Corbyns Inertia

Why do you think you can be that prescriptive Annie? Jeremy Corbyn is actually the leader of the Labour Party - or isn't he? Very rude. I think, unless GNHQ tell me differently that I may make the reply I choose not according to your rather dictatorial rules.

I am not that interested in your need to trash Corbyn. I am interested in what happens to this country.

But this thread is entitled "Corbyn's inertia" and so it's entirely reasonable to expect that Corbyn's detractors will post comments that are somewhat less than positive, and focus on his shortcomings, isn't it? What about starting a new thread that celebrates Corbyn and any achievements that he's had? That way you could point out to negative posters that yours is a positive comments only thread?

I do not agree that there is any inertia surrounding the Labour Party or its leader Chewbacca. Neither do I do not think that there is any rule that says I may only post in the same tone and from the same point of view as the OP.

I have absolutely no objection to anyone who wants to do so but I do not expect to be told exactly what I may post or what direction I may take by Annie nor told to leave this thread by you because you do not want any views other than your own. That is simply unreasonable.

Any man, any leader of his party is more than just his shortcomings and any man will have some. I am really not interested in that view of life let alone of one man. If you start - as Annie so often chooses to do - a post about anyone's shortcomings you must expect it to be balanced by posters talking about his areas of influence and the strengths about that person. I have no intention of being bullied off a thread because my posts are not attacking someone.

If I have made a mistake and you and Annie are actually moderators on this forum, please let me know.

Article in the FT today
"How to hedge your finances against a future Corbyn government"
The next election might be years away, but tax advisers say clients are already focusing on the tax changes that could be introduced by a Labour government.
George Bull of RSM, the accountancy firm, says the concerns are not confined to the very wealthy. “We’re not talking here solely about the very rich. Labour party statements make it clear that those earning more than £80,000 can expect to pay higher income taxes under a Labour government.”

“The gilt market would be most at risk [from a Labour government],” says Mr Curtis, who manages UK equity investment trust the City of London. “Bond yields are incredibly low. Public debt would balloon under a Labour government which would mean yields would significantly increase.”

It is a long read article with lots of detail. My thoughts are

- if the wealthy are quite prepared to spend 4 years planning how to avoid increased taxation, it's unlikely McDonnell will raise the revenue he thinks he will get
- stock prices down means private pensions will pay out less
- a slide in sterling means inflation on anything imported, like food
- bond yields increasing means borrowing is more expensive for everyone. Companies do not borrow to invest and charge more for goods and services. Mortgage rates go up.

As always, it's the people at the bottom who I think will really suffer if McDonnell is Chancellor.

Primrose65 do you really think there will be more homeless people, more people dependant on food banks, more people on zero hours contracts, more poverty under a Labour government than there are now after the years of a Tory government? If so what would you suggest as a solution? Because the policies of the Tory party are not going to change and if as you believe the people at the bottom would suffer more under a Labour goveernment where does their hope lie? In revolution perhaps?

trisher - Yes there will be more, definitely. Not zero hour contracts, if they are banned or restricted, some of those people will end up unemployed. I think solutions are probably personal - it depends on why people are not able to afford what they need to live.
As soon as you get high inflation, everyone ends up worse off. Those at the bottom will be hit instantly as they have no cushion. If & when the government cannot borrow, they will be wholly stuffed.

As trisher said, the people at the bottom can't suffer any more than they are now under the Tories. Someone on a zero hours contract will be pleased to have some hours work.
You can't get lower than a zero hours contract. If they are made unemployed they will at least get benefit.
Quite sad that you think arguing about zero hours contracts is a way to take support away from the Labour Party.
Saying to someone if Labour win you won't be able to have a zero hours contract? I'd love to see that in the Tory manifesto.

Inflation is rising now, primrose.

