Corbyn - I don't get it

ICBM

jpfamps said:

What I was trying to emphasize is that he has a history of low achievement.

And more importantly, an apparent lack of ambition. Although that could be seen as a good thing, rather than the usual ambitious careerists who advance quickly up the party who seem to view getting there as more important than doing the job, the almost total lack of any drive to advance politically until he got nominated as the token lefty and then accidentally found himself leader doesn't bode well for his determination to do anything else either. Stubbornness isn't the same thing.

paulmapp8306

AliGorie said:

Bucket have a listen to these programs - remembering it IS the state broadcaster and WILL be biased (as is most of what you think you  ‘know’ about JC).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07jyrdn

"Well OF COURSE everything's sweet for Norway", says David Cameron, "they're a small country with loads of oil."
Miriam Brett ‏@MiriamBrett 2h2 hours ago
When David Cameron arrived in office, 61,468 people relied on foodbanks. Today, as he prepares to leave, that figure sits at 1,109,309.

Quite telling that the majority of that increase is actually people who work.... 

Sporky

paulmapp8306 said:

Quite telling that the majority of that increase is actually people who work.....

Food banks and income support are basically subsidising employers who don't want to pay a living wage. I'm not against them existing, but I am very much against hem needing to exist.

paulmapp8306

me too.

There are a lot of businesses out there (not the big ones obviously) that would go out of business if they had to pay a bigger wage though.  ITs catch 22.  Force higher wages, forces businesses to cut workers (thus paying the same amount in total out in wages).  Government gets the same back in tax, but then has a higher benefits liability.

There is a balance to be had between what you force employers to pay (as a minimum) and how much benefits you give out.   Too high a wage and jobs get cut - tax stays the same, benefits liability goes up.  too low a wage, tax drops, benefits liability goes up. 

Garthy

Clarky said:

Garthy said:

Clarky said:

I think the prob with most of the Labour party MP's is that they look like shite in the pics and on the telly
the last elected Labour leader didn't look like shite
but he ended up being shite
and although he looks like shite today by his own standards, he still looks less shite than what's on offer today..

I couldn't listen to Ed without retching. He just sounded like he needed to swallow lots of phlegm when he spoke but didn't want to interrupt himself.

it matters…
people really do read the book by the cover

A better analogy would be not buying a Smashing Pumpkins CD because you don't like Billy Corgan's voice regardless of how good the rest of it is.

ICBM

AliGorie said:

"Well OF COURSE everything's sweet for Norway", says David Cameron, "they're a small country with loads of oil."

I missed that earlier, but it's amusing that he didn't apply that logic to Scotland becoming independent .

Sporky

paulmapp8306 said:

me too.

There are a lot of businesses out there (not the big ones obviously) that would go out of business if they had to pay a bigger wage though.  ITs catch 22.  Force higher wages, forces businesses to cut workers (thus paying the same amount in total out in wages).  Government gets the same back in tax, but then has a higher benefits liability.

I think there could be a virtuous circle though.

Employers pay more -> Employees have more -> Employees spend more -> Employers have more

Though that does depend on a decent proportion of what the employees spend staying in the UK.

paulmapp8306

Sporky said:

paulmapp8306 said:

me too.

There are a lot of businesses out there (not the big ones obviously) that would go out of business if they had to pay a bigger wage though.  ITs catch 22.  Force higher wages, forces businesses to cut workers (thus paying the same amount in total out in wages).  Government gets the same back in tax, but then has a higher benefits liability.

I think there could be a virtuous circle though.

Employers pay more -> Employees have more -> Employees spend more -> Employers have more

Though that does depend on a decent proportion of what the employees spend staying in the UK.

Cant see that one.  In most cases, employer pays more, benefits pay less, employee has the same - spends the same.

jpfamps

I think the main issue with living standards / low wages in the UK is massive cost of accommodation.

It would be FAR better to reduce the cost of living in the UK than to try to chase the market up by increasing wages.



.

jpfamps

Sporky said:

paulmapp8306 said:

me too.

There are a lot of businesses out there (not the big ones obviously) that would go out of business if they had to pay a bigger wage though.  ITs catch 22.  Force higher wages, forces businesses to cut workers (thus paying the same amount in total out in wages).  Government gets the same back in tax, but then has a higher benefits liability.

I think there could be a virtuous circle though.

Employers pay more -> Employees have more -> Employees spend more -> Employers have more

Though that does depend on a decent proportion of what the employees spend staying in the UK.

It is potential virtuous circle as long as you don't put a load of businesses out of business first....

I know many small business owners (and am one myself). There is a perception that because you are in business you must be rolling in money, when in fact many businesses are struggling.

It is not helped by a tax system that seems to discourage employing people.

jpfamps

AliGorie said:

Bucket have a listen to these programs - remembering it IS the state broadcaster and WILL be biased (as is most of what you think you  ‘know’ about JC).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07jyrdn

"Well OF COURSE everything's sweet for Norway", says David Cameron, "they're a small country with loads of oil."
Miriam Brett ‏@MiriamBrett 2h2 hours ago
When David Cameron arrived in office, 61,468 people relied on foodbanks. Today, as he prepares to leave, that figure sits at 1,109,309.
Norway doesn’t have any food banks

The BBC is a public service broadcaster; it is NOT a state broadcaster. It is not owned by the state.

The idea that the BBC has an overarching editorial news policy that is biased against Jeremy Corbyn is risable; the BBC contains a plethora of competing news teams, which often won't even talk to each other, so are hardly under central control.

Jeremy Corbyn's supporters have been "shooting the messenger" regarding media bias, with the BBC being firmly in there sites, ever since he became leader.

Here of course "bias" doesn't really mean bias, it means producing critical copy. Of course any news articles that support Jeremy Corbyn's leadership are seen as "good unbiased journalism".

Regardless, I resent the notion that I have been brainwashed by the biased media, and only the truly enlightened who have the critical insight to see through this subterfuge are in possession of the "truth".

Axe_meister

Out biggest and unsolvable problem is globalisation, we'll never be able to compete with India/China, increase wages and we become even more uncompetitive, decrease wages and we have a poorer society and less tax take.

ToneControl

jpfamps said:

AliGorie said:

Bucket have a listen to these programs - remembering it IS the state broadcaster and WILL be biased (as is most of what you think you  ‘know’ about JC).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07jyrdn

"Well OF COURSE everything's sweet for Norway", says David Cameron, "they're a small country with loads of oil."
Miriam Brett ‏@MiriamBrett 2h2 hours ago
When David Cameron arrived in office, 61,468 people relied on foodbanks. Today, as he prepares to leave, that figure sits at 1,109,309.
Norway doesn’t have any food banks

The BBC is a public service broadcaster; it is NOT a state broadcaster. It is not owned by the state.

The idea that the BBC has an overarching editorial news policy that is biased against Jeremy Corbyn is risable; the BBC contains a plethora of competing news teams, which often won't even talk to each other, so are hardly under central control.

Jeremy Corbyn's supporters have been "shooting the messenger" regarding media bias, with the BBC being firmly in there sites, ever since he became leader.

Here of course "bias" doesn't really mean bias, it means producing critical copy. Of course any news articles that support Jeremy Corbyn's leadership are seen as "good unbiased journalism".

Regardless, I resent the notion that I have been brainwashed by the biased media, and only the truly enlightened who have the critical insight to see through this subterfuge are in possession of the "truth".

quite right
mind you, we all need to be wary of the media, as explained here:

Clarky

Garthy said:

Clarky said:

Garthy said:

Clarky said:

I think the prob with most of the Labour party MP's is that they look like shite in the pics and on the telly
the last elected Labour leader didn't look like shite
but he ended up being shite
and although he looks like shite today by his own standards, he still looks less shite than what's on offer today..

I couldn't listen to Ed without retching. He just sounded like he needed to swallow lots of phlegm when he spoke but didn't want to interrupt himself.

it matters…
people really do read the book by the cover

A better analogy would be not buying a Smashing Pumpkins CD because you don't like Billy Corgan's voice regardless of how good the rest of it is.

works for me..

Philly_Q

Garthy said:

A better analogy would be not buying a Smashing Pumpkins CD because you don't like Billy Corgan's voice regardless of how good the rest of it is.

I couldn't quite think it through (it's been a long day).  Are you saying that is or isn't a good reason for not buying a Smashing Pumpkins CD?

Personally, I think it was always necessary to weigh the quality of the songs against Billy's infuriatingly whiney voice.  First couple of albums, the songs won hands down.  Later albums, the songs got worse.  And the voice got even more infuriatingly whiney.

p90fool

jpfamps said:

AliGorie said:

Bucket have a listen to these programs - remembering it IS the state broadcaster and WILL be biased (as is most of what you think you  ‘know’ about JC).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07jyrdn

"Well OF COURSE everything's sweet for Norway", says David Cameron, "they're a small country with loads of oil."
Miriam Brett ‏@MiriamBrett 2h2 hours ago
When David Cameron arrived in office, 61,468 people relied on foodbanks. Today, as he prepares to leave, that figure sits at 1,109,309.
Norway doesn’t have any food banks

The BBC is a public service broadcaster; it is NOT a state broadcaster. It is not owned by the state.

The idea that the BBC has an overarching editorial news policy that is biased against Jeremy Corbyn is risable; the BBC contains a plethora of competing news teams, which often won't even talk to each other, so are hardly under central control.

Jeremy Corbyn's supporters have been "shooting the messenger" regarding media bias, with the BBC being firmly in there sites, ever since he became leader.

Here of course "bias" doesn't really mean bias, it means producing critical copy. Of course any news articles that support Jeremy Corbyn's leadership are seen as "good unbiased journalism".

Regardless, I resent the notion that I have been brainwashed by the biased media, and only the truly enlightened who have the critical insight to see through this subterfuge are in possession of the "truth".

I get most of my news from the Today Programme or PM on Radio 4, which is probably the most analytical and liberal news source being broadcast in this country.

I hear about 2 hours of it every day and he's barely a presence on it. The reason he's unelectable is because he's crap at media stuff, if he has nothing notable to say on the Today Programme he's not going to get much change out of Murdoch's mob. 

It's not bias, he could walk into Radio Four and give a momentous interview at peak breakfast time whenever he liked, he just doesn't really seem have a lot to say. I find it astonishing that in the most exciting couple of weeks in British politics for a generation the Leader of the Opposition is practically invisible. 

It's not media bias, it's total incompetence on his part, and I say that as someone who agrees with a lot of his policies. If he can't even reach out to me then he's fucked.  

ToneControl

p90fool said:
I get most of my news from the Today Programme or PM on Radio 4, which is probably the most analytical and liberal news source being broadcast in this country.

I hear about 2 hours of it every day and he's barely a presence on it. The reason he's unelectable is because he's crap at media stuff, if he has nothing notable to say on the Today Programme he's not going to get much change out of Murdoch's mob. 
It's not bias, he could walk into Radio Four and give a momentous interview at peak breakfast time whenever he liked, he just doesn't really seem have a lot to say. I find it astonishing that in the most exciting couple of weeks in British politics for a generation the Leader of the Opposition is practically invisible. 
It's not media bias, it's total incompetence on his part, and I say that as someone who agrees with a lot of his policies. If he can't even reach out to me then he's fucked.  

I agree with your broadcast choices

I genuinely think Corbyn has had good reason to avoid R4 interviews - they are too thorough and less sound-bitey, and he'd come across as even thicker than normal

After a few recent random puchases of Private Eye, I have now added that  to my regular news input with a yearly sub.  They seem to uncover more inside stories than all the papers combined, twice over,  and it's funny

stickyfiddle

jpfamps said:

I think the main issue with living standards / low wages in the UK is massive cost of accommodation.

It would be FAR better to reduce the cost of living in the UK than to try to chase the market up by increasing wages.

Just came to say exactly that. The cost of housing in the UK is vast. The house market is overheated by almost every measure but no government wants to be the guy who causes it to drop significantly, because they'll be hugely unpopular and out for 2 terms. Osborne has been trying to depress it gradually and let inflation do the job, but combined with the various measures aimed at stopping it crashing (help to buy, etc) it hasn't really worked.  

In a weak economy a huge number of people are turning to BTL for their pensions (not least because penions have been raided for tax so many times now), which only makes it worse.

As someone without any property but keen to buy at some point in the next few years, I wouldn't mind a housing crash, but I can absolutely appreciate why a lot don't want one.

stickyfiddle

Been thinking more since my last post. On the housing/cost of living thing I'd REALLY like to see some estimates on the impact of a house price drop of say, 10%, 15% and 20%, in terms of how that would benefit the cost of living against how many people it would hurt in terms of negative equity and/or bankruptcy.

Sporky

paulmapp8306 said:

Cant see that one.  In most cases, employer pays more, benefits pay less, employee has the same - spends the same.

You'd have to disentangle the income support stuff for it to work.

jpfamps said:

It is potential virtuous circle as long as you don't put a load of businesses out of business first....

Indeed. It was a pretty hypothetical suggestion.