Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[krtek a houby]

The most successful of the worlds economies like the US, Germany and Japan are all capitalist, but have certainly not run out of money. In fact, people from all over the world have invested in their businesses.

Capitalism is other people's money, though. Made rich on the backs of the workers.

 

[NoXion]

Dilorenzo's excellent work "The Problem with Socialism" used figures produced by the Pew Foundation to show how Bernie Sanders gained the support of the younger generation by "campaigning on a platform of free higher education, free health care and a vastly increased welfare state".

Corbyn promptly did a "monkey see, monkey do" when he saw how productive promising handouts was, come election time. It worked then. Will it work in future? Everyone likes a free lunch, right? Problem is, nothing is free in this world. As a well known baroness once said :

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of someone else's money"

Free higher education used to exist in this country, and still does in other parts of the world. We still have free healthcare, just about. The welfare state has been pared back despite the fact that, like free higher education, we could afford it in the past when the economy was smaller. The decision to cut those things was motivated by ideology, not economics.

Corbyn knows this, and so that's why he offered what he did, not because of anything Sanders said. You do know he's been a left Labour MP for years, right?

 

[Pickman's model]

Dilorenzo's excellent work "The Problem with Socialism" used figures produced by the Pew Foundation to show how Bernie Sanders gained the support of the younger generation by "campaigning on a platform of free higher education, free health care and a vastly increased welfare state".

Corbyn promptly did a "monkey see, monkey do" when he saw how productive promising handouts was, come election time. It worked then. Will it work in future? Everyone likes a free lunch, right? Problem is, nothing is free in this world. As a well known baroness once said :

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of someone else's money"

This would be the well-known baroness who pissed away the north sea oil revenue on tax breaks.

 

[chilango]

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of someone else's money"

Whose money is it anyway?

 

[eatmorecheese]

Dilorenzo's excellent work "The Problem with Socialism" used figures produced by the Pew Foundation to show how Bernie Sanders gained the support of the younger generation by "campaigning on a platform of free higher education, free health care and a vastly increased welfare state".

Corbyn promptly did a "monkey see, monkey do" when he saw how productive promising handouts was, come election time. It worked then. Will it work in future? Everyone likes a free lunch, right? Problem is, nothing is free in this world. As a well known baroness once said :

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of someone else's money"

The pat phrases, unleavened by any form of critical thinking. Whose money? Your free market wet dream wouldn't function if the state didn't educate the people, maintain their health and vastly subsidise a shareholder owned rail system, bail out banks, etc, etc.

A very boring troll, or do you really believe this drivel?

 

[mojo pixy]

This would be the well-known baroness who pissed away the north sea oil revenue on tax breaks.

Thus turning a collective natural resource into other (wealthy obvs) people's money...

 

[krtek a houby]

The problem with Happy Larry is that you eventually run of patience.

 

[ignatious]

Dilorenzo's excellent work "The Problem with Socialism" used figures produced by the Pew Foundation to show how Bernie Sanders gained the support of the younger generation by "campaigning on a platform of free higher education, free health care and a vastly increased welfare state".

 

[Pickman's model]

Dilorenzo's excellent work "The Problem with Socialism" used figures produced by the Pew Foundation to show how Bernie Sanders gained the support of the younger generation by "campaigning on a platform of free higher education, free health care and a vastly increased welfare state".

Corbyn promptly did a "monkey see, monkey do" when he saw how productive promising handouts was, come election time. It worked then. Will it work in future? Everyone likes a free lunch, right? Problem is, nothing is free in this world. As a well known baroness once said :

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of someone else's money"

if it's so excellent how come no library in the country has it?

 

[Kaka Tim]

because libraries are all run by commies obvs.

fake books!

 

[Nylock]

Er, no. They were gullible enough to rely on the results of polls which showed that they would increase their number of seats.

You will find similar gullible people on these threads rattling on about the same polls (which probably also failed to predict Brexit and the Trump victory) that show the age demographic of those who voted for each party. These people, overly excited at these polls, have now gone ape by claiming that the Tories are now doomed as they have wrongly concluded that support for the Tories will die out. It's laughable but you always have to take into account from whence such wishful "thinking" comes. When "your lot" haven't been in power for some time, desperation obviously makes you cling to whatever "good news" comes your way.

The reasons that there was a swing towards Labour at the last election was purely because many UKIP and SNP voters returned to their natural home in the Labour Party. There would also have been a number of mainly working class voters who voted Tory after Cameron promised an EU referendum if elected. These latter voters, now that the referendum has been concluded have also returned to Labour. Apart from some youngsters who were gullibly taken in by Corbyns vague promise of handouts for their student loans, nothing much has changed.

*golf clap*

Desperate stuff. You failed the 'academic rigor' test and are now failing the 'hapless bullshit recycler' one.

A poor effort at best.

