electorate and having the party as a whole behind it.

   Some say having the Guardian on your side is a sign of certain defeat.

   Blanchflower was for a short period on a Bank of England external advisory committee, most likely with no real influence or accomplishment.

   We can see with promising roll backs of Thatcher or Blair policies, like the SNP promised to end ‘council tax’ in Scotland but they are still waiting, that implementation is not the easy street it appears.
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     24 August 2015 at 9:46 am

     How many votes do 41 leading economists have when it comes to general election time?
     The traditional labour policy is not a problem, its selling it to the electorate and having the party as a whole behind it.

     You can’t sell a message that the sales person clearly does not believe in.

     But Corbyn believes in what he is espousing. 41 leading economists agree with him. And he is pulling crowds of thousands night to night.

     What does the right wing of Labour have to offer apart from more dismal economics and austerity-lite?
     • GregJ 3.1.1

       24 August 2015 at 9:56 am

       What does the right wing of Labour have to offer apart from more dismal economics and austerity-lite?

       +1…that and sitting around waiting for the Tories to “fuck up” enough to convince people to vote for Labour (and given the NZ experience that will be a long wait because the tolerance for lies, bullshit, incompetence and cockups appears to be a quite large).
       • dukeofurl 3.1.1.1

         24 August 2015 at 10:20 am

         Obviously they campaign on their strengths-

         “lies, bullshit, incompetence and cockups ” are endemic to any government, that’s why Key especially is very quick to say LABOUR DID IT TOO’
         Its probably the only principle he has.

         Landcorp has been in the news recently, but when you think about it why would the government be in the farming business. It gets even stranger when you look at how they work. I know of a farming couple in central NI , who leased a landcorp farm for 20 years, they wanted to continue but when lease is up they were out. I think that it isnt the case that Landcorp is ‘farming’, but they are really just a landowner. But it gets more bizarre, when the Shanghai Pengxin group bought some farms they got Landcorp to milk the cows for them. Landcorp didnt even own the land and there is no benefit to taxpayers, or other farmers in doing so.
         Yet National is invulnerable over this issue which seems to go against all the modern national party’s core principles. The Taxpayers Onion doesnt go near it,
         • Pat 3.1.1.1.1

           24 August 2015 at 10:43 am

           “lies, bullshit, incompetence and cockups ” are endemic to any government, that’s why Key especially is very quick to say LABOUR DID IT TOO’
           Its probably the only principle he has.”

           that may be true but the origin of and response when discovered are what sets this government apart…..corruption in the space of 7 years appears to not only have become acceptable but policy, the history books appear to also be in the process of being rewritten….this lot have opened a Pandoras box and if its not closed pretty damn quick there will be no going back …only further into the mire.
   • GregJ 3.2

     24 August 2015 at 9:51 am

     The Guardian isn’t really on his side or backing him though – it has backed Cooper – which is hardly surprising for a centre-left paper popular with the intellectual elites of the left.

     However it is Corbyn that has energised the contest, the debate, the base and those who feel Labour has left them (pun intended) and The Guardian knows it can’t just ignore him.
     • Colonial Viper 3.2.1

       24 August 2015 at 9:56 am

       The scary thing for the Labour Right is that Corbyn has shown conclusively that there is a thirst out there for traditional left wing Labour economics, and ordinary punters are responding to it very strongly.
       • dukeofurl 3.2.1.1

         24 August 2015 at 6:05 pm

         I can understand that for the UK, doesnt entirely translate to NZ.

         After all a bit of traditional labour policies seems to have worked for SNP in Scotland, but that has a bigger left leaning vote block.
         If Corbyn can take the party with him he deserves a chance as Blair/Brown and Milliband have had their chance.
         • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1.1

           24 August 2015 at 6:17 pm

           I can understand that for the UK, doesnt entirely translate to NZ.

           Historically, NZ has always been more egalitarian, and less class conscious outlook than the UK. We introduced the 40 hour week first, and we had the first true Labour Government.

           But we appear to have no socialists in our own modern Labour caucus and few who seem really ready to make the case for a strong progressive social democracy.
         • Lloyd 3.2.1.1.2

           24 August 2015 at 11:45 pm

           Labour hasn’t run with these sort of policies since before Walter Nash. How do you know they won’t work now, when we have homeless people sleeping every night in Queen Street!
4. Enough is Enough 4

   24 August 2015 at 9:29 am

   This is the clearest evidence yet that our New Zealand Labour Party should give up on the policy platform that they have followed since 1984. That same policy platform that ruins the lives of so many.

   Labour New Zealand. It is time to stop the rhetoric and be bold. We want our assets back and only you can lead a government that promises that.
   • Richard Christie 4.1

     24 August 2015 at 9:49 am

     +100%
5. JanMeyer 5

   24 August 2015 at 9:52 am

   Just to clarify, the Guardian supports Yvette Cooper for leader of the Labour Party over Corbyn. He is unelectable.

   http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/13/guardian-view-labour-leadership-choice-yvette-cooper-jeremy-corbyn
6. BLiP 6

   24 August 2015 at 10:07 am

   Jeremy Corbyn has just announced that under a Labour Government, state assets privatised by the Tories might be renationalised, with minimal compensation . . .

