What's new

The resurgence of the left - Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn

M

Markhor

T20I Captain
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Runs
42,252
Post of the Week
13
Its interesting to see how on either side of the Atlantic, we seem to have a parallel movement taking place at the same time. Two unlikely individuals - both considered outsiders in their parties, two older white men but managing to inspire so many young people and those who've never exhibited any interest in politics before.

As Sanders says himself, people are sick of establishment politicians who have their talking points and well-rehearsed rhetoric. These two may not be the most charismatic, the biggest personalities or even policies that people entirely agree with. For example, I wish Sanders was a little more outspoken on gun control and harder on Israel. I fear people may not trust Corbyn when it comes to the economy and balancing the budget which is where Labour lost the election primarily.

But who can argue when Sanders says most of the proceeds of this "economic recovery" is going to the 1% who grow more wealthy whilst the rest of us fight over the remaining scraps thrown from the rich man's table ? Who can argue when Corbyn says education should be a right, free for all young people and wants to set up a lifelong learning service to address the skills shortage we have in the UK funded by a 2% increase in corporation tax ?

They're tapping into a real frustration about 35 years of unfettered neoliberal economics that pushes inequality, privatisation and more power in the hands of corporations. The so-called "centre ground" has been shifted so far to the right that it appears what we have here is a left-wing resurgence.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6a-hB-4h6_s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lhVT9c33QuQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
People who don't trust Corbyn on the Economy simply don't know how ****ed the Economy is.
 
they also talk volumes of the difference priorities of a teenager in uni and that of a political activist in his mid thirties.

nothing against corbyn, clearly on the right side of history there, the tories were anti mandela, however that picture says nothing of it.

a cheap play on class politics ignoring the true shame of the tory parties historic position on apartheid SA, and thats coming from a tori party voter.
 
ElRaja said:
they also talk volumes of the difference priorities of a teenager in uni and that of a political activist in his mid thirties.

nothing against corbyn, clearly on the right side of history there, the tories were anti mandela, however that picture says nothing of it.

a cheap play on class politics ignoring the true shame of the tory parties historic position on apartheid SA, and thats coming from a tori party voter.
Click to expand...

lol a teenager in Uni ? He was probably 20+ and well over the age of criminal responsibility
 
Markhor said:
I fear people may not trust Corbyn when it comes to the economy and balancing the budget which is where Labour lost the election primarily.
Click to expand...

Yep, in England. Though they got nuked in Scotland for not being leftist enough, I think.

But who can argue when Sanders says most of the proceeds of this "economic recovery" is going to the 1% who grow more wealthy whilst the rest of us fight over the remaining scraps thrown from the rich man's table ? Who can argue when Corbyn says education should be a right, free for all young people and wants to set up a lifelong learning service to address the skills shortage we have in the UK funded by a 2% increase in corporation tax ?
Click to expand...

In principle I agree with this Markhor, but how are we going to pay for it? UK plc is skint. Corbyn could tax the rich more, but they will leave the country and go and make their £Ms in the USA and the Fast East tiger economies. He could force the corporations to pay a fair level of tax but they will relocate too.
 
Are Corporations that mobile ? Many would surely take the more sensible long term approach and say what will our tax be used for ? If it's to finance current consumption it's 'negative'. If it's to fund long term investment in infrastructure whether that be physical or human capital formation it should improve long term growth characteristics in this Country and thus be 'positive'.

The key problem actually is a few miscreant firms which avoid the current tax regime rather than increasing the total average tax rate / burden on everyone else who pays their fair share. Why should these corporate 'scroungers off the state' not be gone after in the same way the 'dole scroungers' are targeted ? Is it because the Mainstream media who give you your ready made 'world view' haven't fed you that opinion to have ?
 
It would be interesting to see if the left is indeed experiencing a resurgence in Britain or if this is just a false perception created by the fanfare surrounding Corbyn and his rapid rise to power. YouGov need to do some polling!
 
After every phase of right wing capitalization and economic inequality due to it there will always be surging of Leftist politics.India though is on the right wing capitalism phase right now but i guess the world as usual is in the opposite direction.
There needs to be a balance, an ideal scenario would be a right wing capitalist government with a strong Leftist opposition.
 
I would any day trust a Lefty over their right wing counterpart but the socialists for their life can't run a country with their ideal policies.
 
filthyfulltoss said:
Love Sanders but his position on Israel is disappointing
Click to expand...

I've heard this quite a lot and there are two points. Firstly I agree I wish Bernie was tougher on Israel but he is an older generation Jew and I totally understand the sense of identity - you can't escape one's cultural background.

Secondly, reading his actual policy - he sounds very reasonable. He called for the US to have an "even hand" which is pretty much what we want.

Is Sanders a Zionist? Here’s what he told Vox’s Ezra Klein:

“A Zionist? What does that mean? Want to define what the word is? Do I think Israel has the right to exist? Yeah, I do. Do I believe that the United States should be playing an even-handed role in terms of its dealings with the Palestinian community in Israel? Absolutely I do.

“Again, I think that you have volatile regions in the world, the Middle East is one of them, and the United States has got to work with other countries around the world to fight for Israel’s security and existence at the same time as we fight for a Palestinian state where the people in that country can enjoy a decent standard of living, which is certainly not the case right now. My long-term hope is that instead of pouring so much military aid into Israel, into Egypt, we can provide more economic aid to help improve the standard of living of the people in that area.”
Click to expand...

JaDed said:
I would any day trust a Lefty over their right wing counterpart but the socialists for their life can't run a country with their ideal policies.
Click to expand...

The idea that the right-wing are more "economically competent" is a myth though. Under Thatcher the government ran a persistent deficit through the 1980s. Inflation when she left office was 9.7% yet when she came to office inflation was 10% - despite her tough talk on busting inflation.

Ronald Reagan tripled the debt and enacted a major tax cut his first year in office which resulted in government revenue dropping off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. And who can forget how George W Bush with his tax cuts ruined the economic legacy of Clinton who left him with a surplus. It cost the US govt $1.8 trillion in revenues contributing to the growing US deficit. It was also under Clinton who created more jobs than any other US President.

Right wing governments always talk the talk about economic competence but never actually prove it.
 
I don't think it's a left wing resurgence at all, it's nice to see these dark knights preach but when it's all said and done Labour have to appeal to the right-wing extremists if they are to win the elections
 
Markhor said:
I've heard this quite a lot and there are two points. Firstly I agree I wish Bernie was tougher on Israel but he is an older generation Jew and I totally understand the sense of identity - you can't escape one's cultural background.

Secondly, reading his actual policy - he sounds very reasonable. He called for the US to have an "even hand" which is pretty much what we want.





The idea that the right-wing are more "economically competent" is a myth though. Under Thatcher the government ran a persistent deficit through the 1980s. Inflation when she left office was 9.7% yet when she came to office inflation was 10% - despite her tough talk on busting inflation.

Ronald Reagan tripled the debt and enacted a major tax cut his first year in office which resulted in government revenue dropping off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. And who can forget how George W Bush with his tax cuts ruined the economic legacy of Clinton who left him with a surplus. It cost the US govt $1.8 trillion in revenues contributing to the growing US deficit. It was also under Clinton who created more jobs than any other US President.

Right wing governments always talk the talk about economic competence but never actually prove it.
Click to expand...

On Clinton well he benefited the initial benefits of revoking glass-steagall act and left the aftermaths to Bush who along with his terrible foreign policies also got the 2001 economic crisis.
Also Clinton didn't face the dot com bubble burst which he created indirectly as well but was blessed with the strongest educated middle class due to the policy of his seniors.

On Thatcher her policies were skewed no doubt about that almost destroyed the middle class.
 
JaDed said:
On Clinton well he benefited the initial benefits of revoking glass-steagall act and left the aftermaths to Bush who along with his terrible foreign policies also got the 2001 economic crisis.
Also Clinton didn't face the dot com bubble burst which he created indirectly as well but was blessed with the strongest educated middle class due to the policy of his seniors.

On Thatcher her policies were skewed no doubt about that almost destroyed the middle class.
Click to expand...

Agreed Clinton's bank deregulation turned out to be a disaster. Clinton and now Obama have been big letdowns in terms of how they've just followed the neo-liberal model so I wouldn't consider either of them left-wing. They're on the left of American politics but centre-right internationally.
 
That will play into Corbyns hands.

Corbyn wants to appeal to the disaffected and disillusioned who didn't vote because they didn't want the same old same old of what passes for politics in this Country. Cameron appearing like the toff bully he is will simply increase support for Corbyn as the 'None of the Above' candidate.
 
5 years is a long time though .Anything is possible.

And he has to survive those 5 years against some of his own MPs that will look for any opportunity to bring him down

Another factor may not be on Corbyns side will be age.

I do like the guy, might not agree with everything he stands for for but he's what Labour needs right now.
 
In the US and UK the politics have shifted to much too the right. Berney Sanders and Corbyn if nothing else will shift their parties back to the left and result in more moderate politics. I personally feel that extreme right and extreme left both are not good for a country or its economy. The world economy was hurt because corporations and Banks didnt have many controls.
 
CassetteBoy take on Cameron

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EV0DpN3oJlk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Major study shows Labour did not lose because of perception of them having gone to the Left under Miliband.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34278338

Labour didn't lose the general election because it was seen as too left wing, according to new research.

Ed Miliband was unlikely to win in May no matter where he placed the party on the spectrum between left and right, say academics from the British Election Study.

Their analysis suggests voters were just as likely to back Labour whether it was seen as a party on the far left, or just to the left of centre.

But they warn the economic crash of 2008 appears to have fundamentally changed voters' views on whether Labour can be trusted on the economy.
In research to be published by the IPPR think tank, Jane Green and Chris Prosser write: "Labour needs to give working class, left of centre voters a reason to vote for the party again and the party needs to win support at the centre. It should resist choosing one over the other."
At this year's general election many voters still blamed Ed Miliband's party if they thought the economy was not improving.

Analysis

This chart will be seized on by the left, because it seems to tell a very simple story.
Chart showing how people's perception of hte Labour Party's position on the left-right political spectrum may affect their chances of voting for the partyImage copyrightBritish Election Study
Predicted probability of voting Labour by perception of Labour's left-right position (Source: British Election Study)
_85600915_labour_leftrightvoting_bes.png

Take Labour left, it suggests, and the party will not suffer. Take it right, and it loses votes.
This is why Jane Green of the British Election Study says there is very little to argument Labour was too left wing at the general election.
But - and it's a huge but - the chart shows only the answer to a question about how left wing voters thought Labour had become.
Her paper also says the banking crash of 2008 appears to have done for Labour what the ERM crisis did for the Conservatives in 1992.
Labour must once again become - she suggests - the party most trusted with the economy.
Can an economic policy fashioned by new leader Jeremy Corbyn and shadow chancellor John McDonnell achieve that?
They are about to find out.
Green told the World at One: "Labour wasn't able to shift that blame so if people saw the economy doing better they gave the Conservatives some credit.
"If they thought the economy was still doing worse they gave some blame to the Tories but they also gave blame to Labour, so Labour got some of the blame and none of the credit."
The problem for Labour worsened in the run up to May's election, with Conservatives being seen as increasingly economically competent even before the economy itself improved.
During the campaign every leader but the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon proved unpopular, but David Cameron was less disliked than Miliband
Perversely, when Labour gained votes from former Lib Dems they helped the Tories win seats.
In total Labour votes won from Lib Dems alone secured seven seats for the Tories.
The British Election Study interviewed 20,000 voters in March and immediately after the general election.
 
A good interview with Nick Clegg about why the Liberals lost so badly despite being part of the 'successful' coalition Government. The power of the press and vested interests really is quite alarming. If a Left of Centre party ever gets back into power they need to destroy likes of Murdoch empire or maybe new social media will do it before that ? Corbyn victory could be the start.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-damaged-but-our-soul-is-intact-10504421.html
 
s28 said:
A good interview with Nick Clegg about why the Liberals lost so badly despite being part of the 'successful' coalition Government. The power of the press and vested interests really is quite alarming. If a Left of Centre party ever gets back into power they need to destroy likes of Murdoch empire or maybe new social media will do it before that ? Corbyn victory could be the start.
Click to expand...

Hardly. If Wilson and Callaghan couldn't get rid of the right wing press, then Corbyn has no chance in an era when the axis of British politics has shifted to the right.

Tony Blair managed by doing a deal with Murdoch but I think Corbyn is too much of an ideologue to do that.
 
s28 said:
Liberals defecting to Labour

That despite the Mainstream Media claiming Labour MP's would defect to the Liberals and idiots like the Hull FC owner demonstrating his lack of integrity to all and sundry by offering to pay Labour MPs to defect !
Click to expand...

Interesting decision for the Blairites. Jump ship to the Lib Dems, or stay and try to moderate Corbyn, thereby retaining the centreist voters? He's dumped the abolish Trident / leave NATO stance that was such a vote-loser for Kinnock.
 
Excellent interview in the New Statesman where Corbyn sets out his real views rather than those that have been ascribed to him by the Mainstream Media. Abolishing Trident will go to a vote at Conference for instance and enjoys support of plenty of Tories apparently.
 
Robert said:
Interesting decision for the Blairites. Jump ship to the Lib Dems, or stay and try to moderate Corbyn, thereby retaining the centreist voters? He's dumped the abolish Trident / leave NATO stance that was such a vote-loser for Kinnock.
Click to expand...

And his shadow chancellor has apologised for being an ira apologist

Not much difference with the lib dems when they had to be a part of the system and abolished their own ideological stances in order to form government
Or even Hamas who went from being a suicide bomb death cult to a socialist love puppy
 
chacha kashmiri said:
And his shadow chancellor has apologised for being an ira apologist

Not much difference with the lib dems when they had to be a part of the system and abolished their own ideological stances in order to form government
Or even Hamas who went from being a suicide bomb death cult to a socialist love puppy
Click to expand...

Is the correct observation.

Principles will always ultimately come second to the yearning for office.
 
Excellent article by the Lib Dem defector to Labour :-

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jennifer-churchill/jeremy-corbyn_b_8187890.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I took the decision last week to leave the Liberal Democrats and join the Labour party in support of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

Whilst I had been considering this move since Corbyn's victory, the final pushes for me were the proceedings of the Lib Dem conference, where Tim Farron took the opportunity to attack Corbyn's anti-austerity economics as 'fantasy' and 'not credible', and to defend the Coalition's record on the economy. This came as a bit of a shock, given that Farron is on record as giving the coalition 2/10 for performance, and that he had only a few days ago stated he would be happy to work in coalition with Corbyn.

Now Tim Farron is a decent guy and we share many values; however, it seems to me that he has little economic understanding and so ends up parroting neoliberal Tory rhetoric and claiming it's the centre. But it is not the centre, and there is nothing more dangerous than well-meaning people suggesting otherwise. It is meaningless to espouse progressive social values if you cannot back it up with an economic policy that can deliver a progressive society.

In a piece for a left-leaning Liberal Democrat blog (Socialliberalforum.org) written after the General Election, I made the argument that unless progressives stop ceding the ground on austerity, the Tories will always capitalise on economic fear. The Right have an unfair advantage when it comes to economics, because they are prepared to play fast and loose with the truth. Rather than face the electorate with some tortured proposals for what might help the economy at a particular time, the Right are happy to put out a mixture of economic fallacies and fairy tales which have the great political selling point of being easy to follow.

Since the financial crash we have been obsessing in this country over various proxies of the health of our domestic economy: in-year budget deficits and the liability side of the national balance sheet. Having dragged our attention to these and these alone, the Coalition government aggressively pushed an agenda based on the premise that the only way to reduce deficit and debt is to cut state expenditure, and cut again. Together these ideas form the rhetoric of austerity: the country is not living within its budget; national debt is holding us back; best thing to do is to hold down wages of the low paid and slash the welfare budget.

I argued, in the stomach wrenching first few days after the election, that the simplicity of this story gave it enormous power: "The rhetoric of austerity rises above every other political concern, so that even those who feared for the NHS, for the state of crumbling school buildings and for businesses struggling under shoddy infrastructure, at the last moment chose what they understood to be the only viable, sensible option to avoid economic disaster. They bought into the argument that wealth and income taxes are somehow "anti-business"; that government expenditure is anti-business; that a confident, healthy, educated, housed and well-paid workforce is anti-business."

A reasonably balanced budget is a sign of a healthy economy, but you cannot manipulate that sign in order to achieve a healthy economy. A causal understanding of the determinants of budget deficits demonstrates that, ironically, attempts to shrink budget deficits through cutting government expenditure only serve to increase those deficits when they hold back employment and pay across the economy. This is because government expenditure is an effective lever when it comes to determining the health of the economy. The IMF and the OBR both underestimated this power of government expenditure on the economy when they underestimated the negative multiplier effect of cutting capital expenditure at the beginning of the last parliament, and they both have since acknowledged this fact.

As a councillor, I am very much aware of the consequences of austerity on local government, which has borne the brunt of budget cuts. Somewhat unintuitively, Richmond has been in a relatively less-difficult position compared to other local councils, due to the fact the central government grants form a smaller proportion of its overall income, meaning that cuts in those grants are felt less than in boroughs such as Tower Hamlets. But even here, we are at the point of facing truly horrible decisions regarding frontline services.

Corbyn won the Labour leadership arguing for more public investment, an end to depressed wages and a commitment to progressive, intelligent taxation. This is clearly all very much in line with my own views. But there is also something else to Corbyn which has played a large factor in my decision: Corbyn is a liberal in the sense that is important to me. He has stood up on many of the issues I have been concerned with over the last 10 years - the Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition. He oozes authenticity and political courage; Labour members have responded to this, and I very much believe the wider public will do so if he is given more time and more support. I want to be part of that journey. It could not be more important.

Jennifer Churchill was formerly the Lib Dem councillor for Teddington, and is currently undertaking a PhD in economics and teaching at Kingston University
 
chacha kashmiri said:
And his shadow chancellor has apologised for being an ira apologist

Not much difference with the lib dems when they had to be a part of the system and abolished their own ideological stances in order to form government
Or even Hamas who went from being a suicide bomb death cult to a socialist love puppy
Click to expand...

Yep, and Thatcher had to abandon her plan to privatise the NHS when the Treasury convinced her that it would be inflationary to do so.
 
s28 said:
I argued, in the stomach wrenching first few days after the election, that the simplicity of this story gave it enormous power: "The rhetoric of austerity rises above every other political concern, so that even those who feared for the NHS, for the state of crumbling school buildings and for businesses struggling under shoddy infrastructure, at the last moment chose what they understood to be the only viable, sensible option to avoid economic disaster. They bought into the argument that wealth and income taxes are somehow "anti-business"; that government expenditure is anti-business; that a confident, healthy, educated, housed and well-paid workforce is anti-business."
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the only other option is to borrow even more money, in the hope of stimulating growth in the longer term. My problem with this is that a Labour government lead by Corbyn would be taking an each-way bet with the economy, not knowing which way the markets will turn, basically tossing a coin.

At least we know for certain that austerity is working, and we can start to reduce the debt in another five years or so.
 
You either don't have a clue what you are talking about or are unable to express yourself very well. Probably both.

'Austerity is working' - you must be missing all the leading indicators in the economy screaming the opposite and Chief Economist of the Bank of England getting ready to go even beyond Corbyn

As the Telegraph reports:

Andy Haldane, one of the Bank’s nine interest rate setters, made the case for the “radical” option of supporting the economy with negative interest rates, and even suggested that cash could have to be abolished.

Why abolish cash? That’s so that people would have no choice but leave their money in the bank at deteriorating rates.

Haldane did not stop there. He said:

The balance of risks to UK growth, and to UK inflation at the two-year horizon, is skewed squarely and significantly to the downside

And made clear that:

he [sees] the case for raising the UK’s inflation target to 4pc from the current level of 2pc. Mr Haldane said that a trend towards low interest rates across the globe has made it increasingly difficult to fight off recessions.

In the past, central banks have helped stimulate economies by slashing interest rates. But with rates at rock bottom in many parts of the world, many have found their ammunition depleted.

How long then until we have People’s Quantitative Easing? I designed it to address this issue, after all. Mark Carney says he does not approve of it. What if he has to do it? And what will the naysayers say then?

PQE is an idea whose time is coming, soon, I suspect. And of the options available it might well seem amongst the least radical on the table.

- See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...les-quantitative-easing/#sthash.AoHWGPLG.dpuf
 
The same point being argued in the 'right wing' Torygraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...yle-is-over-as-world-runs-out-of-workers.html

The Bank of England's chief economist, Andrew Haldane, warned in a haunting speech last week that we may be stuck in a zero-interest trap for as far as the eye can see, with little left to fight the next downturn - typically requiring three to five percentage points of rate cuts to right the ship.
"Central banks may find themselves bumping up against the ZLB constraint on a recurrent basis," he said. His answer is a menu of quantitative easing so exotic it trumps Corbynomics for heterodoxy.
 
A Liberal Democrat supporter/funder and a high profile City figure supporting Corbynomics


Jeremy Corbyn's 'people's quantitative easing' plan could work in a crisis, says hedge fund boss

By NATALIE WAIN FOR THISISMONEY.CO.UK

PUBLISHED: 14:08 GMT, 23 September 2015 | UPDATED: 14:08 GMT, 23 September 2015

Jeremy Corbyn has found an unlikely ally in a hedge fund boss who today said the new Labour leader's proposed 'people's quantitative easing' plan would 'carry quite a lot of respectability' if used correctly.
Paul Marshall, who is co-founder of London-based Marshall Wace, voiced his qualified support for Mr Corbyn's plan to boost the economy by funding infrastructure projects in the Financial Times.
A version of QE has already been used by the Bank of England to create money to fund bond purchases in a bid to prop up the economy in conjunction with low interest rates.


Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...risis-says-hedge-fund-boss.html#ixzz3mhKw6PdX
 
s28 said:
You either don't have a clue what you are talking about or are unable to express yourself very well. Probably both.
Click to expand...

Have you noticed how you rubbish people who disagree with you?

What does that tell us about you, do you think?
 
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/...not-as-crazy-as-critics-suggest-a2948081.html

Corbynomics are not as crazy as critics suggest

People did not vote for Mrs Thatcher back in 1979 because they had suddenly been convinced of the merits of free markets, monetarism and neo-liberal economic policies.

They voted for her because they were fed up with strikes and being pushed around by union bosses who behaved as if the entire economic system should be run for their benefit and wanted something different.

People did not vote for new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn at the weekend because they suddenly turned socialist.

They voted again because they are fed up with austerity and the way bankers and big business bosses give the impression that the entire economic system exists for their benefit.
 
Corbynomics' Thatcher Moment

Robert Peston

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34376085

One criticism levelled at Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow chancellor John McDonnell both by the Tories and centrist members of his own party is that they are left-wing dinosaurs.

They've today gone some way to answering that charge by recruiting some of the world's most influential left-wing economists to an advisory panel.

The panel includes Joe Stiglitz, the US Nobel prize-winner, Simon Wren-Lewis, Mariana Mazzucato, Danny Blanchflower and Thomas Piketty.

These are economists who've written powerfully about the need for new taxes, especially on the wealth of the rich (Piketty most famously) and on the role that governments can play in sparking wealth-creating innovation (a tour de force by Mazzucato).
And they are all opponents of austerity, or public spending cuts in a recession (Wren-Lewis in particular has been waspish about Osbornomics).

Economic ideology
While their views are not shared by many economists of the centre and right, none are lightweight.
Which means that for the first time perhaps since Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Tories, when she sought intellectual ballast for her policies of controlling the money supply and shrinking the state from the likes of Friedman and Hayek, a leading British party is trying to establish an economic ideology outside the mainstream.
It means there will be a properly emotional debate between Labour and the Tories about how to maximise growth and prosperity.
What is striking is that Labour under Blair, Brown and Miliband never set up an equivalent panel of distinguished and ideologically left-wing economists drawn from all over the world.
It is also intriguing that Piketty is prepared to help Corbyn but has maintained a certain distance from the French socialist government of Francois Hollande.
The composition of the panel probably also tells us that the ultra formulation of "quantitative easing for people not banks" - till now seen as the quintessence of Corbynomics - is dead.

Or to put it another way, this group of economists would not sign up to a policy of the Bank of England providing cheap loans to a new state investment bank on a permanent continuous basis - for fear that the anti-inflationary credentials of the Bank of England would be destroyed.

No public punch up
If People's QE survives - which it may - it will be as a contingent rainy-day monetary tool, for when the economy is next in direst straits.
That said I would expect all these economists to back the notion of the government taking advantage of prevailing low interest rates to borrow considerably more for investment in infrastructure.

Even so Mr McDonnell has chosen not to have a public punch up over the government's proposed bill to make it mandatory for the government's deficit to be closed.
Labour will vote for the bill - while reserving the right in the next parliament to borrow whatever it thinks necessary for investment (as opposed to so-called "current spending" on the day-to-day bills of government departments).

As one of Mr McDonnell's colleagues told me, "we see no mileage in playing the chancellor's game and allowing ourselves to be painted as having no interest in the health of the public finances".
 
Last edited:
McDonnell's speech at the conference was music to my ears. Talked about cracking down on corporate tax avoidance and provided an alternative to austerity, but most crucially he acknowledged the deficit and is trying to send a strong message on economic competence.

He said he's not going to do a financial transaction tax without support from other EU countries and won't raise top rate of tax beyond 50p, which was good as it'd have been easy for the Tories to paint Labour as anti-business and anti-aspirational as they did under Miliband.
 
Yes well played by McDonnell. It is too easy for the right wing media and Blairite remnants to spin the new leadership negatively so no point playing to their agendas.
 
good article by Simon Jenkins


Trident is useless. Corbyn’s shadow cabinet should be ashamed

The Labour leader’s straight talking on the UK’s nuclear deterrent should be applauded. His opponents’ stance has more to do with global posturing than our national security

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/01/trident-corbyn-shadow-cabinet-labour

The sole reason for Trident surviving the Blair government’s first defence review (on whose lay committee I sat) was the ban on discussing it imposed by the then defence secretary, George Robertson, in 1997. Members were told to “think the unthinkable” about everything except Trident and new aircraft carriers. It was clear that Tony Blair and his team had been lobbied, not by the defence chiefs, but by the procurement industry. Labour was regarded as soft on defence and mega-projects were seen as talismans of the party’s patriotism. Robertson, John Reid and John Gilbert were adamant that no chink should appear in the nuclear armour.

I can recall no head of the army and no serious academic strategist with any time for the Trident missile.
 
Markhor said:
McDonnell's speech at the conference was music to my ears. Talked about cracking down on corporate tax avoidance
Click to expand...

Won't work, mate.

What happens is that the Revenue demands, say £1M tax from - let's call them Big Coffee.

1. The BC CEO says he won't pay it.
2. HMRC threatens BC with legal action.
3. BC's tax lawyers respond with the message that if taken to court, they will tie up the HMRC for years.
4. Letters fly back and forth between BC and HRMC.
5. Eventually BC offer HMRC £15K as a gesture of 'good faith'.
6. HMRC accepts the offer.

The only way I can see these corporations paying up is by application of people power - the masses go to the little tea shop or bookshop down the road instead of some corporate chain or on-line giant. But the people won't be bothered with that.

I shook my head during the McDonnell and Corbyn speeches. They are nice men and they want to help but they are stuck in a sixth-form socialist understanding. Which is probably why so many youngsters are attracted to them.

In any event Corbyn has just blown his foot off with those comments on Trident. I don't expect a leadership challenge any time soon - Labour are very loyal, which is their weakness - but my only hope of a Labour government is in ten years if Milliband One comes back from the wilderness in 2020.

Corbyn would do well in the immediate term to get a shirt collar and jacket that fit, and learn to tie a Windsor knot, or at least a half-Windsor. He looks like he has lost weight as he approaches old age, but is not taking smaller clothes sizes.
 
Robert said:
Rest in Peace, Lord Healey.
Click to expand...

Another one of the postwar giants of British politics has left us.

Oxonian
Beach Master at Anzio
Founder of the Bilderberg Group
MP for forty years
Defence Secretary 1964-1970
Chancellor 1975-1979
Pianist and double bassist
 
Sanders outperforms Clinton in general election matchups in IA, NH

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-...neral-election-matchups-ia-nh?cid=sm_tw_msnbc

Hillary Clinton has always been viewed as the Democrats’ best general-election candidate. But new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist polls of Iowa and New Hampshire show that Bernie Sanders outperforms Clinton in those two general-election battleground states.

In Iowa, Republican Jeb Bush leads Clinton by 10 points in a hypothetical general-election match up among registered voters, 50 percent to 40 percent, and Donald Trump is ahead of her by seven points, 48 percent to 41 percent - essentially unchanged from the poll’s results a month ago.

And Carly Fiorina leads Clinton in the Hawkeye State by 14 points, 52 percent to 38 percent.

But when Sanders is matched up against these same Republicans, his numbers are stronger: Sanders leads Trump by five points in Iowa (48 percent to 43 percent). And he narrowly trails Bush (46 percent to 44 percent) and Fiorina (45 percent to 42 percent).

The same dynamic plays out in New Hampshire.

Clinton leads Trump in the Granite State (48 percent to 45 percent), but she’s behind Bush (49 percent to 42 percent) and Fiorina (50 percent to 42 percent).

Yet Sanders has the advantage against both Trump (52 percent to 42 percent) and Fiorina (47 percent to 45 percent), and he’s tied against Bush in New Hampshire (46 percent to 46 percent).

The NBC/WSJ/Marist polls of Iowa and New Hampshire were conducted Sept. 23-30. In Iowa, 1,061 registered voters were interviewed (margin of error +/- 3.0 percentage points), and in New Hampshire, 1,044 registered voters were tested (+/- 3.0 percentage points).
Click to expand...
 
Robert said:
Another one of the postwar giants of British politics has left us.

Oxonian
Beach Master at Anzio
Founder of the Bilderberg Group
MP for forty years
Defence Secretary 1964-1970
Chancellor 1975-1979
Pianist and double bassist
Click to expand...

A giant of the Labour movement and a major figure in post-war Britain. 98 years - that's a great innings.
 
The Tories have recruited Lord Adonis for their infrastructure projects! This is a master-stroke. I wonder will they co-opt any more the the prominent NuLabourites?
 
s28 said:
They can have Blair
Click to expand...

Labour won just three out of the last nine General Elections, all under Blair. Seriously, this lurch to the Old Left is electoral suicide. Many of us still remember the 1970s.
 
Brilliant. Just Brilliant.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/M-TPIx4ECMo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
This is funny for Curb and Bern fans

Larry David does 'Bern Your Enthusiasm'

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nn4tP7ogWIA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Question is can Bernie win main election??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
yasir said:
Question is can Bernie win main election??
Click to expand...

Corporate American won't let him even if 2/3rd of the population of America supported him and they never will. There has always been a candidate like him in every election cycle. It was Ron Paul last few cycles, Nader before that. They get plenty of support, enthusiasm and support but ultimately their campaigns fizzle out. Bernie might be a step ahead of them but I just don't see the groundswell to make him fair any better.

You have to understand that media loves conflict, they love competition. For them, its a much more profitable narrative to present Bernie and Clinton fighting it out till the end rather than Hillary cruising to an easy victory. Hence, the over enthusiastic, short-sighted and illogical analysis and projections.
 
confused_amoeba said:
Corporate American won't let him even if 2/3rd of the population of America supported him and they never will. There has always been a candidate like him in every election cycle. It was Ron Paul last few cycles, Nader before that. They get plenty of support, enthusiasm and support but ultimately their campaigns fizzle out. Bernie might be a step ahead of them but I just don't see the groundswell to make him fair any better.

You have to understand that media loves conflict, they love competition. For them, its a much more profitable narrative to present Bernie and Clinton fighting it out till the end rather than Hillary cruising to an easy victory. Hence, the over enthusiastic, short-sighted and illogical analysis and projections.
Click to expand...

Ron and Rand Paul did not get much support, they never were main stream candidate, far from it...

Rise of Bernie has more to do with dullness of Hillary, that is still a left over problem from last time... Both Bill and Obama were/are charismatic but she is not...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
yasir said:
Ron and Rand Paul did not get much support, they never were main stream candidate, far from it...

Rise of Bernie has more to do with dullness of Hillary, that is still a left over problem from last time... Both Bill and Obama were/are charismatic but she is not...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

America is not ready for a women president .
 
I must say I wish Mr Sanders was Leader of the Labour Party at present.
 
confused_amoeba said:
Corporate American won't let him even if 2/3rd of the population of America supported him and they never will. There has always been a candidate like him in every election cycle. It was Ron Paul last few cycles, Nader before that. They get plenty of support, enthusiasm and support but ultimately their campaigns fizzle out. Bernie might be a step ahead of them but I just don't see the groundswell to make him fair any better.

You have to understand that media loves conflict, they love competition. For them, its a much more profitable narrative to present Bernie and Clinton fighting it out till the end rather than Hillary cruising to an easy victory. Hence, the over enthusiastic, short-sighted and illogical analysis and projections.
Click to expand...

shows your lack of knowledge and awareness to talk about the looney Ron Paul as being a real candidate. Guy was not a serious candidate and didnt poll well at any point during election cycle. Failed politician
 
Slog said:
shows your lack of knowledge and awareness to talk about the looney Ron Paul as being a real candidate. Guy was not a serious candidate and didnt poll well at any point during election cycle. Failed politician
Click to expand...

I don't think you read my post. I was comparing the nature of Sanders campaign with that of Ron Paul and Nader in the past having similar dynamics, grassroot support and enthusiaism. E.g. in the 2008 Republican primaries, depite being largely ignored by traditional media and no major endorsements, Ron Paul managed to attract an intensely loyal grassroots following, especially among tech-savy supporters, just like Sanders . He also had a large numbers of campaign contributions from individual donors, just like Sanders and took in more money than any other Republican candidate in the fourth quarter of 2007. And we are talking about the Republican primaries here where he differed greatly from the party establishment and base on several major issues, particularly on foreign policy. Main reason why he never became a serious contender.
 
yasir said:
Ron and Rand Paul did not get much support, they never were main stream candidate, far from it...

Rise of Bernie has more to do with dullness of Hillary, that is still a left over problem from last time... Both Bill and Obama were/are charismatic but she is not...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No its not becuase Hillary is dull its becuase newer generation is not happy with where the Democratic party is at the moment. Clinton moved the Democratic party to the right to win the elections. Then came Bush even more to the right. So Obama won as he was on the left of Hillary he is probably more electable than all the rest of the candidates today as well.
Sanders is saying what the people want to hear Hillary tries to copy him and fails as she has historically voted against many of these things. Her copying him is hurting her more as it makes her look as someone that will do anything to win.

Sent from my SM-G925I
 
Sanders is a good man but socialism just doesn't work , Hilary is a hypocrite and so is Trump ,Ted is from Texas.Tough choice this time for Americans.
 
Couch Cricketer said:
Sanders is not a socialist he is a democratic socialist that is a big difference you should read up on it.
http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism

Sent from my SM-G925I
Click to expand...

Thanks for the article but that was a holy angel view of things.Some points below are atrocious to say the least and this is coming from an Indian.

We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them

worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives

. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment.

the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work.

Although capitalism will be with us for a long time, reforms we win now—raising the minimum wage, securing a national health plan, and demanding passage of right-to-strike legislation—can bring us closer to socialism

All of the points above combined doesn't work sorry to say.
 
It's funny how the 'solution' to the right wings free market Global Financial Crisis was 'socialism' of the Banks ...

but now with the Banks / Financial System 'saved' they are not paying back and it's all Orwellian 'Markets Good / State Bad' again. I guess you can fool ill-educated and uninformed public quite easily if you own the media.

Sanders has over a million donors... average donation $27

That is a massive groundswell.
 
Worth viewing Sanders victory speech last night. What's not to like.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/H0zpU7Y3Fpc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
JaDed said:
Thanks for the article but that was a holy angel view of things.Some points below are atrocious to say the least and this is coming from an Indian.

We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them

worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives

. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment.

the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work.

Although capitalism will be with us for a long time, reforms we win now—raising the minimum wage, securing a national health plan, and demanding passage of right-to-strike legislation—can bring us closer to socialism

All of the points above combined doesn't work sorry to say.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that these points don't work but the main point he is standing on is that people should decide rather than corporations what the government does.
And funnily enough currently many of the big companies in the US are using stock grants and employee ownership to be competitive while the others are using government handouts to subsidise their workers so which is better.
I dont think one extreme or the other works but Sanders will move the discussion to the center from the right where it is currently. US needs to invest in its aging infrastructure heavily. Corporations need to be controlled and people that run them prosecuted. First it was the 08 crash now we are seeing the water crisis. You are already seeing the for profit prison system. Corporations blocking towns and cities from building infrastructure such as fiber internet as it will bring competition.



Sent from my SM-G925I
 
Couch Cricketer said:
I don't disagree that these points don't work but the main point he is standing on is that people should decide rather than corporations what the government does.
And funnily enough currently many of the big companies in the US are using stock grants and employee ownership to be competitive while the others are using government handouts to subsidise their workers so which is better.
I dont think one extreme or the other works but Sanders will move the discussion to the center from the right where it is currently. US needs to invest in its aging infrastructure heavily. Corporations need to be controlled and people that run them prosecuted. First it was the 08 crash now we are seeing the water crisis. You are already seeing the for profit prison system. Corporations blocking towns and cities from building infrastructure such as fiber internet as it will bring competition.



Sent from my SM-G925I
Click to expand...

Yes I do agree On "accountability" for that mess Bill Clinton is 80% responsible when he put down the Glass–Steagall act which was put in place after the 1933 crash.

The Glass–Steagall separation of commercial and investment banking was in four sections of the 1933 Banking Act (sections 16, 20, 21, and 32).[1] The Banking Act of 1935 clarified the 1933 legislation and resolved inconsistencies in it
Click to expand...
 
JaDed said:
Thanks for the article but that was a holy angel view of things.Some points below are atrocious to say the least and this is coming from an Indian.

We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them

worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives

. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment.

the burden should be placed on the employer to make work desirable by raising wages, offering benefits and improving the work environment. In short, we believe that a combination of social, economic, and moral incentives will motivate people to work.

Although capitalism will be with us for a long time, reforms we win now—raising the minimum wage, securing a national health plan, and demanding passage of right-to-strike legislation—can bring us closer to socialism

All of the points above combined doesn't work sorry to say.
Click to expand...

I'm not as left wing as Sanders however I don't think you're understanding why he's resonating with people. Not all Sanders supporters are even socialists, nor are many Sanders supporters even calling for a socialist utopia. If you ask Sanders himself he'll admit even if elected he won't be able to take America in a socialist direction given the GOP's control of Congress.

To conservatives I say this - we've tried your way for 30 years and look what happened in 2008. Your way was unfettered neo-liberal dogma - the mantra of less regulation and tax cuts for the rich that's left Americans with decreasing living standards and stagnating wages DESPITE increased productivity. Kids are going to end up leaving college/university with a mountain of debt and their parents are having to take 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet. They're angry because under this supposed socialist that is President Obama, 90% of the income growth under the Obama recovery has gone to the top 1%. I know you're not a left-winger but do you accept this is a sign of a broken and unsustainable economic system ?

So when Sanders says things that EVEN people in Republican-voting states support - such as a higher minimum wage which shouldn't be beyond the reach of corporations who are raking in record profits, free college tuition, single-payer healthcare and tackling income inequality - these issues don't exist in a socialist vacuum - they're very real and that's why people are backing him. He's the only one with the guts to say it and if Sanders is as delusional as the Washington establishment says - then why is Hillary Clinton suddenly adopting Bernie's rhetoric ? Now apparently she's tough on banks and hates income inequality too !
 
Markhor said:
I'm not as left wing as Sanders however I don't think you're understanding why he's resonating with people. Not all Sanders supporters are even socialists, nor are many Sanders supporters even calling for a socialist utopia. If you ask Sanders himself he'll admit even if elected he won't be able to take America in a socialist direction given the GOP's control of Congress.

To conservatives I say this - we've tried your way for 30 years and look what happened in 2008. Your way was unfettered neo-liberal dogma - the mantra of less regulation and tax cuts for the rich that's left Americans with decreasing living standards and stagnating wages DESPITE increased productivity. Kids are going to end up leaving college/university with a mountain of debt and their parents are having to take 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet. They're angry because under this supposed socialist that is President Obama, 90% of the income growth under the Obama recovery has gone to the top 1%. I know you're not a left-winger but do you accept this is a sign of a broken and unsustainable economic system ?

So when Sanders says things that EVEN people in Republican-voting states support - such as a higher minimum wage which shouldn't be beyond the reach of corporations who are raking in record profits, free college tuition, single-payer healthcare and tackling income inequality - these issues don't exist in a socialist vacuum - they're very real and that's why people are backing him. He's the only one with the guts to say it and if Sanders is as delusional as the Washington establishment says - then why is Hillary Clinton suddenly adopting Bernie's rhetoric ? Now apparently she's tough on banks and hates income inequality too !
Click to expand...
The statement republicans are for small government is false they keep spending billions on the military complex . They spent trillions on Iraq and Middle east war supposedly targeting Osama created a vacuum for someone worse like Isis to take root.
The only Republicans for small government are people like Ron Paul funnily enough who said that Sanders is more libertine than all the Republican party candidates. As he is against crony capitalism protecting big banks and spending billions on foreign wars.
Hillary Clinton is not a liberal or progressive just changed her message to get elected she is probably more on the right than the left most Republicans.


Sent from my SM-G925I
 
Markhor said:
I'm not as left wing as Sanders however I don't think you're understanding why he's resonating with people. Not all Sanders supporters are even socialists, nor are many Sanders supporters even calling for a socialist utopia. If you ask Sanders himself he'll admit even if elected he won't be able to take America in a socialist direction given the GOP's control of Congress.

To conservatives I say this - we've tried your way for 30 years and look what happened in 2008. Your way was unfettered neo-liberal dogma - the mantra of less regulation and tax cuts for the rich that's left Americans with decreasing living standards and stagnating wages DESPITE increased productivity. Kids are going to end up leaving college/university with a mountain of debt and their parents are having to take 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet. They're angry because under this supposed socialist that is President Obama, 90% of the income growth under the Obama recovery has gone to the top 1%. I know you're not a left-winger but do you accept this is a sign of a broken and unsustainable economic system ?

So when Sanders says things that EVEN people in Republican-voting states support - such as a higher minimum wage which shouldn't be beyond the reach of corporations who are raking in record profits, free college tuition, single-payer healthcare and tackling income inequality - these issues don't exist in a socialist vacuum - they're very real and that's why people are backing him. He's the only one with the guts to say it and if Sanders is as delusional as the Washington establishment says - then why is Hillary Clinton suddenly adopting Bernie's rhetoric ? Now apparently she's tough on banks and hates income inequality too !
Click to expand...

I agree that the system has issues but whether its broken I don't think so.One of the reasons which i guess i already highlighted was the separation of commercial and investment banking to keep the effects away from the public and tbf there was massive growth of middle class between 1933-1998 irrespective of crisis that happened.

I do believe in accountability and Leftists always try to control the market,resources,prices and wages which never will workout and again on rising wages there is a very good argument against it as well that minimum wages jobs aren't supposed to be permanent they are supposed to be a stepping stone and if they raise it to such a level yes some people might do well but they will not try to rise.

Having said that Bernie Sanders is a good man mostly the leftists and socialists are but world is not ideal place and they can't control everything and sadly most of the time can't fix things but maybe he can bring in some accountability to the system.
 
JaDed said:
I agree that the system has issues but whether its broken I don't think so.One of the reasons which i guess i already highlighted was the separation of commercial and investment banking to keep the effects away from the public and tbf there was massive growth of middle class between 1933-1998 irrespective of crisis that happened.

I do believe in accountability and Leftists always try to control the market,resources,prices and wages which never will workout and again on rising wages there is a very good argument against it as well that minimum wages jobs aren't supposed to be permanent they are supposed to be a stepping stone and if they raise it to such a level yes some people might do well but they will not try to rise.

Having said that Bernie Sanders is a good man mostly the leftists and socialists are but world is not ideal place and they can't control everything and sadly most of the time can't fix things but maybe he can bring in some accountability to the system.
Click to expand...
You can't have capitalist system with open world markets. As countries without laws will be always be cheaper. And minimum wage has to be near livable wage how do you expect people to move away from these jobs if they are making ends meet by doing 2-3 jobs and still taking welfare.
With higher wages people can have enough time and energy to look for something better today they are just looking at putting food on the table and hoping to make rent.

Sent from my SM-G925I
 
Couch Cricketer said:
You can't have capitalist system with open world markets. As countries without laws will be always be cheaper. And minimum wage has to be near livable wage how do you expect people to move away from these jobs if they are making ends meet by doing 2-3 jobs and still taking welfare.
With higher wages people can have enough time and energy to look for something better today they are just looking at putting food on the table and hoping to make rent.

Sent from my SM-G925I
Click to expand...

The consumer can always create awareness for example the awareness regarding Bangladeshi textiles.Globalization will take off manual jobs from economies with good income there is no stopping that.

England textiles mills did that and then they were out of business,similarly Detroit was taken over by Japanese automobile and now Koreans,Germans are doing well.People who fail to realize that will obviously have issues.

Increasing minimum wages drastically would also increase prices of goods ,inflation would rise as well.Increments are necessary but increasing them by 50-100% will only work against the economy.

Although on healthcare i do agree there should be some middle ground but complete state owned healthcare wouldn't work as well.
Capitalism with proper accountability and awareness is imo the best way for any country.
 
JaDed said:
Yes I do agree On "accountability" for that mess Bill Clinton is 80% responsible when he put down the Glass–Steagall act which was put in place after the 1933 crash.
Click to expand...

Interesting isn't it? And the supposedly leftist Gordon Brown deregulated the banks over here, which not even Thatcher did.
 
Robert said:
Interesting isn't it? And the supposedly leftist Gordon Brown deregulated the banks over here, which not even Thatcher did.
Click to expand...

Gordon Brown is also the dumbest inspite of his Gold reserve stupidity he actually became PM of England says a lot tbh.
Bill Clinton tbh did move right side within the Democratic party also the reason he won then.Gordon Brown lol no words for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Donald Trump says the US has approved the extradition of a suspect in the 2008 Mumbai attacks
2
Replies
123
Views
3K
IMMY69
IMMY69
Bhaijaan
Lessons to be learned by Indians after the noticeable silence of the woke left media and Hollywood in defending them against racism in the USA
Replies
17
Views
734
Cpt. Rishwat
Cpt. Rishwat
JaDed
Is Pakistan establishment fit to talk with Government of India?
Replies
19
Views
667
Bhaijaan
Bhaijaan
BouncerGuy
[VIDEO] Two dead as Mexican Navy ship crashes into Brooklyn Bridge
Replies
3
Views
256
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Major
For all War Mongers, these are the people who suffer at the end of the day
Replies
65
Views
1K
Cricket Warrior
Cricket Warrior
Back
Top