| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 15:03 - Nov 26 with 2169 views | Swansea_Blue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:23 - Nov 26 by StokieBlue |
But his title and the framing of the entire post didn't show where it was coming from. It made it sound like a broad analysis.
It wasn't until I mention it that it was even considered.
Fine to post it of course and people should read it but be transparent about the sources and the bias of the report.
SB |
Fair point. I automatically read the piece, but I suppose some/many people wouldn't. |  |
|  |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 15:05 - Nov 26 with 2162 views | Swansea_Blue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:24 - Nov 26 by Steve_M |
The real problem with the scope of what Labour are proposing is that there's so much of it. There might be merit in many of the policies but taken together it's as profoundly unserious as Johnson's promises to get Brexit done. Indeed, all of this on top of negotiating a 'Labour Brexit' within months.
There are many things a Labour government could and should do to reverse the last nine years of 'austerity'. Nationalising large chunks of the economy for ideological reasons isn't amongst them). |
Yeah, there is a lot and realism is lacking in their intention to renegotiate. That may be possible from the EU side with a change of government, but a long shot.
I have no problem with some nationalisation - there's certainly a role for greater public sector involvement in some areas (works well on the continent around transport and utilities particularly). | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 15:20 - Nov 26 with 2139 views | Steve_M |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 15:05 - Nov 26 by Swansea_Blue |
Yeah, there is a lot and realism is lacking in their intention to renegotiate. That may be possible from the EU side with a change of government, but a long shot.
I have no problem with some nationalisation - there's certainly a role for greater public sector involvement in some areas (works well on the continent around transport and utilities particularly). |
I don't have a problem with some nationalisation either, as discussed on here before water and rail are prime candidates, but that should be a decision taken on a sector by sector basis. |  |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 15:21 - Nov 26 with 2133 views | Bluefish |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:04 - Nov 26 by BrixtonBlue |
What's that got to do with this thread?
Funny how I've had 2 replies and neither of you have addressed the topic. It's almost like you have nothing to say. |
Or we are bored of you being a fan boy. You can't have a conversation with you on politics because you have no interest in it other than devotion to corbz it wouldn't matter what his policy was you would defend it and attack anyone that questions it. It will be interesting to see if your political interest stays and grows when he has gone, inspect you will go back to having no interest. |  |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 15:35 - Nov 26 with 2120 views | Pinewoodblue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:00 - Nov 26 by BrixtonBlue |
Not votes, signatories to a letter. You do know the difference right?
These are experts backing Labour's spending plans. Do you fancy tackling that rather than making silly irrelevant points? |
It would be more honest to say a handful of economists, mostly academics support Labour's plans.
Please explain, in your own words, why a minority is right. |  |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 15:46 - Nov 26 with 2110 views | StokieBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:56 - Nov 26 by BrixtonBlue |
They're not Corbyn supporters. One can be left-leaning without supporting Corbyn. Just look at Lowhouse on here!
I keep hearing about all these disenfranchised ex Labour supporters and now you're claiming all left leaning people are likely to back Corbyn's Labour?! |
This post is all over the place.
They're not Corbyn supporters
How do you know? It's not mentioned in the article and you've said you've not looked into it. Why is it relevant anyway? It's it JC's manifesto or the Labour parties manifesto?
One can be left-leaning without supporting Corbyn
Yes they can. Why do you keep mentioned JC? I've not mentioned him except to counter your 1 economist point. If they are left-leaning they are likely to be Labour supporters - that's the point of the definition.
I keep hearing about all these disenfranchised ex Labour supporters and now you're claiming all left leaning people are likely to back Corbyn's Labour?!
This has no relevance at all to anything I posted about the article. Any left-leaning economist is likely to back borrow-to-spend on infrastructure projects and nationalisation. It's what they believe in.
Can I ask why you've made everything about JC? It is the JC party or the Labour party? I don't care about JC as an individual.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 15:50 - Nov 26 with 2104 views | StokieBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 15:00 - Nov 26 by BrixtonBlue |
No it doesn't, it says "most". So already you're distorting the truth - the very thing you accuse me of! |
I shouldn't have wrote "all" but given I've been clear in my previous posts if one has to keep explaining themselves because the other party won't or doesn't listen then typing mistakes are going to be made. I don't draft my responses for hours.
Most implies exactly what I said - it's not an even distribution which is what I said.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:02 - Nov 26 with 2061 views | BrixtonBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 15:21 - Nov 26 by Bluefish |
Or we are bored of you being a fan boy. You can't have a conversation with you on politics because you have no interest in it other than devotion to corbz it wouldn't matter what his policy was you would defend it and attack anyone that questions it. It will be interesting to see if your political interest stays and grows when he has gone, inspect you will go back to having no interest. |
We've been through this before. I had an interest before Corbyn. I got grief off some on here for quoting Russell Brand remember? This was before Corbyn was on the scene.
I have also said things i disagree with Corbyn on. But you're trying to get a rise out of me again, so you're ignoring that.
Why don't you find something else to do with your life? You know how this ends... you give people grief until Phil threatens to ban you and you post your "Why always me?" avatar. Try learning from your mistakes and stop being such a twot. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:04 - Nov 26 with 2051 views | BrixtonBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 15:35 - Nov 26 by Pinewoodblue |
It would be more honest to say a handful of economists, mostly academics support Labour's plans.
Please explain, in your own words, why a minority is right. |
I don't need to explain anything, I've merely linked to an article in the FT. People are free to read it, discuss it or ignore it. | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:19 - Nov 26 with 2033 views | BrixtonBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 15:46 - Nov 26 by StokieBlue |
This post is all over the place.
They're not Corbyn supporters
How do you know? It's not mentioned in the article and you've said you've not looked into it. Why is it relevant anyway? It's it JC's manifesto or the Labour parties manifesto?
One can be left-leaning without supporting Corbyn
Yes they can. Why do you keep mentioned JC? I've not mentioned him except to counter your 1 economist point. If they are left-leaning they are likely to be Labour supporters - that's the point of the definition.
I keep hearing about all these disenfranchised ex Labour supporters and now you're claiming all left leaning people are likely to back Corbyn's Labour?!
This has no relevance at all to anything I posted about the article. Any left-leaning economist is likely to back borrow-to-spend on infrastructure projects and nationalisation. It's what they believe in.
Can I ask why you've made everything about JC? It is the JC party or the Labour party? I don't care about JC as an individual.
SB |
The point I was making is that left-leaning doesn't necessarily mean they back Labour - and certainly it doesn't mean they support a Corbyn-led Labour (as we've seen, many people now don't back Labour because of Corbyn).
Corbyn is relevant because he's the incumbent, and any support of Labour now is also support of Corbyn by and large.
The article was careful to label them left-leaning. That suggests "not particularly Labour supporters" - if they WERE Labour supporters it would say so explicitly, surely, rather than the carefully worded "left-leaning"? So if they are merely left-leaning rather than Corbyn fans-boys, that makes a difference as to how biased they are.
It could be that some are actually not fans of Corbyn but agree in principle with the spending plans. We've seen, from the article, that at least one had a public falling out with Corbyn.
If it said they were Labour supporters then I'd agree it wouldn't be worth much.
I also think the FT deeming it worthy of a story adds weight that it is.
Hope this clarifies. | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:23 - Nov 26 with 2028 views | Pinewoodblue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:04 - Nov 26 by BrixtonBlue |
I don't need to explain anything, I've merely linked to an article in the FT. People are free to read it, discuss it or ignore it. |
In your original post you asked a question. With you being so fond of asking for evidence to support posts you don't agree with I find you response odd. | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:24 - Nov 26 with 2027 views | BrixtonBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 15:50 - Nov 26 by StokieBlue |
I shouldn't have wrote "all" but given I've been clear in my previous posts if one has to keep explaining themselves because the other party won't or doesn't listen then typing mistakes are going to be made. I don't draft my responses for hours.
Most implies exactly what I said - it's not an even distribution which is what I said.
SB |
"Most" doesn't imply "all" at all. It's simply incorrect, regardless of what you might have said before.
It's disingenuous to claim all when it isn't. You either deliberately tried to mislead or you made a mistake, either way just hold your hands up and move on instead of trying to squirm out of it.
At the end of the day, this is all about you trying to belittle a report. The Financial Times deemed it worthy of a story, and that's good enough for me frankly. | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:27 - Nov 26 with 2023 views | factual_blue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:23 - Nov 26 by Pinewoodblue |
In your original post you asked a question. With you being so fond of asking for evidence to support posts you don't agree with I find you response odd. |
With respect, he asked a rhetorical question.
Why do people ask rhetorical questions? |  |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:31 - Nov 26 with 2019 views | BrixtonBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:23 - Nov 26 by Pinewoodblue |
In your original post you asked a question. With you being so fond of asking for evidence to support posts you don't agree with I find you response odd. |
I linked an article. I don't need to provide evidence for anything because I haven't tried to claim anything other than what's in the article. I didn't say ALL economists and academics - in fact I posted how many in my OP, so I'm not sure what you have a beef with. | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:34 - Nov 26 with 2012 views | Bluefish |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:02 - Nov 26 by BrixtonBlue |
We've been through this before. I had an interest before Corbyn. I got grief off some on here for quoting Russell Brand remember? This was before Corbyn was on the scene.
I have also said things i disagree with Corbyn on. But you're trying to get a rise out of me again, so you're ignoring that.
Why don't you find something else to do with your life? You know how this ends... you give people grief until Phil threatens to ban you and you post your "Why always me?" avatar. Try learning from your mistakes and stop being such a twot. |
Sorry to make you cry
All the best | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:39 - Nov 26 with 2005 views | BrixtonBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:34 - Nov 26 by Bluefish |
Sorry to make you cry
All the best |
So you weren't interested in my response, just on a wind-up? | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:49 - Nov 26 with 1991 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:21 - Nov 26 by StokieBlue |
You've not even bothered to consider you might be showing rather a large degree of confirmation bias.
One of 163 fell out with JC and then changed his mind - it's statistically insignificant.
It's a one sided analysis which happens to agree with your own views. You dismissed the part at the end where it says others don't agree with it. Of course people can read it and consider it but your title is totally misleading and misleading headlines has been covered a lot on here this week.
If anyone else did it against Labour or for the Tories you'd be all over it.
SB [Post edited 26 Nov 2019 14:22]
|
Funny how your balance is always a little bit right wing Stokie! |  |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:59 - Nov 26 with 1978 views | BlueAsTory |
It is such a shame we will never know. |  | | |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 18:06 - Nov 26 with 1968 views | legally_blue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:19 - Nov 26 by BrixtonBlue |
The point I was making is that left-leaning doesn't necessarily mean they back Labour - and certainly it doesn't mean they support a Corbyn-led Labour (as we've seen, many people now don't back Labour because of Corbyn).
Corbyn is relevant because he's the incumbent, and any support of Labour now is also support of Corbyn by and large.
The article was careful to label them left-leaning. That suggests "not particularly Labour supporters" - if they WERE Labour supporters it would say so explicitly, surely, rather than the carefully worded "left-leaning"? So if they are merely left-leaning rather than Corbyn fans-boys, that makes a difference as to how biased they are.
It could be that some are actually not fans of Corbyn but agree in principle with the spending plans. We've seen, from the article, that at least one had a public falling out with Corbyn.
If it said they were Labour supporters then I'd agree it wouldn't be worth much.
I also think the FT deeming it worthy of a story adds weight that it is.
Hope this clarifies. |
"The article was careful to label them left-leaning. That suggests "not particularly Labour supporters" - if they WERE Labour supporters it would say so explicitly, surely, rather than the carefully worded "left-leaning"? So if they are merely left-leaning rather than Corbyn fans-boys, that makes a difference as to how biased they are."
How on earth did you come to this baffling conclusion? That the default position would be to refer to them as expressly pro-Corbyn, rather than simply left leaning. To determine whether each signatory was pro-Corbyn, the FT would have needed to undertaken a deep dive into all of their backgrounds. Left leaning simply requires a cusory look at their published papers etc. They might be pro-Corbyn or anti-Corbyn, but it's literally impossible to conclude one way or the other based on the FT's use of left leaning! | | | |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 18:26 - Nov 26 with 1952 views | StokieBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:24 - Nov 26 by BrixtonBlue |
"Most" doesn't imply "all" at all. It's simply incorrect, regardless of what you might have said before.
It's disingenuous to claim all when it isn't. You either deliberately tried to mislead or you made a mistake, either way just hold your hands up and move on instead of trying to squirm out of it.
At the end of the day, this is all about you trying to belittle a report. The Financial Times deemed it worthy of a story, and that's good enough for me frankly. |
You've not read my post correctly.
I didn't say "most" implied "all". I said it "most" implied what I said in my first post which was that it was a subset but a very specific population of economists. Hope this clarifies. I've said "all" was a mistype due to having to repeat myself so many times (as I am still doing).
I said it was a mistype! Did you even read my post before you worked yourself up? Nobody is squirming anywhere except you who said that Labour hadn't be destroyed because a small group of already left-leaning economists liked their manifesto. To say others are squirming after that is bizarre.
I didn't belittle the report, I said your original post overstated the report and explained why. I am really starting to wonder if you read what I write or decide what I've written and reply to that.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 18:28 - Nov 26 with 1948 views | StokieBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 17:49 - Nov 26 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Funny how your balance is always a little bit right wing Stokie! |
This isn't right wing though, it's not even balance. I just said that the opening post was misleading and it most certainly is given all the reasons I've explained. You don't want to listen because you have a huge bias. That's fine but don't project that on me please.
Literally anything that highlights any small issue with something Labour due is highlighted as right-wing on here. It's stupid and incredibly tiresome. It's playground antics.
When you have some balance yourself then you can complain about mine.
SB [Post edited 26 Nov 2019 18:29]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 08:17 - Nov 27 with 1872 views | BrixtonBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 18:06 - Nov 26 by legally_blue |
"The article was careful to label them left-leaning. That suggests "not particularly Labour supporters" - if they WERE Labour supporters it would say so explicitly, surely, rather than the carefully worded "left-leaning"? So if they are merely left-leaning rather than Corbyn fans-boys, that makes a difference as to how biased they are."
How on earth did you come to this baffling conclusion? That the default position would be to refer to them as expressly pro-Corbyn, rather than simply left leaning. To determine whether each signatory was pro-Corbyn, the FT would have needed to undertaken a deep dive into all of their backgrounds. Left leaning simply requires a cusory look at their published papers etc. They might be pro-Corbyn or anti-Corbyn, but it's literally impossible to conclude one way or the other based on the FT's use of left leaning! |
That's literally my point, so thanks for helping out! So there's no real evidence of bias and Stokie is wrong to dismiss the report on that basis. | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 08:43 - Nov 27 with 1860 views | StokieBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 08:17 - Nov 27 by BrixtonBlue |
That's literally my point, so thanks for helping out! So there's no real evidence of bias and Stokie is wrong to dismiss the report on that basis. |
You've either totally misread my posts or your willfully misunderstanding them on purpose.
The sample of economists is clearly biased, it doesn't follow a normal distribution. That alone makes your title about economists not "destroying" it false. SOME left-leaning economists have agreed with it. That's not a representative sample is what I've said and it isn't.
Look at it this way. If someone comes in here with a study of 163 right-leaning economists who don't back it and they say they have destroyed the manifesto we both know exactly how you'd respond. You'd say they are right-leaning so they were always going to destroy it and it's not representative of economists at large.
It's not even about the manifesto itself (which has some very good bits). It's a point about selective information.
Getting rather sick of having what I actually write either ignored or twisted to be honest.
SB [Post edited 27 Nov 2019 8:53]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 10:05 - Nov 27 with 1771 views | legally_blue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 08:17 - Nov 27 by BrixtonBlue |
That's literally my point, so thanks for helping out! So there's no real evidence of bias and Stokie is wrong to dismiss the report on that basis. |
I think you've misread my post as it's literally the opposite. You suggested that, because the FT didn't say that they were pro-Corbyn they *must* not be. That's completely flawed logic. It's impossible to tell from the article and to conclude otherwise (and to make a value judgment about its validity solely based on that failure of logic) is nonsense | | | |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 13:32 - Nov 27 with 1736 views | BrixtonBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 08:43 - Nov 27 by StokieBlue |
You've either totally misread my posts or your willfully misunderstanding them on purpose.
The sample of economists is clearly biased, it doesn't follow a normal distribution. That alone makes your title about economists not "destroying" it false. SOME left-leaning economists have agreed with it. That's not a representative sample is what I've said and it isn't.
Look at it this way. If someone comes in here with a study of 163 right-leaning economists who don't back it and they say they have destroyed the manifesto we both know exactly how you'd respond. You'd say they are right-leaning so they were always going to destroy it and it's not representative of economists at large.
It's not even about the manifesto itself (which has some very good bits). It's a point about selective information.
Getting rather sick of having what I actually write either ignored or twisted to be honest.
SB [Post edited 27 Nov 2019 8:53]
|
I feel we're going to have to agree to disagree as all you're interested in is belittling this report rather than discussing it. It's in the Financial Times so I felt it had credibility on that basis and was worth sharing.
But for the record, I haven't hidden that these are left leaning economists. My title DOESN'T say "about economists not "destroying" it" - it says about Labour's spending plans destroying us.
And you say "It's not even about the manifesto itself (which has some very good bits)" - I've not even mentioned the manifesto. I'm talking about spending plans!
It appears I'm not the only one misreading or wilfully misunderstanding. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