   What a great idea! Shame New Zealand won’t be able to do that if the TPP gets introduced. No doubt, this sort of news and the rise of Mr Corbyn in the UK will be giving National Ltd™ an added sense of urgency about getting the TPP passed in order to cement-in its neoliberal privatisation agenda. I see Tim Minibar Groser has already escalated his and John Key’s contemptuous dismissal of opposition to the TPP. Now such opposition is being framed as “completely extreme”.
   • weka 6.1

     24 August 2015 at 10:16 am

     Just out of curiosity, if Nat were to sign the TPPA, and then we got an actual left wing govt, what are that govt’s options? They renege on the agreement, a corporation takes them to court (is that internationally?), what if the govt ignores that? Decides to remove itself from the agreement etc. What’s the worst that could happen?
     • BLiP 6.1.1

       24 August 2015 at 10:36 am

       ‘

       Well, based on history, if our government decided to put the corporate interests of, say, the US at risk, “the worst that could happen” is a 50-year economic embargo along with all manner of direct and indirect interference in local politics including assassination plots against the Prime Minister and Cabinet. That’s for starters.
       • weka 6.1.1.1

         24 August 2015 at 10:40 am

         ok, that wasn’t really what I meant. I meant what would happen officially. There’s a big stick being held over us, I’d like to know what it actually is.
         • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.1

           24 August 2015 at 11:35 am

           Firstly it is to do with our officials and politicians being on the outer, diplomatically and personally.

           Secondly it will be about making it more expensive for NZ in many ways obvious and subtle; taking us to a secret TPPA tribunal may be just one way of doing that.

           Thirdly the financial markets will likely be used as a disciplinary tool against us as a country. Access to debt markets will become more expensive and the stability of the NZD may deteriorate.
           • weka 6.1.1.1.1.1

             24 August 2015 at 11:47 am

             Thanks. In the context of the approaching CC/PO crises, to what extent will those things matter? I can see how they would be important for keeping the current mainstream economy going (and political allies). What about if the world is falling apart albeit slowly? If the medium and long term goal for us is sovereignty and resiliency, can we manage anyway? Is the issue the export markets and how dependent we are on them?

             I know that is off topic, but I wonder how actions like renationalising at cost will go down with the global powers as well.
             • Colonial Viper …

               24 August 2015 at 1:56 pm

               NZ is highly dependent on imports of critical supplies, materials, medicines, machinery, parts. Without the co-operation and friendship of large nations, in our current state we would suffer huge drops in living standard.
               • weka …

                 24 August 2015 at 2:01 pm

                 To say the level of Cuba? Or worse?
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   24 August 2015 at 2:35 pm

                   One issue I see is that we don’t have doctors who have learnt the hard way of making do without modern pharmaceuticals and diagnostics, and we don’t have farmers who have learnt the hard way of farming without large quantities of diesel and fertiliser, and we don’t have mechanics experienced in keeping machines running by any makeshift means possible.

                   And even Cuba got regular supplies of oil from Venezuela and machinery from Russia.

                   So it would be a challenge to live as well as Cuba, initially, if we were truly cut off from global supply chains.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               24 August 2015 at 2:39 pm

               I can see how they would be important for keeping the current mainstream economy going (and political allies).

               Greece is the example of what happens if a country tries to leave the empire. Cuba as well.

               What about if the world is falling apart albeit slowly?

               There’s no ‘if’, that’s already happening. The delusion of perpetual infinite growth is collapsing and the present socio-economic system is going with it (See GFC).

               If the medium and long term goal for us is sovereignty and resiliency, can we manage anyway?

               Yes we can. We have the resources, the knowledge and the human capabilities to be fine. The people at the top don’t want us to believe that.

               Is the issue the export markets and how dependent we are on them?

               No, the issue is profit. As more countries develop and start to over produce profit goes down. That’s why manufacturing is getting shifted to developing countries – it keeps the over production down. But doing so causes poverty in the country that shifted it’s manufacturing to other countries.
         • hoom 6.1.1.1.2

           24 August 2015 at 1:39 pm

           Probably something like how Brazil has been sued via US courts with a massive official judgement against Brazil in favour of US financial interests.

           Massive political pressure officially, unofficially both direct at Govt & at our friends.

           Threats to cut us off from various international financial institutions.

           And of course Covert ops to start a right wing freemarket democratic coup.
     • Stuart Munro 6.1.2

       24 August 2015 at 4:04 pm

       The worst that could happen would be a US financed ultra-rightist terrorist insurgency against the left government. The contras.
       • weka 6.1.2.1

         24 August 2015 at 7:37 pm

         who would the terrorists be in this case?
7. Gosman 7

   24 August 2015 at 10:10 am

   Corbyn winning the UK Labour Party leadership is too delicious to comprehend. I can’t wait till he has to front up about him calling Hamas and Hizbollah friends.

   [lprent: see http://thestandard.org.nz/hard-left-corbyn-receives-public-backing-from-41-economists/#comment-1062270 ]
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     24 August 2015 at 10:14 am

     Corbyn believes in dialogue with popular and elected political movements in order to resolve conflict.

     Better than Blair who reckons that 1000lb laser guided bombs are the way to go.
     • Gosman 7.1.1

       24 August 2015 at 10:46 am

       Please tell me what Hizbollah direct interest in the Palestine-Israeli conflict is beyond merely opposing Israel? They are not a Palestinian organisation.

       You may as well say IS should also be engaged in any peace discussions. Perhaps they can be called ‘Friends’ by Mr Corbyn as well.