 

[Pickman's model]

because libraries are all run by commies obvs.

fake books!

yeh. i suppose it's the same in ireland, france and belgium

 

[not-bono-ever]

fucking librarians suppressing dangerous and controversial academic works. have any of you read Fahrienheit 451 ? I bet you haven't- maybe you should read that and see what the futures looks like. etc

*moves in with squirrelp*

 

[chilango]

if it's so excellent how come no library in the country has it?

View attachment 117633

Of course libraries aren't going to stock it. Libraries are all about enabling freeloaders to get access to books without paying for them. Some other poor tax-paying sap with no interest in books is subsidising the feckless's desire to read for free.

 

[Pickman's model]

Of course libraries aren't going to stock it. Libraries are all about enabling freeloaders to get access to books without paying for them. Some other poor tax-paying sap with no interest in books is subsidising the feckless's desire to read for free.

from some of the reviews i have read, the author seems to have avoided libraries - doubtless for the reasons you state.

 

[chilango]

from some of the reviews i have read, the author seems to have avoided libraries - doubtless for the reasons you state.

A little ceramic piece with a message on my bookshelf at work...

 

[Pickman's model]

A little ceramic piece with a message on my bookshelf at work...

View attachment 117640

 

[BemusedbyLife]

How many libraries have a copy of this book? I'm willing to lay money its a lot more than the DiLorenzo one?
and it's certainly a far superior piece of literature to boot.

 

[chilango]

View attachment 117643

"Know It All. Find It Fast."

 

[Pickman's model]

How many libraries have a copy of this book? I'm willing to lay money its a lot more than the DiLorenzo one?
and it's certainly a far superior piece of literature to boot.
View attachment 117644

 

[Nylock]

Dilorenzo's excellent work "The Problem with Socialism" used figures produced by the Pew Foundation to show how Bernie Sanders gained the support of the younger generation by "campaigning on a platform of free higher education, free health care and a vastly increased welfare state".

None of that stuff is 'free' you silly bugger. Sanders was advocating single payer (healthcare) and state supported (education) solutions precisely because the capitalist free-for all in these sectors is failing the population so hard*. Sanders gained the support of more than the younger generation but overall if you as a politician advocate solutions to those getting shafted the hardest then it's bloody obvious they are going to rally to your cause in high numbers.

Corbyn promptly did a "monkey see, monkey do" when he saw how productive promising handouts was, come election time. It worked then. Will it work in future? Everyone likes a free lunch, right? Problem is, nothing is free in this world. As a well known baroness once said :

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of someone else's money"

(a) Your abject failure to understand your political enemy is comedy genius
(b) The trouble with that Thatcher quote is that we are in a situation where capitalism has already run out of everyone else's money
She came out with that 'classic' back in the days when her government were spunking off our north sea oil revenues with no discernable sense of forward planning whatsoever. Typical short-sighted Thatcherite bluster -good for a soundbite but fuck-all use for anything else.

The most successful of the worlds economies like the US, Germany and Japan are all capitalist, but have certainly not run out of money. In fact, people from all over the world have invested in their businesses.

....And you extend the fail out from politics to economics. The US has a debt to GDP of 106%, Japan (250%) and Germany (68.3%) whereas China (46%) the No.2** economic global powerhouse is a 'socialist'*** state so yeah, someone's running out of money...



*The actual detail of the policies was more nuanced than what you are presenting here but you either already knew that or didn't know because you are merely regurgitating what you have read without doing any actual follow-up of your own.
**Pegged to overtake the US in the next 10-15 years (sooner if the Donald keeps up his winning ways!).
***Not really, but "you lot" seem to think so...

 

[agricola]

View attachment 117646

Its probably the only book in Aberystwyth Library, revered as the foundation stone of their unique culture.

 

[Raheem]

How many libraries have a copy of this book? I'm willing to lay money its a lot more than the DiLorenzo one?
and it's certainly a far superior piece of literature to boot.
View attachment 117644

Is spot looking for his bleedin' self in that picture? No wonder there's a shortage of engineers.

 

[BemusedbyLife]

Is spot looking for his bleedin' self in that picture? No wonder there's a shortage of engineers.

OK no dissing Spot the Dog, some things are sacred even here.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I am absolutely unconvinced that everyone, or even most people, gravitate to the Tories as they get older. Many do, agreed, but many don't (including myself), it's also affected by how strong and bitter your memories are, of being fucked over by capitalism and by the Tories, when younger.
It's simply a lazy, facile assumption, for which the evidence - beyond the baby boomers generation - is sketchy, to put it mildly (and I think there is every chance that generation will prove a historical one off)

It's been shown to happen when small samples are used, but there's been no longitudinal research over a large cohort that's shown this supposed gravitation. What's been shown, however, is that people become more socially-conservative as they age. This isn't though reflected as a Tory vote, but rather as an impulse toward what they see as best for them, rather than their community.

 

[killer b]

It's been shown to happen when small samples are used, but there's been no longitudinal research over a large cohort that's shown this supposed gravitation.

I think that's exactly what the report I posted about earlier does show.

