shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I didn’t say cabinet. That’s just far right nutters and people the voters rejected.
Well, neither of us know but I'm optimistic. Which ranty gammons do you think he's brought into the cabinet?
I think there’s going to be a cabinet reshuffle late Feb and budget shortly after, that should give a fair idea about the direction of travel.
I lean towards Trenchs view....anyone opposite Corbyn is going to appear far right, but in reality, the manifesto and spending pledges are anything but.
I think you are a teacher? I used to teach also in the 80s. I had the freedom to teach my subject (Maths) as I wanted back then and could diverge into something else if it was interesting and came up. I cannot remember how, but at one stage I recall discussing anachronisms with a class. I had limited administration and so took in all books every week to mark homework and see how they were getting on. I get the impression that this has changed with constant measurement and IMO it's not a step-forward.
I think one of the most important changes needed is social care. We have to help people unable to cope (homeless; drug addicts; perpetually unemployed; criminals...). Not just throw money at them - real help to enable them to cope. I heard on R4 the other day that the right noises are coming from the government re drugs (from a charity worker expert in his field) - a move to evidence-based help rather than red-faced anger and punishment. We live in hope.
Why people keep voting Tory then hoping they won’t be Tories is beyond me.
I used to teach. I had enough freedom TBH in Computing. Gove ruined education and reduced the curriculum and focused away from vocational subjects all while tightening Ofsted oversight. The Tories are no friend to education.
I have also read some positive stories of academies set up in inner city/deprived areas (which is what I think the academy system should be focussing on) where they have changed lives for the better.
Katharine Birbalsingh is a hero of mine. She's changing poor black lives for the better with her school.
is she the lady from the school is East London who are achieving incredible results?
I guarantee the press would go after her father's background, and throw up the smoke in the same way they did with Ed Milliband's dad.Nandy to me is a good choice given she will improve her style in the media as she goes on. She’s attractive (I mean that in terms of looking a good trustworthy person) has a ca measured way and voice and is likeable
Starmer is the obvious choice has he looks measured, is coherent and wears a proper suit.
O don’t know why when parties elect a leader they need to really think whose the best candidate in a few years time. Starmer is hardly an inspired choice but safe and is not going to have obvious Northern appeal - part of the Westinster elite and failed on his big strategy.
I would look for someone to grow into the role and be there to challenge next election
Nandy to me is a good choice given she will improve her style in the media as she goes on. She’s attractive (I mean that in terms of looking a good trustworthy person) has a ca measured way and voice and is likeable.
She also understands that votes from real people win elections and not members.
However I feel that labour will find a way of appointing the absurd Long-Bailey and then blame everyone else as they sail into oblivion
We effectively have a choice between two parties; we choose the least bad each time. For me, it always comes down to the economy as the top priority as I am a staunch believer in free-market economics as the best approach the world has yet invented. I'm no fan of authoritarian-style Tory policy (e.g. Thatcher's Section 28) but there is a growing movement of libertarians who support the free-markets (Cameron's Gay Marriage). This is why I'm a floating voter. I could vote for Blair, could never vote for a miserablist, inept, worst-case Labour leader just as I couldn't vote for an authoritarian, intolerant Tory.
If it was a leader other than Johnson, Starmar would be an excellent choice as he'd pull them apart. he may well pull Johnson apart too... but that doesn't seem to matter!
So, it's less about content, more about perception this time around. if Johnson wants to be man of the people, show it up as just how far removed from that he really is.
I guarantee the press would go after her father's background, and throw up the smoke in the same way they did with Ed Milliband's dad.
If it was a leader other than Johnson, Starmar would be an excellent choice as he'd pull them apart. he may well pull Johnson apart too... but that doesn't seem to matter!
So, it's less about content, more about perception this time around. if Johnson wants to be man of the people, show it up as just how far removed from that he really is.
In this 'man of the people' regard Jess Phillips is the complete opposite and most likely to show him up, but as you say it never seems to matter - people just get taken in by it.
I think Starmer is probably the most capable but would it be a waste of his abilities to make him leader now when he's got to come from so far back? Like bringing Aguero on when you're 4-0 down.
Just using economic data just gives more power and influence to those who think money is all and completely undervalue everything else. They're often very selfish and are the people that take all the risks that result in economic downturns/recessions/crashes (and in some extreme cases deliberately engineer them for personal gain despite already being extremely wealthy) which have far more effect on others, especially the most vulnerable.
That needs to change.
I agree that the economy isn't everything and that happiness is more important than wealth. But I think the second half of your post is pure conspiracy theory. Who exactly is it that can cause an economic downturn by themselves? And if they had that much power, wouldn't we see recessions more frequently than we do? If I was so inclined and had that power, I'd be having them, followed by boom bubbles, every six months or so.
These kind of conspiracy theories come from people who have no idea how the markets work and let their imaginations run riot. If someone has told you this, they have made it up and are lying to you. If you thought of it yourself, ask yourself how much knowledge you have and whether it's wise to make shit up and then post it in public.
Robert Merton?Who exactly is it that can cause an economic downturn by themselves?
