Jermy Corbyn elected

You seem to be forgetting that the Tories are in power. Why should George Osborne do qe.
I cant see that it ties in with whatever else he is doing at all.

I also cant work out whether you think qe is bad or good.
If you think it is bad, presumably you think that GO is going to have to resort to it. Cant see it myself. He is trying the austerity way.

If you think it is good, I think you have forgotten that Jeremy is in opposition, and didnt win the general election.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/09/18/how-long-until-peoples-quantitative-easing/

I have been wanting to write this for so long. I chose not to, but because it keeps getting brought up, I am going to.

qe - is what a 15 year old dreams up on his/er way home from school one day. They suddenly have what they consider to be a eureka moment and think "I know, I wonder why no one has thought of this before, how about we print some money. That will pay for everything. Oh what a wheeze".

Now yes, someone is going to say that that is pretty much what happened with our banks back in 2008/9 or whenever. And even I am a bit baffled why that didnt seem to result in much adverse effects. But what seem to have happened is that money somehow seems to have been kept inhouse somehow. ie it could be argued it didnt manage to trickle out into the general economy.

If qe is so great, how come all countries the world over dont do it? Google the answers.

I have read the article in the Tablet and can't really understand what the writer is on about and what his main point is.

Its like those articles for examinations where you struggle and struggle to make sense of it in time to answer a few questions on it.
He is against many things but what is he FOR and what would be the first step to right all these wrongs. He doesn't say because like many other people he does not know!
I assume JC does not know either so in the end nothing much will be changed. I expect the winner will be Cameron and he will continue to shake the hands of all those South American dictators mentioned in the article. All in the name of business and trade.

Who has attended People's Assembly? I can only think of one - and her husband.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/09/18/what-will-george-osborne-call-peoples-qe/

Particularly as he has rubbished it up to now.

thatbags thanks, I did know there were Scottish Labour MSPs - plenty of them women too which I like to see.

I hope Labour and the SNP do unite against the Tories, but I don't think it's a given. The SNP has too much to gain from its current position.

Re AN/RM, as I said I think RM went in expecting a bit of a battle and the result was he started from a different position from where he should have done for the viewers, not helping himself. He was however, more polite and this showed AN in an even worse light. I used to have a lot of time for AN, but these days I find his enormous sense of self importance overwhelms what he is saying. Such a shame.

It's early days yet, but an interesting time.

I agree everyone must stick with what they have said in past, so why is Cameron no longer seen as a racist for supporting apartheid and saying of a trip to apartheid SA for a company who supported apartheid - it was just a jolly

thatbags Trisher and Gracesgran didn't only say it was a load of tosh. They made comments as to why they thought it was - as did I and durhamjen.

As to your "no surprises who thinks it's tosh", it could be replied "no surprise who doesn't".

I did not dismiss what you said out of hand, roseq. I said that it did not matter to me whether there were labour or SNP in Scotland; they would work together to get rid of the Tories.
It is also my belief that if Miliband had agreed to do that, he would now be prime minister.

ps I wouldn't normally point out someone's typos

McDonnell and Corbyn share the same views, they are 'bothers in arms' so to speak
Love the typo POGS

Earlier posts comment on the fact Corbyn was not known by many before the Labour Leadership contest. I accept that and that is why the voter, the public must be told about his views and what he stands for. It is questionable if that should be 'did' stand for if he does not stand fast by his strongly held convictions.

However his views have been known for years and most certainly will be known by the left wing GN's who post. If not then I would be very surprised especially by those who follow and attend the Peoples Assembley Against Austerity who will have heard him speak and no doubt protested with him as they have made reference to their attending meetings on previous threads.

One side of the argument/debate feel the media are 'digging up the dirt' others see it as reporting factual occurrences . Whatever a person believes is irrelavent as there is so much information that documents his politics for every one of us to 'understand the man' and if Corbyn has said it, done it then he should own it which I believe he is doing . With that comes 'scrutiny' and Corbyn is no different to anybody else he will be 'scrutinised' .

The same as John McDonnell will be scrutinised. McDonnell and Corbyn share the same views, they are 'bothers in arms' so to speak. The apology on QT was the most blatant performance I have seen of a politician taking the public for fools and the finest performance of political spin I have ever witnessed. He is a master of the art , even Campbell would bow down to him.

As for Neil/Murphy on Daily Politics I enjoyed watching that and will obviously have a different view to some. I thought Murphy was very defensive and didn't persuade me in the least. I think Andrew Neil is thought of as just a journalist/ interviewer but he is no fool and he was the editor of the Economist so has some credentials unlike many other interviewers who don't remotely understand their brief and can be walked over through lack of knowledge.

rq and ww re Labour in Scotland: we still have some Scottish Labour MPs (MSPs) even though there are none in the Westminster parliament. Ours is very good.

Re the Berman essay, no surprises about who think it tosh . It struck cords with me even though I actually think it's a good thing JC was elected Labour Leader if only because the Party needed a good shake up. I'm just enjoying the show really.

I do think that there is not a lot of difference between the far right in politics and the far left. Both seem to me to be too close to totalitarianism in their outlook.

Paul Berman cites the closing remarks of Corbyn's speech:

"Let us be a force for change in the world, a force for humanity in the world, a force for peace in the world, .........."

He agrees that all these aims are laudable, but then goes on to say:

"And yet, when certain kinds of people invoke language of this sort, I hear a different speech entirely, which is in favor of dictatorship. I cannot point to the precise element that makes me hear the different speech, and yet I know imprecisely what is the element. It is the earnest tone. The more earnest the speech seems to be, the more frightening is the tone..."

He then denounces Corbyn on the basis of his views re Venezuela under Chavez which seems to me to be muddying the waters. The history of Latin America and an analysis of who ultimately controls its oil resources (Venezuela has 20% of the world's oil reserves) is a very complex one. Some people think that Chavez - who angered the USA by scrapping the trade and investment relationship with the USA and nationalising the country's oil reserves - was a hero, others think he was a dangerous dictator and people.

Then on top of committing that grave sin of being "earnest", the writer suggests that Corbyn is the product of "a certain kind of blinkered vanity that calls itself ??leftist.??" . And when exactly has Corbyn "yielded to the pleasures of hatred".

This American writer has his own agenda and is not beyond criticism himself. Some have commented on his call to the liberal left to support the war in Iraq on humanitarian and anti-totalitarian grounds. In 1986, Michael Moore became the editor of Mother Jones magazine, He was sacked for refusing to print an article by Berman about Nicaragua, on the grounds that it contained numerous inaccuracies and distortions. Moore sued for wrongful dismissal and the case was settled out of court for $58,000, enabling Moore to produce his first film.

I would guess that the reason Sturgeon spoke out at this time about the SNP's stand on austerity and Trident is to show how it's position is similar to Corbyn's. Not sure about the Scottish Labour Party's position on Trident.

I wasn't happy about the Jewish Times article because it left no room for peace by peaceful methods. Corbyn has made it very clear he does not support the aims of the Palestinian government to kill all Jews. As a pacifist, how could he?

I also agree the examples of other countries were presented in an oversimplified manner, but then again that's been happening forever (more recently this week in particular). At the risk of being called blinkered and also getting flamed, I would go as far as saying the article was scaremongering.

I think it is important djen, surprised you have dismissed my question out of hand.

Scotland - traditionally a Labour stronghold, now overwhelmingly SNP.
I'm not asking if Labour and the SNP will work together in Parliament, I'm asking if JBC's policies are compatible with those of the Scottish Labour Party's and will this mean a swing back to Labour in Scotland?

Which could mean a swing to Labour in the next GE to the detriment of the SNP.

He's Tim Stanley, Gracesgran.
He writes mainly about US politics.
Would you believe he actually stood as a Labour candidate at one time?

It was an essay from the Jewish Times. Corbyn is a member of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign.
The article does not surprise me at all.

Roseq, does it matter? Labour under Corbyn and the SNP will together work in opposition to the Tories.

Oh good - I'm not the only one who thought it was a load of tosh. Little real fact and a lot of rather weird opinion.

Talking of weird who was the Torygraph guy on QT last night. I sometimes think there are two worlds and these people just live in a different one.

I am biased, I will admit I am biased but Liz Truss just came over as very old fashioned politics to me.

thatbags the article is a load of tosh. It imagines links that have no substance or evidence. It decries regimes simply because the writer disagrees with the government in question. Let us look at Cuba, A country used in the past by the US as a recreation place for criminals and the rich. Where literacy rates were amongst the lowest in the world-they are now amongst the highest. A country which offered the best and most effective aid to Haiti in spite of its own poverty. Where anyone with the ability from any country in the area can receive free medical training. And all of this done with the US constantly trying to undermine them. As for talking to terrorists there is no other way. We have always dealt with terrorists and the country of Israel was itself formed by terrorism.
And all this to decry a man who has simply spoken words that many of us identify with.

Going out now, I hope someone will respond, I wonder if there will be a swing back to Labour in Scotland.
Or away from?

blinkered idealists seems a very apt term.
I don't think it's an odd essay, reading it quickly it's thought-provoking and I shall read it again when I have more time.
Of course, anyone with a 'blinkered' attitude will dismiss it and accept the gospel according to JBC.

Don't know roseq Any Scottish grans give us an idea?

Can anyone answer this:

How do the views of JBC accord - or clash- with those of the Labour party in Scotland (and Wales, although they don't have the problems that the Scottish Labour party do)?
Do you think there will be a return to Labour in Scotland to the detriment of the SNP?
I wonder if, if that happened, that could change the outcome of the next GE.