The Labour Leadership Debate!!

A section to discuss matters not related to Chess in particular.
Jonathan Rogers
Posts: 4640
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:26 pm

Re: The Labour Leadership Debate!!

Post by Jonathan Rogers » Mon Jul 27, 2015 7:37 pm

Not at all. Simple/thoughtless messages are easier to convey.

Brian Towers
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: The Labour Leadership Debate!!

Post by Brian Towers » Mon Jul 27, 2015 7:45 pm

NickFaulks wrote:I disagree with Corbyn on many issues, but I do like his willingness to give straight answers to straight questions
I like him for the same reason I was deeply disappointed in the last US elections when Newt Gingrich dropped out of the Republican nominations. Both Gingrich and Corbyn add much needed colour and interest to an otherwise boring, grey process.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

Brian Towers
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: The Labour Leadership Debate!!

Post by Brian Towers » Mon Jul 27, 2015 7:49 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:Not at all. Simple/thoughtless messages are easier to convey.
Too true!

The more nuanced message "The EU may be rubbish for you but it's brilliant for me because I can get my snout firmly embedded in the best trough going, so vote to stay in the EU" is a tricky sell which requires far more skill in circumlocution.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

David Robertson

Re: The Labour Leadership Debate!!

Post by David Robertson » Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:45 pm

I regret the passing of Lord Sewell from public life. He looked like he knew how to inject some variety into things

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am

Re: The Labour Leadership Debate!!

Post by Angus French » Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:03 pm

David Robertson wrote:I regret the passing of Lord Sewell from public life. He looked like he knew how to inject some variety into things
The only Sewell I knew of before this was Brian Sewell. I doubt Lord Sewell is a patch on him.

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am

Re: The Labour Leadership Debate!!

Post by Angus French » Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:29 pm

Jonathan Rogers wrote:... Simple/thoughtless messages are easier to convey.
It seems to me that this is especially true of macroeconomics where the orthodox view is that the nation’s finances are like household finances, that it’s prudent not to be – or ever to be - in debt... I’m sure there are many MPs – such as my own MP, Chuka Umunna (as well as George Osborne, of course, and, I imagine, just about all Tories) - who trade on this understanding but likely know better (or are, at least, uncertain).

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 3044
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: The Labour Leadership Debate!!

Post by MartinCarpenter » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:39 am

I wouldn't say that households act like that either mind ;) The net amount of household debt in the country is definitely rather 'impressive'.

Brian Towers
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: The Labour Leadership Debate!!

Post by Brian Towers » Tue Jul 28, 2015 10:46 am

MartinCarpenter wrote:I wouldn't say that households act like that either mind ;) The net amount of household debt in the country is definitely rather 'impressive'.
I wholeheartedly agree.

For my father's generation (less than 5 years to go to his telegram from the queen) what Angus says is right, but even for my generation (9years older than Angus) it is wrong.

People my age, Angus' age and younger grasped the concept from the 80's on that taking on large amounts of debt, even apparently unsustainable, was worthwhile if future income was expected to rise significantly along with rising inflation because the relative value of the debt would decline rapidly even if it stayed relatively stable in absolute terms.

The flip side of that, that when future income is likely to decline as is future inflation then debt should be reduced or eliminated, is rather more difficult to grasp. Even whole countries like Greece, or rather their governments, seem to struggle with the concept.
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now.

Angus French
Posts: 2151
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am

Re: The Labour Leadership Debate!!

Post by Angus French » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:30 am

Martin and Brian: Quite so. I should have referred to budget deficits rather than debts.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: The Labour Leadership Debate!!

Post by NickFaulks » Tue Jul 28, 2015 1:50 pm

David Robertson wrote:I regret the passing of Lord Sewell from public life. He looked like he knew how to inject some variety into things
There's still some around. Perhaps the next PM.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rview.html
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

Nick Burrows
Posts: 1705
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: The Labour Leadership Debate!!

Post by Nick Burrows » Mon Aug 17, 2015 7:50 pm

Brian Towers wrote:
MartinCarpenter wrote:I wouldn't say that households act like that either mind ;) The net amount of household debt in the country is definitely rather 'impressive'.
I wholeheartedly agree.

For my father's generation (less than 5 years to go to his telegram from the queen) what Angus says is right, but even for my generation (9years older than Angus) it is wrong.

People my age, Angus' age and younger grasped the concept from the 80's on that taking on large amounts of debt, even apparently unsustainable, was worthwhile if future income was expected to rise significantly along with rising inflation because the relative value of the debt would decline rapidly even if it stayed relatively stable in absolute terms.

The flip side of that, that when future income is likely to decline as is future inflation then debt should be reduced or eliminated, is rather more difficult to grasp. Even whole countries like Greece, or rather their governments, seem to struggle with the concept.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevekeen/2 ... alogies-3/

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 5205
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: The Labour Leadership Debate!!

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:13 pm

And that's from a right wing site as well.....
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: The Labour Leadership Debate!!

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:37 pm

Matt Mackenzie wrote:And that's from a right wing site as well.....
I've no idea what that means any more. I can't tell right from left, but I can tell right from wrong.

Perhaps it's not so new. Conventional wisdom is that Hitler was right wing, Lenin was left wing, but I've taken a good look at both and can't see much difference.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

NickFaulks
Posts: 8453
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: The Labour Leadership Debate!!

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:43 pm

Brian Towers wrote:Even whole countries like Greece, or rather their governments, seem to struggle with the concept.
This cannot be allowed to pass. A previous Greek kleptocracy conspired with Northern European governments and banks to borrow money on ruinous terms, then steal it for their own enrichment. The Greek people, who never saw a cent of it, cannot be expected to make this good.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4818
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: The Labour Leadership Debate!!

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:49 pm

NickFaulks wrote:Perhaps it's not so new. Conventional wisdom is that Hitler was right wing, Lenin was left wing, but I've taken a good look at both and can't see much difference.
What you need for that is Political Compass theory. Which would put Lenin as authoritarian left and Hitler as authoritarian centre-right, with both being authoritarian enough that it kind of swamps their economic positions.