Jeremy Corbyn on Andrew Marr programme

[JC Footy Genius]

Yep. Glass half full for me, and half empty for you, it seems.

I'll be interested to see how the landscape looks when Boris does a Brown and shoe horns himself into number ten. It is true that tories know how to back their leader and say what they feel is necessary for the sake of unity, but Boris is a volte face merchant in another league to Corbyn. In my hand of cards I play Boris' 'Hang Nelson Mandela' T shirt, and bid the quiet principle of Corbyn, , modified in a sensible fashion as conference determines, against the blond spiv, any day. Well I can but hope . . . .

Unfortunately my glass iscompletely empty, a weak/divided opposition is not good for democracy especially considering the huge issues facing us in the next few years.

I raise with a Jezza group photo with Sinn Fein, Hammas, Hezzbollah, CND etc etc and go all in with anyone else.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Unfortunately my glass iscompletely empty, a weak/divided opposition is not good for democracy especially considering the huge issues facing us in the next few years.

I raise with a Jezza group photo with Sinn Fein, Hammas, Hezzbollah, CND etc etc and go all in with anyone else.

Genuinely sorry to hear that.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Here are a few examples of folk who may 'regret' their previous endorsements or criticisms . . . .

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

My point with the pics is not to accuse 'hipocrasy' but to note that jaw jaw is better than war war. Alwaya. Jezza was one of the first. And see below....

 

[Acker79]

Here are a few examples of folk who may 'regret' their previous endorsements or criticisms . . . .

View attachment 68836

View attachment 68837

View attachment 68838

Thatcher was the elected Prime Minister of England at the time, I'm sure they don't regret it that much.

 

[Questions]

For reference, Winston Churchill was 65 in 1939.

And also Queen Elizabeth's first prime minister when she took the throne in 1952.

 

[drew]

The market. You either believe that you and me decide what we want to buy and the market responds to meet those needs or you believe in the tyranny of socialism and that a state official will tell you what you should want. I want the freedom to set up a company without giving the profits to someone else to spend - I want to spend it myself. The freedom to aspire and that is what he doesnt get. Totally agree with him on the Lords and Monarchy though.

What a load of garbage. You paint it as if it is black or white and there is no middle ground. You want a free market then remove all regulation. Remove the regulation that ensures products meet a minimum safety standard. Remove the regulation then ensures hygiene in restaurants. Remove the regulations that requires cars to be roadworthy. The list goes on.

Resources are allocated by the market place, in a free and healthy economy. I agree with you, in our economy politicians want a big chunk, not just of money from business, but peoples personal wages too. Notice how we also don't have a free or healthy economy.

What you have to understand is that the market operates organically, you can't manage an economy, just like you can't build a tree. The market is essentially a source of information, when you mess with it and try to bend it to your will, you mess up the information.

For example, leading up to the financial crisis, "not enough people have houses" was the cry. Maybe it was genuine desire to see more homeowners, maybe it was just politics, but the basic story was that we were not happy with the economy, so we tried to change it by acting upon it. We made it easier for people to borrow money, easier than the market would have at the time allowed. When the market didn't allow people to borrow so much it was because they could not afford it, that was good information on which decisions should have been based, instead we didn't like the information, so we tried to change it. To the politicians and the socialists, the market was being selfish, not letting ordinary people on the housing ladder, and instead of seeing the market as it is, dispassionate, a source of information, they saw it as something which needed "fixing". So they fixed it. What happened? Homebuyers increasing, (creates bad information about available capital) prices increasing (creates bad information about property values), (mal)investment increasing (creates bad information about the wellbeing of financial institutions)...The economic crisis which now threatens our welfare system, our health system, our entire economy, was brought on by the very same kinds of actions people are now suggesting will fix it. If we wanted more homeownership we should have tried to foster a more healthy economy.

It was the ideas of people like Jeremy Corbyn, which got us into the mess we are in. The idea that the government must interviene in the market to provide fairness and equality is a noble idea, but it's deeply misguided. It doesn't work, it's a lie.

Another lie is the promise of "free" anything. Nothing is free. The NHS is apparently free, funny that because we are all worrying about how much it costs! There is no free healthcare, education or anything else, someone is paying and despite what you think, it's probably you. Again, the idea of "free healthcare" is pretty noble. But when you say it's "free" and all costs are covered, guess what - money is mismanaged and wasted, and money which is spent where it should be doesn't go as far as it should, because when stuff is "free" (i.e. paid for by the state no matter what and without any competition), prices go up.

