Jeremy Corbyn

[deiseach]

It is a totally ridiculous debate to have anyway because he will never be elected.

Killjoy.

[NAG1]

It is a totally ridiculous debate to have anyway because he will never be elected.

Killjoy.

[Canalman]

Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.

We're agreed then. Happy days.

It is a totally ridiculous debate to have anyway because he will never be elected.

Stranger things have happened .

Look at Barack Obama, Enda Kenny, Margaret Thatcher, Jimmy Carter, William T Cosgrave, Harry Truman.

[deiseach]

None of those would be anywhere near as amazing as Jeremy Corbyn getting to the top. Now Donald Trump...

[johnneycool]

None of those would be anywhere near as amazing as Jeremy Corbyn getting to the top. Now Donald Trump...

If the Torys cut deep enough in their austerity drive, they might drive the mondeo man into the arms of Corbyn, but Jeremy may need to soften his stances a bit to meet them halfway!


At least he's not a polished turd like Cameron, Milliband(x2) and Clegg!

[deiseach]

The only circumstances I can see where Corbyn getting a shot at becoming PM is the aforementioned Brexit. The Tories are on a slow train to Splitsville, the only question is how they can contain the damage. I think Cameron's claim that he won't look for a third term is his way of dealing with the fallout from any potential split, i.e. I'll go now as the price for party unity. Of course, to quote another Donald, there's always the unknowns unknowns, but by definition it's hard to work out how they might help Corbyn.

[muppet]

The old running a household analogy for running a government, favoured by the tabloids.

The analogy breaks down because governments can increase income at will whereas my income is more or less fixed for the time being.

I really hope he manages to introduce the idea that an economy is not a household into the conversation. If that's all he manages, his election will be a worthwhile exercise.

Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.

Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.

Someone asked about Labour's values.

It was supposed to be about workers. Fair wages for workers, housing for workers, shorter working hours for workers and safer working environments for workers. All noble and sensible stuff.

Now it is about high taxes for those who don't vote for Labour. That article on Corbyn has it as his Number One policy. We see it with the Left in Ireland too. They insist they will tax the rich and give the money to 'the most vulnerable in society', who invariably are their own voters. Most people have an image of 'the rich' as those ones in the magazines, with their yachts in Monaco, who don't work and who wouldn't miss the money.

The reality is that 'the rich' is anyone who earns more than the average industrial wage. (This was confirmed by an Irish Minister to a colleague of mine in the last 2 years - and Irish Labour aren't as left-wing as others). Thus they are intent on punishing up to 50% of earners.

Labour and the left used to be about workers, but now they are about screwing half of them. Whether in the UK or here, unless they return to their founding values of representing workers, instead of dividing them and setting out to screw half of them, I don't see them holding electoral sway in the modern world.

[deiseach]

Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.

The problem with the household analogy is not that it is simple, it is that it is wrong.

[muppet]

Indeed for all the sneering at a simple comparison, there hasn't been any further analysis of dealing with a deficit, other than the suggestion that a Government can increase taxes at will and somehow this guarantees increased revenue without any consequences.

The problem with the household analogy is not that it is simple, it is that it is wrong.

The analogy is not about a household, it is simply about balancing the books. The only time the average dope has to do this is in his household. Hence why it is used (and maybe overused).

[deiseach]

The analogy is not about a household, it is simply about balancing the books. The only time the average dope has to do this is in his household. Hence why it is used (and maybe overused).

Britain has had a national debt since 1694. How come it has not once gone bankrupt?

[muppet]

The analogy is not about a household, it is simply about balancing the books. The only time the average dope has to do this is in his household. Hence why it is used (and maybe overused).

Britain has had a national debt since 1694. How come it has not once gone bankrupt?

Is this always the case: debt = bankruptcy

Anyway, you are trying to trap me into the analogy again. So best of luck with that.

[dferg]

It was supposed to be about workers. Fair wages for workers, housing for workers, shorter working hours for workers and safer working environments for workers. All noble and sensible stuff.

Sensible BS.  How many people have issues with safety at work?  Housing for workers? are companies going to give all there workers houses.  Shorter working hours, it's just a soundbite.  The Conservatives are already talking about introducing a living wage.

[magpie seanie]

Indeed. As a man who divorced his wife because of a dogmatic approach to children's schooling, it may be better that his government is not like his household.

We're agreed then. Happy days.

It is a totally ridiculous debate to have anyway because he will never be elected.

Stranger things have happened .

Look at Barack Obama, Enda Kenny, Margaret Thatcher, Jimmy Carter, William T Cosgrave, Harry Truman.

Assuming Cameron keeps to his pledge to not lead the Tories into the next election then the certainty about them is on shaky ground. I think Cameron was a huge reason they won last time and there aren't any potential leaders from where I'm sitting that you'd say - yep, they'll perform well in an election.

It's not very likely Corbyn will get elected but it wasn't very likely he'd win the leadership at the outset. Labour offered no alternative until now.....maybe people want an alternative.

[muppet]

It was supposed to be about workers. Fair wages for workers, housing for workers, shorter working hours for workers and safer working environments for workers. All noble and sensible stuff.

Sensible BS.  How many people have issues with safety at work?  Housing for workers? are companies going to give all there workers houses.  Shorter working hours, it's just a soundbite.  The Conservatives are already talking about introducing a living wage.

The question was about Labour's 'values'.

That is what it was about when Labour was formed in 1900. Michael Davitt was also influential at the time and he wanted land nationalisation. Sensible stuff, at the time. But times, naturally enough, have changed. Thus the values need to be updated.

Housing is still a problem, but not in the way it was when Labour was formed. Young workers can't afford houses in Dublin, unless they bought pre-2008 in which case they are up to their necks in debt. So housing for workers is still a problem, albeit in a very different way. Safety at work was a much bigger issue then than now. Think of the mines and old factories that people worked in. It not nearly as big an issue today, but the point remains that Labour was supposed to be about the workers.

And as for shorter working hours. That has significantly reduced over the decades. So they have had some success there although it could be argued that Britain just followed the trend of the rest of the 1st world.

[deiseach]

Is this always the case: debt = bankruptcy

Anyway, you are trying to trap me into the analogy again. So best of luck with that.

Debt clearly does not always equal bankruptcy, and given the ridiculously low borrowing costs that the UK has enjoyed over the last decade or so, the folly was not taking on more debt to compensate for the lack of demand in the economy as so many private citizens started deleveraging at the same time. Instead we had a focus on 'balancing the books' which flowed from the analogy with household debt. I think such a policy is well worth sneering at.