Goodwin posted a paper from 2013 that dealt with the aging tory thing the other day - they found a 0.38% shift to conservatives each year older a person gets, and that people who 'come of age' under a tory admin are a more conservative (relatively) than cohorts which come of age undor non-tory govts (I think butchersapron may have posted the findings of this paper before? It sounds familiar...) Which with an ageing population means the inbuilt advantage for the tories is only likely to get worse over time.

Here is relevant part of the conclusion...

the paper is here if you have some way of accessing it...

 

[killer b]

Does anyone really think that because they and their friends haven't become more right wing it's not a thing? What about that whole anecdote / data thing that we're always going on about?

 

[butchersapron]

I think that's exactly what the report I posted about earlier does show.



the paper is here if you have some way of accessing it...

The paper.

The one i think you're referring to that i posted was Thatcher’s Children, Blair’s Babies, political socialisation and trickle-down value-change:
An age, period and cohort analysis. The findings being that the start point for age-based right-moving now appear significantly further to the right thabn those who grew up pre-79.

 

[kabbes]

If I may be indulged in some evidence-free speculative hypothesising...

Surely the key to a statistical understanding of conservative drift is how much people believe they personally have to lose? In particular, the following things come to mind:

• One's job
• One's career. A career (in the minds of most) is a bigger thing to lose than just a job.
• Personal physical assets -- one's home in particular
• Other personal assets -- value of savings, for example, particularly pension
• One's "family", by which I mostly mean the social structures that surrounds one's personal connections (blood family and otherwise)

I'm sure you can think of lots of others.

When you don't have much to lose in terms of the above list and similar, there is little consequence to being pure to one's ideals. In particular, it is easier to be radical, in its strict sense of believing in the supremacy of rational thinking and ground-up social reform in line with this thinking. If things aren't working, just tear them down and try something else. Why not, after all?

When you have a lot to lose, however, you inevitably end up weighing up the risks and consequences of losing it against such ideals. Even if you started out as naturally radical in nature, the cognitive dissonance of not wanting to suffer such consequences may well lead you down a path of conservatism, i.e. believing (or deciding to believe) in the supremacy of accumulated wisdom in the form of existing social institutions. And then from conservatism to Conservatism, so to speak.

This could well explain how people become more socially conservative as they get older. As they get older, they tend to have more to lose. Certainly the historical case was that people tended to gradually accumulate a house, a family, a position of responsibility.

But this was never universally the case and is increasingly less so. As society becomes more divided and the "have-nots" part of that divide become ever more numerous, it becomes more and more likely that even those at ages that previously had a lot to lose will now not have the same at stake. If this trend is real (as seems likely) and if the above reasoning is correct, there will be less shift to conservatism and hence Conservatism as people get older.

As a post-script, it was the below post that got me musing on the above, and why I found the below such an interesting read.

About the have houses and the have not houses thing.

The Tories have been relying on the support of the home owner demographic for quite a long time now, without doing anything to help people not on the market, and in fact making things worse for them not only by encouraging house prices to rise but by also squeezing wages, cutting services, and making them rack up enormous student debt. They basically ignored all the youth out of an assumption, based on the experience of their generation, that they would all get on the housing market sooner or later, without really thinking about how this would happen and putting up every obstacle towards it. Another reason they ignored it is because of a tired cliche that people become Tory as they get older - but this is of course not a natural law or inevitable, just a lazy cliche. And these lazy assumptions and oversights may well lead to their demise as a party unless they can successfully reinvent themselves soon.

Because suddenly, they're realising that they aren't just despised by a some students who will soon grow out of it as the baby boomers did, but by the vast majority of everyone under the age of 40. (and unlike baby boomer student radicals who were part of an elite, it is now about half of all school leavers who go to university.) Their membership has now plunged to less than a fifth of Labour's with an average age of 71 and rising. Soon Labour could be 6 or even 7 times larger than them, and much younger too. They are literally dying off, and as a symptom of this decaying membership they are stuck with a leader who is incompetent and literally a joke, but who they are unable to get rid of because the only viable alternatives - Boris, Rees-Mogg, Gove - are even worse. To survive, they have to fix the housing crisis, which in practise would mean repudiating their entire ideological identity and basically imitating the Labour Party. And they may not be able to change, because their memberships consists so much of real estate speculators and landlords, people who absolutely have to take a hit to solve the housing crisis, that they will never find the will to make the necessary steps they must to survive as a party.

They are very, very, very fucked, and despite looking fairly strong on the surface, based on fundementals like demographics, membership, and pool of talent, there is good reason to doubt their survival as a party over the next 20 years. A Labour landslide next election is basically inevitable, and I could totally see the Lib Dems riding on "centrist dad" type voters, right leaning Remainers, and former Tories to become the main opposition party/business party next to a Tory party that has spent much of its term manufacturing political crises through incompetence and misjudgement, causing great pain for none of the promised gain, selling out an entire generation, and, likely in this later stage, tearing itself apart through petty and ignoble infighting.

 

[killer b]

I reckon that's broadly correct. In which case, governments of the left creating a society of more secure housing, more secure jobs and the like are essentially creating the conditions that encourage the drift to the right...