Doctors, lawyers, teahcers, intellectuals, businessmen, journalists:

[Sir C]

Know this. Change is coming. People's Commissar Milne is preparing a cosy bed for you in one of his new re-education camps. Of course you will have to work for your food, and the work will be hard, so not all of you will successfully graduate, but you will at least die happy in the knowledge that every turnip you have lifted increases the glory due to Our Dear Jeremy!

[Luis Anaconda]

Know this. Change is coming. People's Commissar Milne is preparing a cosy bed for you in one of his new re-education camps. Of course you will have to work for your food, and the work will be hard, so not all of you will successfully graduate, but you will at least die happy in the knowledge that every turnip you have lifted increases the glory due to Our Dear Jeremy!

You do wonder how no one pointed out that saying things had gone a "little bit James Bond" might not play well when talking to an electorate who on whole think James Bond is well cool

[Sir C]

You do wonder how no one pointed out that saying things had gone a "little bit James Bond" might not play well when talking to an electorate who on whole think James Bond is well cool

:hehe: And furthermore, one wonders who failed to point out to him that going to war with the country's best-selling newspapers is unlikely to end well for him.

[Luis Anaconda]

:hehe: And furthermore, one wonders who failed to point out to him that going to war with the country's best-selling newspapers is unlikely to end well for him.

To be fair on that, he already is and he is tapping into quite a large well of anti-media sentiment. And most Telegraph readers will struggle to make it to the next election

[Burney]

You do wonder how no one pointed out that saying things had gone a "little bit James Bond" might not play well when talking to an electorate who on whole think James Bond is well cool

More to the point, he doesn't seem to realise that James Bond is actually the good guy. You get the feeling that Jezza's been watching Bond Films all these years hoping to see him cut in half with lasers/eaten by sharks, etc.

[Burney]

Know this. Change is coming. People's Commissar Milne is preparing a cosy bed for you in one of his new re-education camps. Of course you will have to work for your food, and the work will be hard, so not all of you will successfully graduate, but you will at least die happy in the knowledge that every turnip you have lifted increases the glory due to Our Dear Jeremy!


Just the most extraordinary message, wasn't it? No-one could have imagined it would play well to the great British public, could they? From which I can only conclude that it was meant purely to play to his base of dribbling maddoes who would believe him if he told them up was down.

[Luis Anaconda]

More to the point, he doesn't seem to realise that James Bond is actually the good guy. You get the feeling that Jezza's been watching Bond Films all these years hoping to see him cut in half with lasers/eaten by sharks, etc.

:hehe: Yes - I imagine him watching Live and Let Die and him getting irate how the white imperialist is seriously impinging on the lives of the downtrodden black man

[Burney]

:hehe: Yes - I imagine him watching Live and Let Die and him getting irate how the white imperialist is seriously impinging on the lives of the downtrodden black man

:nod: And fetishising and sexually exploiting black women, of course.

Which is, naturally, quite different to knocking off Diane Abbott and showing her off to your mates.

[Sir C]

Just the most extraordinary message, wasn't it? No-one could have imagined it would play well to the great British public, could they? From which I can only conclude that it was meant purely to play to his base of dribbling maddoes who would believe him if he told them up was down.

At this point I'm guessing that they don't actually want to win an election; they simply want to wind their cretinous supporters up to such a fever pitch of lefty hate that they either spark physical violence or simply drive a wedge of hatred and distrust right through our society, to shatter it.

Anything to bring down capitalism, eh Comrades?

[Burney]

At this point I'm guessing that they don't actually want to win an election; they simply want to wind their cretinous supporters up to such a fever pitch of lefty hate that they either spark physical violence or simply drive a wedge of hatred and distrust right through our society, to shatter it.

Anything to bring down capitalism, eh Comrades?

I think it's starting to dawn on them that they can't win an election due to there being just too many sane people in the country. Given which, I think there's some truth to your idea. However, I think the most important thing to them is, was and has always been control of the Labour Party.

[Burney]

At this point I'm guessing that they don't actually want to win an election; they simply want to wind their cretinous supporters up to such a fever pitch of lefty hate that they either spark physical violence or simply drive a wedge of hatred and distrust right through our society, to shatter it.

Anything to bring down capitalism, eh Comrades?

