Earl Aelfheah

.

I am not a Corynista by the way, but I think it's clear that the media have done an absolute hatchet job on him, which is not conducive to a healthy political discourse. The media in this country is often pretty corrosive to our democracy. Cameron's failure to implement the recommendations of the Leveson enquiry was one of the many times he demonstrated his lack of courage.

The trident idea was a bit silly IMO, although to be fair, it was only floated as a *possible* alternative to the binary choice of renew as is, or scrap completely. The party rejected the idea following a defence review. It should be possibly to discuss the options openly.

No one suggested 'enforceable means of preventing' after work drinks. That's the point. He was just describing some of the well established social and structural realities which make it difficult to address issues like the gender pay gap. It was an insignificant part of a wide ranging discussion on the issues women face in achieving parity with men. It's pretty easy to take something out of context, change what was said and then paint it as ridiculous.

Yeah, I'm with you on that.

Maybe just don't drive in the bus lane irrespective of whether there's a camera or not.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The after work drinks thing is classic Corby > though. > > > 'Wouldn't it be good if..?' Yeah, it probably > would. > > Any practical, workable suggestions and solutions > as to how this might be achieved? 'Not really'. He made lot's of practical suggestions about how to tackle inequalities in the workplace. That was what his speech was about. None of it was reported though, just the made up bit where he said Labour would ban beer and make everyone wear hair shirts to work.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If a family choose to follow traditional gender > roles, that's their business. Not appropriate for > JC (and lobbyists) to get involved. That's not necessarily an unreasonable view. The point is that he didn't say what he was reported as saying ... and it wasn't any different to the position of a number of 'business leaders'. So regardless of whether or not you agree, it's hardly novel or radical, or indeed Stalinist as suggested by some of the more rabid leader writers.

^this

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > for a role of the state in the provision of key > public services > > For me, it comes down to whether it benefits the > public. In the case of rail, we're not feeling any > benefits of competition, and I'm not ideologically > averse to nationalisation (of course, provided > they do a better job and provide better value) > > But then with things like energy.. deregulation > and privatisation have worked OK. I do not > understand why the government would want to take a > controlling interest in energy suppliers, etc. > What's in it for us?? It's a level of meddling > that I fundamentally disagree with. > > And then he starts saying frankly bat-shit-crazy > stuff like after work social events should be > forbidden... and I start to imagine some sort of > dystopian nightmare... I completely agree with that. We should take a pragmatic approach to the role of the state and I do think it should be limited. I'm in favour of the state doing a few key things and doing them well. I don't think Corbyn ever actually called for after work drinks to be banned http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/09/02/no-jeremy-corbyn-doeesn-t-want-to-ban-after-work-drinks he actually repeated a point that's also been made by Carolyn Fairbairn, the head of the CBI (those dangerous Trots) as well as others - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/23/business-dinners-exclude-women-cbi-chief-carolyn-fairbairn_n_8627582.html

I just find it so depressing that the majority of people have completely bought into the idea of zero regulation aka standards, very few protections for workers, low taxes and poor public services.

this idea that if workers have rights, that the economy suffers and business can't survive is ridiculously short sighted. You need a large middle class in order to have a successful economy, because they are not only your workers, but also your customers. Currently the state subsidises the wages employers don't pay. This comes from taxes levied on business and higher earners, so that the wages still get paid, only in the least rational, most inefficient manner.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think there are plenty of companies that could > easily pull out of the UK without diminishing > their market share... Sure, but actually the issue with many of these companies has been side stepping tax on profits made on sales in the UK. Anyway, we're kind of getting off the point. This idea that a mixed economy, for a role of the state in the provision of key public services and a fairer distribution of the countries wealth amounts to some sort of radical lefist extremism - well, I find it very dispiriting to be honest. They're views which would have been shared by many of the more moderate Conservative MPs in the eighties. We've swung so far to the right in recent decades and are aligning with the neo-con ideologues in the US, rather than with our more progressive, northern European neighbours. Brexit will no doubt accelerate this process.

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The 'our government will...' bit is crap. JC and > JMcD are proper old school Marxist socialists - > they don't believe in entrepreneurs, or really in > the private sector at all. If you think that has > changed you're deluded. You think they're communists, who want to deliver a command economy? I seriously doubt it. I am not afraid of 'reds under the bed'. I suspect that they believe in regulating certain markets and an argument for state control of certain key industries such as health care, education and transport. The idea of a mixed economy, was not considered quite so extreme or heretical until pretty recently. Unfortunately we've swung to the right as a country and are moving closer to the dogmatic US model, rather than the more open minded and thoughtful Northern European one.

Interesting. I've no idea what it is I'm afraid, but do let us know when you find out.

By the way, I'm no fan of John McDonnell, but neither am I a fan of the economic dogma / market fundamentalism of many neo-conservatives.

In other words.. I'm sure that his view would be that low tax (fewer protections for the poorest, and poor public services, education, health care and housing), light regulation and 'flexible labour law' (i.e. low wages, precarious working conditions), are not good, either for the economy in aggregate, or the kind of society that we might want. One might argue that it's not really that good for innovation, aspiration or the kind of entrepreneurship one might want to encourage long term either.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The things that actually encourage wealth creation > among entrepreneurs are - low CGT, Low business > tax, light regulation, tax breaks on business > investment and flexible labour laws - now, what do > we think is going to be Labour's policy on > all/most of them? Yes, that encourage wealth creation 'among[st] entrepreneurs'. The fact that John McDonnell pointedly described wealth creators as "...the workers and the entrepreneurs" is notable. It's in stark contrast with the neo-con idea of trickle down economics, where there is no recognition of the value workers also create.

Why do you think it's crap? I think it's very pointed actually.. The wealth creators are the workers and the entrepreneurs.

Sure, I think the current first past the post system is not great.

It is surprising that the libdems are not doing better with things as they are.

This is about right: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-six-things-to-avoid-electoral-armageddon-a7328736.html

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You know what, I'm actually really starting to > warm to Corbyn supporters. I mean how would we get > by without inspired political events such as this > little gem... > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/26/jeremy- > corbyns-supporters-have-been-writing-poems-about-h > im-and/ I think you've had a sense of humour failure.

TBH, the libdems should be the party of the liberal, urban 'blairites'. A real centrist party to the left of the Conservatives. Labour could then go back to representing the traditional working class.

To say that Corbyn is an extremist is hysterical imo. The most left wing policies he has is to build more social housing and renationalise the railways. There are people on the Conservative benches who would actually support both those things. You may not like him much, but he has a mandate from the party membership, so presumably reflects their views. The Labour party may not be in step with popular opinion right now. That's OK, people can decide not to vote Labour currently. Personally, I think it's quite good for democracy to have parties that are actually different from each other. Without choices, people end up feeling the whole political system is a stitch up between a homogeneous political and media class. People said they didn't want identikit, populist politicians - well polished and media trained... that they wanted to engage young people, that they wanted there to be a real choice. Well now there is a choice.