That article seems to be a case of how the super-rich can remain at least as rich if not richer. It doesn't appear to have a lot to do with Corbyn but those who already have enough ensuring they keep that and get more if we move towards a socially democracy in order to go back to the social justice, within a capitalist framework that we once believed in and, it seems, attracts the young.

I can only agree with you trisher. Is this the most important thing to the Primroses on here? They must be very rich! Where is the concern for not only the poor and disadvantaged but the ordinary man and women? Haven't people yet understood that 'trickle down', if not a lie to allow the Tories to make their cronies richer, was a misconception; it hasn't worked and we need another way, one we know will work.

Zero hour contracts were not part of the article Jen, that was introduced by trisher so I answered her with my opinion.
Happy to discuss the points from the FT article though.

It has everything to do with how the policies outlined in the manifesto will impact people GG. Those impacts are not confined to the wealthy, however, they are already mitigating the risks.

It's a shame you don't actually want to talk about policy, but would rather speculate on my financial situation or my personal values.

Ridiculous, Primrose.
You are saying I can only mention what you say I can?
Perhaps you ought to give me a list, so I don't stray.

Here's an interesting article about how the Tories rule.

www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/01/05/tories-are-older-whiter-and-more-authoritarian

and about how it's only the Tories at the top who make the rules, unlike all the other parties where members have a say.

By the way, the FT is sort of biased, against those at the bottom, who you say will lose out under Labour.

You can say whatever you like Jen. So can I.
I said what I'm happy to discuss and you seem to think that's ridiculous? I think you need to aim your criticism in a different direction!

It's just a shame that no one who supports Corbyn is able to discuss policy.

Jen, the FT didn't print my thoughts! I read the article, thought about it in a different and wider context and made a post.

Corbyn is busy on holiday planning to rule the world!!!!

www.sinembargo.mx/31-12-2016/3131548

A quick translation of the article subheading :
We talked extensively about the beautiful dream of realising a world government .....



In the context of the thread about Blair being a sandwich short of a picnic, I think TB only gets 3/10 compared to JC! Perhaps I was unreasonable expecting a comment on Iran when I should be letting him get on with planning how to rule the world.

How do you explain the fact that inflation is rising now under the Tories?

A world government ? The man is dangerous / delusional

www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/12/28/brexit-corbyn-is-playing-a-clever-long-game-that-could-benef

It's just a shame that no one who supports Corbyn is able to discuss policy.

I seem to recall that Labour policy, as per their manifesto, was discussed extensively prior to June's General Election. Perhaps some of us got bored talking to brick walls and have no wish to do it again...

I didn't realise you had discussed issues like capital flight and bond yields Mazie, that was before I joined GN. Could you point me in the right direction? Thanks.

That link of mine is most definitely about Labour policy.

By the way, inertia means moving along the same straight line without being diverted by external forces. Just what they are doing with Brexit.

Primrose Before I discuss anything about economics with you I'd like to know what your qualifications are as you appear to be so certain you are right.
I'm just an amateur with an interest in the subject (seeing that it affects me and everyone in the country). As are most of us on here.

Of course, there is more than one way to skin a cat and economics is no different. What has been orthodox for decades is not universally accepted as 'true' (and is now being doubted even by institutions such as the IMF) and there are plenty of economists who don't accept the orthodoxy.

Of course we didn't discuss capital flight and bond yields. No-one mentioned them, not even you.

If you believe in "trickle down" Primrose65 could you explain why there are now more people in poverty than there were when the Conseervatives came to power? They've had 7 years to sort out things and the downward spiral continues.

Trisher, when did I say I believed in trickle down? I think you've confused what I've actually said with what other people have assumed.
Happy to discuss Labour policy, specifically the items mentioned in the FT today.
Maizie, I'll post my qualifications if you'll post yours. Given that you don't need an O level in Economics to be Shadow Chancellor, I think we'll both be adequately qualified for a chat on GN

Wanting to discuss bond yields and capital flight is a long way from the thread you began, primrose.
Perhaps you should have stuck to the subject.