It's a figure of speech. Or are we going down the "Obama said Palin looked like a pig by using a phrase nobody ever understood to mean the subject of looked like a pig", thing?
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It's a figure of speech. Or are we going down the "Obama said Palin looked like a pig by using a phrase nobody ever understood to mean the subject of looked like a pig", thing?
Well yeah I posted on the forum with the hope that othesr might read it(Hint hint) and then talk about in the thread but well no one did(Shame really as it's rather interesting)
So you hoped to stir debate by twice offering "it's interesting" as a catalyst for it? Seems plausible. At least you didn't do anything unrealistic such as post your opinion of it, contextualise the main points, disseminate what you felt were the more pertinent areas for discussion in hope to generate debate, because that'd be just stupid wouldn't it?
Nobody should think there's anything to the fact you've now had multiple opportunities to display that you've read more than a single paragraph of the document before today but have chosen instead to insist you posted a 25,000 word document on an internet forum and claim to be genuinely disappointed people didn't take a couple of hours out of their day to read it and then give their opinions.
Last edited:
At what point whilst reading the 25,000 words did you realise your interest in the document was sufficiently high enough to finish it and post it three times online, yet not high enough to want to discuss it with the people you thought would be interested in reading it?
17,324 words in?
It's painfully obvious your knowledge of the document extends no further than an understanding of the subject matter. Which is fine if you didn't choose to mock me for not reading it either.
Changing the subject has anyone read the Washington post today?
It's really interesting. I've read it twice. https://www.washingtonpost.com/
It's really interesting. I've read it twice. https://www.washingtonpost.com/
To be fair @Oscie you do have a habit of making claims that are demonstrably untrue and then just entirely ignoring posts which contain evidence that contradicts you. In this case you claimed that the left hadn't really considered what re-nationalisation would mean, a link was then posted which shows that the Labour Left has a pretty well-fleshed out policy proposal on what re-nationalisation would mean and you ignore it. You get called out and go on an ad-hominem against the poster who called you out. A couple of pages ago you tried to argue that Blair's Labour was really nice to immigrants and that all the 'controls on migration' stuff started the second Blair left, I replied with a concise post filled with actual facts showing you were talking complete nonsense and you just ignored it entirely.
If you come into a thread with your debating hat on and want to be taken seriously you have to engage with posts that use evidence to refute your claims instead of ignoring them.
If you come into a thread with your debating hat on and want to be taken seriously you have to engage with posts that use evidence to refute your claims instead of ignoring them.
Well said.
I haven't ignored it, I've questioned whether the person who presented it had even read it. It's fairly obvious they haven't.
Secondly my point wasn't that a plan to implement nationalisation didn't exist, it was that the reality of what will happen to re-nationalised industries in a country that predominately elects Tory governments hasn't been thought through. Personally I'd trust private enterprise with an established, long-standing regulator to run the water in this country as opposed to nationalise it and being at most 4 years away from the Tories selling everything off again in a wild west-style auction designed to benefit nobody but private business. And I can't think who would win in a cycle where massive public investment was made into taking control of industries that would just be sold off again every time a government of a different colour wins an election.
Even if the Tories didn't immediately seek to sell everything off again, which I think everyone would agree is pretty likely that they would, how much confidence does anyone have in a Tory government running state-owned industries when you look at the chronic under investment in the state owned sectors that currently exist.
At no point is a link to how Labour plan to nationalise industry a counter to anything I've said. You're free to disagree and put forward why you trust the Tories not to flog everything off again in a heartbeat or why you think you'd trust them impeccably not to deliberately under-fund these newly state-controlled industries. Just don't post a link to something you haven't read that isn't terribly relevant to the points I've made.
If you literally read(For the million time I've read the bloody thing) labours alternative models of ownership you would know this is a counter to your argument. Labour are not talking about the same type of nationalisation that happen in the post war years, in fact Bennism(And thus Corbyn)is very critical of that type of nationalisation.
How would you know ? You admitted that you didn't bother to read it.
Last edited:
The conservative government deregulated the water market. I guess there's no point in having a long-standing regulator either because the tories only ever defund these programs and make them toothless.
Well I don't dispute that people would still train to be doctors for little to no money, since that's already the case. And in science PhD stipends are generally set at barely above minimum wage and everyone knows PhD students are the workhorses of any lab.
But no one is going to stay on and do a job with immense responsibility and work load for nothing.
Long-standing regulators that gradually acquires greater powers is the consequence of industry stability for a significant period of time. The water industry was privatised nearly 30 years ago. Over that time regulatory oversight has strengthened. Is it perfect? No. Is it even sufficient? Perhaps not. But it's stronger than what it was.