I mean look at this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/02/20/corbyn-threatens-make-bankers-servants-industry-fresh-attack/#

Have you any idea how woefully poor one's understanding of our economy has to be to come out with shït like this? He's basically saying he's going to crush this country's most successful industry in order to favour a 'real economy' that hasn't actually existed since the early 1980s. It's old-fashioned Marxism and as such, is predicated on the existence of a vast industrial working class THAT SIMPLY NO LONGER EXISTS.

It's actually fücking insane. :shakehead:

[Sir C]

I mean look at this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/02/20/corbyn-threatens-make-bankers-servants-industry-fresh-attack/#

Have you any idea how woefully poor one's understanding of our economy has to be to come out with shït like this? He's basically saying he's going to crush this country's most successful industry in order to favour a 'real economy' that hasn't actually existed since the early 1980s. It's old-fashioned Marxism and as such, is predicated on the existence of a vast industrial working class THAT SIMPLY NO LONGER EXISTS.

It's actually fücking insane. :shakehead:

A barking maniac. But a dangerous barking maniac.

What if... what if, by some utter disaster... No, it couldn't happen. Obviously it couldn't happen.

:-(

[Ash]

I mean look at this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/02/20/corbyn-threatens-make-bankers-servants-industry-fresh-attack/#

Have you any idea how woefully poor one's understanding of our economy has to be to come out with shït like this? He's basically saying he's going to crush this country's most successful industry in order to favour a 'real economy' that hasn't actually existed since the early 1980s. It's old-fashioned Marxism and as such, is predicated on the existence of a vast industrial working class THAT SIMPLY NO LONGER EXISTS.

It's actually fücking insane. :shakehead:

"When private debt is twice the size of the real economy, when traders no longer understand the products they're trading, and banks are funding their own speculation rather than productive investment, something has gone grossly and badly wrong."

He has a point there tbf.

And if the finance sector is the 'lifeblood of the economy' then that economy certainly is out of balance. This is the same sector whose drunken excesses crashed the world economy ten years ago since when it has been bumping along the bottom. I know you blame the debtors rather the banks but the banks are supposed to be the clever chaps who should know better and are, apparently, the 'lifeblood' of our economy. It's enough to make your blood run cold.

[Burney]

"When private debt is twice the size of the real economy, when traders no longer understand the products they're trading, and banks are funding their own speculation rather than productive investment, something has gone grossly and badly wrong."

He has a point there tbf.

And if the finance sector is the 'lifeblood of the economy' then that economy certainly is out of balance. This is the same sector whose drunken excesses crashed the world economy ten years ago since when it has been bumping along the bottom. I know you blame the debtors rather the banks but the banks are supposed to be the clever chaps who should know better and are, apparently, the 'lifeblood' of our economy. It's enough to make your blood run cold.

I wouldn't disagree that the economy is unbalanced, but it's a peculiarly socialist idea that the way you rebalance it is by smashing the successful bit so it's a similar size to the less successful bit. Most people would suggest trying to boost the less successful bit so it gets nearer parity.

And please don't let's talk about 'the real economy'. It doesn't exist. It's not a thing. Anything that makes money is 'the economy'.

[Peter]

I wouldn't disagree that the economy is unbalanced, but it's a peculiarly socialist idea that the way you rebalance it is by smashing the successful bit so it's a similar size to the less successful bit. Most people would suggest trying to boost the less successful bit so it gets nearer parity.

And please don't let's talk about 'the real economy'. It doesn't exist. It's not a thing. Anything that makes money is 'the economy'.

I dont think he wants to smash the successful bit, or make it less successful. The issue is about who it is successful for.

But then you wouldnt care about such distinctions would you. Oh no. Far better to demonise poor Jeremy and indulge your lunatic, fanatical right wing inclinations.

You are a disgrace! And so on....

[Burney]

I dont think he wants to smash the successful bit, or make it less successful. The issue is about who it is successful for.

But then you wouldnt care about such distinctions would you. Oh no. Far better to demonise poor Jeremy and indulge your lunatic, fanatical right wing inclinations.

You are a disgrace! And so on....

He quite clearly does want to make it less successful. He's pretty explicit about that. If you seek to hamper a business' ability to make money, you ipso facto are seeking to make it less successful.

And who exactly is business supposed to be successful 'for' other than its shareholders? The state? Fück that.