       I’d be curious to know if Mr Corbyn has ever called Likud ‘Friends’ as I presume you accept they are also necessary to any peace process between Israel and Palestine.
       • McFlock 7.1.1.1

         24 August 2015 at 11:25 am

         gos:

         I can’t wait till he has to front up about him calling Hamas and Hizbollah friends.

         CV:

         Corbyn believes in dialogue with popular and elected political movements in order to resolve conflict.

         Better than Blair who reckons that 1000lb laser guided bombs are the way to go.

         gos:

         Please tell me what Hizbollah direct interest in the Palestine-Israeli conflict is beyond merely opposing Israel? They are not a Palestinian organisation.

         Gos, stop making shit up. Nobody mentioned Palestine, and you responded well after the edit time allowed so CV didn’t chop it down while you were commenting.

         Just in case you ever wonder why I think you’re a lying scumbag, slides like that are why.
         • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1

           24 August 2015 at 11:28 am

           +100
         • GregJ 7.1.1.1.2

           24 August 2015 at 11:38 am

           I’ve clearly got to harden up – I only called Gossy a jerk and a hypocrite. 😉
           • McFlock 7.1.1.1.2.1

             24 August 2015 at 12:01 pm

             Well, I’m a bit of a jerk. That was me toning it down. But if everyone were callous like me, the world would be a worse place. It takes a village to insult tory swine.
     • Anno1701 7.1.2

       24 August 2015 at 11:39 am

       He has prior form for this as the only Westminster MP who was willing to open dialogue with the IRA/Sinn Fein during the troubles in Northern Ireland

       well ahead of his time some would say

       http://www.history.com/topics/british-history/easter-rising/speeches/tony-blair-on-meeting-gerry-adams
     • Ad 7.1.3

       24 August 2015 at 11:39 am

       The Bush-Blair approach to Syria, Israel and Iraq is a shambles felt by every EU country now having to deal with hundreds of thousands immigrants on their doorstep. Ain’t saying I support Corbyn, but there’s sure as hell got to be a better way than how we got here.
       • Draco T Bastard 7.1.3.1

         24 August 2015 at 2:44 pm

         The Bush-Blair approach to Syria, Israel and Iraq is a shambles felt by every EU country now having to deal with hundreds of thousands immigrants on their doorstep.

         But it keeps the military-industrial-complex profitable and that’s all that counts to the Tories.
     • dukeofurl 7.1.4

       24 August 2015 at 6:15 pm

       And thats what happens looking back in History, the Brits talked to the Irish (x2) and even to Ghandi, South Africa talked to ANC, even Begin talked to PLO.
       Gosman you havent read your history.
       Political power often comes from military action, wasnt that the way with 13 colonies in 1776.
   • GregJ 7.2

     24 August 2015 at 10:24 am

     Good old Gosman – straight to the Tory Dirty Politics smear tactics. Jerk.

     Ignoring of course that Corbyn says he disagrees profoundly with the views of Hamas and Hezbollah but argues that, in the interests of peace with Israel, you have to talk to these militant groups. It’s pragmatic, even if critics say Hamas is not really interested in peace and continues to attack Israel during ceasefires.

     You know the same way that the Conservatives, Republicans and National say that Western countries must keep trading and and having political dealings with repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia because to bring about progressive reforms, you need a strong relationship with these states in which you are trying to encourage such reforms. Then again the only thing that matters to Tories is money. Hypocrites.
     • Colonial Viper 7.2.1

       24 August 2015 at 10:40 am

       And let’s not forget that in the early days, Israel ardently supported the fledgling Hamas in order to destabilise the ruling Palestinian Fatah group.
     • Gosman 7.2.2

       24 August 2015 at 10:49 am

       Hezbollah is an Lebanese based organisation. Please explain why they should be involved in any discussion of peace between Palestinians and Israelis? If it is because the organisation is based in a country that has yet to sign a peace treaty with Israel then would not the same logic apply to IS who are based in Syria? Should IS be called our ‘Friends’ as well for the sake of peace?
       • GregJ 7.2.2.1

         24 August 2015 at 11:12 am

         I’m going to assume you are just stupid. You do realise Hezbollah has issues with Israel separate from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

         You of course continue to ignore the context in which Corbyn used the words “friends”. Either deliberately or because you are too incompetent to do your own searching and research yourself.

         And why you continue to bring up Da’ish I have no idea – they are not interested in having discussions with anyone about anything because they are a bunch of self-righteous nutters who are only interested in subjugation of everyone to (their weird interpretation of) Islam, Jihad, the Qu’ran and Sharia law.

         Man we need better RWNJs.
         • Gosman 7.2.2.1.1

           24 August 2015 at 11:51 am

           Lots of Muslims have issues with Israel separate from the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Lets get all of them onboard shall we and call them our ‘friends’.

           [Gosman, pick up your act commenting on this post or they will start going into the bin: CV]
           • McFlock 7.2.2.1.1.1

             24 August 2015 at 12:05 pm

             Well, let’s respect them and their viewpoints, and that of the Israelis, in finding a durable, stable and peaceful condition for the Middle East.