Conversely if it was nationalised by the winner of the next election and re-privatised by the winner of the one after that everything starts from scratch, which will mean significantly weaker regulatory oversight of what will be the newly-privatised industry, than what we currently have. Without even mentioning the chronic under-investment a Tory government will impose just like they have every other time in order to make purchasing shares in their great sell-off bonanza more appealing to those upon whom they rely for their party's donations.
Supporting the nationalisation of now private industries requires a level of faith in future Tory governments that I'm simply not willing hold. The practical, yet imperfect, solution is to continue to strengthen the hand of regulators rather than end up spending billions on buying everything back every other election after the mob before raise half of that by flogging it off to their friends. If irrevocable nationalisation was possible then perhaps, but it isn't. And it's disheartening once more to see Labour fight the battles of decades gone by again when there are more practical and cost-effective ways of getting value for money for the public but they're so wedded to this ideal of nationalisation they can't get beyond the word.
Last edited:
my dude this is tory policy, just join them already
It isn't as bad as pretending you understand something by posting a link to something you haven't read but "join the Tories" is still a bit crap nonetheless.
*Blank stares* "Join the Tories"
*Blank stares* "You sound like a Tory to me"
*Blank stares* "Oh! Jeremy Corbyn!"
So much about the level of political discourse in this country right now is explained by looking through this thread.
In the last few days you have argued for lower taxes and privatisation. Labour is the wrong party for you. There's no point in discussing it further really because you'll just ignore any constructive points people make for another repetitive post about how Corbyn is literally Hitler and Stalins lovechild.
No I'm genuinely sorry that I was baited into engaging. I thought I was outlining why nationalisation of industry was impractical in a country where one party will always endeavour to privatise it, arguing that there may be less-than-perfect but more realistic and practical ways the public/consumer can be protected from the brunt of market forces that acknowledges that reality.
I'm almost disappointed in myself that I was briefly fooled into believing the person I was conversing with was going to have anything else than: "You sound like a Tory."
Guess it only takes Dobba to come along and ask "Didn't you vote Lib Dem?" and the set is complete.
I'm almost disappointed in myself that I was briefly fooled into believing the person I was conversing with was going to have anything else than: "You sound like a Tory."
Guess it only takes Dobba to come along and ask "Didn't you vote Lib Dem?" and the set is complete.
@Dobba you know you want to.
what's the point of any politician doing anything? what's the point of the tories doing something when labour will win eventually anyway? what's the point of labour doing anything if the tories will win eventually? what's the point of the lib dems existing in a fptp electoral system? what's the point of joining the eu? the world will eventually be consumed by the sun and political unions will be destroyed so lets not do anything at all ever
it is the single dumbest argument in the world, that you would call into question other peoples intelligence while spouting this nonsense is really something
Don't worry @Sweet Square definitely nobody has noticed how you still haven't discussed or presented a single thing within that 25,000 word document you say that you've read and have presented 3 times on here for "debate" yet oddly not found a single thing to say about it beyond "interesting" and "really interesting", so carry on.
Er...I'll just repost it again then
193 words I hope that isn't too many.
SS (definitely not a coincidence you goosestepping motherfecker), another policy will be written by the conservative party that is the opposite of this so it will fail.
That directly addresses the point that future Tory governments would be both politically inclined and financially motivated not to re-privatise said industries upon the first opportunity. Or at least maybe you're hoping people who skim read the thread in the hope of finding and attacking anything that isn't in praise or support of Jeremy Corbyn will simply assume it does.
You've copy and pasted a bit out of a report you've never bothered to read before today and hoped that it's somehow relevant to the point you're trying to respond to. I've asked why there would be an incentive for the Tories to not privatise any industry and you respond by posting a section about how one model of ownership previously was flawed.
You may well have posted....picking a random page number....31....
"There are different ways of achieving more democratic and accountable forms of state ownership. One option would be a traditional model of state ownership, largely staffed and managed by professionals and expert groups but open to greater democratic scrutiny by the wider body politic. A good example of this type would be Statoil, the Norwegian national oil company, set up in the 1970s to safeguard the nation’s interest against foreign oil multinationals"
You, me and everyone reading this is reading it for the first time. Please stop the charade, it's embarrassing.
Last edited:
To catch everyone up:
My point is that nationalising already privatised industry is ultimately pointless in a country where the party who historically tends to win more times than not will forever be financially and politically incentivised to re-privatise at every opportunity and that the cycle of one government spending billions on buying back industry the next government will sell-off, which the next government will buy back, which the next government will sell off again - doesn't represent a great deal for the taxpayer/consumer.
Apparently a pertinent reply/challenge to that point of view, are these words:
"Older forms of national state ownership in the UK have tended to be highly centralised, top-down and run at ‘arms-length from various stakeholdergroups, notably employees, users and the tax paying public that ultimately funds them. The post 1945 nationalisation programme set the trend here with what has been termed the ‘Morrisonian Model’ (after Herbert Morrison, the Minister overseeing the programme). The model was justified at the time as being about enlisting ‘business’ or ‘expert’ groups who would manage in the ‘national’ interest, rather than give voice to ‘vested’ interests, which was usually aimed at trade unions or the idea of workerrepresentatives.
The result was that a small private and corporate elite – in some cases the same people who had been involving in managing the pre-nationalised privatesectors (which were riddled with underinvestment, deteriorating infrastructure and poor performance)"
I'm posing this without editorial comment. Make your own minds up.
My point is that nationalising already privatised industry is ultimately pointless in a country where the party who historically tends to win more times than not will forever be financially and politically incentivised to re-privatise at every opportunity and that the cycle of one government spending billions on buying back industry the next government will sell-off, which the next government will buy back, which the next government will sell off again - doesn't represent a great deal for the taxpayer/consumer.
Apparently a pertinent reply/challenge to that point of view, are these words:
"Older forms of national state ownership in the UK have tended to be highly centralised, top-down and run at ‘arms-length from various stakeholdergroups, notably employees, users and the tax paying public that ultimately funds them. The post 1945 nationalisation programme set the trend here with what has been termed the ‘Morrisonian Model’ (after Herbert Morrison, the Minister overseeing the programme). The model was justified at the time as being about enlisting ‘business’ or ‘expert’ groups who would manage in the ‘national’ interest, rather than give voice to ‘vested’ interests, which was usually aimed at trade unions or the idea of workerrepresentatives.
The result was that a small private and corporate elite – in some cases the same people who had been involving in managing the pre-nationalised privatesectors (which were riddled with underinvestment, deteriorating infrastructure and poor performance)"
I'm posing this without editorial comment. Make your own minds up.
Last edited:
I don’t get it. Calling off the dogs is a figure of speech, in the sense of call off the attacks, or stop the attacks. It’s not an insult.
See: Lipstick on a pig
Also see: "OMG! Jess Phillips says she literally wants to stab Jeremy Corbyn in the front with an ACTUAL knife and properly kill him until he's all bleeding and deaded" - from people who wanted everyone to believe they genuinely have never heard of the phrase "stabbed in the back" in the context of politics.
Last edited:
I think you know that's disingenuous. Recently qualified scientists, postdocs, etc. will take low paid posts until such a time they are established. After that, they won't stick around if the pay isn't competitive. This is true even in Europe.
Here is some random and fourth-hand gossip from a source in the LOTO office.
Apparently Corbyn and McDonnell haven't spoken for weeks over McDonnell's apparent betrayal over supporting the adoption of IHRA.
Now you can all treat this as you wish.
I post it because it does fit in with what I have been thinking about McDonnell. From speaking to people who actually know or knew him he can be a bully, aggressive, forceful and for those reasons has been disliked by the PLP for years.
With that being said I have always been of the opinion that McDonnell wants a Labour Government more than Corbyn. By that I mean if he has to compromise or cut deals or be pragmatic rather than principled to get into power than he would be. For a while I think that if JM rather than JC was in power he would be less popular amongst the membership but more popular in the electorate.
Apparently Corbyn and McDonnell haven't spoken for weeks over McDonnell's apparent betrayal over supporting the adoption of IHRA.
Now you can all treat this as you wish.
I post it because it does fit in with what I have been thinking about McDonnell. From speaking to people who actually know or knew him he can be a bully, aggressive, forceful and for those reasons has been disliked by the PLP for years.
With that being said I have always been of the opinion that McDonnell wants a Labour Government more than Corbyn. By that I mean if he has to compromise or cut deals or be pragmatic rather than principled to get into power than he would be. For a while I think that if JM rather than JC was in power he would be less popular amongst the membership but more popular in the electorate.
No it's 100% a insult.
Stirrer.From that link you provided the two previous times you've mentioned it:
Wow you're really across the context of a 25,000 word article you've now mentioned three times providing no other contents each time other than:
"Interesting", "Really interesting" and most recently "
I don't know how I ever questioned your familiarity with a document that you've repeatedly displayed so much knowledge of. I mean that's three times now you've posted the link and I'm sure had you had time you'd have given more of an insight as to your thoughts, views, criticisms and praises of what was contained within but you've twice gone so far as to say the document was "interesting" so that's pretty much exactly the same as if you had read and understood all 25,000 words.
Honestly I feel silly now doubting you. If only you'd have said earlier you've twice called the document interesting on previous occasions I never would have made the accusation in the first place.
You complain about the quality of discourse and this is your example to everyone? Hypocritical bollocks.
