Britain is going to be Tory for at least 10 years.

[JimC]

people who have made something of their lives,

Sounds like you think you live in a meritocracy. How quaint.

I think there is, at least, a modest link between talent/hard work and achievement. I don't consider this to be especially controversial.

But your original comment about "people who have made something of their lives" goes beyond this; it has echoes of the social darwinist tendency to contrast the feckless masses and the deserving rich...

The reality is that the wealth and attainments of the family you are born into have a massive, self-perpetuating effect on your future prospects. One can always come up with the odd rags-to-riches story, where hard work has catapulted someone to a better life, but these, on the main, are statistical anomalies, only useful as pious platitudes to keep the masses with their noses to the grindstone with hope, as they touch their forelocks to the real masters...

[cronus]

There'll be a repeat of 1992, john major is right. Hanging man wants to unhang but can't. UKIP will take advantage of the coming social chaos and take over.

[Scot Dutchy]

Ideological liberals.

From which continent. American liberals are totally different to European liberals who are totally different from British liberals. That is why liberal is a useless label.

[Scot Dutchy]

There'll be a repeat of 1992, john major is right. Hanging man wants to unhang but can't. UKIP will take advantage of the coming social chaos and take over.

UKIP is dead. Please keep up.

[Svartalf]

But Farage is like Jesus, he keeps cumming back.

[Scot Dutchy]

But Farage is like Jesus, he keeps cumming back.

He cant get elected can he.

[pErvinalia]

Ideological liberals.

From which continent. American liberals are totally different to European liberals who are totally different from British liberals. That is why liberal is a useless label.

The ideology of liberalism. It's been around for more than a hundred years. Look it up.

[Brian Peacock]

people who have made something of their lives,

Sounds like you think you live in a meritocracy. How quaint.

I think there is, at least, a modest link between talent/hard work and achievement. I don't consider this to be especially controversial.

But your original comment about "people who have made something of their lives" goes beyond this; it has echoes of the social darwinist tendency to contrast the feckless masses and the deserving rich...

The reality is that the wealth and attainments of the family you are born into have a massive, self-perpetuating effect on your future prospects. One can always come up with the odd rags-to-riches story, where hard work has catapulted someone to a better life, but these, on the main, are statistical anomalies, only useful as pious platitudes to keep the masses with their noses to the grindstone with hope, as they touch their forelocks to the real masters...

Indeed. Many commentators are suggesting that the so-called millennial generation are going to be the first generation since WWII who will be worse off than their parents. Is that down to an entire generation 'not making something of their lives'? We are all bound into economic and social condition we have little influence over individually, and to charge the less well off with 'not making something of their lives' - because we're generally encouraged to equate personal success with increasing spending power - assumes that those economic and social conditions don't count for much, if anything. Are the increasing numbers of homeless 'not making something of their lives' or are they a symptom of a failing social safety net? Are the increasing numbers of children in poverty being dealt a cruel hand by parents who are 'not making something of their lives' or is this a symptom of changing employment conditions and job availability? Are the increasing numbers in increasing amounts of debt 'not making something of their lives' or is it a symptom of rising costs during a time of inflation and relative wage stagnation? Is the charge of 'not making something of you life' an admonishment in the form of a generalisation, or is it a fact that applies to a wealthy individual who doesn't work to increase their spending power as it applies to someone who's holding down three low-paid jobs just to make ends meet?

[Brian Peacock]

But Farage is like Jesus, he keeps cumming back.

He cant get elected can he.

But if he fed 5000 people with two big macs and a can of fanta, or walked across the English channel, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

[mistermack]

I've never met a more naive bunch of people than liberals.

You've never met a Corbyn supporter then. If they really think they can win an election.

Corbyn is still sticking to the story that he can win an election, and put all his ideas into action.
The British public think otherwise. Apart from Brian Peacock.

Brian, you think that borrowing to spend more on public services is a great idea?
Brilliant ! It's so simple. So that's why governments around the world are mad for it. Borrow more, spend more. You can't go wrong. People are such fools. Why can't they see the logic?

When did spending what you can afford ever work?

In fact, what massive borrowing is actually for, is for the government of the day to get the credit, for the work of the people tomorrow. It's done for electoral purposes.
So when a new government comes in, they don't see why THEY should pay off the debts of the LAST government, who got all the credit, and suffered none of the pain.
So they repeat the process, with the justifiable excuse that it's not their fault.

Everybody knows that if you live beyond your means, and live on borrowed money, you end up paying more for the same thing. It's usually poorly educated people who fall into that trap. National governments should have a bit more of a clue.

They should pay off debt and build up reserves, so that when a crisis comes, they use reserves, rather than borrow.

But that seems to be all Greek to Jeremy Corbyn.

[pErvinalia]

I've never met a more naive bunch of people than liberals.

You've never met a Corbyn supporter then. If they really think they can win an election.

I think most of them would realise that with the media against them and internal sabotage that it's going to be very hard to win. Have you considered that they are supporting Corbyn because it's the right thing to do (as opposed to supporting the neoliberal Blairites)? Ultimately if you want change away from the neoliberal status quo, then you have to back the anti-neoliberal candidate. You'll never get rid of neoliberalism by continually voting for neoliberals.

Corbyn is still sticking to the story that he can win an election, and put all his ideas into action.
The British public think otherwise. Apart from Brian Peacock.

What would you have Corbyn do? Project a losing attitude? He's got the support of a huge number of people. He needs to give it his best shot. It's not just about Corbyn. The same as it's not just about Sanders in the US. It's about defeating neoliberalism. Corbyn/Sanders probably won't be the people to do it. But they are the ones laying the groundwork for it to happen.

Brian, you think that borrowing to spend more on public services is a great idea?
Brilliant ! It's so simple. So that's why governments around the world are mad for it. Borrow more, spend more. You can't go wrong. People are such fools. Why can't they see the logic?

Learn how economics works. To generate economic activity, someone somewhere has to borrow money for it to happen. If the government does it (properly), it can put money to where it will both benefit the economy and the majority of the public, as opposed to capitalism where private organisations direct the investment to the areas that make the quickest and easiest buck for the top 5% or so.

When did spending what you can afford ever work?

Never. Learn how economics works.

Everybody knows that if you live beyond your means, and live on borrowed money, you end up paying more for the same thing.

Learn how economics and money work. All economic growth is based on debt. The only variables are whether it is government or private debt, and whether it is national or external debt.

It's usually poorly educated people who fall into that trap.

Ironic given you appear to have absolutely no clue as to how economics and money work.

They should pay off debt and build up reserves, so that when a crisis comes, they use reserves, rather than borrow.

Paying off debt destroys money. You should never pay off debt unless you use another currency. So the answer to reducing national debt is to export more.

[Brian Peacock]

...
Brian, you think that borrowing to spend more on public services is a great idea?
Brilliant ! It's so simple. So that's why governments around the world are mad for it. Borrow more, spend more. You can't go wrong. People are such fools. Why can't they see the logic?

When did spending what you can afford ever work?

No, I said that public sector spending has the effect of being an economic multiplier, and that slashing public sector spending has acted as an economic depressant.

In fact, what massive borrowing is actually for, is for the government of the day to get the credit, for the work of the people tomorrow. It's done for electoral purposes.
So when a new government comes in, they don't see why THEY should pay off the debts of the LAST government, who got all the credit, and suffered none of the pain.
So they repeat the process, with the justifiable excuse that it's not their fault.

Everybody knows that if you live beyond your means, and live on borrowed money, you end up paying more for the same thing. It's usually poorly educated people who fall into that trap. National governments should have a bit more of a clue.

They should pay off debt and build up reserves, so that when a crisis comes, they use reserves, rather than borrow.

I wouldn't disagree - my main criticism of the escalation of Tory borrowing as a proportion of GDP is that it's paying for tax cuts for the wealthy and financial assistance for The City, to the extent that the financial sector is becoming an economic benefits and welfare culture, and is acting as an economic depressant. The point is where the money is being spent, and is that benefiting the nation as a whole? The national debt after WWII was staggering YUGE, but post war governments spent it on housing, transport, schools, hospitals, telecommunications, utility infrastructure, etc, all of which gave the economy a massive kick up the arse. I'm not saying we need to rebuild Britain anew, just pointing out that borrowing in hard times isn't well spent on securing income growth for the tiny fraction of the population who just happen to be the governing parties major donors - whether that's trans-national corporations, hedge fund managers, data moguls, or even militant unions.

If the government put half as much effort into closing tax loopholes and chasing down those who squirrel money in off-shore havens as they put into making sure you've paid your TV licence then the level of national debt might not be so troubling. The same goes for borrowing to fund tax cuts while slashing spending on essential services. As it stands the Tories have done the national equivalent of taking out a series of costly payday loans, then borrowing more to pay those escalating charges, and institutionalising a system of usury on behalf of everyone in the process.

But that seems to be all Greek to Jeremy Corbyn.

Being as you've picked up Davedodo007's baton, I'm still waiting for those 'hard-left' Labour policies btw.

[Scot Dutchy]

Any old policies will do. Just one.

[mistermack]

No, I said that public sector spending has the effect of being an economic multiplier, and that slashing public sector spending has acted as an economic depressant.

If it was that simple, everyone would be doing it. You're not the only financial genius.

In a less simple world, it only has a good effect, when the problem is purely one of sentiment.
By injecting a little you can perk up the mood, and get people trading confidently again.

At any other time, it's money wasted, because people see government money as easy money, and find ways to live well on it without doing anything for it.
Just as they did in Greece.

What happened in Greece, and to a lesser extent in Italy, is exactly what you are advocating.
We've see how Greece is doing. The Italy story hasn't begun to fully unravel yet, but it will.

They are all being falsely preserved at the moment, by the historic low interest rates. As we are in Britain. But we've used that airbag. You can't use it twice.

What's going to happen if interest rates have to rise? Things will get extremely un-cushy in this country, and around the world.

[Feck]

Well apart from the fact that it's been shown that every $ given out in food stamps generates a fuck load more economic stimulus than every $ spent on tax cuts.
There are moral considerations It wasn't the poor that wrecked the economy I wasn't the welfare bill It wasn't even welfare fraud
It isn't the poor that have removed money from the economy because they recirculate it It isn't the poor that are increasing their share of the money
Where has all the money gone ?