             Rather than selling one side phosphorous artillery shells that they then use on residential neighbourhoods, and calling the other side terrorists.
           • Gosman 7.2.2.1.1.2

             24 August 2015 at 12:11 pm

             The issue that I am raising is that people on the right would love it if Corbyn was Labour party leader. He would have to defend his position on calling organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah his friends (Yet not Likud or even Israel). This is a valid attack and all I see put out in response is that you need to talk to a wide range of people for the sake of peace. That is correct but you don’t have to call the people you talk to ‘Friends’.
             • GregJ …

               24 August 2015 at 12:53 pm

               Your point – such as it is (& which is clearly a smear and an attempt to distract) – might have some validity if Corbyn were running for US President but in the UK I doubt it will have much traction. Still if it gives you comfort…
         • Stuart Munro 7.2.2.1.2

           24 August 2015 at 4:08 pm

           They’re not really into long term subjugation – they’re an end times cult. They only want to win until judgement day.
       • mikesh 7.2.2.2

         24 August 2015 at 11:28 am

         “Hezbollah is an Lebanese based organisation. Please explain why they should be involved in any discussion of peace between Palestinians and Israelis?”

         How about solidarity with fellow arabs/muslims.
         • GregJ 7.2.2.2.1

           24 August 2015 at 11:36 am

           Yeah – any concord is almost inevitably going to require involvement of the wider Arab world. I’m not sure I’m hopeful of such a concord being reached though.
         • Colonial Viper 7.2.2.2.2

           24 August 2015 at 11:40 am

           How about solidarity with fellow arabs/muslims.

           Hmmm, doesn’t really happen. Persians are not Arabs. Tribal loyalties are sometimes stronger than religious loyalties. Sectarian divisions within Islam itself seem more severe than ever.

           The Saudis have more in common with Israel against Iran than with Iran.

           Very complex.

           Not an area we want to send NZ troops into.
         • Gosman 7.2.2.2.3

           24 August 2015 at 11:49 am

           According to that logic IS should now be regarded as our ‘friends’ as well then as they are a pretty big player now in the area.

           This is why Corbyn is pure gold for the right. Here is someone who thinks he can talk to radical Islamist groups and call them his ‘Friends’ in the cause of peace. Basically these are the same sort of people who throw Homosexuals from tall buildings and destroy World heritage sites because they are unislamic. For some reason Corbyn thinks they qualify for friendship status.

           However I note he doesn’t call Likud his friend though even though they too would be necessary for any peace deal. But I suppose as they are Jewish and right wing that’s fine.

           [lprent: I see what CV means. This comment has nothing to do with the content of this post. Where is the economics?. Looking back I can’t see any that do. If you want to raise your own topics, then do so in Open Mike.

           Banned 12 weeks because this looks a quite deliberate attempt to derail the post. I guess you won’t be doing that for a while. ]
           • Colonial Viper 7.2.2.2.3.1

             24 August 2015 at 11:59 am

             ISIS is both directly and indirectly, an American creation.
             • Gosman …

               24 August 2015 at 12:54 pm

               Doesn’t that mean it is even more important to include them in any peace discussions involving the Middle East?
           • Macro 7.2.2.2.3.2

             24 August 2015 at 12:01 pm

             WTF has this got to do with the subject of the post Gos?
             Nice misdirection I have to say – and completely error ridden assumptions on your part as well to make it so – well done – top marks for trolling!
             • Colonial Viper …

               24 August 2015 at 12:08 pm

               I’ve just warned Gosman that if he keeps up with these irrelevancies I will be binning his comments.

               [lprent: Wrong approach. If you don’t actually ban him, then the most effective approach is to edit his comment, put a [deleted] in over whatever was diversionary (sometimes the whole comment), then explain why it was deleted. This leaves a marker in as a warning. And alerts moderators doing scans.

               Or just ban him, and tell me or one of the editors and above. Gosman knows the rules about diversions, and the penalties. ]
               • Colonial Viper …

                 24 August 2015 at 2:56 pm

                 Lprent, roger will do.
       • Naturesong 7.2.2.3

         24 August 2015 at 12:36 pm

         Because Lebanon is home to hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees?

         Also, Lebanon not signing a peace treaty with Israel is pretty understandable given Ariel Sharons actions there in 1982. Not least of which was the Sabra and Shatila massacre.
       • swordfish 7.2.2.4

         24 August 2015 at 12:40 pm

         The Gos

         Lebanon and the Palestinian Occupied Territories have both been the victims of frequent massacres, carpet-bombing and full-scale destruction by Israel.
         – “Mowing the lawn” as your good chums in the Israeli elite cheerfully call these War Crimes.

         Hamas and Hezbollah both emerged as a resistance to brutal Israeli occupation (in case you hadn’t realised, Israel occupied south Lebanon for 22 years until Hezbollah forced them out).

         As CV has suggested, Israel originally financed and nurtured Hamas in an attempt to dissipate the Palestinian public’s desire for national self-determination.
         • Gosman 7.2.2.4.1

           24 August 2015 at 12:48 pm

           So has Syria. That doesn’t mean all the extra State player in Syria (should be playing a part in any peace discussions involving Israel.
           • McFlock 7.2.2.4.1.1

             24 August 2015 at 1:15 pm

             Nobody said it did.

             At worst it means that the Assad regime and extra-state parties that have territory close to the med should be involved, simply because they are in a position to upset any peace process.