I totally feel the same as everyone who wants there to be less poverty, less corruption etc. But if you just act emotively without understanding how economics works then even for all your good intentions you are just going to make a mess. All those people that you hoped to get a little more for, the very people you wanted to help and protect, the most vulnerable in society, they will be the ones most hurt when the NHS goes bankrupt or worse the economy collapses.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." - Friedrich August von Hayek

Nobody claims that the NHS doesn't cost anything. What it is, is free at the point of delivery. Can you explain how a free market protects the vulnerable?

 

[vegster]

And also Queen Elizabeth's first prime minister when she took the throne in 1952.

Apart from shooting some Welsh people he didn't do too bad .

 

[beorhthelm]

Can you explain how a free market protects the vulnerable?

would you care to explain where it claims that it can? the purpose of the market is to determine price (not always in literal cash terms), a function of the demand of something and the availability of it. it doesnt have objectives, only metrics.

 

[drew]

would you care to explain where it claims that it can? the purpose of the market is to determine price (not always in literal cash terms), a function of the demand of something and the availability of it. it doesnt have objectives, only metrics.

Old dingo is banging on about socialism and how it doesn't understand economics, or at the least that was my understanding of what he was going on about. He then goes on about not wanting poverty etc. My comment was aimed at him.

That said, I agree, a free market doesn't give a shit about the needy. So, what do all those advocates of a free market actually think should happen with them?

 

[beorhthelm]

That said, I agree, a free market doesn't give a shit about the needy. So, what do all those advocates of a free market actually think should happen with them?

that would be a political question, not a market one.

 

[drew]

that would be a political question, not a market one.

Isn't that a cop out. You would have a free market because a political party advocated it, got elected and subsequently removed all regulation. There seems to be people posting that are advocating a free market. So maybe they should be answering the question.

 

[pastafarian]

i am a politics nerd and have been watching some of the conference on the parliament channel.

if this Corbyn movement is a thing of the young people that want change why am i struggling to see anyone under 40 at the conference,it seems much older people are the people voting on policy



where are all the 18-21 year olds

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

where are all the 18-21 year olds

They're probably watching on a livelink and voting via Facebook.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

i am a politics nerd and have been watching some of the conference on the parliament channel.

if this Corbyn movement is a thing of the young people that want change why am i struggling to see anyone under 40 at the conference,it seems much older people are the people voting on policy

where are all the 18-21 year olds

Labour never changes in my mind, and I very much doubt what they propose here is going to make the slightest bit difference, or most importantly win them any new fans. It might have worked 25 years ago but things have changed, people are far less giving than they used to be, everyone feels completely ripped off by the last Labour government, I know I do.

 

[pastafarian]

They're probably watching on a livelink and voting via Facebook.

really......is this true?.....labour party policy can now influenced by people on facebook?

.

 

[Surf's Up]

There's a class war being fought already and unless your in the 1% then it's being fought against you. Junior doctors and legal aid solicitors are this years coal miners. Who knows who they'll go after next year. If they continue borrowing at the same profligate rate they'll have to steal it from someone. Might be you next year.

I struggle to see how junior doctors and legal aid solicitors are part of a class war - are there two more middle class professions than either medicine or the law

 

[Diego Napier]

really......is this true?.....labour party policy can now influenced by people on facebook?

.

Opposition parties and, more significantly, governments are all influenced by the internet and social media; it's the way of the world.

 

[beorhthelm]

Isn't that a cop out.

partially, the point was to highlight the principle of free markets is supposed to measure human wants and needs, not make judgments on them.

most if not all free market advocates recognise some law and regulation is necessary. however once you do this you must also accept distorting the market impacts its ability to function naturally. going too far and pretending that you can control and dictate the market has been demonstrated to fail and make for a poorer economy, while usually not addressing the problems intended.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

I struggle to see how junior doctors and legal aid solicitors are part of a class war - are there two more middle class professions than either medicine or the law

The war is being fought by the ruling classes against the other 99% (adjust percentage to your liking) Breaking the spine of the middle classes seems to be a shot in their armoury.