[Peter]

He quite clearly does want to make it less successful. He's pretty explicit about that. If you seek to hamper a business' ability to make money, you ipso facto are seeking to make it less successful.

And who exactly is business supposed to be successful 'for' other than its shareholders? The state? Fück that.

Oh, I see. So the only people who will suffer are the shareholders?

Good. **** them. I hope they starve to death.

[Sir C]

Oh, I see. So the only people who will suffer are the shareholders?

Good. **** them. I hope they starve to death.

#socialism

[Peter]

#socialism

Pure self interest, Sir C. Theirs and mine.

[Burney]

Oh, I see. So the only people who will suffer are the shareholders?

Good. **** them. I hope they starve to death.

Well, no, not really. I would point you at how many people are employed by the financial services sector. How many mouths it feeds, how many mortgages it pays, how much disposable income it creates that is spent on goods and services that in turn employ, feed, clothe and house millions.

That's who suffers. Everyone.

[Ash]

I wouldn't disagree that the economy is unbalanced, but it's a peculiarly socialist idea that the way you rebalance it is by smashing the successful bit so it's a similar size to the less successful bit. Most people would suggest trying to boost the less successful bit so it gets nearer parity.

And please don't let's talk about 'the real economy'. It doesn't exist. It's not a thing. Anything that makes money is 'the economy'.

I think the problem is the direction of investment from the sector. Investment in fake money that no-one really understands or can control (like toxic debts) is surely not as 'real' as investing in, for example, a high-tech manufacturing plant that makes real things that won't suddenly evaporate overnight when a bubble of fantasy and speculation explodes.

Whether it is possible or practical to direct or encourage the financial sector to invest in such a way I don't know. Market-fetishist dogma says no and perhaps that is true, but I don't think the idea is to smash the sector, as for it to function in a better way overall. We have discussed before that TfL is an organisation that works pretty well on the whole for a collective rather than a private interest, and there are doubtless other examples to suggest that it may be possible to run things more rationally than the pure market permits.

[redgunamo]

I think the problem is the direction of investment from the sector. Investment in fake money that no-one really understands or can control (like toxic debts) is surely not as 'real' as investing in, for example, a high-tech manufacturing plant that makes real things that won't suddenly evaporate overnight when a bubble of fantasy and speculation explodes.

Whether it is possible or practical to direct or encourage the financial sector to invest in such a way I don't know. Market-fetishist dogma says no and perhaps that is true, but I don't think the idea is to smash the sector, as for it to function in a better way overall. We have discussed before that TfL is an organisation that works pretty well on the whole for a collective rather than a private interest, and there are doubtless other examples to suggest that it may be possible to run things more rationally than the pure market permits.

Make the trains run on time, that sort of thing?

[Burney]

I think the problem is the direction of investment from the sector. Investment in fake money that no-one really understands or can control (like toxic debts) is surely not as 'real' as investing in, for example, a high-tech manufacturing plant that makes real things that won't suddenly evaporate overnight when a bubble of fantasy and speculation explodes.

Whether it is possible or practical to direct or encourage the financial sector to invest in such a way I don't know. Market-fetishist dogma says no and perhaps that is true, but I don't think the idea is to smash the sector, as for it to function in a better way overall. We have discussed before that TfL is an organisation that works pretty well on the whole for a collective rather than a private interest, and there are doubtless other examples to suggest that it may be possible to run things more rationally than the pure market permits.

Yeah. It has to be said that the track record for this sort of thing isn't great.

[Ash]

Make the trains run on time, that sort of thing?

And more of them.

Now, for some reason I quite fancy invading Abyssinia.

[redgunamo]

And more of them.

Now, for some reason I quite fancy invading Abyssinia.

:nod: #****hole #MAbyssiniaGA

[Peter]

Well, no, not really. I would point you at how many people are employed by the financial services sector. How many mouths it feeds, how many mortgages it pays, how much disposable income it creates that is spent on goods and services that in turn employ, feed, clothe and house millions.

That's who suffers. Everyone.

So it IS supposed to be successful for those other than the shareholders? I thought you said it wasnt.....

[Peter]

Yeah. It has to be said that the track record for this sort of thing isn't great.

oooh....track record. Very good, b :)

[redgunamo]

So it IS supposed to be successful for those other than the shareholders? I thought you said it wasnt.....

I think it's more that the shareholders is everybody. Or, as the man said, everyone has a share.