             But nice slide from Corbyn into how-to-solve-the-middle-east. You’re definitely proficient at being a fuckwit.
       • dukeofurl 7.2.2.5

         24 August 2015 at 6:18 pm

         Refresh you memory when Israel was dealing with lebanese militias.
         Remember the Falange in the Beirut refugee camps., they were virtually a mercenary wing of the IDF
       • Tricledrown 7.2.2.6

         25 August 2015 at 2:14 am

         Gooseman you know nothing about middle East politics.
         Once again shooting your self in the foot( big toe acshually that’s where your Tory redneck brain is).
         Do some proper research.
   • Blue Horsehoe 7.3

     24 August 2015 at 1:00 pm

     That comment just shows what a little cock you are , Gossip

     [lprent: Silly pointless abuse. But I already banned you on a later comment. ]
8. plumington 8

   24 August 2015 at 10:27 am

   The ruling elite won’t let him be elected and if by a miracle he is they will sabotage him or his policies eg Greece
9. ianmac 9

   24 August 2015 at 10:46 am

   Blair was Thatcher-like.
   But the Corbyn approach is distinctly so different that people will rally rather than bother with the tiny detail of differences between Conservative and usual Labour. Now we can see the real differences!
   The effectiveness of Corbyn’s approach will be measured by the ferocity that will be visited upon him from Blairites as well as the Conservative Dirty Tricks Brigade.
   • Gosman 9.1

     24 August 2015 at 10:59 am

     You are aware that Labour tried a similar tactic before back in the 1980’s and it failed abysmally. Why you think it will work now is beyond me. Turning the clock back to the 1970’s won’t entirely inspire the majority of the electorate I would suggest.
     • Pat 9.1.1

       24 August 2015 at 11:24 am

       id be concerned if you suggested anything else
   • Wayne 9.2

     24 August 2015 at 12:08 pm

     Or more likely the electorate will simply not vote for him, because he has policies they think are stupid. After all thats is what happened to Foot; no appeal to the majority of electors.
     • Colonial Viper 9.2.1

       24 August 2015 at 12:12 pm

       Boy are you out of touch. Please check Swordfish’s comment which shows that a large majority of Brits think nationalising key assets like rail and utilities is a good idea.
     • vto 9.2.2

       24 August 2015 at 12:27 pm

       Wayne, do TPPA provisions around investor-state disputes apply to domestic investors as well as foreign investors?
     • Naturesong 9.2.3

       24 August 2015 at 12:47 pm

       FIFY:
       no appeal to the majority of donors
     • Blue Horsehoe 9.2.4

       24 August 2015 at 1:11 pm

       Dinosaurus Mapp….

       Your ilk are already on the wrong side of history, just that you refuse to accept what is coming your way

       Imagine being an old man so ideologically blind, and twisted that he fills his spare time on this site making asinine statements such as that

       Was it orders from down the lodge Wayne, that make you come here and post such utter shit ?

       [lprent: And that reads to me as just being pointless abuse.

       There were several rhetorical ‘points’ in there, but they just looked like insults by a complete and utter fuckwit with the intellectual powers of a slogan wielding rabbit hyped up on hormones – and making about as much sense.

       Looking over your previous comments in just the last few days, it appears that you make a habit of walking close to the edge of that particular policy for anyone on the right regardless what they say. In other words you could appear to be engaging ideologue brainless mode. But I suspect that you are gaming it. That explains my sentence. I’m gaming it as well.

       Banned 3 weeks, and if I see any nonsense about it under any handle. Well, take your chances with whatever clod induced irritation I feel, you pathetic dickhead. Read the policy. ]
10. Lara 10

    24 August 2015 at 10:57 am

    What a strange thing to say, that he’s “unelectable”.

    If the British Labour party membership vote for him as leader, he’s their leader. And following that, if enough people like what he’s saying and they vote for him, then he gets elected.

    He certainly seems to be pretty popular. People seem to like what he’s got to say.

    So the way I read that “he’s unelectable” is his opponents saying that they’re scared of him and want to use sound bytes to scare people away from voting for him. Because he is in fact entirely electable.
    • James 10.1

      24 August 2015 at 11:03 am

      Thats a really fair point.

      Im one of the people who have said he is unelectable, but of course, technically you are right.

      If enough people vote for him, he will be elected.

      Im not scared of him, but would admit Im scared of the damage he would do the the UK should he be elected (in my view anyway).

      I guess when I say unelectable – I mean that I think he will be a disaster for the UK. I think that the majority of voters (thats all voters – not just the Labour folk), will think the same and he would not get elected.

      Only time will tell – But I think that there is more of a move to the right than the left in the UK.

      Either way – it will be interesting.
      • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1

        24 August 2015 at 4:51 pm

        Im not scared of him, but would admit Im scared of the damage he would do the the UK should he be elected (in my view anyway).

        I look at the damage that the RWNJs have already done and see that there are people, like Corbyn, about with the nous to fix it. Those people are the people that the RWNJs are scared of because fixing the damage done will prove, yet again, that the RWNJs and their policies are the problem.

        I guess when I say unelectable – I mean that I think he will be a disaster for the UK.

        No, it’s just what you’ve read in the Tory aligned MSM – you haven’t thought about it at all. If you had then you would be fully in support of Corbyn and other like him.
    • mikesh 10.2

      24 August 2015 at 11:36 am

      Going by the last couple of elections, “electability” doesn’t seem to be the party’s strong suit.
      • Colonial Viper 10.2.1

        24 August 2015 at 12:13 pm

        Yep. The nerve of those who have led Labour to defeat after defeat now bleating on as if they know about “electability.”
11. McFlock 11

    24 August 2015 at 11:30 am

    The problem Labour in the UK have isn’t so much in appealing to the public, it’s winning under FPP.

