Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[Smokeandsteam]

When did it rule out capital controls? It hasn't.

John McDonnell “In each of the various discussions I have had, because it keeps coming up in the media, I get asked what happens with capital controls,” he told the Financial Times. “I want to make it explicit that we will not introduce capital controls.”

 

[belboid]

I don't think you could really consider the IWCA a political party tbf. Either way there's plenty in there that's worth thinking about, as usual.

No, it isn't, even if it occasionally pretends to be. I think the article does what IWCA economics articles usually do, they make some reasonable points in a long-winded fashion, that dont say as much as they think they do. Then they imply (but never ever come out and directly say) that we need more border controls.

 

[Idaho]

one can have untrammelled economic globalisation or effective democracy, not both.

The promise of the former is prosperity... Of which it has failed for the working class of post industrial nations. What's the promise of the latter?

 

[Shechemite]

if a Jewish Tory MP who had criticised their party for the way it dealt with anti-semitism had a constituancy VONC tabled against them by someone who went on about Zionists in their tweets, do you belive that JMcD would ever in a month of sundays believe that it was ever about anything other than anti-semitism?

The VONC proposer is also a 9/11 truther

But I’m sure he’s not an antisemite

 

[belboid]

John McDonnell “In each of the various discussions I have had, because it keeps coming up in the media, I get asked what happens with capital controls,” he told the Financial Times. “I want to make it explicit that we will not introduce capital controls.”

Fair play, it contradicts what he has said before. CC's aren't even banned by the EU, Ireland and Greece have had them for years.

What border controls do you want?

 

[killer b]

No, it isn't, even if it occasionally pretends to be. I think the article does what IWCA economics articles usually do, they make some reasonable points in a long-winded fashion, that dont say as much as they think they do. Then they imply (but never ever come out and directly say) that we need more border controls.

So why not engage with the reasonable points rather than the same boring dismissal you use every time someone quotes them?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

No, it isn't, even if it occasionally pretends to be. I think the article does what IWCA economics articles usually do, they make some reasonable points in a long-winded fashion, that dont say as much as they think they do. Then they imply (but never ever come out and directly say) that we need more border controls.

Have you even read the article? I hope in your rush to make your usual pissy attack you didn't bother because otherwise this is embarrassing even by your standards.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

So why not engage with the reasonable points rather than the same boring dismissal you use every time someone quotes them?

You can set your watch by him.

 

[Shechemite]

View attachment 161288

The VONC proposer is also a 9/11 truther

But I’m sure he’s not an antisemite

Oh wait...

 

[belboid]

So why not engage with the reasonable points rather than the same boring dismissal you use every time someone quotes them?

Because they never answer those criticisms. And the reasonable points have been raised before, by people who do bother.

 

[Teaboy]

View attachment 161288

The VONC proposer is also a 9/11 truther

But I’m sure he’s not an antisemite

He probably is.

Its one thing for a vote to be called and another for it to succeed. I'm not a Labour member or indeed voter but I do wonder how in a supposedly democratic party you stop these things from happening because you have suspicions about a person.

Should Berger lose does anyone actually think it will be about her crusading stance against antisemitism?

Actually edit the above. I've seen your follow up, he certainly is.

 

[Shechemite]

‘Crusading’?

 

[love detective]

Have you even read the article? I hope in your rush to make your usual pissy attack you didn't bother because otherwise this is embarrassing even by your standards.

Given the quote from Mcdonnell ruling out capital controls appeared in the second paragraph (with link to relevant FT piece) and belboid after giving his considered opinion on the piece still maintained that Labour had not ruled out imposing capital controls, I think it's fair to say he didn't even read it.

 

[belboid]

Have you even read the article? I hope in your rush to make your usual pissy attack you didn't bother because otherwise this is embarrassing even by your standards.

A very brief history of recent neo-liberalism. Hardly worth commenting upon.
Pointing out how globalism can undermine democracy, again, hardly news.
Then it misrepresents Labour policy - commented upon.
Then it quotes a far right figure supporting strong borders, and saying we have to do the same or we'll have fascism. Commented upon.

And, pedantically, Labour hasn't ruled out CC's, they have been included in all the 'gaming' strategies Labour has looked at for if there is a run on the pound etc following a Labour win. McDonnell's comment doesn't really change that (although, I agree, he shouldn't have made it)

 

[Pickman's model]

A very brief history of recent neo-liberalism. Hardly worth commenting upon.
Pointing out how globalism can undermine democracy, again, hardly news.
Then it misrepresents Labour policy - commented upon.
Then it quotes a far right figure supporting strong borders, and saying we have to do the same or we'll have fascism. Commented upon.

And, pedantically, Labour hasn't ruled out CC's, they have been included in all the 'gaming' strategies Labour has looked at for if there is a run on the pound etc following a Labour win. McDonnell's comment doesn't really change that (although, I agree, he shouldn't have made it)

 

[belboid]

View attachment 161299

Yes, well done, that is the quote already posted and that I am responding to.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Given the quote from Mcdonnell ruling out capital controls appeared in the second paragraph (with link to relevant FT piece) and belboid after giving his considered opinion on the piece still maintained that Labour had not ruled out imposing capital controls, I think it's fair to say he didn't even read it.

That would appear to be the case because every single word he's written is factually incorrect

Hello, by the way, hope your are keeping well.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, well done, that is the quote already posted and that I am responding to.

so what you're saying is mcdonnell is a serial liar

 

[Smokeandsteam]

And, pedantically, Labour hasn't ruled out CC's, they have been included in all the 'gaming' strategies Labour has looked at for if there is a run on the pound etc following a Labour win. McDonnell's comment doesn't really change that (although, I agree, he shouldn't have made it)

Nurse!!!

 

[belboid]

That would appear to be the case because every single word he's written is factually incorrect

Hello, by the way, hope your are keeping well.

Bullshit - it misrepresents Labour policy. If you want to argue that Labour policy is impractical and will, in effect, mean what is written, then say so and argue your point.

The points re borders are there and obvious. What border controls (on capital and people) do you/the authors want?

 

[belboid]

Nurse!!!

Policy isn't made in newspaper interviews, is my point. That wouldn't be democratic.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Policy isn't made in newspaper interviews, is my point. That wouldn't be democratic.

He's the shadow Chancellor. He controls Labour's economic policy. The quote could not be more emphatic.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Bullshit - it misrepresents Labour policy. If you want to argue that Labour policy is impractical and will, in effect, mean what is written, then say so and argue your point.

The points re borders are there and obvious. What border controls (on capital and people) do you/the authors want?

Well except it doesn't. Labour's policy is full friction-less access to the common market. Therefore it is for continued sign up to the single market rules. The guff about reform is just that.

 

[Pickman's model]

Policy isn't made in newspaper interviews, is my point. That wouldn't be democratic.

there are two references to capital controls on labour's website, both on the policy forum. if they were planning to introduce capital controls perhaps they would mention it somewhere on their website other than a discussion page

 

[belboid]

He's the shadow Chancellor. He controls Labour's economic policy. The quote could not be more emphatic.

Labour policy is made by conference. Tho JM is, obviously, a very influential figure within that. And, yes, he is backtracking on previous statements about capital controls, so we'll have to push him to hold him to his earlier thoughts.

 

[Mr Moose]

He probably is.

Its one thing for a vote to be called and another for it to succeed. I'm not a Labour member or indeed voter but I do wonder how in a supposedly democratic party you stop these things from happening because you have suspicions about a person.

Should Berger lose does anyone actually think it will be about her crusading stance against antisemitism?

Actually edit the above. I've seen your follow up, he certainly is.

What would it be about though without it relating to the antisemitism issue? If it’s about the Leader and her lack of support for him it’s about the response to antisemitism, which she feels is inadequate (unless those proposing the motion have some other evidence).

If it’s about a breakaway party and about opposition to party policy why not say that?

 

[belboid]

Well except it doesn't. Labour's policy is full friction-less access to the common market. Therefore it is for continued sign up to the single market rules. The guff about reform is just that.

Well, you have just made more of an attempt at constructing an argument than that article did, well done. And, yes, as I said before, getting an agreement that wont be 'the' single market will be a bastard. But THAT is Labours policy, so you shouldn't misrepresent it.

Now, tell me about these border controls you want?

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Well, you have just made more of an attempt at constructing an argument than that article did, well done. And, yes, as I said before, getting an agreement that wont be 'the' single market will be a bastard. But THAT is Labours policy, so you shouldn't misrepresent it.

Now, tell me about these border controls you want?

It will be, as well you know, impossible. It's a joke of a position. And one that prepares the ground for a collapse of any social democratic project.

 

[Pickman's model]

Labour policy is made by conference. Tho JM is, obviously, a very influential figure within that. And, yes, he is backtracking on previous statements about capital controls, so we'll have to push him to hold him to his earlier thoughts.

The rich say they fear Labour. It’s Brexit they should be worried about | Polly Toynbee
guardian 9/10/18

 

[Teaboy]

What would it be about though without it relating to the antisemitism issue? If it’s about the Leader and her lack of support for him it’s about the response to antisemitism, which she feels is inadequate (unless those proposing the motion have some other evidence).

If it’s about a breakaway party and about opposition to party policy why not say that?

The Labour MP's that are facing these challenges are Blairites, the right wing of the labour party. As the party membership has changed to be more aligned with Corbyn they are targeting MP's that have done (and still are) everything in their power to oppose him. That and her politics are utter shite.