[Peter]

I think it's more that the shareholders is everybody. Or, as the man said, everyone has a share.

Then we must all benefit, and we must all have a say.

Hence Corbyn is right.

Agreed.

[Burney]

So it IS supposed to be successful for those other than the shareholders? I thought you said it wasnt.....

No. Simply that what is good for business is good for everyone.

[Peter]

No. Simply that what is good for business is good for everyone.

That is exactly what Corbyn is saying. It should be like that and he will make sure it is.

So you agree with him....

[Burney]

That is exactly what Corbyn is saying. It should be like that and he will make sure it is.

So you agree with him....

Business would appear to disagree, p.

[Ash]

No. Simply that what is good for business is good for everyone.

Sometimes, but not always. A mass increase in demand for undertakers might not be good for everyone, and the success of one company might be at another's expense. Dogma, you see. :-)

Don't get me wrong, I like business and wouldn't want to work in the public sector but I have no illusions about the limits of the market.

[Burney]

Sometimes, but not always. A mass increase in demand for undertakers might not be good for everyone, and the success of one company might be at another's expense. Dogma, you see. :-)

Don't get me wrong, I like business and wouldn't want to work in the public sector but I have no illusions about the limits of the market.

Sorry, a, but for all the short term damage it may entail, the success of one company at the expense of another still represents a net benefit because the consumer wins from keen competition, which drives up standards and forces down price.

And the undertaker example is silly because it posits an external factor as a critique of market forces: namely a spike in mortality. Even then the market works, though. A spike in deaths is not only good for undertakers, it means greater demand for labour, which means higher average wages, lower demand for goods and thus lower prices. Again, it's a net win.

Capitalism works, a. The market works. Really fücking well. Sorry, but it does. :shrug:

Right up until some cöck of a politician tries to put their thumb on the scale, of course.

[Peter]

Business would appear to disagree, p.

Tough. What is good for everyone is good for business. If everyone else agrees this is good then business will just have to 'go whistle' wont it.

Incidentally, 'business' wanted to stay in the EU. So even you agree that some things are more important than what business 'wants'.....

[Peter]

Sorry, a, but for all the short term damage it may entail, the success of one company at the expense of another still represents a net benefit because the consumer wins from keen competition, which drives up standards and forces down price.

And the undertaker example is silly because it posits an external factor as a critique of market forces: namely a spike in mortality. Even then the market works, though. A spike in deaths is not only good for undertakers, it means greater demand for labour, which means higher average wages, lower demand for goods and thus lower prices. Again, it's a net win.

Capitalism works, a. The market works. Really fücking well. Sorry, but it does. :shrug:

Right up until some cöck of a politician tries to put their thumb on the scale, of course.

Nobody is suggesting that capitalism doesnt work. Of course it works. The argument is about how it works and for whom.

[Burney]

Nobody is suggesting that capitalism doesnt work. Of course it works. The argument is about how it works and for whom.

I think you'll find Comrade Corbyn and his hordes taking issue with your assertion. I think you'll find they actively hate capitalism.

[Ash]

Sorry, a, but for all the short term damage it may entail, the success of one company at the expense of another still represents a net benefit because the consumer wins from keen competition, which drives up standards and forces down price.

And the undertaker example is silly because it posits an external factor as a critique of market forces: namely a spike in mortality. Even then the market works, though. A spike in deaths is not only good for undertakers, it means greater demand for labour, which means higher average wages, lower demand for goods and thus lower prices. Again, it's a net win.

Capitalism works, a. The market works. Really fücking well. Sorry, but it does. :shrug:

Right up until some cöck of a politician tries to put their thumb on the scale, of course.

Yeah, I know how the market works. We could quibble about market failings all afternoon, it's just that a statement like "what is good for business is good for everyone" holds in an abstract, rhetorical and ideological sense but there are always winners and losers, and ignoring the externalities and market distortions is not taking in the whole picture, and is actually dogmatic.

Even Adam Smith acknowledged that the real world wasn't quite as elegant and beautiful as the pure theory.

[Peter]

I think you'll find Comrade Corbyn and his hordes taking issue with your assertion. I think you'll find they actively hate capitalism.

I don't think you will find that and it isnt what he said.

Its a new kind of politics, b. It seems to be what people want and, as you have repeatedly pointed out re Brexit, that is all that really matters.