    Well, that and the rabid tory press, who are even worse than ours.
    • Gosman 11.1

      24 August 2015 at 11:58 am

      There is left wing alternatives in the print media (The Mirror and The Guardian) and a State own broadcaster dedicated to public service broadcasting on television and radio. What more do you lefties want? Oh I see. You want no alternative views from your own getting any publicity.

      [Gosman quit with the irrelevancies and pick up your act commenting on this thread or I will start binning your comments. Also see above. CV]
      • Gosman 11.1.1

        24 August 2015 at 12:08 pm

        What other view do you expect me to take from the position Mcflock had that the press in the UK is Tory and that is why Labour fails to make much traction? There is lots of alternatives to the Tory supporting press in the UK in the mainstream. People are free to get their message from multiple sources as you would expect in a society with a vibrant free press.

        [And no one here except for you was suggesting otherwise. Avoid derailing with irrelevancies and I will avoid binning your comments. CV]
    • The lost sheep 11.2

      24 August 2015 at 1:05 pm

      What about the Guardian and The Independent?
      Available absolutely everywhere to anyone in the U.K. (or online) who wants their news and opinion filtered through a thoroughly Left Wing World view?
      You don’t have to read the Tory Press unless you want to….

      Best 2 papers in the Wold IMO. Fark all I enjoy more when in the U.K. than sitting in The Crown and Bull at lunchtime with a pint of Theakstons Old Peculiar and those 2 venerable papers.
      • McFlock 11.2.1

        24 August 2015 at 1:11 pm

        Two against many.
        And apparently the Independent supported the conservative/libdems in 2015.
        • The lost sheep 11.2.1.1

          24 August 2015 at 1:41 pm

          According to the link you provided, the first three categories of major newspapers are split 12 Right, 10 Left, and a few in the Center.

          I don’t see how that backs an argument that readers have no option but to read and be influenced by a rabid Tory press?

          The Independent is not a Right Wing Rag by any means, and the context to them backing the Conservative/Lib Dems can be read in link below.
          In short “the newspaper said in an editorial that a minority Labour administration reliant on the support of the SNP would be “a disaster for the country”.

          http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/04/independent-conservative-liberal-democrat-coalition-cameron-clegg
          • McFlock 11.2.1.1.1

            24 August 2015 at 5:17 pm

            According to the link you provided, the first three categories of major newspapers are split 12 Right, 10 Left, and a few in the Center.

            Indeed.
            And the “not right wing rags by any means” back the conservatives, while the right wing rags threaten anarchy, economic collapse, capitalist flight, and UN troops on the streets of Britain.

            I don’t see how that backs an argument that readers have no option but to read and be influenced by a rabid Tory press?

            That’s nice.
            Now would you care to address the comment I actually made?

            The Independent is not a Right Wing Rag by any means, and the context to them backing the Conservative/Lib Dems can be read in link below.

            lol

            So, basically, they were more afraid of the SNP than they were of UKIP or even just the Conservatives? Sounds not at all right wing there /sarc
            • The lost sheep 11.2.1.1.1.1

              24 August 2015 at 6:27 pm

              If you believe The Independent is a Rabid Right Wing Tory rag, then you must be right McFlock. The Right have got the Left utterly shafted.

              And where does such thinking lead you to ? State CONTROL of the Press by any chance?
              • McFlock …

                24 August 2015 at 6:35 pm

                again, feel free to respond to something I actually stated.

                I assume that because you have studiously neglected the point about FPP, we at least agree that FPP is an obstacle to achieving a truly democratic electoral outcome?
                • The lost sheep …

                  24 August 2015 at 7:15 pm

                  I agree completely about FPP, but as there is zero chance of it being changed in the U.K. it is a moot point.
                  Is Jeremy Corbyn himself talking about ending FPP? If so, he is doing so very quietly. Wonder why that is?

                  So having answered your question about FPP, you can tell me again how the RIght Wing Press control the peoples political preferences, when I can walk into any place in the U.K. that sells newspapers and choose The Guardian ahead of the Right Wing papers?
                  How are The People forced to buy The Times?
                  • McFlock …

                    24 August 2015 at 7:38 pm

                    “Again”? I never told you that in the first place.

                    I merely said that the combination of a tory press and FPP is the major obstacle to any left wing victory in the UK.

                    The “tory press” point I raised requires neither 100% of publications nor 100% of their circulation share to be rabid right wing (as opposed to moderately right wing or even on-balance right wing), nor does it require “control” rather than merely giving the tories the simple advantage that consistent, well-funded propaganda has given the powerful throughout history.

                    Given the speed with which you go from what I actually wrote straight to “How are The People forced to buy The Times”, I don’t see you walking any place in the UK. Running with your eyes firmly shut would be more likely.

                    But sooner or later you might ask a question based on something I wrote, rather than based on your onanistic fantasies.
                    • BM …

                      24 August 2015 at 7:44 pm

                      Arse ->plate.
                    • The lost sheep …

                      24 August 2015 at 8:03 pm

                      O.K. So don’t explain how it is that The Guardian is available in every single news outlet in the U.K. that also sells Right Wing papers, and yet somehow the the Right Wing papers sitting beside it have an influence advantage.

                      You probably also then also won’t want to explain how it is that we are discussing Jeremy Corbyn based largely on pro-Corbyn information that has been published by The Guardian and other U.K. media, and there wasn’t any barrier to us accessing what ever of that we chose and being influenced by it?

