The labour Leader thread...

OldCoals said:
The Conservatives are rubbing their hands with glee.

They are going to paint him as a bloke who talks to terrorists, wants to tax you to the hilt, and wants to take the Labour party in the direction of Syriza in Greece.

Oh, and all using his own words from speeches he has made.
Click to expand...

This will also be the first time arguably since 1983 there has been clear political lines between the two main parties which is good news for the Conservatives as they can sit and hold the centre ground for the next 5 years while labour firmly plant themselves on the left.
 
My 2 cents: I firmly agree with 'Bliar' on this one. Old Labour reminds me of religion, fear of what they don't understand: how the global economy works. A simple message of more money for all except those greedy rich people, because they're obviously ****'s for being rich. The shift in the centre to the right in my view is largely due to the internet and better knowledge for all about how economies work.

The Labour party is maybe too split today to find one to unite them all.
 
Em3bbs said:
MPs were voted in by their constituents and are surely acting on their behalf or they will be alienating their own electorate. Doesn't the democracy lie there?
Click to expand...

What about Labour members in constituencies that didn't return a Labour MP - should they not have a say as well?
 
OldCoals said:
The Conservatives are rubbing their hands with glee.

They are going to paint him as a bloke who talks to terrorists, wants to tax you to the hilt, and wants to take the Labour party in the direction of Syriza in Greece.

Oh, and all using his own words from speeches he has made.
Click to expand...

This +1

And like him or loath him, David Cameron knows how to push someones buttons and Corbyn has already shown to lose his temper on screen. He'll be shown up to be an immature and mentally unstable in Prime Ministers Question Time
 
robgmun said:
This +1

And like him or loath him, David Cameron knows how to push someones buttons and Corbyn has already shown to lose his temper on screen. He'll be shown up to be an immature and mentally unstable in Prime Ministers Question Time
Click to expand...

I've noticed that to as well, when pushed in interviews he does get agitated (more so then other party leaders) but I would put that down to his inexperience of campaigning at this level but it's a bit OTT to suggest his mentally unstable. I for one wouldn't mind seeing a few more fireworks being let off during PMQ's.
 
Freddie1980 said:
I've noticed that to as well, when pushed in interviews he does get agitated (more so then other party leaders) but I would put that down to his inexperience of campaigning at this level but it's a bit OTT to suggest his mentally unstable. I for one wouldn't mind seeing a few more fireworks being let off during PMQ's.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that Corbyn is mentally unstable, but if he looses it in PMQ's then it can me made out of it and the Tories can basically pounce on it and point out that Corbyn is unsuitable as leadership materiel due to erratic behavior
 
Last edited:
I don't think Corbyn will be overly worried about PMQs - he's had plenty of experience of asking questions over the years, the only difference as leader of the opposition is that he'll have to ask more. It's not like Cameron is particularly good at PMQs either - Ed Milliband regularly got the better of him and allowed us to discover new shades of purple on the PM's face. His biggest problem is always going to be what the right-wing press makes up about him and whether that sticks in the public psyche.
 
I'm actually getting a vote on this because of my Union - going with Kendall. She's pretty useless, but at least she's the least "tax and spend" out of the set.
 
Not sure which way PMQs would go with Corbyn in there, but I wouldn't place too much importance on it anyway - Hague consistently put Blair on his arse, but it didn't get him very far.
 
Mr Jack said:
No, like QE, it's based on printed money. There's no net increase in debt.
Click to expand...

Peoples QE isn't really QE, and it only has QE in the name because it lends some credibility and appeal to an idea that's been proven to be a failure many times over. If it were called the Weimar Plan, people wouldn't take a second look.

Since it's not been implemented, it's very difficult to be specific on the details. However, what's been mooted is the "new" money would be issued against 25-30 bonds which would be continually refinanced. In effect it's a pledge from the BoE to re-lend money indefinitely each time the bond matures. And in an arrangement so incestuous it would put Josef Fritzl to shame, interest payments would be paid to the BoE, which is owned buy the treasury, so it would be paying the interest to itself. So called "circular".

Any form of printing money is a highly dangerous undertaking. Very few people would have backed the QE program if it were not for two key reasons. The first was to keep bond yield low saving the government from bankruptcy, the second was to ward off stagnation and a liquidity trap. It wasn't to bail out the banks, which was all financed through government borrowing.

However, the net effect of printing money is beyond question. It will cause inflation and/or interest rates to be higher in the medium term than they would otherwise have been.

The key difference between QE and People QE, is when inflation becomes an issue again, QE can be undone buy selling off the bonds that were purchased during the easing. The money can then be destroyed just as it was created.

You can't do that with "People QE", as the bonds held by the BoE are worthless, and the borrower is incapable of paying the money back as it's been spent.

The burden of inflation will therefor fall on the rest of the economy, and that will include higher interest payments for business, individuals, the government and institutions who borrow via the usual means. It will also damage exports.

This will quickly offset any benefit of printing the money in the first place, and some.

You will also have whole raft of government schemes that will be canned the moment inflation rises, and they need to stop printing money. Which will be soon.

It's a flawed strategy, A ruse. It's not a new idea by any means.

If JC wishes to improve this country by investing in government backed programs, that fine. But he needs to do it through the right channels, by raising taxes and/or borrowing. Not conjuring money out of thin air, and pretending their won't be consequences.
 
Last edited:
I actually hope Corbyn does win. Labour doesn't stand a hope in hell of winning in 2020 with any of the candidates. At least Corbyn lets them get the Left-wing experiment out of their system. Without Corbyn suffering a crushing defeat in 2020 there will be a strong element in the party constantly wondering 'what if?'.

Time to get it over with. Let the Left have its shot, and when the dust settles the Labour party will either be ready to contend in 2025, or it will be irrelevant, replaced by something new.
 
scorza said:
- Ed Milliband regularly got the better of him and allowed us to discover new shades of purple on the PM's face. His biggest problem is always going to be what the right-wing press makes up about him and whether that sticks in the public psyche.
Click to expand...

I watch it regularly and I can't remember more than about 2 times when Milliband looked reasonably good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom