politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And this afternoon Mr. Corbyn’s big speech..

Plato_Says said:

Lance Price "I had low expectations and this fell way way below it"

taffys said:

Do we really expect these from Labour?

I'm the last to say Labour has any answers. But they are identifying a big problem.

taffys said:

Do we really expect these from Labour?

I'm the last to say Labour has any answers. But they are identifying a big problem.

Roger said:

Dair

"Pretty notable that he only spent two sentences in that entire speech on Scotland."

If you had listened to what he was saying and you had any idea what socialism is about you'd understand why he wouldn't indulge nationalism. I suggest you attend a fascist conference

CarlottaVance said:

glw said:

Roger said:

He's very good. ignore those who are commenting on this thread every other minute. They're more interested in their own voice than his.

For any new PB readers Roger's praise is akin to the black spot.

He has yet to top "Savile being a fuss about nothing"....or something similar...

Cyclefree said:

taffys said:

Who decides and how "far too much" is?

Perhaps a study of the French and Russian revolutions might be instructive.

Personally I see the relative gap between wealthiest and poorest as a bit like an elastic band. And it is getting stretched.

I do think that there is an issue with social cohesion when you have rich people with no obligation to the society in which they live. But the far left answer has led to far worse consequences - usually involving the death of many and a society far more unbearable to all than the one they were trying to improve.

How to achieve a society where hard work is rewarded, where people don't get something for nothing and where people take responsibility, especially when they are rewarded well are the questions. I don't believe that Corbyn or those who think like him have the answers.

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

Dair

"Pretty notable that he only spent two sentences in that entire speech on Scotland."

If you had listened to what he was saying and you had any idea what socialism is about you'd understand why he wouldn't indulge nationalism. I suggest you attend a fascist conference

I thought that one of Corbyn's USPs was that he would make it easier for Labour to win back votes in Scotland. If he can't do that........

surbiton said:

Plato_Says said:

Lance Price "I had low expectations and this fell way way below it"

F*cking Arse-hole !

Tissue_Price said:

Plato_Says said:

Absolutely. The Tories evil hedge fund pals bought it for Cameron the Toff.

Tissue_Price said:

Robert Hutton ‏@RobDotHutton

The most significant bit of Corbyn's speech was his analysis of why Labour lost on May 7.

Oh, I suppose that might count. I took it to mean that there was no analysis.

Labour are in huge huge trouble here.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Ho ho ho

"Since becoming Tory leader, Cameron has received £55m in donations from hedge funds."

That's a nice, clear, no-holds-barred, unambiguous lie from the straight-talking, honest Mr Corbyn.

And it was the coalition government which drastically increased taxes on hedge funds by increasing the Capital Gains Tax they pay from Brown's 10% to 28%:

http://www.bkl.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/autumn-statement2013-chancellor-targets-avoidance-tax-grab.pdf

Not to mention Osborne's latest tax increase on Hedge Funds:

http://www.fundweb.co.uk/news-and-analysis/politics/as-2014-govt-launches-360m-tax-crackdown-on-hedge-and-private-equity-funds/2016886.article

Barnesian said:

Plato_Says said:

Lance Price "I had low expectations and this fell way way below it"

Says a disgruntled Blairite.

Dair said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

Dair

"Pretty notable that he only spent two sentences in that entire speech on Scotland."

If you had listened to what he was saying and you had any idea what socialism is about you'd understand why he wouldn't indulge nationalism. I suggest you attend a fascist conference

I thought that one of Corbyn's USPs was that he would make it easier for Labour to win back votes in Scotland. If he can't do that........

Scottish view of Corbyn.

https://twitter.com/MoragTwort/status/648865076083036160

Hypocrisy seldom plays well in politics.

Dair said:

Cyclefree said:

Roger said:

Dair

"Pretty notable that he only spent two sentences in that entire speech on Scotland."

If you had listened to what he was saying and you had any idea what socialism is about you'd understand why he wouldn't indulge nationalism. I suggest you attend a fascist conference

I thought that one of Corbyn's USPs was that he would make it easier for Labour to win back votes in Scotland. If he can't do that........

Scottish view of Corbyn.

https://twitter.com/MoragTwort/status/648865076083036160

Hypocrisy seldom plays well in politics.

Barnesian said:

But the Blairite comments really irritate me.

surbiton said:

Amongst GE2015 voters: biggest support for JC speech are from the Greens, then Lib Dem, Labour and followed by Did Not Vote. THe Kippers didn't like it.

Sadly, the Tories hated it.

surbiton said:

logical_song said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Ho ho ho

"Since becoming Tory leader, Cameron has received £55m in donations from hedge funds."

That's a nice, clear, no-holds-barred, unambiguous lie from the straight-talking, honest Mr Corbyn.

And it was the coalition government which drastically increased taxes on hedge funds by increasing the Capital Gains Tax they pay from Brown's 10% to 28%:

http://www.bkl.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/autumn-statement2013-chancellor-targets-avoidance-tax-grab.pdf

Not to mention Osborne's latest tax increase on Hedge Funds:

http://www.fundweb.co.uk/news-and-analysis/politics/as-2014-govt-launches-360m-tax-crackdown-on-hedge-and-private-equity-funds/2016886.article

I don't know how much hedge funds have donated to the Tory party, and I'm interested in whether Corbyn is lying.
A 2 second 'google' showed this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-hedge-fund-super-rich-donated-19m-to-tory-party-10024548.html
Do you accept the £19m referred to and do you know how much more has been donated to the tory partys since Cameron became leader? With links if possible.

How can you possibly disagree with the SAGE NABAVI ?

Pulpstar said:

surbiton said:

Amongst GE2015 voters: biggest support for JC speech are from the Greens, then Lib Dem, Labour and followed by Did Not Vote. THe Kippers didn't like it.

Sadly, the Tories hated it.

Sounds like a slam dunk result for the Tories.

Tories stick with Dave, and some kippers vote Tory for fear of Jezza.

Meanwhile Greens and Lib Dems rack up for Jezza in safe Labour constituencies and DNV errm doesn't vote !

MyBurningEars said:

MTimT said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I don't know where this bizarre idea that there is more inequality now in a globalised world than before comes from. The inequality in the UK or the US in, say, 1900 was massively greater than anything we now see, with the super rich such as the Rockefellers or Andrew Carnegie, or the traditionally wealthy of England, contrasting with many ordinary people who were unable to afford basic food and clothing.

Of course, you know it comes from regularly published dubious statistics that have gained a megaphone with Piketty's book. I believe that if you look at the period from say 1975-2015, you can make a valid argument that there has been a concentration of wealth in relative terms, but on a historical scale, it's nothing like the concentration of wealth into the hands of a tiny elite in ancient civilizations or, as you point out, in Victorian times.

You also have to distinguish between inequality internal to a country, and inequality globally (i.e. between countries).

As Hans Rosling points out, living standards in developing countries have been improving at an astonishing rate, rapidly cutting the gap with the "West" (or "North").

The blogger Tim Worstall consistently pushes a thesis that globalisation has helped this reduction of inequality between countries, by allowing people who were previously excluded to plug in to a global marketplace, while also giving new opportunities for inequality within a country. Globalisation means there are global talent pools in high-wage areas like IT or sports or management, and the fruits of being at the top end of a food chain like that are very rich indeed; it also means that people who corner a global market - e.g. if you can create a social media platform with 1.5 billion users - you're gonna get bare minted.

Not sure how much Worstall's thesis is backed up by academic studies but it has an air of plausibility about it.

Pulpstar said:

surbiton said:

Amongst GE2015 voters: biggest support for JC speech are from the Greens, then Lib Dem, Labour and followed by Did Not Vote. THe Kippers didn't like it.

Sadly, the Tories hated it.

Sounds like a slam dunk result for the Tories.

Tories stick with Dave, and some kippers vote Tory for fear of Jezza.

Meanwhile Greens and Lib Dems rack up for Jezza in safe Labour constituencies and DNV errm doesn't vote !

PClipp said:

Plato_Says said:

People who will be removed from the register unless they apply to register under the new system
If you haven’t already applied individually to be on the electoral register, you’ll receive a letter asking you to register.
If you don't register under the new system your name will be removed on the 1 December.

Except that the Tories have brought forward the cut-off date for doing so.

This is quite clearly so that the Boundary Commission will draw up the boundaries before people have got round to getting registered - in some places more than others.

The result will be an even larger gerrymandering of the boundaries in favour of the Tories than it otherwise would have been.

The Tories are very good at gerrymandering the boundaries to suit their own convenience. Everybody recognises this.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Corbyn also needs to learn about cadence

MTimT said:

MyBurningEars said:

MTimT said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I don't know where this bizarre idea that there is more inequality now in a globalised world than before comes from. The inequality in the UK or the US in, say, 1900 was massively greater than anything we now see, with the super rich such as the Rockefellers or Andrew Carnegie, or the traditionally wealthy of England, contrasting with many ordinary people who were unable to afford basic food and clothing.

Of course, you know it comes from regularly published dubious statistics that have gained a megaphone with Piketty's book. I believe that if you look at the period from say 1975-2015, you can make a valid argument that there has been a concentration of wealth in relative terms, but on a historical scale, it's nothing like the concentration of wealth into the hands of a tiny elite in ancient civilizations or, as you point out, in Victorian times.

You also have to distinguish between inequality internal to a country, and inequality globally (i.e. between countries).

As Hans Rosling points out, living standards in developing countries have been improving at an astonishing rate, rapidly cutting the gap with the "West" (or "North").

The blogger Tim Worstall consistently pushes a thesis that globalisation has helped this reduction of inequality between countries, by allowing people who were previously excluded to plug in to a global marketplace, while also giving new opportunities for inequality within a country. Globalisation means there are global talent pools in high-wage areas like IT or sports or management, and the fruits of being at the top end of a food chain like that are very rich indeed; it also means that people who corner a global market - e.g. if you can create a social media platform with 1.5 billion users - you're gonna get bare minted.

Not sure how much Worstall's thesis is backed up by academic studies but it has an air of plausibility about it.

MBE - I sort of addressed that point in a previous post way back in this thread - that globalization has brought a huge new workforce from China, India etc... into the Western corporations' labour market, thereby depressing the price of labour (in the West) relative to the price of capital (in the West). I am sure in China the relative prices of labour and capital have moved in precisely the opposite direction.

MyBurningEars said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Corbyn also needs to learn about cadence

I thought his cadence and presentation was rather improved since the start of his time at the stump in the campaign. Direction of travel wasn't bad on this one.

If we are talking about presentation issues, rather than content, I actually thought the words of the speech were terrible - it sounded as if he was ad-libbing from his notes, for large parts. They were not word-smithed There were jarring bits, places where some sort of rhetorical device appeared to be raised and then forgotten about, repetition in the vocabulary when variety would've worked better, and generally very poor flow.

The thematic design sounded like something a team of speech-writers could have produced, but the words themselves didn't; like they were homespun on the spur of the moment, or just scripted by an amateur.

Dair said:

Roger said:

Dair

"Pretty notable that he only spent two sentences in that entire speech on Scotland."

If you had listened to what he was saying and you had any idea what socialism is about you'd understand why he wouldn't indulge nationalism. I suggest you attend a fascist conference

It was quite hard to listen to what he was saying. Primarily because his delivery was terrible but also because of the rambling unfocused nature of the whole thing.

It sounded like a Eulogy.

Which is perhaps the most appropriate tone it could have had.

PClipp said:

Plato_Says said:

People who will be removed from the register unless they apply to register under the new system
If you haven’t already applied individually to be on the electoral register, you’ll receive a letter asking you to register.
If you don't register under the new system your name will be removed on the 1 December.

Except that the Tories have brought forward the cut-off date for doing so.

This is quite clearly so that the Boundary Commission will draw up the boundaries before people have got round to getting registered - in some places more than others.

The result will be an even larger gerrymandering of the boundaries in favour of the Tories than it otherwise would have been.

The Tories are very good at gerrymandering the boundaries to suit their own convenience. Everybody recognises this.

MyBurningEars said:

Plato_Says said:

I quite agree - GE2015 didn't happen. Tories are the 1%. They don't represent what anyone thinks.

It was just one of his rallies with a bigger audience - nothing for the wider electorate.

Tissue_Price said:

Plato_Says said:

Absolutely. The Tories evil hedge fund pals bought it for Cameron the Toff.

Tissue_Price said:

Robert Hutton ‏@RobDotHutton

The most significant bit of Corbyn's speech was his analysis of why Labour lost on May 7.

Oh, I suppose that might count. I took it to mean that there was no analysis.

Labour are in huge huge trouble here.

I was in the "I didn't really spot any" camp re analysis. But I think more significant than that was not just that there was no analysis of why they lost, but no addressing of the fact they lost at all. A void of electoral introspection.

Not a lot of... "We have to face hard choices". "We were rejected by the electorate". "We have to confront reality and understand why, at a time of great national need for social justice, people did not vote in greater numbers for a Labour government." "WTH happened in Scotland?"

Not that that would necessarily have helped. And the selectorate didn't pip for Kendall after all. Perhaps it's more important to gee up the members before going out and addressing the populace at large. But worth noting.

And it wasn't that there was no introspection at all. Not only did the speech barely recognise that the people at large had rejected Labour, no more than 20% of it seemed addressed to the Great British Public in any way, rather than to the activist and member base. It certainly wasn't an electoral, vote-grabbing appeal, so in that respect I think most of the speech counts as "introspection". Just not analytical introspection and with no reflection upon the events of last May. Most of that speech could have been written the same even if May hadn't happened at all.

AnneJGP said:

Dair said:

Roger said:

Dair

"Pretty notable that he only spent two sentences in that entire speech on Scotland."

If you had listened to what he was saying and you had any idea what socialism is about you'd understand why he wouldn't indulge nationalism. I suggest you attend a fascist conference

It was quite hard to listen to what he was saying. Primarily because his delivery was terrible but also because of the rambling unfocused nature of the whole thing.

It sounded like a Eulogy.

Which is perhaps the most appropriate tone it could have had.

I have never been to a mass rally of the sort that Mr Corbyn addresses. I had supposed that his experience would make him quite an orator. Maybe he isn't, and it's more that the people who attend those rallies simply cheer 'dog-whistle' phrases?