Sorry, bit behind on the news, but it appears a member of Labour's front bench has

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

There are a million reasons not to vote for Corbyn. The fact that the economy would go down faster than Herb's mum on a hen do is just one of the minor ones. However, I can make that argument until I'm blue in the face, but if the electorate choose that route, I have to live with it.

The other point is that the predictions of economic ruin from a Brexit vote have already been shown to be bullshït. You're speculating wildly in the hope of creating the false equivalence between a vote for Brexit and a vote for Corbyn. By contrast, there is no doubt at all that Corbyn would wreck the economy. None. He has made his antipathy to our most successful industry clear and has outlined plans to raise taxes across the board to pay for unaffordable levels of public spending. The 'fully-costed' sums quite simply don't add up, which means economic disaster as an absolute certainty. Anyone who votes for Corbyn does so knowing that he will wreck the economy - indeed, many of them see that as a feature rather than a bug of voting for him.

By the way, I don't know if you've spotted this, but the flipside of your argument is that anyone who votes for Corbyn's Labour and also makes the argument that people shouldn't have voted for Brexit because it would damage the economy is a rank fücking hypocrite given that the Shadow Chancellor has admitted that the first thing they have to prepare for should they get in is a run on the banks.

---

On a simpistic view I should imagine that many people feel that with inflation * rising a lot faster than wages that, in their view, the economy is ****ed already. you and I know that isn't the case, but individuals usually vote on what they feel at that time, so if an election was called tomorrow a large % would vote Labour thinking it would make things better for them.

* will start falling rapidly over the next 12 months

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

There are a million reasons not to vote for Corbyn. The fact that the economy would go down faster than Herb's mum on a hen do is just one of the minor ones. However, I can make that argument until I'm blue in the face, but if the electorate choose that route, I have to live with it.

The other point is that the predictions of economic ruin from a Brexit vote have already been shown to be bullshït. You're speculating wildly in the hope of creating the false equivalence between a vote for Brexit and a vote for Corbyn. By contrast, there is no doubt at all that Corbyn would wreck the economy. None. He has made his antipathy to our most successful industry clear and has outlined plans to raise taxes across the board to pay for unaffordable levels of public spending. The 'fully-costed' sums quite simply don't add up, which means economic disaster as an absolute certainty. Anyone who votes for Corbyn does so knowing that he will wreck the economy - indeed, many of them see that as a feature rather than a bug of voting for him.

By the way, I don't know if you've spotted this, but the flipside of your argument is that anyone who votes for Corbyn's Labour and also makes the argument that people shouldn't have voted for Brexit because it would damage the economy is a rank fücking hypocrite given that the Shadow Chancellor has admitted that the first thing they have to prepare for should they get in is a run on the banks.

---

CLANG!! Its the 80s again :)

THe argument that Labour would be a disaster because it would create a run on the pound is a Thatcher classic. It suggests we should allow the stock market and multinationals to make our political decisions for us, disrupting the democratic process that you cherish to dearly. It is also hardly ever true. It wasnt in 1945, it wasnt in 1964, and it wasnt in 1997.

And even if it were, it wouldn't matter. People vote Labour on PRINCIPLE, b. Just as they voted for Brexit :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

I think everyone knew what they were voting for. Did they all know the implications of that vote? Of course not. How could they? It's unprecedented.

---

They understood the rudimentary basics of yes and no and they voted no.

THe argument that they didnt know what no meant tends to gnome the fact that, if true, they probably didnt know what yes meant either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

CLANG!! Its the 80s again :)

THe argument that Labour would be a disaster because it would create a run on the pound is a Thatcher classic. It suggests we should allow the stock market and multinationals to make our political decisions for us, disrupting the democratic process that you cherish to dearly. It is also hardly ever true. It wasnt in 1945, it wasnt in 1964, and it wasnt in 1997.

And even if it were, it wouldn't matter. People vote Labour on PRINCIPLE, b. Just as they voted for Brexit :)

---

I've already dealt with the principle issue, p. :shrug: I respect people's rights to vote for whatever they want to, but believe the equivalence between voting for Corbyn and voting for Brexit to be utterly false for the reasons I've outlined.

And let's not be so disingenuous as to suggest that voting for Labour in '45, '64 or '97 is even vaguely similar to voting for this lot. For fück's sake, this time it's actually Labour themselves who are suggesting they'll cause a run on the pound! :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

I've already dealt with the principle issue, p. :shrug: I respect people's rights to vote for whatever they want to, but believe the equivalence between voting for Corbyn and voting for Brexit to be utterly false for the reasons I've outlined.

And let's not be so disingenuous as to suggest that voting for Labour in '45, '64 or '97 is even vaguely similar to voting for this lot. For fück's sake, this time it's actually Labour themselves who are suggesting they'll cause a run on the pound! :hehe:

---

1945 was the most radical political manifesto ever produced in british history. 'We are the Masters Now' and all that.

Admittedly, there was a war going on so a run on the pound was not really a major concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Admittedly, there was a war going on so a run on the pound was not really a major concern.

---

Well quite. Also, there was no money in the fùcking banks. The Americans had it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Well quite. Also, there was no money in the fùcking banks. The Americans had it all.

---

THey were paying for our nights out at the time, to be fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

THey were paying for our nights out at the time, to be fair.

---

On another note, I do get very pïssed off when Americans get all 'Greatest Generation' about WWII and start acting like they did everyone a selfless favour. They were deeply cynical in the way they economically prostrated this country and did extremely well out of it.

Fair enough, that's Realpolitik, but don't start giving it the big'un about how wonderful you are and how we should be grateful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herbert Augustus Chapman

Those of us expected to actually operate the machinery will be them as will suffer.

---

Yeah. Watch your fingers when operating that C++ compiler, Herbs. It could take them clean off! And it'll be that Brexit's fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

On another note, I do get very pïssed off when Americans get all 'Greatest Generation' about WWII and start acting like they did everyone a selfless favour. They were deeply cynical in the way they economically prostrated this country and did extremely well out of it.

Fair enough, that's Realpolitik, but don't start giving it the big'un about how wonderful you are and how we should be grateful.

---

You dont turn up to a party three hours late and claim to be the life and soul.

Damn yankees.....