| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 13:54 - Nov 26 with 2623 views | WD19 |
163 votes. They have practically got it in the bag. You probably don't even need to bother voting Dolly. |  | |  |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:00 - Nov 26 with 2591 views | BrixtonBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 13:54 - Nov 26 by WD19 |
163 votes. They have practically got it in the bag. You probably don't even need to bother voting Dolly. |
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? |  |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:02 - Nov 26 with 2585 views | Bluefish |
| 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? |
Are there any parts of the Labour manifesto that you have concerns over or that you don't agree with? |  |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:03 - Nov 26 with 2584 views | StokieBlue |
The thing is Dolly, you've literally just done what you moan about other people doing. Nice sounding post title leaving out this rather important detail from the article:
"Although most of the signatories are left-leaning academics"
You've then said "what do experts know" when the entire conclusion is based on a subset of experts who are always going to agree with those policies rather than a broad spectrum of economists from all sides and backgrounds.
The article even then states that other economists don't agree:
"Other economists have questioned whether it will be easy for the government to spend such large amounts quickly without waste and choosing poor investment projects."
If you want others to play fair with their posts and sources which you always say you do then you need to do the same yourself otherwise it just looks like confirmation bias.
SB [Post edited 26 Nov 2019 14:04]
|  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:04 - Nov 26 with 2574 views | BrixtonBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:02 - Nov 26 by Bluefish |
Are there any parts of the Labour manifesto that you have concerns over or that you don't agree with? |
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. | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:05 - Nov 26 with 2573 views | ZedRodgers |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 13:54 - Nov 26 by WD19 |
163 votes. They have practically got it in the bag. You probably don't even need to bother voting Dolly. |
What a petulant response.
The letter is signed by 163 economists. They are backing Labour's economic policy.
Feel free to compile a list of 163 economists who back the 'fiscally conservative' Conservatives. |  |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:10 - Nov 26 with 2549 views | Swansea_Blue |
How many of the signatories are Jewish?
*runs away*
It is of course no where near as disastrous a manifesto as some people are making out. Public services and the economy in general are crying out for some investment and stimulus. Maybe they have gone too far, maybe not. For me, it's all about the intent rather than headline figures (which are likely to change as some things get through parliament, others might get dropped before they get as far as parliament, etc.). Labour seem to want to do better by people. The Tories clearly don't, based on the last 9 years and previous stints.
The most financially irresponsible pledge in any of the manifestos is the Tories hard Brexit pledge on an unrealistic time frame. |  |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:14 - Nov 26 with 2526 views | BrixtonBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:03 - Nov 26 by StokieBlue |
The thing is Dolly, you've literally just done what you moan about other people doing. Nice sounding post title leaving out this rather important detail from the article:
"Although most of the signatories are left-leaning academics"
You've then said "what do experts know" when the entire conclusion is based on a subset of experts who are always going to agree with those policies rather than a broad spectrum of economists from all sides and backgrounds.
The article even then states that other economists don't agree:
"Other economists have questioned whether it will be easy for the government to spend such large amounts quickly without waste and choosing poor investment projects."
If you want others to play fair with their posts and sources which you always say you do then you need to do the same yourself otherwise it just looks like confirmation bias.
SB [Post edited 26 Nov 2019 14:04]
|
I did see that bit, but just because they're mostly described as "left-leaning", this isn't reason enough to dismiss them.
Indeed, David Blanchflower, professor of economics at Dartmouth College in the US, was one of the signatories, despite publicly falling out with Corbyn.
So I think it's a valid report to consider. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:14 - Nov 26 with 2527 views | Swansea_Blue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:03 - Nov 26 by StokieBlue |
The thing is Dolly, you've literally just done what you moan about other people doing. Nice sounding post title leaving out this rather important detail from the article:
"Although most of the signatories are left-leaning academics"
You've then said "what do experts know" when the entire conclusion is based on a subset of experts who are always going to agree with those policies rather than a broad spectrum of economists from all sides and backgrounds.
The article even then states that other economists don't agree:
"Other economists have questioned whether it will be easy for the government to spend such large amounts quickly without waste and choosing poor investment projects."
If you want others to play fair with their posts and sources which you always say you do then you need to do the same yourself otherwise it just looks like confirmation bias.
SB [Post edited 26 Nov 2019 14:04]
|
"Other economists have questioned whether it will be easy for the government to spend such large amounts quickly without waste and choosing poor investment projects." Hardly a damning indictment.
We've had the take from the IFS, which is traditionally right-leaning. I don't think it hurts to get views from the other side of the fence as long as you know where the're coming from. | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:17 - Nov 26 with 2516 views | BrixtonBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:14 - Nov 26 by Swansea_Blue |
"Other economists have questioned whether it will be easy for the government to spend such large amounts quickly without waste and choosing poor investment projects." Hardly a damning indictment.
We've had the take from the IFS, which is traditionally right-leaning. I don't think it hurts to get views from the other side of the fence as long as you know where the're coming from. |
Indeed, and I thought Stokers wanted balance... | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:18 - Nov 26 with 2517 views | homer_123 |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:10 - Nov 26 by Swansea_Blue |
How many of the signatories are Jewish?
*runs away*
It is of course no where near as disastrous a manifesto as some people are making out. Public services and the economy in general are crying out for some investment and stimulus. Maybe they have gone too far, maybe not. For me, it's all about the intent rather than headline figures (which are likely to change as some things get through parliament, others might get dropped before they get as far as parliament, etc.). Labour seem to want to do better by people. The Tories clearly don't, based on the last 9 years and previous stints.
The most financially irresponsible pledge in any of the manifestos is the Tories hard Brexit pledge on an unrealistic time frame. |
On paper there is a shed load in there that most us us (right, left, centre or otherwise) see as straightforward, sensible and right.
More so than other manifesto's. |  |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:20 - Nov 26 with 2511 views | homer_123 |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:03 - Nov 26 by StokieBlue |
The thing is Dolly, you've literally just done what you moan about other people doing. Nice sounding post title leaving out this rather important detail from the article:
"Although most of the signatories are left-leaning academics"
You've then said "what do experts know" when the entire conclusion is based on a subset of experts who are always going to agree with those policies rather than a broad spectrum of economists from all sides and backgrounds.
The article even then states that other economists don't agree:
"Other economists have questioned whether it will be easy for the government to spend such large amounts quickly without waste and choosing poor investment projects."
If you want others to play fair with their posts and sources which you always say you do then you need to do the same yourself otherwise it just looks like confirmation bias.
SB [Post edited 26 Nov 2019 14:04]
|
'when the entire conclusion is based on a subset of experts'
Isn't that the case with just about every single economic forecast? There is never total consensus.
For what it is worth...
Why economists get it wrong:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50310815 | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:21 - Nov 26 with 2499 views | StokieBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:14 - Nov 26 by BrixtonBlue |
I did see that bit, but just because they're mostly described as "left-leaning", this isn't reason enough to dismiss them.
Indeed, David Blanchflower, professor of economics at Dartmouth College in the US, was one of the signatories, despite publicly falling out with Corbyn.
So I think it's a valid report to consider. |
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]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:23 - Nov 26 with 2487 views | StokieBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:14 - Nov 26 by Swansea_Blue |
"Other economists have questioned whether it will be easy for the government to spend such large amounts quickly without waste and choosing poor investment projects." Hardly a damning indictment.
We've had the take from the IFS, which is traditionally right-leaning. I don't think it hurts to get views from the other side of the fence as long as you know where the're coming from. |
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 | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:24 - Nov 26 with 2483 views | Steve_M |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:10 - Nov 26 by Swansea_Blue |
How many of the signatories are Jewish?
*runs away*
It is of course no where near as disastrous a manifesto as some people are making out. Public services and the economy in general are crying out for some investment and stimulus. Maybe they have gone too far, maybe not. For me, it's all about the intent rather than headline figures (which are likely to change as some things get through parliament, others might get dropped before they get as far as parliament, etc.). Labour seem to want to do better by people. The Tories clearly don't, based on the last 9 years and previous stints.
The most financially irresponsible pledge in any of the manifestos is the Tories hard Brexit pledge on an unrealistic time frame. |
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). |  |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:24 - Nov 26 with 2483 views | StokieBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:17 - Nov 26 by BrixtonBlue |
Indeed, and I thought Stokers wanted balance... |
Honestly. It's impossible to talk to you about politics anymore.
Your posts shows absolutely no balance. Your title is even worse. It's right to point that out just as it's right to point it out if someone posts it the other way round.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:25 - Nov 26 with 2482 views | itfcjoe |
| 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 |
"It wasn't until I mention it that it was even considered."
I think most people had considered it after seeing the OP! |  |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:25 - Nov 26 with 2481 views | StokieBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:20 - Nov 26 by homer_123 |
'when the entire conclusion is based on a subset of experts'
Isn't that the case with just about every single economic forecast? There is never total consensus.
For what it is worth...
Why economists get it wrong:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50310815 |
It's not even a consensus - they are all left-leaning - it literally says it in the report.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:52 - Nov 26 with 2359 views | BrixtonBlue |
| 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]
|
I don't know the full details of the other economists, I haven't looked into them, but one was definitely against Corbyn. And they're described as left-leaning... but not "Labour supporters."
The point is, they're not Corbyn fan boys - they're legitimate economists.
I haven't dismissed the views of anyone.
The headline is from the FT not me, so take it up with them if you think it's misleading.
Also, as someone else in the thread said, if we can cite a right-leaning body, why would you have an issue with citing a left-leaning one? | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:53 - Nov 26 with 2354 views | lowhouseblue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:03 - Nov 26 by StokieBlue |
The thing is Dolly, you've literally just done what you moan about other people doing. Nice sounding post title leaving out this rather important detail from the article:
"Although most of the signatories are left-leaning academics"
You've then said "what do experts know" when the entire conclusion is based on a subset of experts who are always going to agree with those policies rather than a broad spectrum of economists from all sides and backgrounds.
The article even then states that other economists don't agree:
"Other economists have questioned whether it will be easy for the government to spend such large amounts quickly without waste and choosing poor investment projects."
If you want others to play fair with their posts and sources which you always say you do then you need to do the same yourself otherwise it just looks like confirmation bias.
SB [Post edited 26 Nov 2019 14:04]
|
let me get this right, you mean there are 'left-leaning academics'? there are academics whose views are to the left and that support corbyn???
this has rather blown my view of academia out of the water. i'd imagined them all as tweed wearing and pipe smoking telegraph readers. jeez. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:55 - Nov 26 with 2339 views | chicoazul |
The Labour manifesto is excellent. I just dont believe they will be able to implement it, and worry they will boot the Maximum Leader out after a couple of years and install a hard liner. |  |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:56 - Nov 26 with 2325 views | BrixtonBlue |
| 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 |
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?! | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:58 - Nov 26 with 2312 views | BrixtonBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:24 - Nov 26 by StokieBlue |
Honestly. It's impossible to talk to you about politics anymore.
Your posts shows absolutely no balance. Your title is even worse. It's right to point that out just as it's right to point it out if someone posts it the other way round.
SB |
My title is taken from the Financial Times's headline. | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 15:00 - Nov 26 with 2303 views | BrixtonBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:25 - Nov 26 by StokieBlue |
It's not even a consensus - they are all left-leaning - it literally says it in the report.
SB |
No it doesn't, it says "most". So already you're distorting the truth - the very thing you accuse me of! | |
| |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 15:01 - Nov 26 with 2290 views | BrixtonBlue |
| So rather than destroying us, economists and academics back Labour spending plan on 14:53 - Nov 26 by lowhouseblue |
let me get this right, you mean there are 'left-leaning academics'? there are academics whose views are to the left and that support corbyn???
this has rather blown my view of academia out of the water. i'd imagined them all as tweed wearing and pipe smoking telegraph readers. jeez. |
There is no evidence any of them support Corbyn, and in fact one has had a public falling out with Corbyn.
Once again making up stuff to support your agenda. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