                      And you definitely won’t want to explain whether or not you believe the current media situation is ‘correct’ and should be allowed to continue exactly as is, or whether you think it needs changing, and if so, how you believe it should be changed?
                    • McFlock …

                      24 August 2015 at 10:19 pm

                      O.K. So don’t explain how it is that The Guardian is available in every single news outlet in the U.K. that also sells Right Wing papers, and yet somehow the the Right Wing papers sitting beside it have an influence advantage.

                      Because truth is not a popularity contest. Pleasant lies and pretty distractions will always be more appealing than inconvenient truths.

                      You probably also then also won’t want to explain how it is that we are discussing Jeremy Corbyn based largely on pro-Corbyn information that has been published by The Guardian and other U.K. media, and there wasn’t any barrier to us accessing what ever of that we chose and being influenced by it?

                      Information collated and summarised on a left-wing blog run by volunteers, not paid staff given money by rich fuckwits.

                      And you definitely won’t want to explain whether or not you believe the current media situation is ‘correct’ and should be allowed to continue exactly as is, or whether you think it needs changing, and if so, how you believe it should be changed?

                      You want me to deconstruct and redesign the UK media system on a post about Corbyn’s support from mainstream economists? Nice derail attempt.
12. swordfish 12

    24 August 2015 at 11:43 am

    Some UK Poll data on Nationalisation/Public Ownership (and related issues)

    RAILWAYS
    YouGov
    (2013)
    Renationalising the Railways
    Support 66%
    Oppose 23%
    (Support: Lab voters 79%, Ukip 73%, Lib Dem 64%, Tory 52%)

    YouGov
    (2014)
    Renationalising the Railways
    Support 60%
    Oppose 20%
    (Support: Lab 78%, Ukip 70%, Lib Dem 60%, Tory 42%)

    Survation
    (Aug 2015)
    Railways back into public ownership
    Support 64%
    Oppose 19%
    (Support: Lab 78%, Ukip 70%, Lib Dem 66%, Tory 48%)

    ——————————————————————————————————
    ENERGY COMPANIES

    YouGov
    (2013)
    Should the Energy Companies be Nationalised and run in the Public Sector OR Privatised and run by Private Companies
    Nationalise/Public Sector 68%
    Privatise/Private Sector 21%
    (Nationalise/Public Sector: Lab 82%, Ukip 78%, Lib Dem 62%, Tory 52%)

    Survation
    (Aug 2015)
    Return Energy Companies to Public Ownership
    Support 62%
    Oppose 19%
    (Support: Lab 79%, Ukip 72%, Lib Dem 56%, Tory 45%)

    ————————————————————————————————
    NHS

    YouGov
    (2013)
    NHS should be run by Public sector or Private Sector
    Public 84%
    Private 7%

    Survation
    (Aug 2015)
    Remove all Privatisation from the NHS
    Support 62%
    Oppose 21%
    ——————————————————————————————————
    ROYAL MAIL

    YouGov
    (2013)
    Royal Mail should be run by the Public Sector or Private Sector
    Public 67%
    Private 22%
    ——————————————————————————————————–

    OTHER

    YouGov
    (2012)
    In general, I think Government and Public Services:
    Are a force for Good / Are part of the Solution 41%
    Get in the way / Are part of the Problem 28%
    Neither 19%
    (Lab 47/24/18, Lib Dem 48/24/20, Tory 41/32/20)

    YouGov
    (2012)
    Services like Health and Education should not be run as businesses. They depend on the values and ethos of the public good
    Agree 60%
    Disagree 16%
    Neither 18%
    (Lab 67/10/16, Lib Dem 74/10/13, Tory 50/25/22)

    YouGov
    (2013)
    Should the Labour Party continue with the ideas of ‘New Labour’ and build upon the record of the last Government OR abandon the ideas of ‘New Labour’ and distance itself from the last Labour Government
    Abandon/Distance itself 45%
    Continue/Build upon 19%
    Neither 16%
    (Ukip and Lib Dem supporters recorded particularly high percentages for Abandon/Distance itself)
    • Ad 12.1

      24 August 2015 at 9:17 pm

      Very helpful guidance there Swordfish.
13. rhinocrates 13

    24 August 2015 at 11:59 am

    Just a warning:

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/25-000-rogue-voters-in-labour-poll-chaos-1-3866045

    The UK Labour Tories are not even hiding their attempts to rig the election. It’s ironic that they’d whimper about “electability” when they are so blatantly corrupting the voting process by attempting to retrospectively disqualify anyone who might have voted for Jeremy Corbyn.

    I’m not surprised that the Grauniad are against him and call him “unelectable.” Typical of the comfortable middle class that have captured Labour, they love to play lip service to progressive politics to look hip at dinner parties, but the moment the time comes for actual commitment and effort and a possible threat to their inflated house prices, the moon turns full and they twitch, shiver, grow hair and long nails, start going “Urgh… principle… yes but… urgh… I mean, I’d like to… but in the real world!”

    Solipsists all, they think that if THEY won’t vote for him, no-one else will.

    Keep an eye on the old guard bench warming latte slurpers here.
    • Colonial Viper 13.1

      24 August 2015 at 12:06 pm

      The very phenomenon of Corbyn is shining a bright light on the Blairite New Labour types. Watch them scurry.
      • Draco T Bastard 13.1.1

        24 August 2015 at 5:01 pm

        +1 to both of you.
14. johnm 14

    24 August 2015 at 12:24 pm

    Corbyn wants a decent society for people not one for the rich who want to get richer and the establishment.

