Benn's speech was great for bluster but was devoid of a strong argument. But I guess talking with a bit of passion is proper good.
Printable View
Benn's speech was great for bluster but was devoid of a strong argument. But I guess talking with a bit of passion is proper good.
Looks like poor Tobes is on the brink again.
Wow. Objectivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
I don't think it was devoid of strong argument at all. That said, part of the 'drama' was that he was imploring his own party to defy the leader. It may have carried less weight if he had been doing it with the full force of the Labour parliamentary machine and a three line whip behind him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kikó
And it was made in the context of an entirely pointless debate.
I did find some of the rhetoric emanating from the no camp a bit much.
I presume you've seen his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech? It's one of the great pieces of political oratory, and catapulted him from nobody to Presidential candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
Guy can talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuikG1p7kiM
Try to ignore the motormouth who thinks her voice sounds nice.
Twitter unverified Milo because he's not the correct type of gay, and he's not happy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPGXGwPK9Tc
Oh and Lewis, he says he prints his phone number and anyone can call him.
Perhaps they don't think he's notable enough anymore. It's essentially meaningless anyway, he should just get over it.
We’ve been conned by the rich predators of Davos
http://gu.com/p/4gv78?CMP=Share_Andr...y_to_clipboard
Aditya Chakrabortty is so good.
*rubbish.
That article is a rambling whinge with no fact checking or application of historical perspective whatsoever.
Please point out what facts were in error and what perspective should apply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
I'm not really sure what is so wrong with 'inherited wealth' in a non-Saudi prince context.
There are countless emotive straw men proposed with no evidence supplied that they are based in reality.
'The 80s were the decade of trickle-down economics, with Thatcher and Reagan cutting taxes for the richest and promising that everyone else – from Easington to Port Talbot, Pittsburgh to Milwaukee – would soon feel the benefits.'
Was it?
'They get to ensure that tax havens are treated with due leniency, all the better to hide their trillions in them.'
Do they?
'One doesn’t need to be a Bolshevik to see that many of the world’s super-rich are recipients of dumb luck, born into the right family at the right time.'
Who claims that this is not the case, and when has it ever been different?
He's like a left wing version of Richard Littlejohn, good for putting fire in the belly of the converted I suppose.
Those things are very well documented. I don't think you can reasonably argue with them. It's an opinion piece, not an academic paper.
It's an opinion piece, not an academic paper. I'll remember that.
Fight your own battles, mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
I will. You were the one criticising him, and you did ask me to set it up. Changed your mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
Feel free to approach him on my behalf, but I'm not sure why this is special. I criticise a lot of people whose contact details are readily available.
Why will you? Do you think it means that you can make racially bigoted statements or the like without having to back them up?Quote:
Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
Is the Oxfam report he references the silly one based on net worth which hugely skews one end of the graph?
So I was watching this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyh1RNIThm8
And it made me think, why is the Pound still so bloody strong? America has spent the last 2 decades devalueing it's own currency, we can't compete with the rest of the world as the exchange rate is terrible and yet it's barely gone down in my time abroad. Yeah it's gone from 2.5 to 1.5 here but that's more to do with a strong Swiss Franc than an economically strong UK.
My economics is eh- at the best of times but the Forex has confused me for even longer.
Because it's got the Queen on.
Probably because, shockingly, we have not actually gone to hell in a handcart, rack, or, indeed, ruin.
Nor has the US or China? The US has been doing it since 9/11.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
The dollar is strong as fuck right now mate, almost on par with the Euro.
Eighteen pesos for a dollar. :moop:
The strength of the UK's financial sector is fairly dependent on the pound being strong and stable, which probably trumps any benefit from letting it devalue.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
China is handcart-bound right now. Yuan heading cliffwards and gathering speed.
And just wait until Trump imposes those tariffs on their goods!
Why? These are genuine questions by the way. Hence why Jimmy's simplistic view of 'cuz they're shit lol' isn't quite cutting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
Its thanks to the Tory austerity program.
Dave. :cool:
Because the risk of a devaluing currency is a disincentive to anybody wishing to purchase anything in that currency. The pound is demonstrably very stable, hence it makes sense to make transactions in sterling because whatever you buy shouldn't quickly lose value.Quote:
Originally Posted by phonics
What racially bigoted statements are you referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Not economically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
The fall-out from the bollocks polls is interesting, not least because Labour might have been trailing all along (save for an eighteen month period when the economy went shite). Would Labour have chucked the leader had they known that?
No, because it's Labour. They didn't even chuck McMental.
Some pollsters fear they are still overstating Labour now.
:harold:
Margaret Beckett's report on their election defeat is good as well. It turns out that Labour were actually right about everything, but, because the media were more interested in the coalition/having a go at Ed Miliband, we never got chance to realise.
The leader ratings were right about Miliband all along (as they always are about everything), which should serve as notice for Jezza and his -43 rating or whatever it is now.
LOL at people who think the media don't have a big impact on people's views.
There was a report being publicised yesterday that showed poor people (the ones normally held by left-wing twats to be most susceptible to being told who to vote for by Rupert Murdoch) actually trust the government, business, and the media less than the so-called 'Informed Publics', who seemingly take everything the Guardian tells them to be true.
That's probably more with stuff like health warnings and shit. It's ridiculous the amount of times I've heard stuff along the lines of 'If you believed everything you read, you wouldn't eat anything' when the media reports stuff like processed meat causing cancer.
I love those 'who do you trust' charts. Here's one from November which was trying to point out how useless Jez Hunt is/was being.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/wp-...15/11/pic4.png
I'm not sure why people trust teachers more than scientists, who are just cleverer teachers, but hey ho. Poor old Lee is less trustworthy than The Man in the Street.
I find it bizarre that we are even given as an option. Our only (public) role is to be called shit by whichever government is in office.
I'm not sure what you think this proves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
It was ever thus. It's why the likes of Blair et al coveted the support of the likes of Murdoch. You can adopt an attitude of contempt - or one of outright belligerency - if you want, but it's going to get you nowhere. The farcical "war" which Corbyn's circle are having with the BBC right now is going to do nothing but damage them, largely because the disengaged, non-voting public they need to turn up in their hundreds of thousands / millions to a) start voting and b) voting for Labour are the sort of people who are likely going to be swayed by the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Because the normal claim is that it's only the nasty right-wing papers who manipulate the plebs into voting against their better interests (or at least that they are more likely to be swayed), so how is that happening when they are less trusting of newspapers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
So, the answer is for Corbyn to get the press onside, presumably in your view by adopting right-wing policies? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
The word "only" in that claim is something that you've introduced all by yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis
And of course, you're also overstating how lefty the Guardian is. It's liberal-left, within the spectrum that the establishment finds acceptable.
The press is just a catch all excuse for the left's constant failure, not only in elections but also on issues. You didn't hear the Tories blaming it when a Blair-friendly press swept them to victory in '97.