General Election Is On

[android]

Android, I never found a verification for Macdonnell's statement that he was a Marxist. Where is it from? I did find a quote where he was speaking about Milne's joining the Labour Party. He said, 'He used to be a communist, but we converted him to democratic socialism.' So it is not quite as clear cut as you are trying to make out.

I think the point would be that you admitted that you didn't fully understand what Marxism is because your books on economics are gathering dust on the shelf. Something like that. Well the fact is that Labour's policies and political activities are not Marxist and if you dust your old books off and read them, you will see very clearly that this is the case.

Another point I would make, and this is why you need to provide context for your quotations, is that being a Marxist or not a Marxist is never abolute distinction. If you study your books, you will see that some of Marx's political and economic analysis holds up to scrutiny, whilst in other areas his ideas are deeply flawed. Well, that is my view and I might have taken the time to outline those flaws but I think you said you weren't interested in discussions of political and economic theory.

The really important point though is that just throwing out pejorative labels that you don't understand removes the possibility of any serious discussion of policies. What is it really that you disagree with in Labour policies? I can see the argument that Labour's spending plans might negatively affect the wider economy and that would be a valid line of discussion to follow. The counter-argument would be that this spending will have a significant and positive effect on people's lives, as has been said in the thread on the NHS. I don't particularly like Corbyn, and I am seriously averse to a lot of those who are his most ardent supporters, but at the same time I think this is a gamble with the economy that is worthwhile. In contrast to the gamble with the economy that Brexit represents, which will bring no tangible benefits to people.

Erasmus, a year or two ago I used to make the same argument as Paul Waine - it really is largely of academic interest whether the current Labour leadership team are socialists, Marxists or communists. I have changed my tune only slightly for the same reason that John Mcdonnell has sought to change hi tune and present himself more carefully. (He's a liar! Sorry I'm really bad at the smearing game, I just prefer simple facts and then people can make their own minds up).

The simple reason that Mcdonnell is seeking to re-brand himself is that socialism doesn't sound as extreme as Marxism or communism to the electorate. Why else would so many take issue with me pointing out that Mcdonnell is a Marxist? Why else would Mcdonnell have been open about it up to 2015 and more circumspect after 2015? Why else would you say that I have "thrown out a pejorative label"? You say it is pejorative not me. I say it is just a fact.

I'm sure Brown and Miliband (perhaps even Blair) claimed to be a little bit socialist. The point is that Corbyn and Mcdonnell are nothing like their predecessors. Mcdonnell is, by his own words: a Marxist whose most significant influences have been Marx, Lenin and Trotsky and who is dedicated to the other throw of capitalism. If that is who you want to be Chancellor go for it and vote for it but can we not cut the pretence? This is why I am not so interested in particular policies that have so far made it into the Labour manifesto on which they hope to get into power. We know who these people are and the direction they would like to take us - one step at a time.

In answer to a couple of specific points:
1) Just google the "I like to be honest with people, I'm a Marxist". He has said it and has not denied it when asked about it.
2) It was Murray rather than Milne who Mcdonnell suggested had been converted. Come on Erasmus - telling me this is why it is not clear cut - seriously? A long time Communist friend of Corbyn wants to work with him and in order to do so has to quit the Communist party. Let's be realistic about the seriousness of his conversion. (Milne is the quiet creepy one who is more difficult to read - likely a communist but this is just an opinion not an established fact so don't beat me up about this bit)!

[bfcjg]

Probably no more so than the Conservatives have with ethnic minorities. When you have JRM saying those who died in the Grenfell Tower are thick (mainly black people), that is far worse surely?

Both main parties have vile elements.

[Paul Waine]

After the government has faffed about for three years achieving two very poor deals, it’s no surprise the country is tired of it.

As for what could have been done differently - a much softer Brexit could have been achieved several years ago, as it would have involved far less negotiation time. From there those wanting yet looser ties could no be making their case, but we would be out, which would have fulfilled the referendum wish. But we are stuck where we are, and depending on how the election goes, we might not have Brexit at all, and all due to a very poor government.

I’m afraid I disagree about the main issue of this election, which I think is our response to climate change, and I think this will come to the fore more as the election progresses.

Hi Andrew, I'm sure you recall the course of events: 1) 23-Jun-2016 referendum and the majority votes "leave" - to the surprise of many; 2) 29-Mar-2017 HoC votes for Article 50, setting up 2 year leaving period; 3) EU determines that negotiations must be in two parts, first part Withdrawal Agreement and, only after leaving can the future trade relationship be discussed (having typed this, I hope someone will correct me..... it does sound so contradictory); 4) Dec-2018, TM announces WA - but HoC votes it down (add repeats); 5) 29-Mar-2019 don't leave - extended to 15-Apr-2019; 6) 15-Apr-2019 don't leave - extended to 31-Oct-2019; 7) So, we are having a GE to try and sort out the MPs in HoC - get a majority that can make a decision....

What was the "much softer Brexit [that] could have been achieved several years ago?" Are you referring to before Jun-2016 referendum? Or, somewhere in the period where HoC has had a majority for supporting nothing?

Yes, there are other issues the country also needs to discuss.

[AndyClaret]

Probably no more so than the Conservatives have with ethnic minorities. When you have JRM saying those who died in the Grenfell Tower are thick (mainly black people), that is far worse surely?

Have ethnic minority leaders called the Conservatives a threat like Jewish leaders have about Corbyn ?

[AndrewJB]

Hi Andrew, I'm sure you recall the course of events: 1) 23-Jun-2016 referendum and the majority votes "leave" - to the surprise of many; 2) 29-Mar-2017 HoC votes for Article 50, setting up 2 year leaving period; 3) EU determines that negotiations must be in two parts, first part Withdrawal Agreement and, only after leaving can the future trade relationship be discussed (having typed this, I hope someone will correct me..... it does sound so contradictory); 4) Dec-2018, TM announces WA - but HoC votes it down (add repeats); 5) 29-Mar-2019 don't leave - extended to 15-Apr-2019; 6) 15-Apr-2019 don't leave - extended to 31-Oct-2019; 7) So, we are having a GE to try and sort out the MPs in HoC - get a majority that can make a decision....

What was the "much softer Brexit [that] could have been achieved several years ago?" Are you referring to before Jun-2016 referendum? Or, somewhere in the period where HoC has had a majority for supporting nothing?

Yes, there are other issues the country also needs to discuss.

The only reason the EU wanted to negotiate in two phases is because the U.K. insisted on leaving the customs union and single market (Britain was keen to keep the benefits of these, without having free movement). Had Britain negotiated closer leaving arrangements, it could have been done much faster, and we would have had everything arranged long before the two year deadline ended. As I’ve said many times, Britain could have sought looser ties further into the future, but we’d still be much further ahead than we are right now, because we’d be out already.

[AndyClaret]

Is a Brexit alliance on the way ?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -deal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndrewJB]

Have ethnic minority leaders called the Conservatives a threat like Jewish leaders have about Corbyn ?

You can judge them on their own actions:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ajid-javid" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ppr-report" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndrewJB]

https://www.businessinsider.in/politics ... 992316.cms" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Possibly why Johnson won’t release the report on Russian interference in our democracy.

[Paul Waine]

The only reason the EU wanted to negotiate in two phases is because the U.K. insisted on leaving the customs union and single market (Britain was keen to keep the benefits of these, without having free movement). Had Britain negotiated closer leaving arrangements, it could have been done much faster, and we would have had everything arranged long before the two year deadline ended. As I’ve said many times, Britain could have sought looser ties further into the future, but we’d still be much further ahead than we are right now, because we’d be out already.

Any links that shows this was the EU position?

[AndyClaret]

You can judge them on their own actions:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ajid-javid" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... ppr-report" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's a no then.

[RMutt]

https://www.businessinsider.in/politics ... 992316.cms

Possibly why Johnson won’t release the report on Russian interference in our democracy.

If this was a cross party report, what is there to stop members of opposition parties revealing its content?

[dsr]

What a fear monger.

Example A: a country chooses to erect barriers to trade, and that’s a “small hit”

Example B: a party borrows money and taxes the wealthy to invest in the country - creating employment and economic growth, and that will be a “big hit” to the economy. I don’t think you understand economics.

I know enough about economics to know that it's not an exact science. I take it that you believe that you do understand economics, and you know the answers, and your answers are not open to doubt?

[Lowbankclaret]

Labour support plummets ..



https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... n-parties-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Devils_Advocate]

I know enough about economics to know that it's not an exact science. I take it that you believe that you do understand economics, and you know the answers, and your answers are not open to doubt?

The trouble is you take the uncertainty of economics and it not being an exact science to support you argument that that to question Brexit for its potential negative economic impact as being fear mongering and a guess in the dark and then in the same breadth brush past and ignore that view and use it as a positive argument as to why a Corbyn govt would be an economic disaster.

Normally I would say this is hypocrisy but you know exactly what you are doing cos you are an intentionally untruthful and disingenuous person who lacks empathy

[Jakubclaret]

https://www.businessinsider.in/politics ... 992316.cms

Possibly why Johnson won’t release the report on Russian interference in our democracy.

In order to establish any credibility with some of the links provided, you should at least be trying an attempt at substantiating the information you've provided, otherwise some will take it with a pinch of salt.

[Lowbankclaret]

If this comes true, we are all in trouble.

I know this bank is in big big trouble but this says it’s worse than I thought.

https://youtu.be/QqMIlxF6Oxw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tall Paul]

Labour support plummets ..



https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... n-parties-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought you'd given up on polls.

[Guller Bull]

http://www.spoilyourvote.co.uk/#wrong" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lowbankclaret]

I thought you'd given up on polls.

Your not wrong, but that’s a big shift outside of the statistical error.

[FactualFrank]

Have we ever had so much of a lose-lose situation. If Labour win, we're knackered. If the Tories continue, we're knackered.

So the question is a case of which one knackers us up the slowest. Decisions, decisions, decisions.

[CrosspoolClarets]

A lot of people seem to be casually disregarding the risk in Labour’s spending plans.

I would simply ask:

• 1. Who will the money be borrowed off? Will any of it be quantitative easing? At what interest rate will the loan be? Will our risk rating remain the same under Corbyn?
  
  2. How much of it is NOT long term infrastructure investment (i.e. no payback as such)?
  
  3. How can we be sure that taxing the rich will cause GDP growth? It seems counter intuitive. What if it falls? A vicious cycle could result.
  
  4. What is the forecast effect on sterling, interest rates and inflation? If the last two go up sharply (likely, if wages shoot up and infrastructure spending piles in) that could cause a collapse in employment and house prices.

The impact of Brexit seems fairly in depth modelling, a small dip seems the most likely outcome now, even the BoE agree. The impact of Corbynomics is much less well understood. The risks seem massive - few countries in the world have succeeded with such a policy. Anybody supporting this way forward is taking a much bigger risk than a Brexiteer, simply based on real world evidence of socialism and lack of detailed economic models of the UK plans.

[AndrewJB]

If this comes true, we are all in trouble.

I know this bank is in big big trouble but this says it’s worse than I thought.

https://youtu.be/QqMIlxF6Oxw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It claimed a $250 Trillion debt load. That would be a hundred times more debt than the U.K. I’m sorry but that’s bullshit. It’s like a video that claimed the Rothchilds have a hundred trillion in wealth, or another that claimed Saudi Arabia has a hundred thousand tanks ready to invade Europe. Just nonsense.

[Clarets4me]

socialism.jpg (51.66 KiB) Viewed 1049 times

[AndrewJB]

I know enough about economics to know that it's not an exact science. I take it that you believe that you do understand economics, and you know the answers, and your answers are not open to doubt?

It’s not an exact science, and it doesn’t take place in an hermetically sealed area - so is affected by outside factors; however how you can arrive at the conclusion you did suggests you don’t know, or as other people suggest, you’re being dishonest.

[AndrewJB]

A lot of people seem to be casually disregarding the risk in Labour’s spending plans.

I would simply ask:

• 1. Who will the money be borrowed off? Will any of it be quantitative easing? At what interest rate will the loan be? Will our risk rating remain the same under Corbyn?
  
  2. How much of it is NOT long term infrastructure investment (i.e. no payback as such)?
  
  3. How can we be sure that taxing the rich will cause GDP growth? It seems counter intuitive. What if it falls? A vicious cycle could result.
  
  4. What is the forecast effect on sterling, interest rates and inflation? If the last two go up sharply (likely, if wages shoot up and infrastructure spending piles in) that could cause a collapse in employment and house prices.

The impact of Brexit seems fairly in depth modelling, a small dip seems the most likely outcome now, even the BoE agree. The impact of Corbynomics is much less well understood. The risks seem massive - few countries in the world have succeeded with such a policy. Anybody supporting this way forward is taking a much bigger risk than a Brexiteer, simply based on real world evidence of socialism and lack of detailed economic models of the UK plans.

I can take you back to 1945 to give you an example of how Labour’s economic plan will work. Back then Britain had a far bigger debt problem, a huge mass of unemployed, with all the servicemen re-entering the job market; an economy geared to war; an infrastructure half destroyed through bombing; and the Labour government built the NHS, and the welfare state, and Britain was prosperous again within a decade. If Osborne had followed this example back in 2010 we wouldn’t be in the dire situation were now in.

[Jakubclaret]

I can take you back to 1945 to give you an example of how Labour’s economic plan will work. Back then Britain had a far bigger debt problem, a huge mass of unemployed, with all the servicemen re-entering the job market; an economy geared to war; an infrastructure half destroyed through bombing; and the Labour government built the NHS, and the welfare state, and Britain was prosperous again within a decade. If Osborne had followed this example back in 2010 we wouldn’t be in the dire situation were now in.

So it's perfectly normal to use the example of going back in time to use the example of a successful era in domestic politics, but when we hark back to a similar period of time regarding the elderly generation who voted leave we are reminded things were so much different back then & times have changed, doesn't a similar set of circumstances apply here! Or can we only time travel backwards to point successful change out regarding domestic politics & the rebuilding job in the mid 1940s. Which way is it?

[Lowbankclaret]

It claimed a $250 Trillion debt load. That would be a hundred times more debt than the U.K. I’m sorry but that’s bullshit. It’s like a video that claimed the Rothchilds have a hundred trillion in wealth, or another that claimed Saudi Arabia has a hundred thousand tanks ready to invade Europe. Just nonsense.

The bank is in serious trouble.

Like Brexit you hide your head in the sand.

One day something’s going to bite your arse you have been hiding from.

You can hide from this bank being in big trouble, but if it is.

Brexit is the least of your worries.

[Dy1geo]

I can take you back to 1945 to give you an example of how Labour’s economic plan will work. Back then Britain had a far bigger debt problem, a huge mass of unemployed, with all the servicemen re-entering the job market; an economy geared to war; an infrastructure half destroyed through bombing; and the Labour government built the NHS, and the welfare state, and Britain was prosperous again within a decade. If Osborne had followed this example back in 2010 we wouldn’t be in the dire situation were now in.

What you are suggesting is a Keynesian approach to the economy with a mass expansion of public expenditure to fund infrastructure etc

The problem is we are in different times, we have an ageing population in 1945 roughly 4 people were working to 1 retired whereas now it is 3 to 2. The mass employment lower skilled “production line” jobs have gone, look at Rossendale with the footwear Industry which has gone.

We are in the technological age and whilst I agree with the Green Investment bank money has to be spent in adult retraining to adapt to the modern work place.

[AndrewJB]

So it's perfectly normal to use the example of going back in time to use the example of a successful era in domestic politics, but when we hark back to a similar period of time regarding the elderly generation who voted leave we are reminded things were so much different back then & times have changed, doesn't a similar set of circumstances apply here! Or can we only time travel backwards to point successful change out regarding domestic politics & the rebuilding job in the mid 1940s. Which way is it?

Crosspool said Labour’s plans are without precedent. I’ve pointed to the real precedent of 1945 - when Britain’s many problems were alleviated by taxing the rich, borrowing to fund infrastructure spending, and building (rather than destroying) the NHS.

[Paul Waine]

Crosspool said Labour’s plans are without precedent. I’ve pointed to the real precedent of 1945 - when Britain’s many problems were alleviated by taxing the rich, borrowing to fund infrastructure spending, and building (rather than destroying) the NHS.

Hi Andrew, why are you comparing 2019 with 1945? The world is different today? The world was also different in 1945? Which "rich" were we taxing in 1945? Who lent the funds for infrastructure spending? Etc, etc, etc.... When did rationing come to an end? When did national service come to an end? And, when did the UK have to go to the IMF to be bailed out? What did the "world" economy look like in 1945?

More pertinently, would any economists advocate the approach that JC/JMcD are proposing today?

And, has their approach worked in any other economy?

[AndrewJB]

What you are suggesting is a Keynesian approach to the economy with a mass expansion of public expenditure to fund infrastructure etc

The problem is we are in different times, we have an ageing population in 1945 roughly 4 people were working to 1 retired whereas now it is 3 to 2. The mass employment lower skilled “production line” jobs have gone, look at Rossendale with the footwear Industry which has gone.

We are in the technological age and whilst I agree with the Green Investment bank money has to be spent in adult retraining to adapt to the modern work place.

The demographics don’t change the underlying economic principles, and certainly the history - what actually happened was great success in combining socialism with capitalism - is undeniable. We might need more younger people, or to consider managing a population decrease (probably a combination of both), but when climate change is considered, these are investments that have to be made.

[Paul Waine]

We are in the technological age and whilst I agree with the Green Investment bank money has to be spent in adult retraining to adapt to the modern work place.

The Green Investment Bank reminds me of the National Enterprise Board (NEB). All we got from that is the De Lorean Motor Company in N.Ireland. Well, I guess the film, "Back to the Future" was fun to watch, once.

[AndrewJB]

Hi Andrew, why are you comparing 2019 with 1945? The world is different today? The world was also different in 1945? Which "rich" were we taxing in 1945? Who lent the funds for infrastructure spending? Etc, etc, etc.... When did rationing come to an end? When did national service come to an end? And, when did the UK have to go to the IMF to be bailed out? What did the "world" economy look like in 1945?

More pertinently, would any economists advocate the approach that JC/JMcD are proposing today?

And, has their approach worked in any other economy?

I’m comparing an economic idea proposed now (that Crosspool said has never been tried), with the same idea implemented in ‘45. Tell me which economic principles have changed, and we might further this. You have, for example, claimed Venezuela’s problems to be the fault you of socialism (rather than Swedens successes - which is more alike the U.K.), but never seemed to have a problem with the bigger differences between Venezuela and the U.K., than Britain now and Britain in 1945.

[android]

I can take you back to 1945 to give you an example of how Labour’s economic plan will work. Back then Britain had a far bigger debt problem, a huge mass of unemployed, with all the servicemen re-entering the job market; an economy geared to war; an infrastructure half destroyed through bombing; and the Labour government built the NHS, and the welfare state, and Britain was prosperous again within a decade. If Osborne had followed this example back in 2010 we wouldn’t be in the dire situation were now in.

In 2010 the unemployment rate was 8%. It is now less than 4%. The employment rate is the highest since records began. Wages have been increasing above inflation for some time now. No doubt there are plenty of things to complain about and seek to improve but some of the stuff you come out with is extraordinary. So many countries would love to be in our dire situation.

[Spijed]

In 2010 the unemployment rate was 8%. It is now less than 4%. The employment rate is the highest since records began. Wages have been increasing above inflation for some time now. No doubt there are plenty of things to complain about and seek to improve but some of the stuff you come out with is extraordinary. So many countries would love to be in our dire situation.

You do realise that if you are not claiming benefits (JSA or Universal Credit) you are classed as being in work. That's purely what jobless figures are based on.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... s-research" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Devils_Advocate]

In 2010 the unemployment rate was 8%. It is now less than 4%. The employment rate is the highest since records began. Wages have been increasing above inflation for some time now. No doubt there are plenty of things to complain about and seek to improve but some of the stuff you come out with is extraordinary. So many countries would love to be in our dire situation.

Great but over the last 5 years the numbers of workers living in poverty has risen fast than employment itself. We want people in work but at the same time we want them to be able to earn enough pay to live above the breadline

[taio]

You do realise that if you are not claiming benefits (JSA or Universal Credit) you are classed as being in work. That's purely what jobless figures are based on.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... s-research" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do you not agree with excluding people who are not seeking employment from unemployment figures?

[Jakubclaret]

Great but over the last 5 years the numbers of workers living in poverty has risen fast than employment itself. We want people in work but at the same time we want them to be able to earn enough pay to live above the breadline

Because wages are depressed due to immigration. It's the same old circular argument, the wages will never increase whilst people from the other countries are prepared to work for less the appetite to pay more doesn't exist. I personally don't blame the migrant workers for trying to improve their lifestyles, we'd all do the same trying to feed our family's.

[martin_p]

Do you not agree with excluding people who are not seeking employment from unemployment figures?

There’s plenty of people seeking employment not on those two benefits.

[taio]

There’s plenty of people seeking employment not on those two benefits.

I'm referring to the groups referred to in the article linked.

[AndrewJB]

In 2010 the unemployment rate was 8%. It is now less than 4%. The employment rate is the highest since records began. Wages have been increasing above inflation for some time now. No doubt there are plenty of things to complain about and seek to improve but some of the stuff you come out with is extraordinary. So many countries would love to be in our dire situation.

Wages are still at 2008 levels when adjusted for inflation - that is the massive hole the Tories created by cutting around a hundred thousand civil service jobs, and letting zero hours employers pick them up. The Tories capped civil service pay at below inflation, so you have teachers, doctors, nurses, and many others all earning less then they did ten years ago - and of course they're angry (wouldn't you be?).

During that time the wealth of the richest thousand in the UK has trebled to £750 Billion.

When you consider the 130K deaths atributed to austerity policies, the Windrush Disgrace, the fiasco of Brexit, in addition to the housing, schools, healthcare, and other shortfalls - this government has been a disaster for ordinary people.

You hate Corbyn, but I can't see how Labour's positions are worse than what we've had.

[AndrewJB]

Because wages are depressed due to immigration. It's the same old circular argument, the wages will never increase whilst people from the other countries are prepared to work for less the appetite to pay more doesn't exist. I personally don't blame the migrant workers for trying to improve their lifestyles, we'd all do the same trying to feed our family's.

If only our government looked after worker's rights.

[Devils_Advocate]

Because wages are depressed due to immigration. It's the same old circular argument, the wages will never increase whilst people from the other countries are prepared to work for less the appetite to pay more doesn't exist. I personally don't blame the migrant workers for trying to improve their lifestyles, we'd all do the same trying to feed our family's.

Well according to the Professor of Gender Studies at Edinburgh university who reads the Morning Star newspaper cover to cover every day (so obviously knows a lot more than you) this has nothing to do with immigration and is the result of elitist right wing Tory policies

[FactualFrank]

AndrewJB are you filling in until the turtle has his ban lifted? (this is referring to the number of posts)

[Jakubclaret]

If only our government looked after worker's rights.

A sensible response unlike DA so worthy of a reply, yes to a certain degree you have a point & more needs to be done, improvements towards health & safety & compulsory enforced PPE I'd put high on the agenda, & after a certain period of time subject to probation, more full time contracts to temporary workers & less agencies.

[android]

Wages are still at 2008 levels when adjusted for inflation - that is the massive hole the Tories created by cutting around a hundred thousand civil service jobs, and letting zero hours employers pick them up. The Tories capped civil service pay at below inflation, so you have teachers, doctors, nurses, and many others all earning less then they did ten years ago - and of course they're angry (wouldn't you be?).

During that time the wealth of the richest thousand in the UK has trebled to £750 Billion.

When you consider the 130K deaths atributed to austerity policies, the Windrush Disgrace, the fiasco of Brexit, in addition to the housing, schools, healthcare, and other shortfalls - this government has been a disaster for ordinary people.

You hate Corbyn, but I can't see how Labour's positions are worse than what we've had.

I don't hate Corbyn. I can disagree with someone without hating them.

It seems highly unlikely that the 130k deaths claim stands up to any serious independent scrutiny. Some of your other points will have varying degrees of merit but I'm going to bed. It was ridiculous to say we are in a dire situation - take a look outside the UK.

[Paul Waine]

I don't hate Corbyn. I can disagree with someone without hating them.

It seems highly unlikely that the 130k deaths claim stands up to any serious independent scrutiny. Some of your other points will have varying degrees of merit but I'm going to bed. It was ridiculous to say we are in a dire situation - take a look outside the UK.

I'm not categorical on this, but I think there are knowledgeable authorities who attribute the extra deaths to the promotion of diesel cars from early 2000s. Something like 20,000 to 30,000 extra deaths p.a.

I'm off to bed (work in the morning). Maybe someone will let me know if this is the explanation, or perhaps my memory is confused.

[dsr]

The trouble is you take the uncertainty of economics and it not being an exact science to support you argument that that to question Brexit for its potential negative economic impact as being fear mongering and a guess in the dark and then in the same breadth brush past and ignore that view and use it as a positive argument as to why a Corbyn govt would be an economic disaster.

Normally I would say this is hypocrisy but you know exactly what you are doing cos you are an intentionally untruthful and disingenuous person who lacks empathy

I know there are several posters on here who have accused me of hypocrisy because I said that in my opinion Brexit will not cause economic meltdown but in my opinion Corbyn's policies will. I have no idea how that can be considered hypocrisy, but still. If that's the way your minds work.

But strangely, the people accusing me of hypocrisy are the same people who believe that Brexit will cause economic meltdown and Corbyn's policies won't. How does that work? Does it mean that hypocrisy has gone away from the idea that different circumstances have different results, and moved back towards the idea that you and yours are right and everyone else is wrong?

[dsr]

I don't hate Corbyn. I can disagree with someone without hating them.

It seems highly unlikely that the 130k deaths claim stands up to any serious independent scrutiny. Some of your other points will have varying degrees of merit but I'm going to bed. It was ridiculous to say we are in a dire situation - take a look outside the UK.

What they did was to work out how many death there were in the years to 2010 and also work out by how much the death rate was improving, split by age and sex. Then they counted the actual deaths in 2012 to 2014 and compare the numbers they would have expected if the death rate had carried on improving (not if it had remained the same, which might have appeared the fair way to do it.) They calculated 45,000.

Then they started from the day David Cameron became Prime Minister on the assumption that the increase in theorised deaths started on that day. They assumed the theorised deaths lasted for the eight years from 2010 to 2017 and therefore jumped from 15,000 per year over 3 years to 15,000 per year over 8 years - hence 120,000. (The extra 10,000 probably appeared because the 15,000 p.a. can be assumed to run on for ever.) They produced no evidence whatsoever as to why this extrapolation was supposed to be scientific.

But the good news is, all these assumptions were based on the idea that it was Cameron's and Clegg's austerity that caused the problem. So they worked out the average spending on old folks' homes and hospitals and decided that there was a more or less exact link. Which is good news for fat people, for example, because this survey is definitive that obesity is not part of the problem. So much not part of the problem, in fact, that it wasn't even worth considering as a hypothetical cause of these hypothetical deaths. Hurray for fatties.

[aggi]

It's a tricky point to get across, I know, but I'll have another go.

If we leave the EU, there may (or may not) be an economic hit, but IMO if there is it will be small and short term.

If Corbyn becomes PM, there may (or may not) be an economic hit, but IMO there will be and it will be huge.

It's like the difference between losing a tenner and losing a grand. In the former case, it's a lot easier to say "it's only money".

In modern terminology I believe this is called "project fear".