Of all the arguments that have been made against Corbyn thus far, saying he shouldn't pursue Labour policies while Labour leader because the Tories might undo them is the most bizarre. And probably what sums up opposition to the more centrist Labour more than anything else. Indeed under such logic the party would've been better off not creating the welfare state at all in the first place, since the assumption would be that the Tories were going to dismantle it anyway. Bizarre.
There is, of course, an argument to be had as to whether bringing certain sectors into public ownership should be the focus of any Labour government when they come into power, since it's something that'd take plenty of work and planning as they attempt to reshape the economy, but if you're arguing they shouldn't at least attempt to follow their principles then I'm not sure what you really want, other than Tory-lite economic policies. Not following policies because the opposition don't like them is embarrassingly limp if you've been given a mandate by the electorate to implement them.
There is, of course, an argument to be had as to whether bringing certain sectors into public ownership should be the focus of any Labour government when they come into power, since it's something that'd take plenty of work and planning as they attempt to reshape the economy, but if you're arguing they shouldn't at least attempt to follow their principles then I'm not sure what you really want, other than Tory-lite economic policies. Not following policies because the opposition don't like them is embarrassingly limp if you've been given a mandate by the electorate to implement them.
How much will it cost to re-nationalise the water, gas, electric and rail industries? How often to Tories win elections? What are the odds of the Tories not lining the pockets of those who bankroll them by selling off any nationalised industry?
I don't get why pretending this isn't the case because it makes people feel better if we do has to be a thing. At most it would be a short term thing and with that reality it's surely legitimate to question whether the party should commit to it as a policy.
What's bizarre that just because is in a party's manifesto it's wrong to ask some pretty obvious questions about the wisdom of it. But I guess that's where we are now. Criticism of a policy is probably an unforgivable smear now.
I don't get why pretending this isn't the case because it makes people feel better if we do has to be a thing. At most it would be a short term thing and with that reality it's surely legitimate to question whether the party should commit to it as a policy.
What's bizarre that just because is in a party's manifesto it's wrong to ask some pretty obvious questions about the wisdom of it. But I guess that's where we are now. Criticism of a policy is probably an unforgivable smear now.
This is a fair and valid question. Naturally renationalising certain industries will take a lot of work, and the benefits and drawbacks should be considered when doing so. Like all parties in government, Labour will have to make tough decisions and will in all likelihood have to abandon certain plans and ideals to pursue other ones they believe are more pertinent.
But saying "the Tories will undo it" isn't valid because it presumes the political capital will be there for the Tories to undo it if they regain power, and that they won't moderate their own manifesto to be more in-line with a Britain that increasingly supports nationalised industries if Labour's next government is successful. A century or so ago the idea of a Tory government supporting a welfare state would've been ridiculous. Indeed before the liberal reforms at the start of the last century, seeing poverty as a defect of the individual was the norm as opposed to a telltale sign that someone's a cnut.
Labour, under Corbyn, are seeking to shift the centre by reintroducing left-wing economic ideas as being something fairly normal again as opposed to somehow radical and on the fringe. If they were to succeed (and I have my doubts as to whether they will) then there's every chance that in response the Tories will have to moderate their own economic message, as they did post-WWII when they supported public services, something they wouldn't have done before.
If you feel that this isn't worth doing or that it's a silly gesture, then you're probably not left-wing. And I don't mean that to be offensive or derogatory - I just mean it in the sense that you're clearly fairly alright with the current economic setup we have, barring a few minor policy shifts here and there, and that you're not particularly in favour of a restructuring of the economy. That's fine - you have every right to that view. But it's a matter of fact that for a lot of people the current economic approach isn't working, wasn't working before Brexit, and won't work without a radical rethink as to how politics are done, and what our economic approach is as we deal with oncoming problems like climate change, the housing crisis, automation etc. For those people voting for a centrist Labour isn't really enough, and if you're message is that we shouldn't implement certain policies because the Tories might undo them if it's in their manifesto when they regain power, whenever that may be, then we're as well giving up now. Certainly, Thatcher didn't exactly care about what a lot of her dissenters and opponents thought during the 80s, and never cared that a Labour government would seek to undo a lot of her changes if they regained power. And she's probably the most influential PM the country has seen since Attlee.
Yes it is a figure of speech and McDonnell knows that too.
Hilarious seeing past comments by the pro-Jezza mob using identical or similar phrasing to Umunna. But apparently when they said it, it was fine.
Who me ? I have no idea what your talking. Hides giant ladle behind back.
I wonder how long before the power of the pounds changes labour policy....
Not long I hope (TUC backing 2nd referendum)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45464115
Not long I hope (TUC backing 2nd referendum)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45464115
They know what it means. They are using this pretence to try to silence someone they see as a political enemy. But that's Labour for you.