I've got a degree in accounts and economics
It's all about when it no longer can be sustained for higher gain - similar to how a pyramid scheme works but with a bit more oversight. 2008 crash was when the subprime mortgages could no longer be kept up, packaging and selling them off was also no longer viable so it was pull the investments quick. If you did it that often there'd be no faith in the markets whatsoever and you'd be harming your own potential overall gains- you have to choose when it's peaked and when to get out. It's a risky business in case you don't get it right so as always it's risk vs return.
There is also regulation preventing stuff like major shareholders just selling huge swathes to reduce the share price then buy it back cheaper, as well as stuff like insider trading. I personally don't like the idea of short selling either, even though there are protections for it.
Thank you for pulling back on the claim that powerful people cause recessions deliberately. That's the start of the common antisemitic trope that Jews control the world - which is where I believed you were going.
I have spent 30 years working on the trading floor (not as a trader) of some of the biggest investment banks in the world. And I'm telling you that crashes are not manufactured deliberately. The banks lost billions in the 2008 crash - you think they did it on purpose? There was a genuine belief that packaging sub-prime mortgages together into bonds and then spreading the risk through credit derivatives was safe. For 5 years or so Credit Derivatives were the only game in town, replacing Emerging Markets as the hot trading area.
You're wrong also that people pulled out. Mortgages are still bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and indeed one of the last projects I worked on before retiring was an MBS issuance (circa 2017). And credit derivatives still help people manage credit risk.
I'm not saying that they are 'deliberately' engineered - profiting from growth is far more preferable as it looks better for them as others also benefit. But some will take risks on higher growth/profit than are necessary at times, which from the outset is clearly unsustainable and when that happens those involved will change their position if they see things going south to, at the very least, not lose out or those less scrupulous gain from it if possible by 'betting' on the downturn.
The thing that annoyed me most about the 2008 was the bailout - in the epitome of the free-market huge sums of public money were spent propping up banks that had failed. If they followed their own advice, hedging their bets, diversified their portfolio and kept more liquid security the problems wouldn't have been near as bad and had it been your average Joe using that excuse they'd have been blamed for their lack of financial awareness and prudence. It should've been treated like the dog-eat-dog world it is and treated more like a hostile takeover of a struggling business. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The fact that those sub-prime packages were at any point considered 'safe' just highlights how the industry will be blind to potential problems if they want to be if they think money is to be made. An ounce of common sense tells you that model could not have a long term sustainable future and the only way to profit is to get in and out at the right time. It will undoubtedly happen again with something else in the future.
Starmer; Phillips or Nandy for me - the country needs an electable opposition to keep the government honest and on their toes. If it's Long-Bailey or Thornberry, following the same Corbyn agenda, I cannot see Labour getting even close next time around. Ideally it would be a candidate following policies I could vote for. However, despite all the sound and fury, I think that Johnson will be a centrist one-nation PM who will make Labour getting reelected unlikely for years anyway.
My view is:
If Momentum are going all in on Long-Bailey she isn't getting my vote in a million years
Starmer has no skeletons in the closet, comes across well and has said that Brexit is shit but he supports making the best of it. With a legal background he would fare well at the despatch box and appear 'Prime Ministerial'
Phillips comes across like an idiot and has form for rambling incoherently
Thornberry can get to fuck-pompous but without the brain to justify it
Nandy-the most interesting of the female candidates but don't know enough about her stances to make a comment. Would like to hear a bit more.
'It needs to be a Northerner in touch with the working classes'-they have just elected an Etonian charlatan who hasn't had a difficult day in his life and who wrote essays for and against Brexit before he calculated which would be best for him personally. So no, it doesn't. Nor does voting for Starmer make one a sexist despite that being the obvious play
Starmer has a few skeletons in his closet from his time at the CPS and I'm sure we'll be hearing plenty more about them if he becomes leader.
On balance I think he'd still be my preferred candidate so I'm not particularly bothered but it's a bit of a stretch to say he has no skeletons.
I fail to see how that is a bad thing?There will be an Irish border poll on this man's watch, at the rate he's going
Depends on your POV. When your schtick is all about maintaining the union, it'd be a bit of a cock up to achieve what Corbyn couldn't.I fail to see how that is a bad thing?
I fail to see how that is a bad thing?
Starmer has a few skeletons in his closet from his time at the CPS and I'm sure we'll be hearing plenty more about them if he becomes leader.
On balance I think he'd still be my preferred candidate so I'm not particularly bothered but it's a bit of a stretch to say he has no skeletons.
I’m left as left is. Nationalise my breakfast if you want. Still leaning towards Starmer though.We've all done and said some stupid things when we were younger. I was very left wing in my late teens/early 20s and still recall the embarrassment of being called out by a bartender when I was bullshitting some friends that China was a wonderful example of socialism working. I may be wrong, but I get the sense that Keir has put that extreme stuff behind him and is now balanced and considered in his opinions. Quite the difference with the current incumbent.
No aggression or slight intended to anyone who is still very left wing; only speaking from my own opinion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?