    That’s why he must be derailed at any cost, he must be stopped:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdlxnB2u30
    • johnm 14.1

      24 August 2015 at 1:20 pm

      Interesting comment on Corbyn from David Icke

      The whole Neoliberal, corporatised consensus is threatened by this man who wants a return to at least a semblance of democracy: Rule by the people for the people and the proper restraints on greed and capital corrupting the democratic process. U.S. president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined democracy as:
      «Government of the people, by the people, for the people»

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86WcV294J-4
      • johnm 14.1.1

        24 August 2015 at 7:37 pm

        “A Democratic Explosion Unprecedented in British History”

        By George Galloway and Seumas Milne

        Seumas Milne of the Guardian wrote of the Corbyn phenomenon: “A democratic explosion unprecedented in British history. That’s all!” Milne joins Sputnik to discuss the unpredictability of politics and the runaway campaign, which shows little sign of flagging.

        George Galloway & Seamus Milne discuss the MSM smear campaign against Corbyn

        http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42700.htm
    • Macro 14.2

      24 August 2015 at 1:47 pm

      🙂 Thanks for that John – yes he must be STOPPED! please people – vote for the establishment and the rich and we will trickle down on you – promise!
15. Bob 15

    24 August 2015 at 1:08 pm

    “From the Guardian:

    More than 40 leading economists, including a former adviser to the Bank of England, have made public their support for Jeremy Corbyn’s policies”

    He’s got policies? But he has been leader for more than 12 months where he has done nothing but complain about the Tories, had party consultation and countless focus groups. How could he possibly have policies!

    It is interesting that someone that actual HAS policies is getting support…
16. David 16

    24 August 2015 at 2:43 pm

    I hope he gets elected. It will be an interesting experiment that can be viewed from a safe distance.
17. James 17

    24 August 2015 at 4:20 pm

    Mind you – a lot were saying the same great things about Alexis Tsipras – and look how well that worked out.
18. joe90 18

    24 August 2015 at 4:23 pm

    The Financial Times, that bastion of the left, reckons Corbyn’s Quantitative easing for people instead of banks (pdf) might actually be quite a good idea, concluding:

    If Corbyn’s preferred investments are useful, they could help restore some of the lost ground in productivity and lead to higher real wages for Britons. And by expanding capacity, this extra investment spending may not even end up being inflationary. (The actual amounts in question, according to Murphy, are quite small relative to the size of the UK economy.)

    “People’s QE” is far from an obviously wrong idea. Implemented properly, it could even improve the Bank of England’s ability to fulfill its mandate without needing to goose house prices or get into contentious debates about helping the rich at the expense of pensioners

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ftalphaville.ft.com/2015/08/06/2136475/corbyns-peoples-qe-could-actually-be-a-decent-idea/

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/03/12/how-green-infrastructure-quantitative-easing-would-work/

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/07/08/jeremy-corbyn-renames-green-qe-as-peoples-qe-but-thats-fine-by-me/
    • greywarshark 18.1

      24 August 2015 at 4:27 pm

      Ooh-er! Gobsmacked.
    • Colonial Viper 18.2

      24 August 2015 at 5:13 pm

      WOW
      • dukeofurl 18.2.1

        24 August 2015 at 6:23 pm

        Thats how the policy can be sold, QE for the people instead of the banks.

        In Germany the CDU government has been happily paying workers to spend part of the week at home. Why cant they do these sort of things in UK ? The Tories have such a vile anti -worker base ( mainly in the press) which makes these things ‘sound far left wing’
      • RedLogix 18.2.2

        24 August 2015 at 6:32 pm

        Something Steve Keen has long advocated. Conventional economics frequently mistakes a stock of something with a flow.

        Giving money to a bank only increases it’s stock of money, which in a debt saturated world is hard to move. (Unless you can pump up an irrational bubble – in which case all you are doing is lending into a crash). And is largely why the global economy has been so slow to recover from the 2009 GFC.

        Giving money to people immediately creates a flow of money which stimulates the economy. In other words it injects money directly into the point of the economy where it can actually do some good.

        Better still is a debt jubilee – a cash grant that comes with the condition that debt exists the cash MUST be used to pay that down first. Still has a stimulatory effect AND unwinds debt saturation, mitigating the damage caused by deflation.
        • Colonial Viper 18.2.2.1

          24 August 2015 at 6:45 pm

          Yep – am definitely ‘keen’ on those solutions. Problem is the 1% who are the owners of financial assets far prefer to see those asset prices inflated, and the banks don’t want their profitability cut by people suddenly able to pay down debt.
          • Skinny 18.2.2.1.1

            24 August 2015 at 7:00 pm

            + 1 CV The 1% are having far too easier run.
            Cobbah got something that should be right up your alley is ya handle via email linked here?
            • Colonial Viper 18.2.2.1.1.1

              25 August 2015 at 11:51 am

              Please check the email linked to your The Standard handle.
              • Skinny …

                25 August 2015 at 1:02 pm

                All good thanks cobbah just someone had a nerve damage problem and was heading down your way. Sorted now 🙂
19. johnm 19

    25 August 2015 at 12:25 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGGVbxDzyQw
20. johnm 20

    25 August 2015 at 12:26 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMQEbAqIx4Y

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS