Cyprus Eastern Forum Archive


This is a text archive version of our main content. To view the full site with more information, features, formatting and images please click here.

>> Eastern Cyprus Forum Archive Index

View The Full Original Topic: Jeremy Corbin


>> Have YOUR say - Post A Reply To This Topic

Posted By: crissbroon

  • Hudswell wrote:
    I agree with your point regarding the whips, and allowing MPs to truly represent the views of those that elected them on the policies put before them..But Mr Corbyn a breath of fresh area...I am sorry he has the stench of the 70's about him, the first duty of any Government is the defence of the Realm, both from within and without, he and his team would seek to destroy it all.
    Quote:

"The stench of the 70s". You mean in the dark days when people fought for their rights and a better life, the wealthier and more secure tut tutting at the angry bad men on the telly fighting for their very livlihoods and the good old British Bobbies having to bash them on the head with their truncheons.
Yes Corbyn was around then and fighting along with others against these wrongs being perpetrated against the working class.
Yes, 30yrs later he is still here and he will be fighting just as hard, for the same principles as he did then.
This is what is called a man of integrity. A man who holds the same principles throughout his life because he knows them to be good.
You may not understand that though because we have all had to listen too long to those who spout out their "varied" principles depending on the situation and to whom they are talking to, or even which TV programme they're on
Your right that it is the duty of Government to defend the realm and historically they have done this valiantly and successfully.
The problem now though, is that the Tories and New labour have played a huge part in causing the refugee mayhem and the hatred from the Muslim world that has increased the danger that faces all westerners today through their hypocrisy and foreign policies regarding certain countries throughout the last 2 decades.
Perhaps a calm and collected voice, with a higher propensity toward reason and (more importantly) honesty can make a difference to even that dire situation.



Posted By: kanebill

A man of principles? Earlier in the week Corbyn would not commit to campaigning to remain in the EU, insisting “we can’t just give Cameron a blank cheque whatever he comes back with“. Speaking to Laura K on BBC News last night, he repeated the blank cheque line. This afternoon he has just emailed this to Labour MPs: “Labour will be campaigning in the referendum for the UK to stay in the European Union… regardless of the outcome of the Government’s renegotiations"

Posted By: crissbroon

  • kanebill wrote:
    A man of principles?
    Earlier in the week Corbyn would not commit to campaigning to remain in the EU, insisting “we can’t just give Cameron a blank cheque whatever he comes back with“. Speaking to Laura K on BBC News last night, he repeated the blank cheque line. This afternoon he has just emailed this to Labour MPs:
    “Labour will be campaigning in the referendum for the UK to stay in the European Union… regardless of the outcome of the Government’s renegotiations"
    Quote:

That is not strictly true. He said in the first interview that his "personal view" was that it would be foolish to campaign to stay in the EU until he saw what Cameron came back with. However he emphasised that the Labour Party under his leadership will be a "democratic party" and the views of others will be heard.
This is democracy in action. Better get used to it.

Posted By: devil

  • ProVox wrote:

    That single proposal of PQE will ensure the support of ordinary people because ...

... because they do not realise the dire consequences of any form of QE, whether P or not. Why do you think the Euro has dropped in value recently and produce in the shops costs more? Because the ECB has been easing the currency and Eurozone members cannot do a blind thing about it. Why do you think the Swiss Franc is such a strong currency? Because the SNB resolutely refuses to ease it, even though Swiss exports are suffering. PQE would have disastrous consequences. The 1949 and 1969 devaluations were actually the result of QE, although the term did not exist then. In 49, Cripps forced the BoE to try and redress the balance of payments crisis: result was the £ dropped from $4 to $2.80 as a result of easing. One other result was food rationing continuing until 1954 because the low sterling meant the UK could not afford imported wheat etc.

Posted By: Hudswell

Come on Kwacka, that is one Policy....and yes there is disagreement in the party.....I would suggest Mr Corbyn has significantly more problems convincing his party on his "ideas"

Posted By: crissbroon

Great News! No more clichés and sound bites from the present Labour wimps. Here is a man with real principles and beliefs who is not afraid to say what he thinks and not what he thinks the media or even the public want to hear. There are more of his ilk out there. Lets hope he pulls them in and lets them be heard.

Posted By: PatCon

Yes lets get back to the 60s. Nationalise everything and let the union bosses run the country. Corbyn could be the best friend for the Conservatives. Now they have a real chance in the national elections.

Posted By: gbuck

The guy is pro- United Ireland (Goodbye Northern Ireland). Pro Argenine claim to Malvinas (bye Falkland Islands) Anti-Armed Forces (bye Nuclear deterrent, bye bye sizeable armed forces that we have left. Hello armed forces the size and reach of Belgium). He wants to nationalise the energy companies et al; that will cost another £185bn Wants to Open coal mines???? In short, he is a loon and would ruin the UK





Posted By: crissbroon

  • gbuck wrote:
    The guy is pro- United Ireland (Goodbye Northern Ireland).
    Pro Argenine claim to Malvinas (bye Falkland Islands)
    Anti-Armed Forces (bye Nuclear deterrent, bye bye sizeable armed forces that we have left. Hello armed forces the size and reach of Belgium).
    He wants to nationalise the energy companies et al; that will cost another £185bn
    Wants to Open coal mines????
    In short, he is a loon and would ruin the UK
    Quote:

Ruin the UK? You must be having a laugh. It is already ruined beyond recognition. I'm in my hometown at the moment and it is unrecognisable to how it was during my life there.
High street dead. More charity shops than anything else. Beggars in the street.
What are you afraid of? Do you not want some one who will be able to stand up for the rights of people who are suffering social injustice in this country or fight a government who have broken almost every promise from their own manifesto.
Being anti army, maybe he will refrain from bombing foreign countries that we have no business being in and I can again travel the world without being afraid to say I'm British in case someone decides to separate my head from my body.
Or maybe you are one of those who are leading a nice comfortable life and don't want anyone rocking the boat.
Well you better hang on to something. I have a feeling that this guy will cause more than a few storms in the coming months and years.
He is a man of principles and beliefs and if nothing else, whatever else he does, we will no longer be subjected to the cliché, sound bite crap that the Labour party( come to that the Tories too) have been spouting for the last few years.
Be prepared for some home truths.

Posted By: ProVox

  • PatCon wrote:
    Yes lets get back to the 60s. Nationalise everything and let the union bosses run the country. Corbin could be the best friend for the Conservatives. Now they have a real chance.

Would you rather the status-quo ..... where the banks and the bankers run everything ...... including Government? :roll: :wink:

Posted By: PatCon

It may be wishful thinking, but with a clown like Corbyn with his agenda leading the Labour party, I hope and believe that Labour has no chance in the national elections. But if the UK has so many Corbyn supporters that these non-thinkers win the national elections, I thank God I live in Cyprus. They have union bullies here too but I remember the closed shop union terrorism of the 60s, power worker strikes, flying pickets etc. and all this could come back with an extreme left-winger like Corbyn to stir them up.

Posted By: Byker

As a life long Conservative I think this is great news. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Posted By: Hudswell

I read a sound bite that Mr Corbyn even makes Mr Foot electable...it is spot on, this man has never actually led anything in his entire life, a man of principle who has never put those principles to the test, and thankfully never will. The trouble with left wing socialism is they have all the bright ideas on how to protect the poor, bring about social equality, distribute wealth across the piece and bring about a global utopia, the problem is their views are based on shifting sands and have no foundation, they are very good at spending money, never their own, and no idea on where the next penny will come from. The last labour Governments "reign" was a disaster and bankrupt the country, Mr Corbyn is a disaster, I give him 12 months.....

Posted By: ProVox

  • PatCon wrote:
    It may be wishful thinking, but with a clown like Corbyn with his agenda leading the Labour party, I hope and believe that Labour has no chance in the national elections. But if the UK has so many Corbyn supporters that these non-thinkers win the national elections, I thank God I live in Cyprus. They have union bullies here too but I remember the closed shop union terrorism of the 60s, power worker strikes, flying pickets etc. and all this could come back with an extreme left-winger like Corbyn to stir them up.

Not necessarily! Remember the laws on all that have changed and no matter how left wing he is, he cannot go against the Law. As for Cyprus and the Unions here ......... worse than the UK was but nobody notices their strikes because they only seem to last a couple of hours, create a photo opportunity ......... and then they all go back to ' work '. :roll:

Posted By: lion

  • Hudswell wrote:
    I read a sound bite that Mr Corbyn even makes Mr Foot electable...it is spot on, this man has never actually led anything in his entire life, a man of principle who has never put those principles to the test, and thankfully never will. The trouble with left wing socialism is they have all the bright ideas on how to protect the poor, bring about social equality, distribute wealth across the piece and bring about a global utopia, the problem is their views are based on shifting sands and have no foundation, they are very good at spending money, never their own, and no idea on where the next penny will come from. The last labour Governments "reign" was a disaster and bankrupt the country, Mr Corbyn is a disaster, I give him 12 months.....

Shame there isn't a like button



Posted By: devil

At long last, the Government will have some real opposition instead of Blairite yes-men. I, and nobody else on this forum or, for that matter, in the UK including Westminster, have a clue how it's going to come out in the wash but I hope it will wipe that smug smile off Cameron's face and those of his henchmen. As for Tories who think that they have already won thee next election, I fear you may be in for a surprise. If Corbyn survives the next 4 years, he is a force to be reckoned with, rising from near-0% to 60% popularity in 12 weeks. Do not forget he is pragmatic.

Posted By: Hudswell

If his acceptance speech is anything to go by then I am afraid PMQ's are going to be a little one sided...his first major challenge is to gather sufficient Labour MP's together to form a viable opposition...many seem to be leaving the front bench...his version of socialism is irrelevant and outdated,, the world has moved unfortunately he hasn't...I do however admire his conviction....however misplaced.

Posted By: jeff60

I think there will be plenty of red faces in time because one thing Jeremy corbyn is is honest !lots of tories who wanted him mayb be very sorry ! you may not like his views but they wont be coming from power men in banks media etc just check how much of his constituency electorate daviv Cameron had he runs the country without a majority of his own town ! well he calls it his town(when it suits)haha now lets here the replies !!

Posted By: LynSab

One good thing he's going to do is apologise for the Iraq war, wether that and the chilcot report ( if it's ever released ) will gain more Labour support I have no idea, but picking at old sores in the Labour Party may not help.. This effectively rules out Labour under Corbyn from supporting David Cameron’s government in a proposed House of Commons vote to expand to Syria the current UK air strikes in Iraq against Islamic State. He's also at the protest in parliament square re the refugee crisis http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34234366 He's shocked beyond appalled at the media coverage of the crisis... And some Labour MPs are already standing down, he's got a tough road ahead.. So although I don't think he'll make a long term leader or help get labour back into power anytime soon, I do admire a few of his principles...

Posted By: crissbroon

  • Hudswell wrote:
    If his acceptance speech is anything to go by then I am afraid PMQ's are going to be a little one sided...his first major challenge is to gather sufficient Labour MP's together to form a viable opposition...many seem to be leaving the front bench...his version of socialism is irrelevant and outdated,, the world has moved unfortunately he hasn't...I do however admire his conviction....however misplaced.

Its no surprise that he has lost some of the present front bench. They have been openly critical of his views up till now.(Obviously because they thought he had no chance of winning). They themselves have always been terrified to say anything worth saying in case they upset someone. This alone is very refreshing as I expected them to suddenly ditch their previous views in an attempt to keep hold of his coat tail. They obviously realise that even the greatly apathetic British public wouldn't swallow that.
I don't understand how anyone can say that his version of socialism is irrelevant and outdated. How can the view that we need to reduce poverty, reduce the influence of the banks and financial institutions on our every day lives and aim for a more peaceful world ever be described as irrelevant and outdated.
Especially when we can look around and see poverty approaching the scale of Victorian times, employment laws that are stripping all rights of employees and a world living in fear largely because of the reckless actions of idiotic, visionless politicians.

Posted By: Kwacka

  • mouse wrote:
    • crissbroon wrote:
      • rosedan wrote:
        • crissbroon wrote:
          • Kwacka wrote:
            • gbuck wrote:

              Wants to Open coal mines????
              In short, he is a loon and would ruin the UK

              Quote:
            • “The last deep coal mines in South Wales have gone but it’s quite possible that in future years coal prices will start to go up again around the world. And maybe there will be a case for what is actually very high quality coal, particularly in South Wales, being mined again.”

            So the price of coal MAY rise in the future, which MAY it cost-effective to restart mining it.
            What a loon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
            Quote:

          Unlike Cameron or Blair of course. They're solution for future fuel provisions for the UK are to invent reasons to invade other countries and steal theirs.
          Who are the loonies again?

        Don't think we very successful at "stealing" oil when we invaded other countries , by the way I hate Blair, Cameron but to be honest know very little about Corbyn (like most) but what have read so far he seems good on the home front but spineless on international matters especially the middle east
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33772024

      Who cares what his policies are on the Middle East? Look where the meddling in the affairs of the Middle East have got the rest of the world.
      The welfare of UK citizens is what British Governments are supposed to be concerned with.
      The present government are spending billions on fighting senseless wars that they had a hand in causing, yet can't afford to look after their own pensioners.
      He is correct that we need to TALK to all of those involved in the mess in the Middle East instead of supplying weapons to half of them and trying to bomb the other half. We have for many years been sadly lacking any politicians with vision and foresight.
      Jeremy Corbyn was a founder member of the Stop The War campaign along with George Galloway in fact. Strangely, another gifted politician who was (and still is) vilified because he dares to speak out and stick to his principles. I hear he is now going to re join the Labour Party following this result.
      Sparks will fly!

    Good post!

Which one, there's half a dozen there. :?

Posted By: Kwacka

  • gbuck wrote:

    Wants to Open coal mines????
    In short, he is a loon and would ruin the UK

    Quote:
  • “The last deep coal mines in South Wales have gone but it’s quite possible that in future years coal prices will start to go up again around the world. And maybe there will be a case for what is actually very high quality coal, particularly in South Wales, being mined again.”

So the price of coal MAY rise in the future, which MAY it cost-effective to restart mining it.
What a loon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Posted By: crissbroon

  • Kwacka wrote:
    • gbuck wrote:

      Wants to Open coal mines????
      In short, he is a loon and would ruin the UK

      Quote:
    • “The last deep coal mines in South Wales have gone but it’s quite possible that in future years coal prices will start to go up again around the world. And maybe there will be a case for what is actually very high quality coal, particularly in South Wales, being mined again.”

    So the price of coal MAY rise in the future, which MAY it cost-effective to restart mining it.
    What a loon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Quote:

Unlike Cameron or Blair of course. They're solution for future fuel provisions for the UK are to invent reasons to invade other countries and steal theirs.
Who are the loonies again?

Posted By: Hudswell

The problem with socialists crissbroom is that they have no idea how to fund their aspirations other than tax the hell out of who they consider to be the rich, and that list starts at the middle earners...Mr Corbyn has already stated that he would raise taxes for those people in regard to NI. The plan would be to suck those that earn dry and give to those that earn nothing more...Britain is rich in fossil fuels, and if they become viable again they will be exploited....I would be very interested in Corbyn's view of Fracking...I suspect he would not be to keen...and contrary to popular belief the UK has never invaded a country because of oil..or indeed invaded...i like to think more liberated...but perhaps that is just me....having actually been there.

Posted By: rosedan

  • crissbroon wrote:
    • Kwacka wrote:
      • gbuck wrote:

        Wants to Open coal mines????
        In short, he is a loon and would ruin the UK

        Quote:
      • “The last deep coal mines in South Wales have gone but it’s quite possible that in future years coal prices will start to go up again around the world. And maybe there will be a case for what is actually very high quality coal, particularly in South Wales, being mined again.”

      So the price of coal MAY rise in the future, which MAY it cost-effective to restart mining it.
      What a loon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Quote:

    Unlike Cameron or Blair of course. They're solution for future fuel provisions for the UK are to invent reasons to invade other countries and steal theirs.
    Who are the loonies again?

Don't think we very successful at "stealing" oil when we invaded other countries , by the way I hate Blair, Cameron but to be honest know very little about Corbyn (like most) but what have read so far he seems good on the home front but spineless on international matters especially the middle east
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33772024

Posted By: crissbroon

  • rosedan wrote:
    • crissbroon wrote:
      • Kwacka wrote:
        • gbuck wrote:

          Wants to Open coal mines????
          In short, he is a loon and would ruin the UK

          Quote:
        • “The last deep coal mines in South Wales have gone but it’s quite possible that in future years coal prices will start to go up again around the world. And maybe there will be a case for what is actually very high quality coal, particularly in South Wales, being mined again.”

        So the price of coal MAY rise in the future, which MAY it cost-effective to restart mining it.
        What a loon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        Quote:

      Unlike Cameron or Blair of course. They're solution for future fuel provisions for the UK are to invent reasons to invade other countries and steal theirs.
      Who are the loonies again?

    Don't think we very successful at "stealing" oil when we invaded other countries , by the way I hate Blair, Cameron but to be honest know very little about Corbyn (like most) but what have read so far he seems good on the home front but spineless on international matters especially the middle east
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33772024

Who cares what his policies are on the Middle East? Look where the meddling in the affairs of the Middle East have got the rest of the world.
The welfare of UK citizens is what British Governments are supposed to be concerned with.
The present government are spending billions on fighting senseless wars that they had a hand in causing, yet can't afford to look after their own pensioners.
He is correct that we need to TALK to all of those involved in the mess in the Middle East instead of supplying weapons to half of them and trying to bomb the other half. We have for many years been sadly lacking any politicians with vision and foresight.
Jeremy Corbyn was a founder member of the Stop The War campaign along with George Galloway in fact. Strangely, another gifted politician who was (and still is) vilified because he dares to speak out and stick to his principles. I hear he is now going to re join the Labour Party following this result.
Sparks will fly!

Posted By: geof j

Mr.Corbin is now leader, with huge union votes, ah well that is democracy in action, unions voting on behalf of their members, whether the members agree or not.

Posted By: kanebill

  • geof j wrote:
    Mr.Corbin is now leader, with huge union votes, ah well that is democracy in action, unions voting on behalf of their members, whether the members agree or not.

Not true for the leadership election. Each member had to sign to get an INDIVIDUAL vote. No block vote.

Posted By: mouse

  • crissbroon wrote:
    • rosedan wrote:
      • crissbroon wrote:
        • Kwacka wrote:
          • gbuck wrote:

            Wants to Open coal mines????
            In short, he is a loon and would ruin the UK

            Quote:
          • “The last deep coal mines in South Wales have gone but it’s quite possible that in future years coal prices will start to go up again around the world. And maybe there will be a case for what is actually very high quality coal, particularly in South Wales, being mined again.”

          So the price of coal MAY rise in the future, which MAY it cost-effective to restart mining it.
          What a loon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
          Quote:

        Unlike Cameron or Blair of course. They're solution for future fuel provisions for the UK are to invent reasons to invade other countries and steal theirs.
        Who are the loonies again?

      Don't think we very successful at "stealing" oil when we invaded other countries , by the way I hate Blair, Cameron but to be honest know very little about Corbyn (like most) but what have read so far he seems good on the home front but spineless on international matters especially the middle east
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33772024

    Who cares what his policies are on the Middle East? Look where the meddling in the affairs of the Middle East have got the rest of the world.
    The welfare of UK citizens is what British Governments are supposed to be concerned with.
    The present government are spending billions on fighting senseless wars that they had a hand in causing, yet can't afford to look after their own pensioners.
    He is correct that we need to TALK to all of those involved in the mess in the Middle East instead of supplying weapons to half of them and trying to bomb the other half. We have for many years been sadly lacking any politicians with vision and foresight.
    Jeremy Corbyn was a founder member of the Stop The War campaign along with George Galloway in fact. Strangely, another gifted politician who was (and still is) vilified because he dares to speak out and stick to his principles. I hear he is now going to re join the Labour Party following this result.
    Sparks will fly!

Good post!



Posted By: rosedan

  • crissbroon wrote:
    • rosedan wrote:
      • crissbroon wrote:
        • Kwacka wrote:
          • gbuck wrote:

            Wants to Open coal mines????
            In short, he is a loon and would ruin the UK

            Quote:
          • “The last deep coal mines in South Wales have gone but it’s quite possible that in future years coal prices will start to go up again around the world. And maybe there will be a case for what is actually very high quality coal, particularly in South Wales, being mined again.”

          So the price of coal MAY rise in the future, which MAY it cost-effective to restart mining it.
          What a loon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
          Quote:

        Unlike Cameron or Blair of course. They're solution for future fuel provisions for the UK are to invent reasons to invade other countries and steal theirs.
        Who are the loonies again?

      Don't think we very successful at "stealing" oil when we invaded other countries , by the way I hate Blair, Cameron but to be honest know very little about Corbyn (like most) but what have read so far he seems good on the home front but spineless on international matters especially the middle east
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33772024

    Who cares what his policies are on the Middle East? Look where the meddling in the affairs of the Middle East have got the rest of the world.
    The welfare of UK citizens is what British Governments are supposed to be concerned with.
    The present government are spending billions on fighting senseless wars that they had a hand in causing, yet can't afford to look after their own pensioners.
    He is correct that we need to TALK to all of those involved in the mess in the Middle East instead of supplying weapons to half of them and trying to bomb the other half. We have for many years been sadly lacking any politicians with vision and foresight.
    Jeremy Corbyn was a founder member of the Stop The War campaign along with George Galloway in fact. Strangely, another gifted politician who was (and still is) vilified because he dares to speak out and stick to his principles. I hear he is now going to re join the Labour Party following this result.
    Sparks will fly!

I really don't think ISIS are willing to sit down with Jeremy ( or any sane or insane person)and talk :shock: do you think they are , after all they only carry out the comic Mohamed will don't they,
this sums up then Islamic movement really, and people have and will continue to be murdered in its name
https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/mohammed-cartoon-collection/ :twisted:

Posted By: Byker

Corbyn has done to the Labour Party, or parts of it, what Tsipras did to the Greeks (fill their heads with idealistic BS), luckily the next 4+ years of reality will shrivel him up like Tsipras, I doubt if he'll even be leader of the Labour Party in 2020, although for obvious reasons I hope he is. :wink:

Posted By: scottie

You are like a badly needed breath of fresh air crissbroon . Well said, clearly said and absolutely correct. More posts please :D

Posted By: Byker

Jocks of a feather... :lol:

Posted By: scottie

  • Byker wrote:
    Jocks of a feather... :lol:

Praise be for them :) :D :D :D :)

Posted By: devil

Well, I applaud his stand on taxing the rich.
If I were him, I'd introduce tranches of taxable income:
>500k 40%
>1m 50%
>5m 75%
>10m 90%
This would provide a disincentive to those with obscene salaries like footballers, rock stars and bankers.
As for corporate tax, a similar set of sliding tranches on nett profit per employee would encourage employment and investment, while leaving enough to keep shareholders ± content

Posted By: Dave B

  • devil wrote:
    Well, I applaud his stand on taxing the rich.
    If I were him, I'd introduce tranches of taxable income:
    >500k 40%
    >1m 50%
    >5m 75%
    >10m 90%
    This would provide a disincentive to those with obscene salaries like footballers, rock stars and bankers.
    As for corporate tax, a similar set of sliding tranches on nett profit per employee would encourage employment and investment, while leaving enough to keep shareholders ± content

Well I knew you were an "old Devil" but I would never have thought you to be an "old socialist." :!:





Posted By: Byker

  • devil wrote:

    This would provide a disincentive to those with obscene salaries like footballers, rock stars and bankers.

I believe this sort of thing happened back in 70s, those concerned just moved out of the UK and the British government got a huge percentage of sweet FA.
More recently
    Quote:
  • Tax in the UK represents a third of GDP, far higher than the global average of 27.8 per cent, according to analysis by UHY Hacker Young.
    The accountancy group has urged the government to set an overall target for levies, suggesting that relatively high taxes on businesses, individuals, investors and consumer spending stunt growth.
    At 32.9 per cent of GDP, the HMRC takes more tax than the US (25.4 per cent), Ireland (28.4 per cent) and Japan (29.5 per cent), meaning that Britain would struggle to compete for business when pitted against these countries.
    Indeed, Ireland has enjoyed the fastest growth rate in Europe. Last year, the Irish economy grew by 4.8 per cent, compared to 2.6 per cent in the UK, and is the number one destination for US foreign direct investment.
    http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/571717/British-economy-inhibited-high-level-tax-stunts-growth

Ireland would be the pefect tax haven for most, probably even the Premier League players could spend enough time there to claim domicile.

Posted By: devil

  • Dave B wrote:
    I would never have thought you to be an "old socialist." :!:

I never decided whether I was an extreme right wing communist or an extreme left wing nationalist. I am surely not a Blairite socialist; for me, Corby has ~33% good ideas, against 5% for the other three and Cameron. The other 67% is worrying, though.
Out of curiosity, I watched the first TV debate amongst the four candidates. I was most impressed with Corbyn as a refreshing politician and I said to the OH that if I were able to vote, he would seem to be the only candidate with something between his ears. However, I also said that he is too old. He would be 76 if he were elected, at the end of his mandate,

Posted By: Kwacka

Interested to note that the bulk of the 'informed' commentators can't even spell the new Labour leader's name. :lol:

Posted By: scottie

  • Kwacka wrote:
    Interested to note that the bulk of the 'informed' commentators can't even spell the new Labour leader's name. :lol:

Lol

Posted By: devil

  • Dave B wrote:

    Well I knew you were an "old Devil" but I would never have thought you to be an "old socialist." :!:

The BBC has published a sort of 24-point manifesto of Corbyn's views. This is long and detailed at
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34209478
As I've been accused of radical socialism, I've listed the 24 titles below with my views and comments under each, to show that I'm not radical. If anyone wishes to discuss any of my views, please do so, but only after reading the relevant paragraph on the BBC site.
1. The deficit should be paid off
Agreed
2. Britain's railways should be renationalised
Don't know, but if they are as costly and inefficient as they seem, why not? But I'm against him re HS2.
3. Far more allotments
Why not? But hardly important politics
4. Talking to militant groups is necessary to win peace in the Middle East.
Useless and utopian!
5. "Quantitative easing for people"
Opposed as it will weaken sterling
6. Replacing Trident would be a costly mistake
Agreed 100%
7. A National Education Service
Not convinced but possibly OK
8. Labour should not support air strikes against Islamic State
Agreed 100%
9. Rent controls should be re-introduced
Perhaps
10. The Chagos islanders evicted from Diego Garcia should be allowed to return
Haven't a clue, but a priori kick the US off British soil
11. The immigration debate
?????
12. The dispute between the UK and Argentina
A joint settlement seems ideal but perhaps utopian
13. High property prices are leading to the closure of London pubs
So what?
14. An arms embargo should be imposed on Israel
Agreed 100%
15. Corbyn is a committed republican, but he would not seek to end the monarchy
OK, I'm neither for nor against the monarchy (at least until Charles takes over)
16. Remaining in the European Union but with changes
OK
17. Corbyn backs cycling.
Why not? But hardly important politics
18. Energy companies should be under public ownership
Not sure!
19. Ireland should be united.
If we want Cyprus united, it would be illogical to oppose Ireland united
20. A national maximum wage should be introduced
Why not? But income taxes would be reduced!
21. Every child should have the chance to learn a musical instrument
Absolutely 100% for
22. Private Finance Initiative deals with the NHS should be ended
Don't know
23. A "serious debate about the powers of Nato" is needed
Agreed
24. The arms trade should be restricted.
Agreed 100%

Posted By: ProVox

Most of your comments I agree with. Only two do I see from a different angle.
4. Talking to militant groups is necessary to win peace in the Middle East.
Useless and utopian!
I can’t see how you can avoid talking to these people and in my book this should include Israel! It may be unpleasant and it is not necessary to give them man hugs and kisses, but how do you resolve any problem without face to face discussions on neutral ground. Didn’t the Thatcher Government talk to the IRA in secret talks to resolve the problems in Northern Ireland, the old animosities are still there but it did reduce the violence.
5. "Quantitative easing for people"
Opposed as it will weaken sterling
The expansion of the monetary supply is an on going process anyway but it is done under a different title. It will be so but, the current system of QA is intended to simply put money into Banks. There are a host of abuses the banking system employs to enhance its own wealth but that have little effect on the country’s economy, it merely artificially boosts the Bond, Stock and housing markets creating bubbles ............ which like all bubbles eventually burst.
As I understand Corbyn’s proposal, he intends to cut out the private commercial banks from the QE process and ensure that the money created goes straight into helping the economy ..... not the banks. It will of course mean a change in the Status of the Bank of England which will then work directly with the treasury rather than using the commercial banks as intermediaries.
Corbyn has also had an offer from Varoufakis to help him put his economic plans together and Varoufakis is a very astute economist ...... not a Banker. That really will be interesting.
The following links explain Quantitative easing in several formats: ( Note: they apply to how the current system works, I cannot find one that is explanative in the basic concept as Corbyn sees it. I could explain it but you wouldn’t accept that anyway, so I won’t waste my time trying .)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/economist-explains-5 .... basic explanation
http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/80790/qe-for-dummies ...... in more detail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HuvStFijX4 ....... a cartoon (childish)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGBrln9HP7c ........ a more academic explanation

Posted By: Byker

  • scottie wrote:
    • Kwacka wrote:
      Interested to note that the bulk of the 'informed' commentators can't even spell the new Labour leader's name. :lol:

    Lol

:lol: :lol: :lol: But as the OP got it wrong to begin with it, and with him being a "breath of fresh air", it doesn't really matter, does it? :roll:

Posted By: devil

  • ProVox wrote:

    4. Talking to militant groups is necessary to win peace in the Middle East.
    Useless and utopian!
    I can’t see how you can avoid talking to these people and in my book this should include Israel!

Talking to Israel is a total waste of time; it would be a dialogue between deaf people. Worse, talking to IS is not likely to happen in Corbyn's lifetime! The whole notion of peace in the Middle East is a paradox.
I won't comment on your take on 5 . as I haven't enough years left to convince you.

Posted By: dannymarks

i have not read all of this thread but i have just watched bbc and think the lunatics are really trying hard to run the asylum. some idiot wanted to honour the IRA. I think they have a lunatic leader with lunatic shadow ministers. if they ever get into power i will uproot my whole family and immigrate. they are all ********* lunatics that will bankrupt our country if they can. madness.

Posted By: bill

  • gbuck wrote:
    The guy is pro- United Ireland (Goodbye Northern Ireland).
    Pro Argenine claim to Malvinas (bye Falkland Islands)
    Anti-Armed Forces (bye Nuclear deterrent, bye bye sizeable armed forces that we have left. Hello armed forces the size and reach of Belgium).
    He wants to nationalise the energy companies et al; that will cost another £185bn
    Wants to Open coal mines????
    In short, he is a loon and would ruin the UK

and according to his acceptance speach want free access of migrants into the
uk irrespective if they are ecomomic migrants or not.
im sure that will not go down to well
bill who's glad he left uk plc

Posted By: mouse

  • dannymarks wrote:
    i have not read all of this thread but i have just watched bbc and think the lunatics are really trying hard to run the asylum. some idiot wanted to honour the IRA. I think they have a lunatic leader with lunatic shadow ministers.
    if they ever get into power i will uproot my whole family and immigrate. they are all ********* lunatics that will bankrupt our country if they can.
    madness.

After seeing who the Shadow Chancellor is I am glad I live here.

Posted By: Tangutica

  • Kwacka wrote:
    Interested to note that the bulk of the 'informed' commentators can't even spell the new Labour leader's name. :lol:

I know this comment doesn't ADD to the debate but ... nor does that one.

Posted By: rosedan

  • Kwacka wrote:
    Interested to note that the bulk of the 'informed' commentators can't even spell the new Labour leader's name. :lol:

Bit like the election thread when when the biggest lefty on the forum didn't even know the labour leaders name :oops: :lol: :lol:

Posted By: mouse

  • rosedan wrote:
    • Kwacka wrote:
      Interested to note that the bulk of the 'informed' commentators can't even spell the new Labour leader's name. :lol:

    Bit like the election thread when when the biggest lefty on the forum didn't even know the labour leaders name :oops: :lol: :lol:

From someone who didn't know Alex Song plays for West Ham. :lol:

Posted By: Hudswell

There must be some very worried Labour voters out there because Mr Corbyn has just made the party unelectable....the shadow cabinet is a joke and will have the floor wiped with them. Looking at the man I think he is in shock....I am not really sure if he actually believed he would be elected and now he has his bluff has been called, you simply cannot ignore the media as he is doing and watching him sat on the front bench today I thought he was going to poop himself. I am sure he will get a standing ovation from the TU conference...who probably think they are quids in...reality bites....I gave him 12 months....over generous I think...gone in 6.

Posted By: journo

  • dannymarks wrote:
    if they ever get into power i will uproot my whole family and immigrate. they are all ********* lunatics that will bankrupt our country if they can. madness.

You'll have to emigrate before you can immigrate. But I wouldn't tell the forum's readers if I were you. Many seem to have an issue with the concept of migrants :wink: :lol:

Posted By: mouse

  • journo wrote:
    • dannymarks wrote:
      if they ever get into power i will uproot my whole family and immigrate. they are all ********* lunatics that will bankrupt our country if they can. madness.

    You'll have to emigrate before you can immigrate. But I wouldn't tell the forum's readers if I were you. Many seem to have an issue with the concept of migrants :wink: :lol:

:lol: :lol:
Mind you might be able to class himself as a Refugee. :wink:

Posted By: dannymarks

i stand corrected journo, but you got my drift. also i am glad i am not the only one who thinks this. I dont even think most labour supporters can believe it either.

Posted By: mouse

  • dannymarks wrote:
    i stand corrected journo, but you got my drift. also i am glad i am not the only one who thinks this. I dont even think most labour supporters can believe it either.

You are correct there Danny.

Posted By: crissbroon

  • Hudswell wrote:
    There must be some very worried Labour voters out there because Mr Corbyn has just made the party unelectable....the shadow cabinet is a joke and will have the floor wiped with them. Looking at the man I think he is in shock....I am not really sure if he actually believed he would be elected and now he has his bluff has been called, you simply cannot ignore the media as he is doing and watching him sat on the front bench today I thought he was going to poop himself. I am sure he will get a standing ovation from the TU conference...who probably think they are quids in...reality bites....I gave him 12 months....over generous I think...gone in 6.

Its laughable really that you and others see fit to ridicule this man who is the elected Labour Leader because of his beliefs and principles.
Who are you comparing him to? Cameron? Blair? Clegg? Milliband?.
Are you impressed by their beliefs and principles?. Do you believe that they have done anything good for UK citizens?
For years now the UK public have complained that there is little difference between New Labour and Tories. Not only have they been compatible in their policy making in some sort of weird points winning game, they are unfortunately compatible in their abject failure to make any significant improvements to the life of ordinary citizens. On the contrary, some top economists are saying that the amount Britain borrows is unsustainable and will lead to bankruptcy.
They have spent the last 2 decades tryin and failing to turn Britain into a Financial Centre which has only served the bankers and the wealthy.
Here is a politician who doesn't give a s**t about these fiscal issues but wants to rescue the failing NHS, reduce child poverty, (this has risen from 24% to a disgusting 29% since 2010), get rid of archaic employment laws, (the unholy rise in zero hours contracts in particular), do away with the extortionate university fees which have left some with debts of £50,000 and who have ended up working in a bar because there are not enough jobs for them. (Unless you want to work in a bank),
Take some advice, Google Jeremy Corbyn and listen to what he really is saying. Don't just take the odd bit of information that the media spout out when they need something to add a bit of controversy to their otherwise inane contributions as a public information service. Then come back and tell me he is a loonie.
If you still prefer the present bunch of near-sighted, gormless, empty headed Tories who don't have the vision to see into next week, or any of the even more gormless Labour Leader candidates, who invited Jeremy Corbyn onto the candidate list, in the mistaken belief that it would somehow strengthen their hands, then I too may emigrate to a faraway land, where the importance of feeding their children far outweighs the concerns of bank balances of greedy and failing banks.

Posted By: alan99

The whole idea is to have a proper opposition to the government of the day. There is no point in having a choice of either a) a right wing party or b) an opposition who are a bit similar,just a bit lighter . Jeremy Corbyn will bring back proper socialism. The latest racket being imposed by the Tories is laws making it illegal to strike unless 50% of workers vote, and 40% of those eligible to vote must back action for strikes in core public services (Health, Education, Transport & Fire Services). Ballots currently require a simple majority to back action. Despite the fact only 37% of voters voted for the conservatives in the last election. What you call hypocritical. Strikers could be jailed under the new laws. Interestingly the prison officers union the POA are in the TUC. So will we see the prison officers all locked up in their own jail, who will guard them exactly. Maybe we will see the ex-warders/now-prisoners wondering around the jail grounds chatting to each other drinking cups of tea, or maybe something a bit stronger. Or nipping out to the nearby shops. Alan

Posted By: Hudswell

I would actually compare him to Mr Foot and will doom the Labour Party to a generation in exile. He doesn't care a s*** about these fiscal policies as you so eloquently put because he has no understanding of them, the Socialist eutopia of Spend Spend Spend without due recourse to where the money comes from...oh sorry lets just increase taxes for middle earners..and of course the rich...works every time. His views on Trade Unions will drag the country back to the early seventies..remember that time? Union bullies trying to hold the country to ransom..Pull out of NATO.....people like him only have free speech because of organisations like NATO. A Marxist dinosaur who simply has no business in UK politics, voted in by Trade Unions and a naive idealist electorate who's views are just not comparable with a modern world. And I have read nothing about the man that installs any confidence or would convince me that he is not a threat to the economy and security of the country.

Posted By: scottie

  • Hudswell wrote:
    I would actually compare him to Mr Foot and will doom the Labour Party to a generation in exile. He doesn't care a s*** about these fiscal policies as you so eloquently put because he has no understanding of them, the Socialist eutopia of Spend Spend Spend without due recourse to where the money comes from...oh sorry lets just increase taxes for middle earners..and of course the rich...works every time. His views on Trade Unions will drag the country back to the early seventies..remember that time? Union bullies trying to hold the country to ransom..Pull out of NATO.....people like him only have free speech because of organisations like NATO. A Marxist dinosaur who simply has no business in UK politics, voted in by Trade Unions and a naive idealist electorate who's views are just not comparable with a modern world. And I have read nothing about the man that installs any confidence or would convince me that he is not a threat to the economy and security of the country.

Back to the socialism Blair and his gang almost killed outright. I did not think there was any way I would ever see a man with true socialist ideas at the head of the party.
Miracles do happen. Power to his elbow and power to the people

Posted By: crissbroon

  • Hudswell wrote:
    I would actually compare him to Mr Foot and will doom the Labour Party to a generation in exile. He doesn't care a s*** about these fiscal policies as you so eloquently put because he has no understanding of them, the Socialist eutopia of Spend Spend Spend without due recourse to where the money comes from...oh sorry lets just increase taxes for middle earners..and of course the rich...works every time. His views on Trade Unions will drag the country back to the early seventies..remember that time? Union bullies trying to hold the country to ransom..Pull out of NATO.....people like him only have free speech because of organisations like NATO. A Marxist dinosaur who simply has no business in UK politics, voted in by Trade Unions and a naive idealist electorate who's views are just not comparable with a modern world. And I have read nothing about the man that installs any confidence or would convince me that he is not a threat to the economy and security of the country.

Why do you believe what you read about the man. Google as I suggested and you will hear his views from the man himself. I have to say that I have been following his narratives on You tube and other video media and the way he is being presented by our dear old British media bears no resemblance to the man I'm listening to.
As for the unions dragging the country down? I take it you weren't a miner or an engineer or a dockworker or ever in a position where you needed the protection of a strong union against injustices and (now widely recognised) poor political decisions of these gormless politicians I referred to in my last post.
Just look around you, No housing, an NHS on its knees, boarded up High Streets, whole communities deprived of work after the rape of their industries, increased child poverty, substandard education, a country now despised all over the world for its war mongering etc etc.
Its why I left. Its a shadow of the country I knew and was brought up in. The political commentators spend more time talking about the Footsie than anything else. That's because there is nothing else to talk about.
You can go on voting in the same old shop window dummies with not a principle or a vision worth pursuing between them but I fear you are in for a shock next time around.
People are just tired of the seemingly endless production of second rate politicians and want changes. It is no surprise that he was overwhelmingly elected as Leader. It is even less of a surprise that the so called "prominent party members" walked away and refused to work with him.
How could they stay? They don't understand what he's talking about. Principles? Belief in a fairer Britain? Stronger unions? That's the language of real socialists. They only understand the language of Tories because they have spent so long trying to be like them.
Its hilarious. They must have thought that, if what the Tories say gets them elected then we better say the same things. Gormless.

Posted By: Kwacka

  • devil wrote:
    • Dave B wrote:

      Well I knew you were an "old Devil" but I would never have thought you to be an "old socialist." :!:

    The BBC has published a sort of 24-point manifesto of Corbyn's views. This is long and detailed at
    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34209478
    As I've been accused of radical socialism, I've listed the 24 titles below with my views and comments under each, to show that I'm not radical. If anyone wishes to discuss any of my views, please do so, but only after reading the relevant paragraph on the BBC site.
    <SNIP>
    5. "Quantitative easing for people"
    Opposed as it will weaken sterling

Wasn't that a faourite of the Bless St Margaret's pet economist, Milton Freirman?
How can this be anything but wonderful?
Although it could sound suspiciously like that commie Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal".

Posted By: ProVox

  • Kwacka wrote:
    • devil wrote:
      • Dave B wrote:

        Well I knew you were an "old Devil" but I would never have thought you to be an "old socialist." :!:

      The BBC has published a sort of 24-point manifesto of Corbyn's views. This is long and detailed at
      http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34209478
      As I've been accused of radical socialism, I've listed the 24 titles below with my views and comments under each, to show that I'm not radical. If anyone wishes to discuss any of my views, please do so, but only after reading the relevant paragraph on the BBC site.
      <SNIP>
      5. "Quantitative easing for people"
      Opposed as it will weaken sterling

    Wasn't that a faourite of the Bless St Margaret's pet economist, Milton Freirman?
    How can this be anything but wonderful?
    Although it could sound suspiciously like that commie Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal".

Are you anti 'quantitative easing' or anti 'for people'? :?

Posted By: LynSab

  • Hudswell wrote:
    I would actually compare him to Mr Foot and will doom the Labour Party to a generation in exile. He doesn't care a s*** about these fiscal policies as you so eloquently put because he has no understanding of them, the Socialist eutopia of Spend Spend Spend without due recourse to where the money comes from...oh sorry lets just increase taxes for middle earners..and of course the rich...works every time. His views on Trade Unions will drag the country back to the early seventies..remember that time? Union bullies trying to hold the country to ransom..Pull out of NATO.....people like him only have free speech because of organisations like NATO. A Marxist dinosaur who simply has no business in UK politics, voted in by Trade Unions and a naive idealist electorate who's views are just not comparable with a modern world. And I have read nothing about the man that installs any confidence or would convince me that he is not a threat to the economy and security of the country.

I so remember the early 70's vividly I had a good job with McAlpines as a trainee draughts woman...after five years got made redundant alongside many others in the construction industry ...my parents ran a wholesale newsagents in Ellesmere Port ( very early opening for the production car workers, busy shop ) they often gave the striking car workers tea sympathy and free cigs! Most didn't want to be on strikes..I've never trusted socialism since....it was an appalling time. Never to be repeated I hope...

Posted By: Hudswell

Chrisbroon, if I didn't realise that you are actually serious I would think your comments are amusing...you are right I was never employed in heavy industry, in the mid 70s I was just starting out as a young Soldier on a career that lasted almost 40 years...but I vividly remember the chaos at the time, with the TUs trying to destroy the country, pitting family against family. The miners strike, almost bring the country to its knees and in the process engaging in a degree of violence never seen on the streets of Britain...killing innocents in the process, the 3 day week, rubbish stacked up on the streets. Would anyone seriously want to return to those times...well obviously there are a few. I served in Northern Ireland in the late 70s and experienced first hand the evil being perpetrated by people like Gerry Adams and McGinness and now we have a IRA supporter on the front bench of the Labour Party. I trained as a firefighter to replace striking fireman, I was even at Greenham Common protecting the nuclear deterrent, and have fought in wars many of you would,disagree with...why...because I believe in my country and for what it stands for, which is allowing people like Corbyn spout his rubbish. The Labour Party in the early days were a force for good and have brought about amazing change in working conditions and social practice, but they have been taken over by radical left wing idealistic politicians who are ruled by extremist TU bullies determined to bring us down....sorry this is not idealistic...this is reality and reality bites.

Posted By: LynSab

  • crissbroon wrote:

    As for the unions dragging the country down? I take it you weren't a miner or an engineer or a dockworker or ever in a position where you needed the protection of a strong union against injustices and (now widely recognised) poor political decisions of these gormless politicians I referred to in my last post.
    Just look around you, No housing, an NHS on its knees, boarded up High Streets, whole communities deprived of work after the rape of their industries, increased child poverty, substandard education, a country now despised all over the world for its war mongering etc etc.
    Its why I left. Its a shadow of the country I knew and was brought up in. The political commentators spend more time talking about the Footsie than anything else. That's because there is nothing else to talk about.
    You can go on voting in the same old shop window dummies with not a principle or a vision worth pursuing between them but I fear you are in for a shock next time around.
    .

It's your choice not to like the country you left and indeed to constantly bash it on an open forum to justify your own present choices in life...but of course it doesn't make it true just because you say it...
The country you live in is suffering after bad govt, bad financial institutions and widespread corruption, never mind the empty high St shops, which in part can be blamed on foreign investment in huge out of town shopping Malls of which the UK has thousands....and they're still being built...I'm sure they will be in Cyprus too as it climbs out of recession and allows in more foreign investment, high streets are no longer the same unless it's in capital cities or historical towns...I'm not sure if it's progress but I've noticed shops are being turned into appts in the market town we live close too...much is changing..visit out of town Malls in the UK at weekends and you can't find parking spaces!
Having visited Cyprus in May there's many empty high streets shops there too, in Paralimni particularly, you could say that may be because of Cyprus's recession or like many European countries the Shopping Mall phenomenum.
The very reason that the UK ( now the fastest growing economy in Europe ) was in dire straits was indeed because of labour rule and IF we are despised for interfering in wars in far off countries it's again because of the labour govt took us without asking into those wars in the past, they brought the country to its knees once again....and IMO brought more terrorism to our doorsteps because of those policies, you fail to mention those who fought in those wars, the best trained army in the world, they're not about politics they are about protecting their country.
Never ever should they be allowed near the helm as we now pick our way out of the debris to a much brighter future, now at last the UK is sticking to the austerity needed to balance the books, the ones that Labour left a note with to say ' no money left' :shock:
The UKs NHS has been rated top out of 11 other western countries by the commonwealth fund, we have 600,000 empty houses, loads of space to build more ( 98% natural land ) even the Cypriots send their offspring to UK universities, industry has now changed and moved on, ..every Labour govt in history has left unemployment higher...I could go on.

Posted By: spanner

  • LynSab wrote:
    I could go on.

You do, you do! :wink:

Posted By: LynSab

  • spanner wrote:
    • LynSab wrote:
      I could go on.

    You do, you do! :wink:

Someone has to shut you girls up sometime.... :lol:

Posted By: dannymarks

i personally have never complained about tory policies. i think some of their policies like getting all the dole taking scroungers off of benefits and cutting benefits for others. im also glad of his stance on immigration. socialism is for lazy people who cant be bothered to work and think money magically grows on trees. it does not work in principal. a watered down version does, but corbyn ( dont care if its spelt wrong ) would plunge us into the darkness of the early 70s. Also.i remember my uncle worked for british rail, and he was too scared not to strike because of the consequences. That seems wrong too. anyway im off to work now to to earn more money to pay more taxes to uphold the socialist dole sucking elite.

Posted By: bill

  • dannymarks wrote:
    i personally have never complained about tory policies. i think some of their policies like getting all the dole taking scroungers off of benefits and cutting benefits for others. im also glad of his stance on immigration.
    socialism is for lazy people who cant be bothered to work and think money magically grows on trees. it does not work in principal. a watered down version does, but corbyn ( dont care if its spelt wrong ) would plunge us into the darkness of the early 70s.
    Also.i remember my uncle worked for british rail, and he was too scared not to strike because of the consequences. That seems wrong too.

    anyway im off to work now to to earn more money to pay more taxes to uphold the socialist dole sucking elite.

and if u went to the union meeting and didnt put ur hand up in favour of a strike -- u were sorted wen u left the pub -- i dont want to see those days return
bill-- not a sheep

Posted By: rosedan

Why has my reply to post 45 been deleted? are mods now editing and deleting posts to suit themselves :evil:

Posted By: Steve - SJD

  • rosedan wrote:
    Why has my reply to post 45 been deleted? are mods now editing and deleting posts to suit themselves :evil:

Unacceptable language - You were sent an email regards your recent
postings earlier today - if you don't see it then you may want to check
your spam folder.
Cheers
Steve

Posted By: ProVox

  • devil wrote:
    • ProVox wrote:

      4. Talking to militant groups is necessary to win peace in the Middle East.
      Useless and utopian!
      I can’t see how you can avoid talking to these people and in my book this should include Israel!

    Talking to Israel is a total waste of time; it would be a dialogue between deaf people. Worse, talking to IS is not likely to happen in Corbyn's lifetime! The whole notion of peace in the Middle East is a paradox.
    If you oppose talking and also oppose bombing them to Hell how would you suggest an attempt at resolution to the problems should be approached ...... Devine intervention?
    .

    Quote:
  • I won't comment on your take on 5 . as I haven't enough years left to convince you.

At least I put forward an explanation with back-up links to support it. You just abusively label anything you disagree with or plain just do not understand, as ' bollox' and/or ' rubbish '. Hardly the response one would expect from a professional scientist/engineer.
I am quite willing to consider your argument and be persuaded that for ten years or more of reading up on the banking and financial system, I have been barking up the wrong tree. So try it! Convince me with sound argument ...... and some credible support of course. :-k

Posted By: devil

  • ProVox wrote:

    If you oppose talking and also oppose bombing them to Hell how would you suggest an attempt at resolution to the problems should be approached ...... Devine intervention?
    .

I'm certainly not opposed to useful talks but Israel and IS would be a total waste of time, money and effort as things stand. Netenyahu considers he is a Moses, named by Jahweh to lead His chosen people. IS blokes consider they are Allah's chosen people. Dialogue with any chosen people is impossible because they have total right on their side.
As for your views on banking, kilometres of posts on this forum have not convinced you that you are partially mistaken and I'm NOT going to add further kilometres. But, when you promote your mistaken ideas, I reserve the right to add my epithets, without repetitive explanations!

Posted By: Kwacka

what football can expect under Jeremy Corbyn's reign of terror

Posted By: alan99

  • dannymarks wrote:
    i personally have never complained about tory policies. i think some of their policies like getting all the dole taking scroungers off of benefits and cutting benefits for others. im also glad of his stance on immigration.
    socialism is for lazy people who cant be bothered to work and think money magically grows on trees. it does not work in principal. a watered down version does, but corbyn ( dont care if its spelt wrong ) would plunge us into the darkness of the early 70s.
    Also.i remember my uncle worked for british rail, and he was too scared not to strike because of the consequences. That seems wrong too.
    anyway im off to work now to to earn more money to pay more taxes to uphold the socialist dole sucking elite.

Don't fear socialism, embrace it. If you are sick, injured or just unfortunate it is a safety net. It is not a crime to be poor.
Those with jobs count yourself lucky. It is said that many people are one or two missing paycheques from being in poverty. You may not be so lucky next month , or next year.
There are about 1.6 million unemployed but only about 750,000 vacancies. What to do with the "surplus" ,shoot em , bring back workhouses ?
Cutting sickness benefits can lead to peoples death. http://www.bigissue.com/features/3637/atos-deaths-and-welfare-cuts
Capitalism is excellent at separating poor people and taxpayers from their money. For example from today's paper.
"The Government will no longer pursue the former owners of Comet over the company’s collapse, which netted OpCapita and others £114m and left the taxpayer £70m out of pocket."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/former-owners-of-comet-face-no-further-government-action-10501179.html
Workers need to stick together. People breaking strikes are just what governments want, and
stop the downtrodden and exploited getting themselves fairness and better conditions.
Alan

Posted By: Hudswell

I do wonder who "Socialists" count as "workers"...is mandatory to be in a unions to toe the party line? And work in heavy industry or manual labour? Are public sector workers more socialist than private sector workers? The middle classes are seen as cash cows to be milked dry to meet the socialist bill....because the uber rich will just go elsewhere!. Socialism like Communism does not not work...unless you have oppressive regimes in charge....and let's face it Russian Communism isnt actually communism anymore is it? The welfare state in the UK has been so abused it is close to collapse...reform is the only way to save it to ensure those that need help get it.....those that have decided that benefits are their right and claiming them count as contributing to the nation simply do those in real need a disservice. Old labour or in this case very old labour will never understand this and will continue on their path to mutual destruction..

Posted By: Andrew Brooks

How quickly some forget how hard our grandparents had to strive for workers' rights and healthcare for all. The British public will always eventually redress the balance. Give the Etonians enough rope and they'll hang themselves. Fed up with scripted politicians. At least Corbyn says what he means and means what he says. People tend to like that.

Posted By: bubblechris

Devil be careful they'll soon be calling you a commie. btw agree with everything you say, well almost everything. Shame you and PV have fallen out over something previous. Clear the air as you and he agree on a lot more than either of you are willing to admit. Anyway in the words of the Beatles 'Let it be, let it be..........' Time will prove who is right or wrong. imo the right have not done that good a job and Corbyn is entitled to his opinions, lets wait and see what he actually does before we crucify him.

Posted By: bromerzz

Corbyn reminds me of the guy that narrated the Wombles. Speaks the same level as rubbish as well.

Posted By: devil

  • Hudswell wrote:
    The welfare state in the UK has been so abused it is close to collapse...reform is the only way to save it to ensure those that need help get it.

And that is exactly what Corbyn says and how he would like the reform to take place. Simply because, under Cameron & Co. (very Ltd), those who really need help are far from getting it. I never saw beggars in the street under Attlee, Wilson or Callaghan, nor even the detested Blair or Brown.
Glad to see you may have a little streak of humanity left in your extreme right wing diatribes.

Posted By: Hudswell

Extreme Right wing, I prefer to think right of centre, but then again if your political beliefs stray to the far left then anything remotely sensible, productive and fair, which does not include taking the country back to the dark ages is deemed to be right wing...I am all for a fair society but fairness based on merit, responsibility and a work ethic that see its citizens willing and able to support themselves and contribute to the support of those that really need it. And if you never saw beggars on the street under Atlee, Wilson, Callaghan, Blair or Brown then you probably weren't looking, what a silly statement to make, but typical of someone blind to the truth, that Socialism has failed and will always fail society as a whole.

Posted By: devil

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Socialism has failed and will always fail society as a whole.

Strange! The most socialist country in W. Europe happens to be the most successful, also the second most socialist, but that doesn't suit your arguments.

Posted By: ProVox

Devil:
    Quote:
  • I'm certainly not opposed to useful talks but Israel and IS would be a total waste of time, money and effort as things stand. Netenyahu considers he is a Moses, named by Jahweh to lead His chosen people. IS blokes consider they are Allah's chosen people. Dialogue with any chosen people is impossible because they have total right on their side.

So you point out what you believe cannot happen but what do you suggest is the way out of the impasse?
I would suggest that with Netanyahu, if his testicles were in a vice ( the threat of the US removing the >$3.2bn military aid that they give Israel annually ) ..... he would talk!!!
ISIS? Although I agree with you that we cannot bomb them out of existence or talk them out of it, then the only real alternative is boots on the ground ...... the question is ....... who's boots?

    Quote:
  • As for your views on banking, kilometres of posts on this forum have not convinced you that you are partially mistaken and I'm NOT going to add further kilometres. But, when you promote your mistaken ideas, I reserve the right to add my epithets, without repetitive explanations!

Are you not the one who insists that members of the forum should have proof to support an opinion. Even on this thread you have said people should read the BBC article before commenting ..... i.e. know what they are discussing? Fair enough ..... but why do you think you should be excluded from acquiring knowledge before commenting? Neither you nor Kwacka, nor most of the others that are stuck in the rut regarding banking, money creation and the financial system, have ever provided ANY credible proof of an alternative explanation as to how money is created or how banks physically operate! Your opinions are based on what YOU have repeatedly labelled 'The Big Lie(s) ' in previous posts.
Because when it comes down to it ..... there isn't an alternative explanation! It is 'The Biggest Lie of All' ....... and you all fall for it! :?
I challenge you AGAIN ..... tell me where I am wrong, with something to support it! :roll:

Posted By: dannymarks

reply to allan. i would have to be on my death bed to not have work. i have created my own work for the last 30 odd years and im sure that wont stop. i also find work for 5 others. you are preaching to the wrong person. if i want to earn money. i do. Dont get me wrong im not loaded or anything like that, just comfortable. But my outlook on life is different to most people. I really hate people who think they are owed a living. No one is. However i do consider myself lucky to be in my position and have my skill set. I also understand that most people are probably a couple of paychecks from being broke. nice try though allan. regards danny

Posted By: dannymarks

also allan, dont get me wrong mate. i have been there. nearly lost my house etc, so i have been up down and round the roundabout, but i know the govt would not give a *****whoever they were.

Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    There must be some very worried Labour voters out there because Mr Corbyn has just made the party unelectable....the shadow cabinet is a joke and will have the floor wiped with them. Looking at the man I think he is in shock....I am not really sure if he actually believed he would be elected and now he has his bluff has been called, you simply cannot ignore the media as he is doing and watching him sat on the front bench today I thought he was going to poop himself. I am sure he will get a standing ovation from the TU conference...who probably think they are quids in...reality bites....I gave him 12 months....over generous I think...gone in 6.

This man has put the fear of God to the political establishment and the banking and financial sector, so he obviously has policies that could evoke changes in the system that will have an adverse effect on them. If you think these detractors are concerned for the people you are incredibly naïve.
You seem to be very forthcoming with your opinion but seem to have virtually nothing to support your views? :?
IMO: His QE for people proposal is a brilliant concept. Corbyn is a breath of fresh air in a system in dire need of a kick up the ar** into the real world that the rest of us live in. :x

Posted By: dannymarks

reply to devil. There have always been beggars. does not matter who is in power. you may not have looked hard enough or been in the right places. some of them are professional too and go back to their 4 bedroom detached houses with brand new mercedes in the drive. proper capatalism at work. god bless margaret thatcher. Should have made her the queen.

Posted By: Hudswell

Devil, I take it by the most successful country in Europe you mean Germany, which I would suggest has employed a Socialist/Capitalist Model, introducing the social benefits of Universal Health care, Education and Welfare, whilst encouraging a capitalist Market Economy, and for them it has worked in part because the Government has encouraged a society based on hard work and social responsibility. I suspect most Germans would run a mile from the socialist state proposed by MR Corbyn and his crowd. And ProVox, I suspect the only political establishment Mr Corbyn and his crowd has put the fear of God into is the Labour Party. And yes his policies would probably have an adverse effect on the Banking and Financial industries, as they would probably adversely effect any industry in the UK, by bankrupting them. It will be interesting to see the detail of his policies rather than a few sound bites....your last few words rather sum it up..." into the real world the rest of us live in" rather than the flawed idealistic world the left inhabit.

Posted By: Kwacka

I note the latest opinion polls puts the Conservative lead over Labour down from 9% to 6%

Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    The problem with socialists crissbroom is that they have no idea how to fund their aspirations other than tax the hell out of who they consider to be the rich, and that list starts at the middle earners...Mr Corbyn has already stated that he would raise taxes for those people in regard to NI. The plan would be to suck those that earn dry and give to those that earn nothing more...Britain is rich in fossil fuels, and if they become viable again they will be exploited....I would be very interested in Corbyn's view of Fracking...I suspect he would not be to keen...and contrary to popular belief the UK has never invaded a country because of oil..or indeed invaded ...i like to think more liberated... but perhaps that is just me....having actually been there.

Ah, I see! We liberated Iraq, then we liberated Libya and now we are liberating Syria! These bloody people are so ungrateful! We liberate their countries for them and then they want to come to live in Europe. WHY .... are they not happy with their newly provided liberation? Thank goodness we haven't yet decided to liberate Iran and Lebanon! What the hell would we do with several million more refugees?
Mind you I think the Palestinians would be very grateful if we truly liberated Palestine? :roll:

Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Devil, I take it by the most successful country in Europe you mean Germany, which I would suggest has employed a Socialist/Capitalist Model, introducing the social benefits of Universal Health care, Education and Welfare, whilst encouraging a capitalist Market Economy, and for them it has worked in part because the Government has encouraged a society based on hard work and social responsibility. I suspect most Germans would run a mile from the socialist state proposed by MR Corbyn and his crowd.
    The German Unions are also very powerful but the employers work with them rather than oppose them. I worked for a major German company for four years. The only reason the company employed British engineers was because the Germans did not want to go to Iran and the German unions prevented them from being forced to go. We also had to be paid the same rate for the job as a German doing the same job .... again this was insisted upon by the Unions. It stopped exploitation by companies employing cheaper labour and doing Germans out of jobs.

    And ProVox, I suspect the only political establishment Mr Corbyn and his crowd has put the fear of God into is the Labour Party. And yes his policies would probably have an adverse effect on the Banking and Financial industries, as they would probably adversely effect any industry in the UK, by bankrupting them. It will be interesting to see the detail of his policies rather than a few sound bites....your last few words rather sum it up..." into the real world the rest of us live in" rather than the flawed idealistic world the left inhabit.
    I doubt that very much. It would be counter productive. The only thing I know enough about to make a valid comment is the banking and the QE bit of his proposals. If you understand banking then you will realise that QE for people is a whole lot less likely to cause what you are suggesting, than leaving the economy in the hands of the banking and financial sector.
    Simply put; QE for people will finance Government directly through the Central Bank, not as a loan at interest from private commercial banks. The 'money' would be created through the Government spending directly into the economy. This is then spent by employees and employers and most of this created money would then return through taxation to the Treasury ..... to be re-spent again, and again and again ......... Not so with the current system.


Posted By: mouse

  • dannymarks wrote:
    reply to devil. There have always been beggars. does not matter who is in power. you may not have looked hard enough or been in the right places.
    some of them are professional too and go back to their 4 bedroom detached houses with brand new mercedes in the drive. proper capatalism at work. god bless margaret thatcher. Should have made her the queen.

So basically you are saying that capitalists abuse the system as well, which is worse. :wink:
If everyone was a capitalist we wouldn't need NHS or benefit system, how do capitalists get to this position and earn their money, from their workforce of course.
But the boss wouldn't want to pay his workforce too much would he, in fact probably as little as possible, so he makes maximum profit.
Back to the benefit system and NHS.
:wink:
I am a Social Capitalist if you like.
They go hand in hand.
Whether Corbyn is the right choice of leader remains to be seen, and I have my doubts, my main grievance is the Shadow Chancellor and others in his Shadow Cabinet.
Unfortunately in my opinion there was not much to choose from.
But as you have money, we might let you into Cyprus as a regugee, not as an economic migrant. :wink: :lol:

Posted By: Byker

  • Kwacka wrote:
    I note the latest opinion polls puts the Conservative lead over Labour down from 9% to 6%

So the Reds will win the next general election...Just like you said they would this year :roll:

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Byker wrote:

    So the Reds will win the next general election...Just like you said they would this year :roll:

Did I? IIRC, the only prediction I made was that UKip would win between 1 - 5 seats; but you'll be able to quote me, won't you? :wink:

Posted By: alan99

  • dannymarks wrote:
    reply to allan. i would have to be on my death bed to not have work. i have created my own work for the last 30 odd years and im sure that wont stop. i also find work for 5 others.
    you are preaching to the wrong person. if i want to earn money. i do. Dont get me wrong im not loaded or anything like that, just comfortable. But my outlook on life is different to most people. I really hate people who think they are owed a living. No one is.
    However i do consider myself lucky to be in my position and have my skill set. I also understand that most people are probably a couple of paychecks from being broke.
    nice try though allan.
    regards danny

You say you are lucky. You have presumably found a recession proof business or a niche market. Bear in mind not all of the 1.6 mill unemployed can be lucky or each find a niche market. As I said there just aren't the jobs there. Not all unemployed are scroungers .
People like you, small entrepreneurs from Syria for example built up a small business then had it totally destroyed and managed to escape with only the shirts on their back. Just a place of birth between good luck and bad(very bad).
regards
Alan

Posted By: dannymarks

reply to alan99. recession proof i doubt i am a builder, but people always need builders, especially when water is coming into their roofs. and you can always rely on good old britain for rain, even in the south. as i said i do consider myself lucky, if i was born in syria, iraq etc i know things would be different and i would be one of those seeking my fortune elsewhere. but i was born in britain, and believe it or not i am proud to be british with all our good and bad points, and its open discussions like these that makes us so bloody good.

Posted By: bromerzz

Corbyn looked like some tired out old headmaster getting up for his retirement present, not like someone who in another 4 years that could be running for Prime Minister. The Party really will need to work on his dress sense and presentation skills.

Posted By: ProVox

  • bromerzz wrote:
    Corbyn looked like some tired out old headmaster getting up for his retirement present, not like someone who in another 4 years that could be running for Prime Minister. The Party really will need to work on his dress sense and presentation skills.

That is the problem with taking what you read in the press as of any great significance. Does it really matter if he is not a dynamic extrovert who dresses in silk shirts, old school tie, £3000 Saville Row suits and knows how to play his audience. Look at Cameron .... he plays to the cameras but when it comes to pushing a policy he comes over as a posh clown full of hot air.
The DM criticises him for taking a pay rise and being given a government car and driver but if he went to work on his bike in jeans and a 'T' shirt they would mock him. He may have taken the increased salary ( to which he is entitled as Leader of the Opposition ) but I believe he does not claim anything like the expenses and allowances he is entitled to as an MP.
Poor man is condemned what ever he does BUT ....... the important thing is that he has announced policies which have the bankers and the establishment on the run. Good on him and I hope he pushes most of his policies and does not go back on his wish to turn the House of Commons from a Circus full of idiots to something more befit of people supposedly running the country. :)

Posted By: Hudswell

I have no problem with what the man looks like...although I suspect the "stylists" will have a gradual impact over the next few months in changing his "look"' he is entitled to a pay rise and should take it and if he needs a car then why not. However I am not sure if he has announced any policy that will put fear into the hearts of the establishment or the financial world..even members of his own party seem unsure what Labour Policy exactly is now. My biggest fear is his inability to communicate, so far his public speeches have been rambling and unsure, his performance at PMQs was woeful, okay putting the questions from the public was a twist but did he ever challenge the PMS reply? That is what PMQs is all about..an oppourtunity for the opposition to put the Government under public pressure...he needs to up his game.

Posted By: Woodrow Why?at

  • alan99 wrote:
    • dannymarks wrote:
      reply to allan. i would have to be on my death bed to not have work. i have created my own work for the last 30 odd years and im sure that wont stop. i also find work for 5 others.
      you are preaching to the wrong person. if i want to earn money. i do. Dont get me wrong im not loaded or anything like that, just comfortable. But my outlook on life is different to most people. I really hate people who think they are owed a living. No one is.
      However i do consider myself lucky to be in my position and have my skill set. I also understand that most people are probably a couple of paychecks from being broke.
      nice try though allan.
      regards danny

    You say you are lucky. You have presumably found a recession proof business or a niche market. Bear in mind not all of the 1.6 mill unemployed can be lucky or each find a niche market. As I said there just aren't the jobs there. Not all unemployed are scroungers .
    People like you, small entrepreneurs from Syria for example built up a small business then had it totally destroyed and managed to escape with only the shirts on their back. Just a place of birth between good luck and bad(very bad).
    regards
    Alan

Alan, yet again you make extremely sensible and valid points - a breath of fresh air compared to some of the commentators on this site!!
It's always made me laugh when, over the years, I've constantly heard - mostly from those who have been in a cosy job all their life - "There's plenty of work out there for those who want it!".
Well, there has never been 'full employment' in Britain, and certainly not since the Mad Witch decimated our industry and, as Harold Macmillan famously said, 'sold off the family silver'!!
During her 'reign' there were officially some three million unemployed - and the real number was nearer to four - yet still some Tory dullards were saying that anybody who was unemployed was just lazy! :twisted:
Having said that, and on Corbyn, I do think some of his policies are a tad too radical to appeal to the greater electorate and, if what we read is true, I am not at all happy with some of the company he keeps!

Posted By: Deanna

  • Andrew Brooks wrote:
    How quickly some forget how hard our grandparents had to strive for workers' rights and healthcare for all.
    The British public will always eventually redress the balance. Give the Etonians enough rope and they'll hang themselves.
    Fed up with scripted politicians. At least Corbyn says what he means and means what he says. People tend to like that.

Andrew, your post is the most sensible, and to-the-point, of any I have read so far. Spot-on.

Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    I have no problem with what the man looks like...although I suspect the "stylists" will have a gradual impact over the next few months in changing his "look"' he is entitled to a pay rise and should take it and if he needs a car then why not. However I am not sure if he has announced any policy that will put fear into the hearts of the establishment or the financial world..even members of his own party seem unsure what Labour Policy exactly is now. My biggest fear is his inability to communicate, so far his public speeches have been rambling and unsure, his performance at PMQs was woeful, okay putting the questions from the public was a twist but did he ever challenge the PMS reply? That is what PMQs is all about..an oppourtunity for the opposition to put the Government under public pressure...he needs to up his game.

Give him a chance .... he is new to the job and is feeling his way! I felt the same when, in a different arena, I first found myself in the headlights, all the eyes were on me and waiting for my contribution to a large meeting. It is quiet daunting when you are not used to it .... and what could go wrong often does. :oops:
Maybe this will explain why he has the bankers on the run with his 'QE for people':
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11869701/Jeremy-Corbyns-QE-for-the-people-is-exactly-what-the-world-may-soon-need.html
( I have to say this was just received from an old adversary who no longer posts on the forum. My reply to him was "..... remember where you heard it first?" :wink:)

Posted By: Hudswell

I will admit outright that I have little financial understanding, but the article explains a lot about "PQE", but whilst the author supports it at a level, I don't think he considers Mr Corbyn is the man to implement it...and Mr Mark Carney, the Governer of the Bank of England has already voiced reservations at such a manoeuvre, who I would suggest is the Subject Matter Expert here. Mr Corbyn is obviously out of his depth, but as a left wing activist and MP I am sure he has had massive oppourtunity to hone his craft and he comes up short, as I said he has to up his game. He is now a leader and has to demonstrate his leadership qualities, which so far he has not done, early days I know but I personally have seen little to give me any confidence at all. :roll:

Posted By: Byker

Corbyn is the best thing that's happened to UKIP. :clap:

Posted By: Woodrow Why?at

  • Byker wrote:
    Corbyn is the best thing that's happened to UKIP. :clap:

And there's so much to choose from!! :roll: :lol: :lol:

Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    I will admit outright that I have little financial understanding, but the article explains a lot about "PQE", but whilst the author supports it at a level, I don't think he considers Mr Corbyn is the man to implement it...and Mr Mark Carney, the Governer of the Bank of England has already voiced reservations at such a manoeuvre, who I would suggest is the Subject Matter Expert here. Mr Corbyn is obviously out of his depth, but as a left wing activist and MP I am sure he has had massive oppourtunity to hone his craft and he comes up short, as I said he has to up his game. He is now a leader and has to demonstrate his leadership qualities, which so far he has not done, early days I know but I personally have seen little to give me any confidence at all. :roll:

To implement 'PQR' requires someone with an economics background. So, you are right that Corbyn does not have what it takes to implement/formulate the details but once the idea is discussed by more people in more detail, then the penny will drop with the population and the advantages of 'PQE' over 'B(Bank)QE' become glaringly obvious.
If Mark Carney was actively supporting Corbyn's proposals it would be tantamount to turkey's looking forward to Christmas! It will summon the end of the banking gravy train as they would effectively lose the ability to create money, basically from nothing. If you wanted to borrow from a bank, the bank would have to borrow from the CB. This concept allows much closer control of the expansion of the money supply, as restraint is under the direct control of the CB.
Instead of private commercial banks creating money an independent Central Bank under the supervision of the treasury, would create money, in exactly the same way but ..... and it is a very big but ...... the money created is spent into existence by the Government but it is NOT a loan! As it is not a loan it attracts no interest. A very large percentage of this money eventually finds its way back to the treasury through taxation, where it is repeatedly re-spent.
Only when you spend on imports does the money disappear from the system, which would then need to be topped up again. But this is ( or should be ) balanced out by exports.
Actually it is not money we are talking about ..... it is ' currency '. They are similar in many ways with one exception! ' Money ' is a store of value over time ......... ' currency ' has no real value as it is backed by nothing other than trust, it is simply an IOU.

It is so simple. Although there are those who will disagree :roll:

Posted By: Hudswell

Sorry but again forgive my ignorance...but I thought the Bank of England was the Central Bank? I do realise it is an independent body but it is still answerable and accountable to the treasury...Like I said financial matters go straight over my head but considering Mr Carneys experience and track record I know where my vote would go...I suspect Mr Corbyn understands the concept but not the reality...but hopefully he is a fast learner.

Posted By: alan99

  • Woodrow Why?at wrote:
    • alan99 wrote:
      • dannymarks wrote:
        reply to allan. i would have to be on my death bed to not have work. i have created my own work for the last 30 odd years and im sure that wont stop. i also find work for 5 others.
        you are preaching to the wrong person. if i want to earn money. i do. Dont get me wrong im not loaded or anything like that, just comfortable. But my outlook on life is different to most people. I really hate people who think they are owed a living. No one is.
        However i do consider myself lucky to be in my position and have my skill set. I also understand that most people are probably a couple of paychecks from being broke.
        nice try though allan.
        regards danny

      You say you are lucky. You have presumably found a recession proof business or a niche market. Bear in mind not all of the 1.6 mill unemployed can be lucky or each find a niche market. As I said there just aren't the jobs there. Not all unemployed are scroungers .
      People like you, small entrepreneurs from Syria for example built up a small business then had it totally destroyed and managed to escape with only the shirts on their back. Just a place of birth between good luck and bad(very bad).
      regards
      Alan

    Alan, yet again you make extremely sensible and valid points - a breath of fresh air compared to some of the commentators on this site!!
    Reply -Yeah, tell me about it LOL - Alan
    It's always made me laugh when, over the years, I've constantly heard - mostly from those who have been in a cosy job all their life - "There's plenty of work out there for those who want it!".
    Well, there has never been 'full employment' in Britain, and certainly not since the Mad Witch decimated our industry and, as Harold Macmillan famously said, 'sold off the family silver'!!
    During her 'reign' there were officially some three million unemployed - and the real number was nearer to four - yet still some Tory dullards were saying that anybody who was unemployed was just lazy! :twisted:
    Having said that, and on Corbyn, I do think some of his policies are a tad too radical to appeal to the greater electorate and, if what we read is true, I am not at all happy with some of the company he keeps!

Thanks Woodrow . It looks like I will have to move the Alan99 appreciation society AGM from the phone box to a larger venue like the village hall. Although I have one or two other fans too, thank you to them also.
I think it preferable to bring some facts into the coffee shop and to be reasonable with fellow coffee shop dwellers.
Alan

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Byker wrote:
    Corbyn is the best thing that's happened to UKIP. :clap:

Forgotten all those Labour voters who voted UKip because Labour had moved away from its roots?

Posted By: crissbroon

  • Hudswell wrote:
    I will admit outright that I have little financial understanding, but the article explains a lot about "PQE", but whilst the author supports it at a level, I don't think he considers Mr Corbyn is the man to implement it...and Mr Mark Carney, the Governer of the Bank of England has already voiced reservations at such a manoeuvre, who I would suggest is the Subject Matter Expert here. Mr Corbyn is obviously out of his depth, but as a left wing activist and MP I am sure he has had massive oppourtunity to hone his craft and he comes up short, as I said he has to up his game. He is now a leader and has to demonstrate his leadership qualities, which so far he has not done, early days I know but I personally have seen little to give me any confidence at all. :roll:
    Quote:

The guy has been elected barely a week. "Out of his depth". "Has not demonstrated leadership qualities" " comes up short".
I feel you are heading for huge embarrassment regarding this guy. Have you been "away" somewhere while his campaign has unfolded?
Even the BBC have given up trying to ruffle his feathers. He is gathering unprecedented support and everywhere he goes he is received like the Messiah.
The more I hear this rhetoric being spouted, (not anymore by most in the media incidentally), the more obvious it is becoming that your lot are afraid of him. They are wondering how they will cope when he starts asking straightforward questions and wants straightforward answers. Not like the brainless, wimpish Labour candidates that thought they would be walking in his shoes.
I have watched him many times in the run up to this election in interviews with Marr, Newsnight, and a whole host of respected political commentators and he has left them all stammering and stuttering with his calm, thoughtful approach to their questioning.
You really should look harder through the blue haze and have a closer look at the reaction he is getting before you dig more holes for yourself.
"The governor of the B.O.E has reservations about such a manoeuvre". I'll bet he does.

Posted By: scottie

  • Kwacka wrote:
    • Byker wrote:
      Corbyn is the best thing that's happened to UKIP. :clap:

    Forgotten all those Labour voters who voted UKip because Labour had moved away from its roots?

How idiotic is that clapping seal arrrrrrgh

Posted By: gomez

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Posted By: Hudswell

Chrisbroon, you are obviously watching different programmes than I am, his performance at the TU conference was poor by any measure, as was his attempt at PMQs. He is a seasoned politician and is coming across as a rank amateur, his politics are narrow and outdated, he is currently backtracking in every major policy area presumably because he has realised how barking some of his views are....and having just watched Mr John MCDonnell on question time I honestly believe they will say anything to present themselves in the best possible light and forget completely about their past political aims. This is not new politics this is an out of time dinosaur who has cobbled together a second...no third rate cabinet that I am afraid will become a laughing stock and does not represent the Labour Party or the country as a whole well. Even Mr Alex Salmon considers the new labour team as unelectable.....now that's probably the first time I have heard him talk sense...

Posted By: Byker

  • Kwacka wrote:
    • Byker wrote:
      Corbyn is the best thing that's happened to UKIP. :clap:

    Forgotten all those Labour voters who voted UKip because Labour had moved away from its roots?

Not the real working class ones who don't want anymore immigrants (or "refugees"), support the armed forces, and respect and want the monarchy and British traditions...As for the champagne socialists, which are overly represented on this forum, they don't matter anyway.

Posted By: LynSab

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Chrisbroon, you are obviously watching different programmes than I am, his performance at the TU conference was poor by any measure, as was his attempt at PMQs. He is a seasoned politician and is coming across as a rank amateur, his politics are narrow and outdated, he is currently backtracking in every major policy area presumably because he has realised how barking some of his views are....and having just watched Mr John MCDonnell on question time I honestly believe they will say anything to present themselves in the best possible light and forget completely about their past political aims. This is not new politics this is an out of time dinosaur who has cobbled together a second...no third rate cabinet that I am afraid will become a laughing stock and does not represent the Labour Party or the country as a whole well. Even Mr Alex Salmon considers the new labour team as unelectable.....now that's proposals the first time I have heard him talk sense...

I agree, I'm seeing a very different story unfolding on most UK news media that crissboon is watching 😳 so many negatives you almost feel for Corbyn, 😉 the biggest negative being Corbyns ultimate downfall will come from within...
But then crissboon feels the UK is doomed, which is complete b****x as devil would say... :lol: :lol:

Posted By: crissbroon

  • LynSab wrote:
    • Hudswell wrote:
      Chrisbroon, you are obviously watching different programmes than I am, his performance at the TU conference was poor by any measure, as was his attempt at PMQs. He is a seasoned politician and is coming across as a rank amateur, his politics are narrow and outdated, he is currently backtracking in every major policy area presumably because he has realised how barking some of his views are....and having just watched Mr John MCDonnell on question time I honestly believe they will say anything to present themselves in the best possible light and forget completely about their past political aims. This is not new politics this is an out of time dinosaur who has cobbled together a second...no third rate cabinet that I am afraid will become a laughing stock and does not represent the Labour Party or the country as a whole well. Even Mr Alex Salmon considers the new labour team as unelectable.....now that's proposals the first time I have heard him talk sense...

    I agree, I'm seeing a very different story unfolding on most UK news media that crissboon is watching 😳 so many negatives you almost feel for Corbyn, 😉 the biggest negative being Corbyns ultimate downfall will come from within...
    But then crissboon feels the UK is doomed, which is complete b****x as devil would say... :lol: :lol:
    Quote:

I don't feel it is doomed now Lynsab. Yes, after decades of listening to incompetent, visionless, non principled Tory AND New Labour politicians, It certainly looked like a doomed society to me and millions of others.
Change is coming and if you can't see it, don't worry, It will be for the better.

Posted By: Hudswell

Okay...acid test...hands up who would vote Labour tomorrow?, trust Jeremy Corbynn, John McDonnell and co to run the country, protect the economy and more importantly perhaps defend the country?

Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Okay...acid test...hands up who would vote Labour tomorrow?, trust Jeremy Corbynn, John McDonnell and co to run the country, protect the economy and more importantly perhaps defend the country?

But that is making a judgement on personalities rather than policies! I think Corbyn is a quiet man that works behind the scenes rather than a showman. In general I agree with Crissbroon and Byker ....... I believe Corbyn may have hidden talents but for sure, he has the press, the bankers and the establishment almost cueing up to do him down ...... so they definitely see him as a threat.
I was listening to BBC Radio 5 in the car and the presenter said "This was the oppositions reaction when Corbyn entered the house for the first time as leader of the opposition." There was someone making a speech and a low hum of other conversations .... no shouting, cheering or clapping.
Then the presenter said "This was the response when David Cameron entered the house." It was a cacophony of shouting clapping and cheering! I could just see Cameron in his silk dressing gown with 'BIG DAVE' embroidered on the back, shuffling fancy footwork in his boxing boots, waving his bandaged wrapped fists in the air and beaming smiles of confidence to the complete adoration of his audience.
If Corbyn stops that sort of clownish displays in the House ..... just for that I would vote for him! :roll:

Posted By: Hudswell

Actually Mr Cameron's entry into the commons was very dignified and indeed the Tory benches were if anything respective throughout.,I would however have expected some response from the labour benches on welcoming Mr Corbyn, there was nothing which was rude at best, I think, although they did applause when he stood for the first time. Yes elections are caught on policies and we have yet to see any substance from the New Labour leader, and personalities are important, yes Mr Corbyn is I also believe a quiet man...but he is now the Leader of the Labour Party and he cannot afford to just sit and let it all,wash over him, politics as life can be cruel and at the moment he looks like he will be swallowed up, the conservatives will have to do little his own party will do for him I am afraid.

Posted By: devil

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Okay...acid test...hands up who would vote Labour tomorrow?, trust Jeremy Corbynn, John McDonnell and co to run the country, protect the economy and more importantly perhaps defend the country?

I am apolitical. But the UK is in a political miasma and it absolutely needs a breath of fresh air to rid the country of the putrescence that this and the last four governments have created, indeed since Maggie precipitated the disaster. The only hope of fresh air is with Corbyn et al. and I would vote for him.
That having been said, I last voted in 1959 with a cross for both candidates, because neither had a policy that appealed to me.In fact the whole UK electoral/parliamentary system is ridiculous and needs major reform with the abolishing of the whips, to start with, so that MPs can vote freely according to their conscience and, above all, the feelings of their electors.

Posted By: Hudswell

I agree with your point regarding the whips, and allowing MPs to truly represent the views of those that elected them on the policies put before them..But Mr Corbyn a breath of fresh area...I am sorry he has the stench of the 70's about him, the first duty of any Government is the defence of the Realm, both from within and without, he and his team would seek to destroy it all.

Posted By: kanebill

  • crissbroon wrote:
    • kanebill wrote:
      A man of principles?
      Earlier in the week Corbyn would not commit to campaigning to remain in the EU, insisting “we can’t just give Cameron a blank cheque whatever he comes back with“. Speaking to Laura K on BBC News last night, he repeated the blank cheque line. This afternoon he has just emailed this to Labour MPs:
      “Labour will be campaigning in the referendum for the UK to stay in the European Union… regardless of the outcome of the Government’s renegotiations"
      Quote:

    That is not strictly true. He said in the first interview that his "personal view" was that it would be foolish to campaign to stay in the EU until he saw what Cameron came back with. However he emphasised that the Labour Party under his leadership will be a "democratic party" and the views of others will be heard.
    This is democracy in action. Better get used to it.

"We" Personal?

Posted By: crissbroon

  • kanebill wrote:
    • crissbroon wrote:
      • kanebill wrote:
        A man of principles?
        Earlier in the week Corbyn would not commit to campaigning to remain in the EU, insisting “we can’t just give Cameron a blank cheque whatever he comes back with“. Speaking to Laura K on BBC News last night, he repeated the blank cheque line. This afternoon he has just emailed this to Labour MPs:
        “Labour will be campaigning in the referendum for the UK to stay in the European Union… regardless of the outcome of the Government’s renegotiations"
        Quote:

      That is not strictly true. He said in the first interview that his "personal view" was that it would be foolish to campaign to stay in the EU until he saw what Cameron came back with. However he emphasised that the Labour Party under his leadership will be a "democratic party" and the views of others will be heard.
      This is democracy in action. Better get used to it.

    "We" Personal?
    Quote:

Clutching at straws methinks.
By the way, maybe you should have another quick look at your famous quote accompanying your posts.
Its beginning to look like one of those " soundbite principles" I have referred to in my earlier post.

Posted By: Kwacka

He's got a beard and he doesn't wear an expensive suit; is he the sort of leader that the people of the UK could look up to?

Posted By: Byker

Corbyn is a joke who couldn't run a bath, let alone a country...Even members of the shadow cabinet don't have faith in him...
    Quote:
  • Key members of Corbyn’s new team are giving his leadership a lukewarm response. Shadow education secretary Lu cy Powell, who had never met the new leader in person until this evening , told Radio 4’s PM programme accepting the role had been a “difficult” decision.
    The former election campaign vice chairwoman said one of the critical problems Labour faced at the polls was economic credibility. Asked if she believed Corbyn and John McDonnell could convince voters where the previous leader failed, she said: “Not on everything, no, not at all, and some things they have said I don’t agree with.”
    Powell’s comments came as earlier today shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn declined to offer his full endorsement over McDonnell’s appointment as shadow chancellor. Benn told the Today programme:
    This is the choice that Jeremy has made. I respect the choice that Jeremy has made as leader. We have just come off the back of two bad election defeats for the Labour Party, and our principal task is to win the people’s trust when it comes to the economy.
    John’s first and last task as shadow chancellor will be to win the trust and confidence of the British people in arguing for a different economic policy.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/14/corbyn-appoints-labour-shadow-cabinet-with-john-mcdonnell-as-shadow-chancellor-reaction-politics-live

Nor do the trade unions
    Quote:
  • GMB general secretary Paul Kenny says he is not yet sure if Corbyn is right leader for Labour. On the World at One Sir Paul Kenny, the GMB general secretary, he did not know yet whether Jeremy Corbyn was the right person to lead Labour into the next election. Asked if he expected Corbyn to lead the party into the election, Kenny, whose union did not back a candidate in the leadership election, replied:
    I hardly know where we are going to be at the end of this year. I think the world is moving very fast. I really don’t know if Jeremy intends to lead it into the next election. What I would like to think is that the Labour party will win back those millions of people it lost, and to that degree it has has to have a different message. Whether Jeremy is the right person to deliver that or not, I don’t know. We’ll have to wait and see.
    Asked if he had doubts about Corbyn, Kenny replied.
    I just want to see. I don’t think any of us are quite clear exactly where the destination is yet. I haven’t seen exactly how the party will become more cohesive. I don’t think the rallies themselves, as enthusiastic as the support was, at this stage is enough for me to say I think, wherever we go in the country, people will flock to Labour.
    Let’s see how we get on. Let’s see the real tests. Let’s see how the public react and let’s see, effectively, when the tests come, whether they are byelections or local government elections or indeed the election of mayor of London next year, let’s see what the voters say. Because at the end of the day they’re the important ones.

Thankfully, when it comes to the vote, apart from the old and irrelevant Luvvies on this forum, a bunch of lefty prats in the Labour party, the welfare beneficiaries hoping for a better gravy train, ISIS & the IRA Appreciation Society, everybody else wil ignore him.

Posted By: Hudswell

Chrisbroon
    Quote:

  • "The stench of the 70s". You mean in the dark days when people fought for their rights and a better life, the wealthier and more secure tut tutting at the angry bad men on the telly fighting for their very livlihoods and the good old British Bobbies having to bash them on the head with their truncheons.
    Yes Corbyn was around then and fighting along with others against these wrongs being perpetrated against the working class.
    Yes, 30yrs later he is still here and he will be fighting just as hard, for the same principles as he did then.
    This is what is called a man of integrity. A man who holds the same principles throughout his life because he knows them to be good.
    You may not understand that though because we have all had to listen too long to those who spout out their "varied" principles depending on the situation and to whom they are talking to, or even which TV programme they're on
    Your right that it is the duty of Government to defend the realm and historically they have done this valiantly and successfully.
    The problem now though, is that the Tories and New labour have played a huge part in causing the refugee mayhem and the hatred from the Muslim world that has increased the danger that faces all westerners today through their hypocrisy and foreign policies regarding certain countries throughout the last 2 decades.
    Perhaps a calm and collected voice, with a higher propensity toward reason and (more importantly) honesty can make a difference to even that dire situation.

Sorry but you forgot to mention Mr David Wilkie who was killed by your heroic activists whilst driving his taxi..and doing his job..but he probably didn't count as a a worker did he? That is the hatred that was stirred up by the Trade Unions and "the workers" . And if you really think the problems in the Middle East and the hatred towards the west is a new manifestation then you really need to read up on your history...

Posted By: scottie

  • Byker wrote:
    Corbyn is a joke who couldn't run a bath, let alone a country...Even members of the shadow cabinet don't have faith in him...
      Quote:
    • Key members of Corbyn’s new team are giving his leadership a lukewarm response. Shadow education secretary Lu cy Powell, who had never met the new leader in person until this evening , told Radio 4’s PM programme accepting the role had been a “difficult” decision.
      The former election campaign vice chairwoman said one of the critical problems Labour faced at the polls was economic credibility. Asked if she believed Corbyn and John McDonnell could convince voters where the previous leader failed, she said: “Not on everything, no, not at all, and some things they have said I don’t agree with.”
      Powell’s comments came as earlier today shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn declined to offer his full endorsement over McDonnell’s appointment as shadow chancellor. Benn told the Today programme:
      This is the choice that Jeremy has made. I respect the choice that Jeremy has made as leader. We have just come off the back of two bad election defeats for the Labour Party, and our principal task is to win the people’s trust when it comes to the economy.
      John’s first and last task as shadow chancellor will be to win the trust and confidence of the British people in arguing for a different economic policy.
      http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/14/corbyn-appoints-labour-shadow-cabinet-with-john-mcdonnell-as-shadow-chancellor-reaction-politics-live

    Nor do the trade unions
      Quote:
    • GMB general secretary Paul Kenny says he is not yet sure if Corbyn is right leader for Labour. On the World at One Sir Paul Kenny, the GMB general secretary, he did not know yet whether Jeremy Corbyn was the right person to lead Labour into the next election. Asked if he expected Corbyn to lead the party into the election, Kenny, whose union did not back a candidate in the leadership election, replied:
      I hardly know where we are going to be at the end of this year. I think the world is moving very fast. I really don’t know if Jeremy intends to lead it into the next election. What I would like to think is that the Labour party will win back those millions of people it lost, and to that degree it has has to have a different message. Whether Jeremy is the right person to deliver that or not, I don’t know. We’ll have to wait and see.
      Asked if he had doubts about Corbyn, Kenny replied.
      I just want to see. I don’t think any of us are quite clear exactly where the destination is yet. I haven’t seen exactly how the party will become more cohesive. I don’t think the rallies themselves, as enthusiastic as the support was, at this stage is enough for me to say I think, wherever we go in the country, people will flock to Labour.
      Let’s see how we get on. Let’s see the real tests. Let’s see how the public react and let’s see, effectively, when the tests come, whether they are byelections or local government elections or indeed the election of mayor of London next year, let’s see what the voters say. Because at the end of the day they’re the important ones.

    Thankfully, when it comes to the vote, apart from the old and irrelevant Luvvies on this forum, a bunch of lefty prats in the Labour party, the welfare beneficiaries hoping for a better gravy train, ISIS & the IRA Appreciation Society, everybody else wil ignore him.

:clap: :-):-)

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Sorry but you forgot to mention Mr David Wilkie who was killed by your heroic activists whilst driving his taxi..and doing his job..but he probably didn't count as a a worker did he? That is the hatred that was stirred up by the Trade Unions and "the workers" . And if you really think the problems in the Middle East and the hatred towards the west is a new manifestation then you really need to read up on your history...

Sorry but you forgot to mention Mr David Wilkie who was killed by your heroic activists whilst driving his taxi..and doing his job..but he probably didn't count as a a worker did he? That is the hatred that was stirred up by the Trade Unions and "the workers" . And if you really think the problems in the Middle East and the hatred towards the west is a new manifestation then you really need to read up on your history...
Was Corbyn in any way complicit or supportive of the two that caused Wilkie's death?
Comparing two men's actions with the deaths in Syria, Gaza, Yemen is more than a tad extreme, IMHO.

Posted By: Hudswell

No, it was a reference to the "Good Old Days" as put forward by Chrisbroon in regard to the TU action in the 70s and 80s....these people were Stirred up by TU militants...and caused anguish and death...And Corbyn is complicit in supporting violence as advocated by his shadow chancellor who publicly supported the death and destruction wrought by the IRA...he put him a position of responsibility, a decision the British public will not forgive IMHO...

Posted By: bromerzz

I normally steer clear of Politics because I am to the very far right of most views on here. But just thought this deserved posting from todays font of all knowledge the Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240922/Corbyn-promotes-convicted-arsonist-Labour-frontbench.html Quality Shadow Cabinet getting assembled by the headmaster.

Posted By: ProVox

  • bromerzz wrote:
    I normally steer clear of Politics because I am to the very far right of most views on here.
    But just thought this deserved posting from todays font of all knowledge the Daily Mail
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3240922/Corbyn-promotes-convicted-arsonist-Labour-frontbench.html
    Quality Shadow Cabinet getting assembled by the headmaster.

They are in good company then! ( Sorry I can't verify these figures )
    Quote:
  • MP's actions re: crime and poor behaviour.
    7 have been arrested for fraud
    29 have been accused of child abuse
    19 have been accused of writing bad cheques
    117 have bankrupted at least two businesses
    3 have done time for assault
    71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
    4 have been arrested on drug related charges
    8 have been arrested for shoplifting
    21 were defendants in law suits last year
    84 have been arrested for drink driving
    Can you imagine working for a company of 600+ people with the above record? It beggars belief that these are the people making our laws!
:roll: :wink:

Posted By: ProVox

Hudswell: My responce to your #102:
    Quote:
  • Sorry but forgive my ignorance...but I thought the Bank of England was the Central Bank?

It is! But do you really think the Bank of England is independent? It may be independent of Government and only required to report to the Government after the event but it is still very much part of the International commercial banking cartel. It’s Board and those that are on the Monetary Policy Committee are all bankers and they are from the International private commercial banks. So whose interests do you realistically believe that set up serves?
    Quote:
  • BoE Ownership;
    The Bank of England is a corporate body, though not a PLC, and was established by Royal Charter pursuant to the Bank of England Act 1694. It has been in public ownership since 1946, when it was nationalised pursuant to the Bank of England Act 1946. The 1946 Act provided for the transfer of the whole of the Bank’s capital stock of £14,553,000 to HM Treasury. Holders of Bank stock were compensated by the allocation of an amount of stock created by HM Treasury for the purpose, known as ‘3% Treasury Stock’. In accordance with the 1946 Act and the related Bank of England (Transfer of Stock) Order 1946, the capital stock is now held by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of HM Treasury.

I was looking at it more as an independent organization within the patronage of the treasury. As The UK Central Bank owned by the people ( Its elected government ) but with autonomy of action. That is, the Bank would create currency but instead of creating it for banks to lend to Government against Govt. Bonds, the government gets it as a ‘ gift ’ without the need to repay it or pay interest on the capital. That is QE for the people.
So .... who controls and directs all the other Central Banks in the cartel? They obviously do not work independently but it is very difficult to ascertain with any certainty, who actually pulls the strings. Maybe the IMF or World Bank or Bank of International Settlement but who controls them? Some suggest the owners of the major International Banking giants like Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan etc. and of course the shadowy Rothschild’s ????
    Quote:
  • ........ but considering Mr Carneys experience and track record I know where my vote would go...I suspect Mr Corbyn understands the concept but not the reality...but hopefully he is a fast learner.

You can bet your bottom dollar Carney is well aware of the implications of Corbyn’s policy and the reality would be well known to both of them. Remember, Carney is a banker but he is an economist by education and far more significantly, he is also ex-Golman Sachs ( 13 yrs ). IMO: the latter works against his credibility and to a degree his honesty! It was Goldman Sachs that cooked the books to get Greece into the Eurozone! They knew the country would fail so WHY cook the books?
Well, there’s another great banking 'conspiracy theory'!!! :roll:

Posted By: Kwacka

    Quote:
  • MP's actions re: crime and poor behaviour.
    7 have been arrested for fraud
    29 have been accused of child abuse
    19 have been accused of writing bad cheques

Snopes
  • Hudswell wrote:
    No, it was a reference to the "Good Old Days" as put forward by Chrisbroon in regard to the TU action in the 70s and 80s....these people were Stirred up by TU militants...and caused anguish and death...And Corbyn is complicit in supporting violence as advocated by his shadow chancellor who publicly supported the death and destruction wrought by the IRA...he put him a position of responsibility, a decision the British public will not forgive IMHO...

What do you think of his comments regarding this on BBC 1's 'Question Time' on Thursday night?

Posted By: johnrose

Well for me, let's give him a chance with policies. Every other elected government has only made the rich richer in the last 36yrs since Thatcher Time for a different way of running things

Posted By: geof j

have read most of the discussion on here, and am alarmed by the fact that everybody expects a leader to guide them? i was a 50's kid then a 60's kid that saw his dad go to work on a push bike, who saw his dad out of work because of union demands on the companies he worked for! BUT he found other work and continued to support the family, he did not have the luxury of benefits to fall back on or he was too proud from that era to take the easy option, unlike recent generations. Benefit system has made people less willing to find work, made girls more willing to become mothers to exploit the system, made so called disabled exploit the system, encouraged drug users to claim benefits! have a drink problem?claim benefits! want a boob job?get it free on the NHS, severe obesity because you cant be bothered to work or exercise? claim disability! Britain has become an embarrassment to those hard working people that live and work there, it has become a magnet for immigrants! the country needs a leader that will get Britain back on work ethic track, a leader that will encourage local industry and employment laws , a country that is fair in taxation to all, and a workforce and employer force that can work hand in hand without the need of commie trade unionists(who earn a fortune from the workforce for producing nothing) Corbyn is not the man for this job, he will be a drain on the economy! the country needs a different leader, but on my suggestions above, he/she will never hae a chance, unless as Devil suggests (maybe not this topic) a different system.

Posted By: Kwacka

  • geof j wrote:
    have read most of the discussion on here, and am alarmed by the fact that everybody expects a leader to guide them?
    i was a 50's kid then a 60's kid that saw his dad go to work on a push bike, who saw his dad out of work because of union demands on the companies he worked for!
    BUT he found other work and continued to support the family, he did not have the luxury of benefits to fall back on or he was too proud from that era to take the easy option, unlike recent generations.
    Benefit system has made people less willing to find work, made girls more willing to become mothers to exploit the system, made so called disabled exploit the system, encouraged drug users to claim benefits! have a drink problem?claim benefits! want a boob job?get it free on the NHS, severe obesity because you cant be bothered to work or exercise? claim disability!
    Britain has become an embarrassment to those hard working people that live and work there, it has become a magnet for immigrants!
    the country needs a leader that will get Britain back on work ethic track, a leader that will encourage local industry and employment laws , a country that is fair in taxation to all, and a workforce and employer force that can work hand in hand without the need of commie trade unionists(who earn a fortune from the workforce for producing nothing) Corbyn is not the man for this job, he will be a drain on the economy! the country needs a different leader, but on my suggestions above, he/she will never hae a chance, unless as Devil suggests (maybe not this topic) a different system.
You repeat several myths in your post
Firstly, it is overwhelmingly apparent that the greater proportion of migrants currently in or approaching Eeastern Europe don't consider the UK a 'magnet', they would rather go to Germany or Sweden.
Secondly, in the 50s & (early)60s there were plenty of jobs, so your Dad had the opportunity to find another, almost certainly locally. In the 50s/60s most women didn't work outside the home, in addition there was less automation, fewer supermarkets, more shop workers, for example.
Thirdly, that young girls get pregnant for benefits and/or council accomodation. A South Wales MP who said this was challenged to provide evidence. He went round the local estates and was unable to find such a young mother. Of course, South Wales may be unique amongst every local council in the UK, but how likely is that?
Addicted to booze or drugs? Not a problem if your addiction is controlled, in the 60s the vast majority of drug addicts worked in the NHS and they managed be be both drug addicts and functional workers. This only became a problem for doctors/dentists/nurses when the medicines Act, 1968. After that, unless you used black-market (and had plenty of money) your illness/addiction was likely to make you unemployable, and therefore reliant upon benefits.

Posted By: journo

I would have no right to vote in the United Kingdom, but 'observing from the outside', it seems that many who have been/are entitled to vote have been disillusioned for the past couple of decades by the fact that the Conservatives, 'New Labour' and the Lib Dems have appeared to be little more than the same suits differentiated only by blue, red or Pantone 116 Gold ties.

Posted By: Byker

  • Kwacka wrote:
    Luvvie drivel....

1) Sweden and Germany are (stupidly) more welcoming, and obviously closer for the current swarm of invading migrants to get into...Remember Calais?
2) I share geof j's memory of people having a different attitude towards benefits in the 60s, and coming from a real working class family of 6 with a Father who was a bus driver (and a strong Trade Unionist) I trust my memories far more than your excuses.
3)More than likely he wasn't a good researcher, I doubt if S.Wales is unique, and I'm certain this example isn't
    Quote:
  • 'Get pregnant for benefits' Outrage as shameless mum tells daughter have baby for welfare
    Shameless Sinead Clarkson, 36, boasts of being on the dole since she was 16, claiming it is impossible to find work in her home town.
    In a move that last night shocked MPs and ­others angry at Britain’s bloated benefits culture, the mother of three encouraged daughter Melissa, 19, to have a baby so she too can live off the taxpayer. Melissa is now six months pregnant
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/470687/Get-pregnant-for-benefits-Outrage-as-shameless-mum-tells-daughter-have-baby-for-welfare

4) As you worked in the NHS I'll accept your memories, on the assumption that you can prove that "in the 60s the vast majority of drug addicts worked in the NHS and they managed be be both drug addicts and functional workers" , I did read somewhere that most heroin addicts of the period were middle class, so presumably Dr's, shrinks and the like, very unlikely that they mixed with the NHS working class, but in their drug induced state they probably imagined they were working class and became the old Champagne Socialists of today....But what exactly is your point?

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Byker wrote:
    Hate-ie drivel... (and no, I won't bother doing that again)
    • Kwacka wrote:
      Luvvie drivel....

    2) I share geof j's memory of people having a different attitude towards benefits in the 60s, and coming from a real working class family of 6 with a Father who was a bus driver (and a strong Trade Unionist) I trust my memories far more than your excuses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FatHLHG2uGY
Sorry, I was only one of five [the eldest]. My father was also a bus-driver, but had to stop driving when he was diagnosed with muscular atropy, when he bacame a labourer at Saltley coke works. he died when i was 12. My mother then took a job (the first since they'd married) loading a dishwasher at the University's students union. (BTW, she always voted Tory).
3)More than likely he wasn't a good researcher, I doubt if S.Wales is unique, and I'm certain this example isn't
You must be an exceptionally good researcher!
You've managed to find an article, from a newspaper that specialises in titivating its addicted readership with 'benefits porn', dating almost 18 months ago.
We have two choices, either it happens so regularly that the D.E. only occasionally reports it because it's that stories turn to come round again, or it happens so very rarely that it's worthy of comment when such a rare case is revealed.

Posted By: Byker

Don't you ever get fed up with shooting the messenger when you don't like the message? :roll: If you Google you'll find others that have had children for welfare, of course if they come from rags that don't suit your point of view then, if you're sure they are lies, take them to the Independent Press Standards Organisation ( https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/ ), if you're not prepared to do so, STFU and accept you're wrong. BTW: Your Mother was a wise woman, mine was/is a Liberal.

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Byker wrote:
    Don't you ever get fed up with shooting the messenger when you don't like the message? :roll:
    If you Google you'll find others that have had children for welfare, of course if they come from rags that don't suit your point of view then, if you're sure they are lies, take them to the Independent Press Standards Organisation ( https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/ ), if you're not prepared to do so, STFU and accept you're wrong.

Somehow my comment got mis-translated in the jump between out dimensions.
I didn't say the report was a lie. I asked why it was reported if it happens all the time - surely it was reported because it was so rare to be considered news-worthy by the rabid right press (yes, the DM reported that case too)?
Yes, I did search for +teenage +pregnancy +benefits and found that same story in the two 'newspapers', all the other sites turned up in the search was questions about what benefits (if any) could be claimed whilst pregnant.
There was one other exception, a survey by the Daily Torygraph, Why do teenagers really get pregnant? Which includes the comment
    Quote:
  • This myth of young mothers enjoying a luxurious lifestyle on benefits encourages a focus of blame and disdain for young mothers, which isolates them further.

  • Byker wrote:
    BTW: Your Mother was a wise woman, mine was/is a Liberal.

My mother voted Conservative, not because she knew anything about politics (she was almost virtually ignorant of the subject, except for sometimes repeating the 1960's MP's campaign slogan "if you want a n****r for a neighbour, vote Labour) but voted because it was the way her father told her to, who voted that way because the farmer he worked for had TOLD him to. :shock:
I can see why you consider my mother a wise woman.

Posted By: devil

Well, Corbyn has been well and truly pulled to bits by the media and repeated on this forum. Now, have a look what a Tory medium has to say about their great leader, Cameron. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3242494/Revenge-PM-s-snub-billionaire-funded-Tories-years-sparked-explosive-political-book-decade.html Which of the two sounds better?

Posted By: Hudswell

Nothing quite like a Lord spurned eh?

Posted By: ProVox

An aptly described article ......... Time for the Nuclear Option: Raining Money on Main Street.
If you read this article it explains why the Banks and the Establishment are so worried about Corbyn’s proposal for ‘ Peoples Quantitative Easing’ (PQE) although as the article says it would be better called ‘ Overt Money Financing’ (OMF).
Unlike the current system where banks create money from nothing and lend it to Governments as Government Debt with interest, his National Investment Bank would get the ‘ money ’ direct from the Bank of England ....... as an investment, not a loan . No loan ...... no interest ..... no interest or repayment to the banks ........ means no fiscal debt for the Government on the ‘ money ’ provided by the NIB.
You do not have to be a genius to work out that if this applies to capital projects funded by the NIB, then it is obvious that it is a small step to have ALL government funding supplied by the NIB.
Result? End of the Banking system as we know it! Is it any wonder the Elite/Bankers are worried? It makes absolute sense to me .....
    Quote:
  • Corbyn’s PQE
    In the UK, something akin to a helicopter money drop was just put on the table by Jeremy Corbyn, the newly-elected Labor leader. He proposes to give the Bank of England a new mandate to upgrade the economy to invest in new large scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects. He calls it “quantitative easing for people instead of banks” (PQE). The investments would be made through a National Investment Bank set up to invest in new infrastructure and in the hi-tech innovative industries of the future.
    Australian blogger Prof. Bill Mitchell agrees that PQE is economically sound. But he says it should not be called “ quantitative easing .” QE is just an asset swap – cash for federal securities or mortgage-backed securities on bank balance sheets. What Corbyn is proposing is actually Overt Money Financing (OMF) – injecting money directly into the economy.
    Mitchell acknowledges that OMF is a taboo concept in mainstream economics. Allegedly, this is because it would lead to hyperinflation. But the real reasons, he says, are that:
    1. It cuts out the private sector bond traders from their dose of corporate welfare which unlike other forms of welfare like sickness and unemployment benefits etc. has made the recipients rich in the extreme. . . .
    2. It takes away the ‘ debt monkey ’ that is used to clobber governments that seek to run larger fiscal deficits.

Full article by Ellen Brown ..........

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42933.htm
:roll: :roll:

Posted By: ProVox

Trying to make Corbyn look a fool seems to have misfired .........it is Cameron that has ended up covered in the brown stuff!
I wonder if the Saudi leaders, other Muslim leaders and also Jewish leaders of course, will still shake his hand after that revelation?
Face it Dave boy you have blown it!
Pig-gate :
http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-the-british-are-really-laughing-about-the-cameron-dead-pigs-mouth-saga/5477780
:lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:

Posted By: Kwacka

Interesting article in the last edition of Private Eye, comparing Corbyn's statements with the headlines generated.
Here's a couple from the Daily Telegraph:
  • Jeremy Corbyn wrote:
    One option would be for the Bank of England to be given a new mandate toupgrade our economy to invest in new large-scale housing, energ, transport and digital projects. Quantative easing for people instead of banks

  • The Daily Telegraph headline wrote:
    Corbyn's bid to turn Britain into Zimbabwe

  • Jeremy Corbyn wrote:
    What is security? Is security the ability to bomb, maim, kill, destroy or is security the ability to get on with other people and have some kind of respectful existence with them?

  • The Daily Telegraph headline wrote:
    Corbyn hints at Russia ties


Posted By: Hudswell

The man is flying..... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3247775/Off-really-bad-start-Jeremy-Corbyn-worst-poll-ratings-new-Labour-leader-EVER.html

Posted By: ProVox

    Quote:
  • The Daily Telegraph headline wrote:
      Quote:
    • Corbyn's bid to turn Britain into Zimbabwe

Whoever wrote that gem is clueless! The only thing that actually changes is who creates the money.
If is left to private commercial banks, the money they create out of thin air ...... is loaned to the Government at interest. It needs to be repaid by the government removing money from the economy ( they call it ‘austerity’ ) by either increasing taxation or by cutting back on the very things Corbyn wants to expand. But of course this system benefits only the bank’s, it does nothing for the economy or for the ordinary citizen.
If the Central Bank creates the money out of thin air ( just like the commercial banks do at present ) it injects it directly into the economy via Government as an ‘ investment’ , it is not a loan. The government still collects taxes eventually on virtually every penny spent but it is then re-injected by government expenditure back into the economy. No debt .... no interest ..... and no inflation ..... as this DT journalist suggests. The money circulates, it goes around and around, there is no significant increase in the money supply only what is necessary to top up.

The banks would have to borrow any money they wanted to lend or invest in bonds ....... from the Government owned Central Bank..... at interest. Basically ...... it puts the boot on the other foot. The commercial banks would become the borrowers and the Government/Central Bank the lender.
BTW: We are actually talking ‘ CURRENCY ’ not ‘ MONEY ’ here, and there is a difference .... a small difference but a very significant one. ‘ Money ’ is a store of value over time ..... ‘ currency ’, which is what is created by banks and as note and coin, is an IOU and has no value.
So Spanner is correct when he oft repeats that “....... it isn’t real money anyway. ”.... although of course he doesn’t realize it, it is simply a book keeping entry! :roll:

Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    The man is flying.....
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3247775/Off-really-bad-start-Jeremy-Corbyn-worst-poll-ratings-new-Labour-leader-EVER.html

But he isn't New Labour, he is going back to the roots of the Labour party. Socialism!
The DM has story after story trying to pull him down, so I would not put too big a reliance on their slant on things.
The MSM has been remarkably quiet on his PQE proposal and IMO this is because a serious debate on the subject ..... out in the open ..... would expose the process of money creation, put the banks on the defensive and the people would realize how the banks create loans/debt ...... and would be baying for blood!!!! :wink:

Posted By: Hudswell

The poll was carried out in regard to a new labour leader...not New Labour...and yes he advocates Far Left Socilist views and as such will never lead the country....and let's face it, it's not his PQE proposal...it is a concept he has latched onto....no original thought I am afraid. As I have previously stated I have no real financial understanding, so cannot really comment on his views...but if you take his let's face it, "draft policies, as an indication of the way he wants to take the Labour Party....and indeed the country..he has an awful long way to go to convince the majority...,thankfully.

Posted By: Byker

  • Hudswell wrote:
    The man is flying.....
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3247775/Off-really-bad-start-Jeremy-Corbyn-worst-poll-ratings-new-Labour-leader-EVER.html

As a Conservative I am content to watch the Labour corpse wither, the only thing of remote interest is who gets what....
The Liberals
    Quote:
  • The former business secretary Vince Cable has called on Labour MPs disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn to join the Liberal Democrats, as the leader of the party Tim Farron seeks to launch his party’s post-election fightback .
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4562184.ece

Or UKIP
    Quote:

  • Jeremy Corbyn's victory a 'huge boost' for Ukip, claims Nigel Farage

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/604907/Nigel-Farage-Jeremy-Corbyn-Labour-leader-huge-boost-Ukip

Everyone's A Winner....Except the Luvvies :lol: :lol: :lol:

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Hudswell wrote:
    .and yes he advocates Far Left Socilist views and as such will never lead the country..

No he doesn't.
You could, of course, try to convince us by citing the "Far Left Socilist views" (sic) that he has espoused, and explain exactly why you think they are "Far Left Socialist views".
  • Hudswell wrote:
    .he has an awful long way to go to convince the majority...,thankfully.

A touch of arrogance, why do you believe that a majority of voters would vote the same way as you at the next election?
(Although I do note the infamous 'left-wing media' have gone some way in convincing the gullible in the opinion poll published yesterday (see my post #144).

Posted By: ProVox

Hudswell:
    Quote:
  • .......... and let's face it, it's not his PQE proposal ............

Of course it isn’t, well at least the principal but, it is the first time this expression PQE has been used to describe something that has been around for years. I worked this out a long time ago but to understand it you need to know how currency is created ......and that is difficult to swallow, even for people who are supposedly intelligent.
    Quote:
  • ..... no original thought I am afraid.....

At least he has the analytical mind to work it out and the ability to recognise the benefits ..... which is more than can be said for the majority of politicians ..... as a recent survey showed, where less than 1 in 10 MP's had any idea of how money came into being.. If people whose job it is to keep us well informed can’t grasp it, how on earth do you expect the average person understand? You seem to be at least of average intelligence but, you obviously know nothing on the subject!
    Quote:
  • ...... his let's face it, "draft policies,.........

( Did you mean ‘draft’ or ‘daft’ policies ?)
Assuming it was not a typo; they maybe only draught policies but do people have the capacity ( or maybe the interest ) to actually see the sense in many of them? Surely, the idea of governance in our ‘ free and democratic society’ is a level of equality for all?
    Quote:
  • ...... he has an awful long way to go to convince the majority ....., thankfully.

Note my comment on why I think this PQE proposal has not been discussed either in the Press or on TV. The vast majority of people, just like you, have very little knowledge of banking and the financial system in general so, if this was openly discussed the people would soon become aware of the very simple FACT that banks really do create money out of thin air and then lend this ‘ money ’ they created from nothing, to governments ( and as private loans ) at interest.

Can you think of a more stupid way to run an economy? .......... create a false government debt for the people to repay by imposing austerity, which just removes from the economy the ‘ money ’ the banks created in the first place out of nothing and then they write it into the banks books as a debt to the borrower but an asset to the bank! Then to add insult to injury charge interest on it! It really does beggar belief.
You are correct ..... the idea has been around for years! But just try getting that message across!!!!! :roll: :roll: :roll:
Admittedly taken from another forum but ...... maybe Jeremy should take the same training course Putin has? I love this .... that's the way to do it! :D
https://www.facebook.com/TInEkanaNoris/videos/949925198387760/

Posted By: Andrew Brooks

  • Hudswell wrote:
    The man is flying.....
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3247775/Off-really-bad-start-Jeremy-Corbyn-worst-poll-ratings-new-Labour-leader-EVER.html

Honesty and integrity take a while to sink in...................especially with the Daily Mail.

Posted By: Hudswell

He may be honest and have integrity, but fortunately his views are too extreme for the majority....and it will be interesting to see how long his perceived "integrity" lasts when faced with the realities of power. His staunch views on Defence, including the Nuclear Deterrant, and the EU seem to be wavering already. His stated views on unlimited welfare benefits are completely at odds with the feelings of the general public and his desire to set a Rent cap takes us back to the bad old days, he is simply a man who's views are firmly rooted in the past in a world that has moved on. Would any of you seriously vote for him? Well apart from Devil :?

Posted By: Woodrow Why?at


To be fair, I can well understand why Cameron chose a pigs mouth to put his manhood in! :shock:
Given the choice, the pig would be far more attractive than some of the Tory 'blue rinse' women you see at their conference!! :lol: :lol:

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Woodrow Why?at wrote:
    • ProVox wrote:
      Trying to make Corbyn look a fool seems to have misfired .........it is Cameron that has ended up :

    To be fair, I can well understand why Cameron chose a pigs mouth to put his manhood in! :shock:
    Given the choice, the pig would be far more attractive than some of the Tory 'blue rinse' women you see at their conference!! :lol: :lol:

Call me Dick?

Posted By: devil

A poke in a pig :lol:

Posted By: Hudswell

I do find it amusing that anything printed about Mr Corbyn in the DM is considered, for some, heresy and title tattle whilst when the same paper reports badly on Mr Cameron it must be true.... 8)

Posted By: mouse

  • devil wrote:
    A poke in a pig :lol:

You Swine.!! :wink:

Posted By: Woodrow Why?at

  • Hudswell wrote:
    I do find it amusing that anything printed about Mr Corbyn in the DM is considered, for some, heresy and title tattle whilst when the same paper reports badly on Mr Cameron it must be true.... 8)

If only everybody could be so easily amused......!! :wink: :lol:

Posted By: Hudswell

Although new to the site....one of the first things I realised was you need a sense of humour :D

Posted By: ProVox

Hudswell:
    Quote:
  • ...... his stated views on unlimited welfare benefits are completely at odds with the feelings of the general public

Try applying a bit of reasoning to your comments because welfare benefits ARE limited already. It is the idea of a cap on these as cumulative benefits he is opposed to and IMO rightly so.
Various UK Governments have presumably employed ‘ experts ’ to arrive at the level of each benefit and the conditions that apply. I very much doubt that this has ever been over generous, although headlines in various news sheets would indicate otherwise and this is where the general public’s ‘ feelings ’ are conditioned. To put a cap on cumulative benefits would be fundamentally wrong and deny those that should receive these benefits, their entitlement when they comply with the requirements.
    Quote:
  • ........ and his desire to set a Rent cap takes us back to the bad old days ......

A ‘ rent cap ’ properly applied surely would reduce the sums paid out in rent to recipients of State benefit. So why would it be a bad thing? That should please you?
    Quote:
  • ......he is simply a man whose views are firmly rooted in the past in a world that has moved on.

You mean ‘ the past ’ as in the past that formed a welfare state, State Pensions, a National Health Service, a State funded ( free to all) State education system, employment and safety legislation etc.? From what I have seen these all these previous achievements for the benefit of ordinary people, seem to be going backwards in time to the REALLY bad old days of poverty, deprivation and exploitation. So the World has moved on but in many ways the good old days were a much more caring and safer society than we have today!
    Quote:
  • Would any of you seriously vote for him? Well apart from Devil

Yes ...... me! As you say, he has honesty and integrity on his side and as an individual, I would say that he will take more notice of what the people want than the over-indulged, over-privileged, arrogant ‘hooray-Henry’ that leads the other party!
:roll: :shock:

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Although new to the site....one of the first things I realised was you need a sense of humour :D

My apologies - I was taking your posts seriously.

Posted By: devil

I would suggest that a look at the Welfare State as it was conceived in the Beveridge Report during the 39-45 war and implemented shortly thereafter by the Family Allowances Act 1945, National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946, National Insurance Act 1946, National Health Service Act 1946, Pensions (Increase) Act 1947, Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949, National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1948, National Insurance Act 1949. This was all promulgated while Britain did not have two old pennies to rub together. Many of those basic acts have become bastardised in nearly 70 years, yet they showed that fundamental socialism (in the widest sense) really did work on a shoestring.

Posted By: ProVox

  • devil wrote:
    I would suggest that a look at the Welfare State as it was conceived in the Beveridge Report during the 39-45 war and implemented shortly thereafter by the Family Allowances Act 1945, National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946, National Insurance Act 1946, National Health Service Act 1946, Pensions (Increase) Act 1947, Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949, National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1948, National Insurance Act 1949. This was all promulgated while Britain did not have two old pennies to rub together. Many of those basic acts have become bastardised in nearly 70 years, yet they showed that fundamental socialism (in the widest sense) really did work on a shoestring.

I agree with you, of course it works. But, in those days the banking and financial services were just that SERVICES. Now they are INDUSTRIES and the mainstay of the economy and real industry has been exported to countries like China and India. Austerity is simply taking out of the economy what the banks lend to Government in the first place, plus interest i.e. perpetual and ever increasing fiscal debt ...... the EU has proved that austerity destroys countries but makes bankers rich! :x
I think what Corbyn suggests (PQE) will change that completely ...... unless he is ' terminated ' by The Establishment before he gets a chance to implement it!! :?

Posted By: ProVox

I know this is from the Daily Mail but, the more I read about this guy the more I like him. He is obviously a great thinker, capable of analysis, can put two and two together and actually make four!!!
From the Daily Mail:
    Quote:
    • Quote:
    • Corbyn's conspiracy theory: 9/11 attacks were 'manipulated' to make it look like Osama Bin Laden was responsible, says Labour leader .
      He(Corbyn) claims Osama bin Laden was made to look responsible to facilitate their aims and seemed to endorse conspiracy theories about a 'New World Order'.

    In other words ..... ‘ He might have said ......... but he didn’t actually say it’ ! I know this is the Daily Mail but honestly ‘ seemed to endorse’ , what is journalism coming to?
      Quote:
    • In the 2003 piece for The Morning Star, he wrote: 'Historians will study with interest the news manipulation of the past 18 months, The Telegraph reports. After September 11, the claims that bin Laden and al-Qaida had committed the atrocity were quickly and loudly made. This was turned into an attack on the Taliban and then, subtly, into regime change in Afghanistan. '

Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249892/Corbyn-s-conspiracy-theory-9-11-attacks-manipulated-make-look-like-Osama-Bin-Laden-responsible.html#ixzz3mr7JxhNV
........... and 84% of the US Population agree with him! =D> :-$

Posted By: Hudswell

Oh I think he made 5.... :?

Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Oh I think he made 5.... :?

To you maybe but you seem to get your inspiration primarily from the main stream media, he obviously does not believe everything he reads, sees on TV or what he is told ............ and there are millions like him! Me for a start !!! But on the other hand there are others that do not/cannot think that way.
So who is right? :roll: :wink:
Nothing to do with the OP but an interesting video on events on 9/11;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdP95oSoOFk


Posted By: devil

I believe that Corbyn's conspiracy theories are bollox. Bush/Blair jumped on the 9/11 bandwagon to go to war, sure, but to say they were responsible for 9/11 is rubbish.

Posted By: bubblechris

Devil, you need to think outside the box..........................

Posted By: ProVox

  • devil wrote:
    I believe that Corbyn's conspiracy theories are bollox. Bush/Blair jumped on the 9/11 bandwagon to go to war, sure, but to say they were responsible for 9/11 is rubbish.

I can honestly say that I have never actually seen anywhere that there is a suggestion that Blair and Bush (and Cheney, Rumsfeld et al ) were ' responsible ' for events on 9/11. Sure .... they leapt onto the band wagon and I think the idea that this event gave them an excuse to invade Afghanistan, ( and commence multiple proxy wars in the ME ) is more than just plausible ...... don't you?
As for the events on that day ........ I among many, do not believe that the US ever told the full story. I am surprised that as an engineer/scientist you have never expressed a view on how what we saw happening with the twin towers and building seven, defied all Newton's Laws of Motion, if the official story is accepted to be a rational explanation. :-k

Posted By: Kwacka

    Quote:
  • The objection to having debates with people like that is that it gives them a kind of respectability. If a real scientist goes onto a debating platform with a creationist, it gives them a respectability, which I do not think your people have earned.

Richards Dawkins on why he doesn't enter into debate with those who espouse crackpot ideas such as the 'young-earth creationists' who believe that the planet is only a few thousand years old.

Posted By: Hudswell

:roll:

Posted By: Hudswell

So was it just me or was the labour conference bland...without substance and actually avoided any issue that would cause controversy. I am sorry but having watched most of it there was nothing that inspired..indeed Mr Corbryn is out of his depth..a dinosaur that will only lead the Labour Party into dispair...his crowning moment was stating that he would never utilise the nuclear Deterrant...it's not a Deterrant unless people actually believe you will use it...he is a nice man..well actually he isn't ...but comes across as one...a leader he is not...thank god he will never ever get near a position of power.

Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    So was it just me or was the labour conference bland...without substance and actually avoided any issue that would cause controversy. I am sorry but having watched most of it there was nothing that inspired..indeed Mr Corbryn is out of his depth..a dinosaur that will only lead the Labour Party into dispair...his crowning moment was stating that he would never utilise the nuclear Deterrant...it's not a Deterrant unless people actually believe you will use it...he is a nice man..well actually he isn't ...but comes across as one...a leader he is not...thank god he will never ever get near a position of power.

I think your conclusions are a load of rubbish! When I have time I will tell you why. :roll:

Posted By: devil

  • ProVox wrote:

    I think your conclusions are a load of rubbish! When I have time I will tell you why. :roll:

I agree: they are what Hudswell wants to believe, not the truth. In any case, nukes can never deter; if some madman has them, he will use them. Compare with USA: many carry guns for 'self-defence' but it doesn't deter madmen going on the rampage, knowing they will end up dead
Virginia Tech
Sandy Hook Elementary SchoolKilleen, Texas
San Ysidro, California,
Edmond, Oklahoma
Fort Hood, Texas,
Binghamton, New York
Columbine High School - Littleton, Colorado
Washington Navy Yard
Aurora, Colorado
Alabama, Michael McLendon of Kinston
Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church
Red Lake High School, Red Lake, Minnesota
Salon Meritage in Seal Beach, California
Manchester, Connecticut
Appomattox, Virginia
Carthage, North Carolina,
Omaha, Nebraska
Oregon college, this week
Just to name a few, accounting for hundreds of deaths
Another example of deterrents not working is capital punishment; nearly every country abandoning it has seen a drop in the number of ex-capital crimes. Conversely, those countries still practising it have the highest capital crime rates.

Posted By: Hudswell

Don't get me wrong I would rather the world was free of Nuclear Weapons, but it is not and we have them, rightly or wrongly. To State you would never use them undermines the point of having them in the first place! The conference had the oppourtunity to debate Trident, it chose not to...because Mr Corbyn would have been outvoted...I note up his statement received no support from his front bench at all, indeed many stated quite the opposite view. And for the record I am always horrified by the gun crimes in the US many of which are down to the archaic gun laws in the country, I reserve my judgement on capital punishment.

Posted By: ProVox

Hudswell:
    Quote:
  • So was it just me or was the labour conference bland...without substance and actually avoided any issue that would cause controversy. I am sorry but having watched most of it there was nothing that inspired

The guy has been the leader for about three weeks hardly enough time to put together a PLP policy under his leadership. We know Corbyns policy but that has not had the approval or even discussion within the party so it is not really Party Policy.
    Quote:
  • .....indeed Mr Corbryn is out of his depth..a dinosaur that will only lead the Labour Party into dispair...

He may not be the sharpest dresser in Parliament but his is infinitely smarter than most of the MP’s when it comes to brain power. Yes he may be a dinosaur in your eyes because he is taking the Party back to its roots. The time when people came first. ( See Devils post #163 ) It is the Establishment and the banking system that is taking the UK back in time by destroying all those benefits that were won after WWII. My grandchildren and yours will no longer be able to live the sort of life it was possible for us to lead ..... IDS’s insistence on austerity has seen to that.
Maybe the penny will drop one day but austerity is simply the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich ..... tax breaks for the rich and austerity for the poor.
    Quote:
  • ...... his crowning moment was stating that he would never utilise the nuclear Deterrent...it's not a Deterrent unless people actually believe you will use it.

The UK would not be able to launch Trident as it is obsolete and would be taken out long before it reached its target ...... that is, if the submarine has not been destroyed before it could even launch in a pre-emptive strike. Would it really be cost effective to spend billions to upgrade it?
    Quote:
  • ...he is a nice man..well actually he isn't ...but comes across as one...

To me he comes across as someone who is fairly unflappable, has his own policies, has principals and is the sort of person you can talk to and he will listen, particularly the electorate. He is a ‘ quiet’ leader who does not play theatrics to the audience .... he just says what most people would like to say but never get the opportunity to do so.
    Quote:
  • a leader he is not...thank god he will never ever get near a position of power.

Don’t bank on it! He has the establishment and the bankers running scared which is why they are trying to destroy him with personal ridicule! If they actually took him on by discussing policy the cat would be out of the bag and they know it!
That single proposal of PQE will ensure the support of ordinary people because people are already beginning to see through the smoke screen set up by the bankers to ensure they eventually take all the wealth from the poor. Corbyn’s PQE policy will negate the bank’s ability to increase the money supply for their own benefit. The Government will no longer need to borrow from the banks to finance recovery and create wealth ( jobs ) free of debt and thus free of interest. But then if you don’t understand the banking/financial system it would mean nothing to you.
:roll:

Posted By: alan99

  • ProVox wrote:
    Hudswell:
      Quote:
    • ...... his crowning moment was stating that he would never utilise the nuclear Deterrent...it's not a Deterrent unless people actually believe you will use it.

    The UK would not be able to launch Trident as it is obsolete and would be taken out long before it reached its target ...... that is, if the submarine has not been destroyed before it could even launch in a pre-emptive strike. Would it really be cost effective to spend billions to upgrade it?

That's interesting. The Uk government says her nuclear armed subs are undetectable, that is the whole idea. But how do we know the Russians haven't cracked our anti-surveillance capability. Bear in mind we are a one trick pony when it comes to a nuclear strike. We are not a nuclear triad state like US or Russia who have three forms of weapons delivery strike capability not only subs.
As for Corbyns instructions . I understand from the media that the PM of the day will give advance instructions in a sealed envelope to the Trident sub captain on what to do if the UK is wiped out eg loss of BBC transmissions. eg hit the Russians ,which will be a bit unfortunate for the residents of Moscow if say the Pakistanis or Israelis or North Korea fired the missiles at the UK . Or be at the disposal of the USA , if it still exists, or Australia, again if still existing.
I wonder how they get the envelope to the sub in secret if the PM changes his mind or on a change of PM or government. Suppose use another nuclear sub to del the letter. Also ,of course , if the PM and deputies are now dead the instructions can carry no legal force.
Alan

Posted By: Hudswell

Kier Hardie is a Hero for Corbyn and rightly so, Hardie was a man of his time...unfortunately Corbyn is a man out of time and would wish to take us back to the dark days of the 70's and 80's when unions almost brought this country its knees...remember them? Your whole argument seems to revolve around an economic "theory" that suits Socilists because it involves spending money they don't have...something they have excelled in....read this....it certainly explained the concept of PQE to me.. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/16/richard_murphy_corbyn_economics/?page=3

Posted By: Kwacka

Yes, if the miners had won the UK wouldn't have a coal industry today. And look how the unions wrecked the steel industry in places like Redcar.

Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Kier Hardie is a Hero for Corbyn and rightly so, Hardie was a man of his time...unfortunately Corbyn is a man out of time and would wish to take us back to the dark days of the 70's and 80's when unions almost brought this country its knees...remember them? Your whole argument seems to revolve around an economic "theory" that suits Socialists because it involves spending money they don't have...something they have excelled in....read this....it certainly explained the concept of PQE to me.
    And you think that Tories do have money (currency?) to spend? Both require financing ........... the difference seems to me to be that Corbyn wants to spend on people and the creation of jobs, whereas the Tories want to spend it on making the banking and financial system rich. That does not create jobs ..... i.e. 'wealth'
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/16/richard_murphy_corbyn_economics/?page=3

Just a quick reply:
Yesterday at the Conservative conference, Osborne announced that he was going to spend on housing, roads and railways. So how does HE intend to finance it because he forgot to say? At least Corbyn explained where he would get the money from ...... his proposal PQE! ( Although to refer to it as QE n the first place is misleading as QE involves Government Bonds and debt, whereas Curbyn's version does not involve either of these .) :wink:

Posted By: devil

  • Hudswell wrote:
    it involves spending money they don't have...something they have excelled in

Not 'arf as much as the Conservatives who managed to quintuple the national debt in just four years, according to the official statistics (although you will probably say that these are falsified by left-leaning civil servants)
Get real, will you?


Posted By: kanebill

  • devil wrote:
    • Hudswell wrote:
      it involves spending money they don't have...something they have excelled in

    Not 'arf as much as the Conservatives who managed to quintuple the national debt in just four years, according to the official statistics (although you will probably say that these are falsified by left-leaning civil servants)
    Get real, will you?

Devil can you explain how this graph shows how the conservatives multiplied the debt fivefold in four years?

Posted By: devil

  • kanebill wrote:
    • devil wrote:
      • Hudswell wrote:
        it involves spending money they don't have...something they have excelled in

      Not 'arf as much as the Conservatives who managed to quintuple the national debt in just four years, according to the official statistics (although you will probably say that these are falsified by left-leaning civil servants)
      Get real, will you?

    Devil can you explain how this graph shows how the conservatives multiplied the debt fivefold in four years?

Sorry, my mistake. I misread the date line. Nevertheless, they increased the debt by about £320 billion , which is quite an outstanding achievement in just 4 years. As Hudswell said:
  • Hudswell wrote:
    it involves spending money they don't have...something they have excelled in

And just think how much of that went on "defence" and belligerence, while they did their best to curb spending on the society.

Posted By: ProVox

Devil: Post #179.
I have no argument with what you say about QE but the subject of this thread is Corbyn and his ‘ version ’ of QE. I assume we can agree that Quantitative Easing (QE) as practised at present is:
    Quote:
  • “An unconventional monetary policy in which a central bank purchases government securities (Bonds) or other securities from the market in order to lower interest rates and increase the money supply. Quantitative easing increases the money supply by flooding financial institutions with capital in an effort to promote increased lending and liquidity. Quantitative easing is considered when short-term interest rates are at or approaching zero, and does not involve the printing of new banknotes.”

If that is an accurate statement then what Corbyn describes as ‘ QE for People ’ is not an accurate depiction as none of the above seems to apply. I think this is a more precise representation:
My Post #142:
    Quote:
  • “Australian blogger Prof. Bill Mitchell agrees that PQE is economically sound. But he says it should not be called “quantitative easing.” QE is just an asset swap – cash for federal securities or mortgage-backed securities on bank balance sheets. What Corbyn is proposing is actually Overt Money Financing (OMF) – injecting money directly into the economy .”

There is a significant difference! This is what used to happen in the US before the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, so it is nothing new, except that we now have electronic money which did not exist then and things can and do, happen at unimaginable speeds.
I think it is a well know principal in business economics that there is a distinct advantage in ‘....... cutting out the middle man !’ and this is what Corbyns OMF does. It effectively cuts the private commercial banks out of the loop so it is no wonder the bankers are less than thrilled that this could catch on. His proposal works in favour of society as a whole rather than working just for the bankers.
The currency created out of thin air by the Central Bank goes directly into the economy via the Investment Bank and eventually most of it returns to the Treasury ( Government ) through taxation to be spent back into the economy. So there is no debt to repay, no interest to pay to the middle man and no inflation.
Now take it a bit further than Corbyn suggests with his ‘ Investment Bank’ and let Government run ALL its finances in this way! The Government would no longer need to borrow at all and the only control would need to be to keep the imports and exports in some sort of balance. This would cut the banks out of the money creation process completely. To make loans they would now have to borrow the currency from a Government owned Central Bank.
As I said previously, it would return the private commercial banks to being a service rather than an ‘industry’ in their own right.
Hudswell: You don’t appear to know a lot about how money comes into being or any awareness of how the banking system deceives you. I thought you might find the following video informative and understandable: ( 30 minutes: it is just one of five episodes )

http://hiddensecretsofmoney.com/videos/episode-4 :wink:

Posted By: Hudswell

30 minutes of my life I would not get back :) ....you seem to be hanging your hat on the one peg on Mr Corbyn's financial acumen but I find little in any of the mainstream papers financial or otherwise actually supporting his stance....and we could trade links proving all day if we wanted to. Thee fact is and Corbyn is not suited to mainstream politics in the modern world, he has no experience of real world issues and his policies (still waiting...) are quite frankly frightening....indeed his views of defence are staggeringly naive...and is it just me but he seems to have disappeared from view...

Posted By: kanebill

  • devil wrote:
    • kanebill wrote:
      • devil wrote:
        • Hudswell wrote:
          it involves spending money they don't have...something they have excelled in

        Not 'arf as much as the Conservatives who managed to quintuple the national debt in just four years, according to the official statistics (although you will probably say that these are falsified by left-leaning civil servants)
        Get real, will you?

      Devil can you explain how this graph shows how the conservatives multiplied the debt fivefold in four years?

    Sorry, my mistake. I misread the date line. Nevertheless, they increased the debt by about £320 billion , which is quite an outstanding achievement in just 4 years. As Hudswell said:
    • Hudswell wrote:
      it involves spending money they don't have...something they have excelled in

    And just think how much of that went on "defence" and belligerence, while they did their best to curb spending on the society.

A breakdown of ONS figures show a different perspective:
4 years to 2010 - net debt rose by £551Bn (£532m to £1,083m)
4 years since 2010 - net debt rose by £407Bn (£1.083m to £1490m)

Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    30 minutes of my life I would not get back :) ....you seem to be hanging your hat on the one peg on Mr Corbyn's financial acumen but I find little in any of the mainstream papers financial or otherwise actually supporting his stance....and we could trade links proving all day if we wanted to. Thee fact is and Corbyn is not suited to mainstream politics in the modern world, he has no experience of real world issues and his policies (still waiting...) are quite frankly frightening....indeed his views of defence are staggeringly naive...and is it just me but he seems to have disappeared from view...

You are entitled to your view as I am mine. :roll:
I don't believe much of what I read in the MSM, you obviously do. As an ex-military man no doubt you will have seen in the MSM the indignation of the NATO countries concerning two incursions by Russian military aircraft into Turkish air space? But have you seen any MSM reports of four Israeli F-16's (?) trying to enter Syrian airspace only to turn tail and run for it ( thro' Lebanese airspace !) when six Russian SU-34's (?) were scrambled to intercept them? I didn't, but the event was covered on the non-MSM sites ....... virtually all of them!
The MSM tends to print what they want you to believe ..... a good deal of the story ( the inconvenient bits ) is often missing. The same with banking and the financial sector in general! :wink:

Posted By: mouse

  • kanebill wrote:
    • devil wrote:
      • kanebill wrote:
        • devil wrote:
          • Hudswell wrote:
            it involves spending money they don't have...something they have excelled in

          Not 'arf as much as the Conservatives who managed to quintuple the national debt in just four years, according to the official statistics (although you will probably say that these are falsified by left-leaning civil servants)
          Get real, will you?

        Devil can you explain how this graph shows how the conservatives multiplied the debt fivefold in four years?

      Sorry, my mistake. I misread the date line. Nevertheless, they increased the debt by about £320 billion , which is quite an outstanding achievement in just 4 years. As Hudswell said:
      • Hudswell wrote:
        it involves spending money they don't have...something they have excelled in

      And just think how much of that went on "defence" and belligerence, while they did their best to curb spending on the society.

    A breakdown of ONS figures show a different perspective:
    4 years to 2010 - net debt rose by £551Bn (£532m to £1,083m)
    4 years since 2010 - net debt rose by £407Bn (£1.083m to £1490m)

But the difference is that since 2010 the UK was supposed to be recovering.

Posted By: Hudswell

I suppose the real question there then ProVox is why exactly Russian Migs where scrambled to intercept the Isreali aircraft?...I wasn't aware that was in their remit.....and would Jeremy Corbyn approve?

Posted By: Byker

  • ProVox wrote:
    I could not help wondering why the US attack on a hospital in Afghanistan killing over twenty people has received so little attention in the MSM.....

You jest, or only look at what you want to look at....It's been all over Sky News, BBC radio and CNN last night.

Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    I suppose the real question there then ProVox is why exactly Russian Migs where scrambled to intercept the Isreali aircraft?...I wasn't aware that was in their remit.....and would Jeremy Corbyn approve?

Apparently Israeli incursions into Syrian/Lebanese airspace are common place but this was the first time it had happened since the Russians set themselves up at the Latakia Airbase. What I was attempting to point out was that this was obviously a story that did not fit into the editorial requirements of the MSM so it has been ignored.
I could not help wondering why the US attack on a hospital in Afghanistan killing over twenty people has received so little attention in the MSM and yet they make a big fuss over an aircraft ' accidentally ' crossing into Turkish airspace? But of course the US apologised EVENTUALLY ( Took 4 days ) after having accused everybody else ........ so that's ok then!
As for Corbyn on this point? I don't know what he would think but I don't think it can be argued to the contrary that the Russians are in Syria legitimately at the request of the recognised government. That does not apply to the US or the NATO forces. For Cameron to announce he is again going for a vote to get UK forces involved in air attacks on Syria is simply contrary to International law and only a UNSC mandate for action can override that .......... and Russia has a veto!
Depends on which information you consider reliable as to what conclusion you can reach on your own. I don't consider spending 30 minutes of my life as being wasted if I actually learn something from it! :roll:

Posted By: Pete The Highwayman

hi hudswell i am on your side everytime and something else if russia has a 40 foot long bomb i want a 50 foot long one the bigger the better keep smiling pete

Posted By: Kwacka

  • kanebill wrote:

    4 years to 2010 - net debt rose by £551Bn (£532m to £1,083m)
    4 years since 2010 - net debt rose by £407Bn (£1.083m to £1490m)

Quite right.
But did anything of note happen interantionally during the 4 years to 2010, for example a global financial crisis or something simialr to that?

Posted By: kanebill

  • Kwacka wrote:
    • kanebill wrote:

      4 years to 2010 - net debt rose by £551Bn (£532m to £1,083m)
      4 years since 2010 - net debt rose by £407Bn (£1.083m to £1490m)

    Quite right.
    But did anything of note happen interantionally during the 4 years to 2010, for example a global financial crisis or something simialr to that?

Did it suddenly stop in 2010?

Posted By: mouse

  • kanebill wrote:
    • Kwacka wrote:
      • kanebill wrote:

        4 years to 2010 - net debt rose by £551Bn (£532m to £1,083m)
        4 years since 2010 - net debt rose by £407Bn (£1.083m to £1490m)

      Quite right.
      But did anything of note happen interantionally during the 4 years to 2010, for example a global financial crisis or something simialr to that?

    Did it suddenly stop in 2010?

Well yes it did actually.! Much better anyway.
The worst was stopped by the actions taken by Gordon Brown (love him or hate him).
The Tory press will have you believe the crisis was down to the Labour Government. When in fact it was a Worldwide crisis caused in the main by the U.S.
Look at the graph again and see the debt incurred since 2012, by that time the crisis was virtually dead and buried.

Posted By: ProVox

  • Byker wrote:
    • ProVox wrote:
      I could not help wondering why the US attack on a hospital in Afghanistan killing over twenty people has received so little attention in the MSM.....

    You jest, or only look at what you want to look at....It's been all over Sky News, BBC radio and CNN last night.

I don't watch Sky/CNN but it was mentioned on the BBC World news. So I stand corrected but the newspapers are concentrating their attention on Putin and the Russians actions in Syria .......... let's hope they don't accidentally hit a hospital or a school!

Posted By: ProVox

Mouse:
    Quote:
  • The worst was stopped by the actions taken by Gordon Brown (love him or hate him).

Oh .... I see it all now! I thought it had something to do with the FED pouring into the system, billions and billions of dollars to shore up a collapsing Global Banking system which was literally hours away from a complete financial Armageddon. :roll: :wink:

Posted By: kanebill

  • mouse wrote:

    Well yes it did actually.! Much better anyway.
    The worst was stopped by the actions taken by Gordon Brown (love him or hate him).
    The Tory press will have you believe the crisis was down to the Labour Government. When in fact it was a Worldwide crisis caused in the main by the U.S.
    Look at the graph again and see the debt incurred since 2012, by that time the crisis was virtually dead and buried.

Always the political push. Didn't you know that you are supposed to respond with a question? (rhetorical if challenged)
All I was doing was trying to show that you can argue all day with figures depending on what you are trying to push/justify but it is unlikely that anyone on this forum will come up with something everyone will agree with.
I could respond further with PFI figures (an annually accumulating debt not on the books until repayment is due totalling hundreds of billions to be paid for another 35 years) but since I am not favouring any political position, I'll leave it there.

Posted By: mouse

  • ProVox wrote:
    Mouse:
      Quote:
    • The worst was stopped by the actions taken by Gordon Brown (love him or hate him).

    Oh .... I see it all now! I thought it had something to do with the FED pouring into the system, billions and billions of dollars to shore up a collapsing Global Banking system which was literally hours away from a complete financial Armageddon. :roll: :wink:

Of course you are right on the World stage, But the actions of Brown stabilised the British economy at the time.

Posted By: ProVox

  • mouse wrote:
    • ProVox wrote:
      Mouse:
        Quote:
      • The worst was stopped by the actions taken by Gordon Brown (love him or hate him).

      Oh .... I see it all now! I thought it had something to do with the FED pouring into the system, billions and billions of dollars to shore up a collapsing Global Banking system which was literally hours away from a complete financial Armageddon. :roll: :wink:

    Of course you are right on the World stage, But the actions of Brown stabilised the British economy at the time.

What did he actually do? Whatever he did, would it have had any effect if the FED had not stepped in and bailed the banking system out? The banking system was tumbling down around his ears, I honestly doubt that he had any significant effect in the overall scheme of things.
And the banking system has had no significant changes to the way it operates since Oct. 2008 so another collapse is almost certain! :(

Posted By: mouse

  • kanebill wrote:
    • mouse wrote:

      Well yes it did actually.! Much better anyway.
      The worst was stopped by the actions taken by Gordon Brown (love him or hate him).
      The Tory press will have you believe the crisis was down to the Labour Government. When in fact it was a Worldwide crisis caused in the main by the U.S.
      Look at the graph again and see the debt incurred since 2012, by that time the crisis was virtually dead and buried.

    Always the political push. Didn't you know that you are supposed to respond with a question? (rhetorical if challenged)
    All I was doing was trying to show that you can argue all day with figures depending on what you are trying to push/justify but it is unlikely that anyone on this forum will come up with something everyone will agree with.
    I could respond further with PFI figures (an annually accumulating debt not on the books until repayment is due totalling hundreds of billions to be paid for another 35 years) but since I am not favouring any political position, I'll leave it there.

Wrong!! I answered your question. "Did it suddenly stop in 2010"
I don't favour a political party, I am certainly not a Corbyn supporter, but I am open minded enough to say he deserves a chance to do the job he has been put in the position to do. " But I have doubts."
Like provox I don't believe all the press revues about any news nowadays, they are all politically motivated and scaremongering. They make you believe what they want you to believe.

Posted By: Kwacka

Who said:
1.
    Quote:
  • ‘Bin Laden should be put on trial; not in Britain, but in the place where he organised the biggest and most terrible of his massacres, New York.
    ‘He should be put on trial, because a trial would be the profoundest and most eloquent statement of the difference between our values and his. He wanted to kill as many innocent people as he could.
    ‘We want justice.’

2.
    Quote:
  • “But you only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a ‘tragedy,’

Answers:
1. Obviously a terrorist sympathizer.
2. 'Dick' Cameron at today's Conservative Party Conference.
  • mouse wrote:
    The worst was stopped by the actions taken by Gordon Brown (love him or hate him).
    The Tory press will have you believe the crisis was down to the Labour Government. When in fact it was a Worldwide crisis caused in the main by the U.S.
    Look at the graph again and see the debt incurred since 2012, by that time the crisis was virtually dead and buried.

Which is why Brown has far greater reputation internationally than he has in the UK. He took decive action (a requiste for a good leader) to steady the possible (probable?) collapse of the UK's banking system, with subsequent knock-on effect of the entire UK financial industry.
The disaster was caused by greed (a low bank interest rate didn't return enough from the capital), the removal of the legal distinction between investment and commercial banks and the reduction of the levels of overall regulation of financial systems.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

I am absolutely loving Jeremy Corbyn's (did I spell it right?) every move. Like some people I remember from my past, that were totally prone to disaster at almost every step (Frank Spencer springs to mind) ................ I follow his every move, purely because I am totally fascinated with exactly what he might do/say next. Labour Leaders, from Keir Hardie to Callaghan, must be turning in their graves. It's probably a once-in-a-lifetime spectacle. Enjoy!

Posted By: Kwacka

I'm entertained by exploring the differences between what he actually says/does and what's reported he says/does.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • Kwacka wrote:
    I'm entertained by exploring the differences between what he actually says/does and what's reported he says/does.

The interesting stuff is a matter of history. As a non-entity backbencher he was prolific and absolutely unashamed.
The interesting thing to me is that now he finds himself in the limelight (rabbit!) .............. how he tries to explain it all away.
McDonnell is even more interesting in this respect. Example - a profound apology for any offence caused by his earlier exhortation to honour IRA "heroes" - although mark that he never actually apologised for his words.
It seems that both of us are absolutely fascinated by different aspects of this pair. To me they are a couple of clowns. Perhaps to you they are something entirely different. As always, time will tell I guess.

Posted By: ProVox

Transfered .... previously posted this on the wrong thread:
    Quote:
  • I make no comment on all Corbyn’s proposals but the one that has my interest is the PQE .... it demonstrates to me that he does understand how the money supply system works.
    In the thread ‘What country has the most unsustainable debt’ Devil pointed out that although Japan had the highest, it was almost 100% in Japanese Yen. The Japanese government borrows money from the commercial banks who then create a debt (extend credit) in exchange for Government Bonds (IOU’s). The Government spends the credit into their economy and at that moment creates a whole load of new Yen. This is Quantitive Easing ..... they increase the quantity of currency in circulation!
    What Corbyn is proposing, with his so called 'QE for people' is almost exactly the same thing as the Japs are doing and have been doing for a long time. But what he is proposing is to have the Central bank issue the currency directly, not as a loan against Bonds but as an ‘investment’. Effectively he cuts out the middle men ..... the commercial banks. The injected currency boosts the economy, increases the money supply, creates more jobs, which boosts spending and thus new businesses and all without creating debt.
    Instead of then having to recover the debt through taxation to pay back the commercial banks 'loans' as per the current system, loans which you then have to re-create and re-borrow to put back the currency otherwise you deflate the economy, there is no debt and the currency recovered as tax goes straight back into the economy as required.
    With Corbyn's proposal at no time does the country have a debt to repay nor the interest that goes with debt!
    I think the guy has a very good understanding of the monetary system in the practical application. The only losers will be the commercial banks. They will no longer be asked to help create the currency for infrastructure projects or investment in R&D, we could start building our own ships and aircraft (which we were very good at) and produce a lot of the goods we now import from places like China.
    All that needs to be done then is to balance the external trading i.e. control imports and try to balance imports to exports.
    It is just common sense!


Posted By: spanner

  • ProVox wrote:
    Transfered .... previously posted this on the wrong thread:
      Quote:
    • I make no comment on all Corbyn’s proposals but the one that has my interest is the PQE .... it demonstrates to me that he does understand how the money supply system works.
      In the thread ‘What country has the most unsustainable debt’ Devil pointed out that although Japan had the highest, it was almost 100% in Japanese Yen. The Japanese government borrows money from the commercial banks who then create a debt (extend credit) in exchange for Government Bonds (IOU’s). The Government spends the credit into their economy and at that moment creates a whole load of new Yen. This is Quantitive Easing ..... they increase the quantity of currency in circulation!
      What Corbyn is proposing, with his so called 'QE for people' is almost exactly the same thing as the Japs are doing and have been doing for a long time. But what he is proposing is to have the Central bank issue the currency directly, not as a loan against Bonds but as an ‘investment’. Effectively he cuts out the middle men ..... the commercial banks. The injected currency boosts the economy, increases the money supply, creates more jobs, which boosts spending and thus new businesses and all without creating debt.
      Instead of then having to recover the debt through taxation to pay back the commercial banks 'loans' as per the current system, loans which you then have to re-create and re-borrow to put back the currency otherwise you deflate the economy, there is no debt and the currency recovered as tax goes straight back into the economy as required.
      With Corbyn's proposal at no time does the country have a debt to repay nor the interest that goes with debt!
      I think the guy has a very good understanding of the monetary system in the practical application. The only losers will be the commercial banks. They will no longer be asked to help create the currency for infrastructure projects or investment in R&D, we could start building our own ships and aircraft (which we were very good at) and produce a lot of the goods we now import from places like China.
      All that needs to be done then is to balance the external trading i.e. control imports and try to balance imports to exports.
      It is just common sense!

Perhaps he should make you Chancellor of the Exchequer with your expertise in how to produce money from nothing.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • spanner wrote:
    • ProVox wrote:
      Transfered .... previously posted this on the wrong thread:
        Quote:
      • I make no comment on all Corbyn’s proposals but the one that has my interest is the PQE .... it demonstrates to me that he does understand how the money supply system works.
        In the thread ‘What country has the most unsustainable debt’ Devil pointed out that although Japan had the highest, it was almost 100% in Japanese Yen. The Japanese government borrows money from the commercial banks who then create a debt (extend credit) in exchange for Government Bonds (IOU’s). The Government spends the credit into their economy and at that moment creates a whole load of new Yen. This is Quantitive Easing ..... they increase the quantity of currency in circulation!
        What Corbyn is proposing, with his so called 'QE for people' is almost exactly the same thing as the Japs are doing and have been doing for a long time. But what he is proposing is to have the Central bank issue the currency directly, not as a loan against Bonds but as an ‘investment’. Effectively he cuts out the middle men ..... the commercial banks. The injected currency boosts the economy, increases the money supply, creates more jobs, which boosts spending and thus new businesses and all without creating debt.
        Instead of then having to recover the debt through taxation to pay back the commercial banks 'loans' as per the current system, loans which you then have to re-create and re-borrow to put back the currency otherwise you deflate the economy, there is no debt and the currency recovered as tax goes straight back into the economy as required.
        With Corbyn's proposal at no time does the country have a debt to repay nor the interest that goes with debt!
        I think the guy has a very good understanding of the monetary system in the practical application. The only losers will be the commercial banks. They will no longer be asked to help create the currency for infrastructure projects or investment in R&D, we could start building our own ships and aircraft (which we were very good at) and produce a lot of the goods we now import from places like China.
        All that needs to be done then is to balance the external trading i.e. control imports and try to balance imports to exports.
        It is just common sense!

    Perhaps he should make you Chancellor of the Exchequer with your expertise in how to produce money from nothing.

Give him a break. He's only just finished trying to sort out the Greek mess. Helping Tsipras and Syriza "Run rings around the EU" . Yes, that's another (classic) Provox quote! :lol:

Posted By: crissbroon

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    I am absolutely loving Jeremy Corbyn's (did I spell it right?) every move.
    Like some people I remember from my past, that were totally prone to disaster at almost every step (Frank Spencer springs to mind) ................ I follow his every move, purely because I am totally fascinated with exactly what he might do/say next.
    Labour Leaders, from Keir Hardie to Callaghan, must be turning in their graves.
    It's probably a once-in-a-lifetime spectacle.
    Enjoy!

"Its probably a once in a lifetime spectacle".
You must have been on a different planet in your past then.
If you don't call the antics of Cameron, Osborne, Teresa May, Clegg etc as disasters then you need to look at your priorities. These idiots change their beliefs and principles every other day depending on what the Daily Mail is writing about them or the BBC is saying about them.
I was in stitches at Teresa May the other day when, after years of telling us that migrants to UK are essential to the wealth of the UK she promptly does a U turn and now tells us they contribute absolutely nothing to the UK and they will come down hard on them.. Why the change of heart? An article in the Mail stating the numbers of migrants that she didn't even know about. Hilarious.
You can try to ridicule Corbyn all you like but you need to first look more closely at the numpties that you want to elect. Millions of Brits are doing just that and most like what they hear and see of Corbyn. Those that can distinguish the man from the truthless media portrayal of him that is.
The most costructive contribution the media can come up with is about his dress sense or what the man said in the seventies. Sadly, that is how much Britain has lost its way. Most of the politicians of the last 3 decades have not shown an ounce of integrity between them.
It is sadly lacking and if Corbyn is reiterating the same noises from the seventies at least it shows he has sustained hi beliefs and principles. They will not change depending on the headline of the day.

Posted By: Hudswell

Millions of people, come on, the man is clearly out of his depth, he has no coherent policies to speak of, he is a professional left wing backbencher who is an embarrassment to the country. Integrity.....sorry he and his close allies are nasty prices of work who in the past have pinned their colours to terrorism and anarchy...they are no friends of the UK and will only serve to undermine any good "Any" in power Government. The more I see of these people the more I dispair..as do the vast majority of the U.K. I am sure ProVox will leapt to your defence and praise his PQE credentials, the only peg he seems to be able to hang his coat on...Again yesterday Labour showed their true colours...spend and be dammed....balance the books never...a disastrous party that thankfully will never see power under its current regime.

Posted By: crissbroon

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Millions of people, come on, the man is clearly out of his depth, he has no coherent policies to speak of, he is a professional left wing backbencher who is an embarrassment to the country. Integrity.....sorry he and his close allies are nasty prices of work who in the past have pinned their colours to terrorism and anarchy...they are no friends of the UK and will only serve to undermine any good "Any" in power Government. The more I see of these people the more I dispair..as do the vast majority of the U.K. I am sure ProVox will leapt to your defence and praise his PQE credentials, the only peg he seems to be able to hang his coat on...Again yesterday Labour showed their true colours...spend and be dammed....balance the books never...a disastrous party that thankfully will never see power under its current regime.

Pinned their colours to terrorism and anarchy? This just gets better. Not like our dear old Cameron then? Or New Labour Blair? They supplied money and arms all over the world to CREATE anarchy and terrorism.
Surely you are not denying that The UK and the US have created the mess that threatens the safety of everyone in the Western World.
If you mean by "pinning their colours to terrorism and anarchy", that the likes of Corbyn, Galloway and others spoke out against the actions of these warmongering morons, yes, I suppose they did.
Do you believe that this crowd have balanced the books. You must be brainwashed. There is a wealth of top economists lining up to tell us that the debt burden that Britain is piling up in order to make the economy appear healthy is totally unsustainable.

Posted By: devil

  • Hudswell wrote:
    .spend and be dammed

Which is exactly what your beloved Conservatives have been and are still doing, as has been shown earlier in this thread. How dare you condemn somebody who has no power to spend, when those that do have it spend in trumps? You condemn your own credibility to the dustbin!
I can think of two quotations that I apply to you:
-Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.
-Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • crissbroon wrote:
    • Mr Tibbs wrote:
      I am absolutely loving Jeremy Corbyn's (did I spell it right?) every move.
      Like some people I remember from my past, that were totally prone to disaster at almost every step (Frank Spencer springs to mind) ................ I follow his every move, purely because I am totally fascinated with exactly what he might do/say next.
      Labour Leaders, from Keir Hardie to Callaghan, must be turning in their graves.
      It's probably a once-in-a-lifetime spectacle.
      Enjoy!

    "Its probably a once in a lifetime spectacle".
    You must have been on a different planet in your past then.
    If you don't call the antics of Cameron, Osborne, Teresa May, Clegg etc as disasters then you need to look at your priorities. These idiots change their beliefs and principles every other day depending on what the Daily Mail is writing about them or the BBC is saying about them.
    I was in stitches at Teresa May the other day when, after years of telling us that migrants to UK are essential to the wealth of the UK she promptly does a U turn and now tells us they contribute absolutely nothing to the UK and they will come down hard on them.. Why the change of heart? An article in the Mail stating the numbers of migrants that she didn't even know about. Hilarious.
    You can try to ridicule Corbyn all you like but you need to first look more closely at the numpties that you want to elect. Millions of Brits are doing just that and most like what they hear and see of Corbyn. Those that can distinguish the man from the truthless media portrayal of him that is.
    The most costructive contribution the media can come up with is about his dress sense or what the man said in the seventies. Sadly, that is how much Britain has lost its way. Most of the politicians of the last 3 decades have not shown an ounce of integrity between them.
    It is sadly lacking and if Corbyn is reiterating the same noises from the seventies at least it shows he has sustained hi beliefs and principles. They will not change depending on the headline of the day.

It's difficult to work out if we are talking about the same person here. Are you, for instance, referring to the Jeremy Corbyn that's opposed his own party's agreed and accepted policies on approximately 500 occasions and who now calls for "Unity"? :lol:
There's so much that can be said about him, you could easily fill a book. Hardly a day passes where he doesn't deliberately wander off-course in order to slip over some dayglo orange, political banana skin.
As I said, I love the man and suspect that the Conservative's greatest fear is his being ousted.
Corbyn's own Parliamentary Party are increasingly resembling the people at Caligula's court, wondering who's going to disappear next, as he tries to circumvent their dwindling influence and replace it with what appears to be a new "Praetorian" militant guard. I think they used to call it something like Militant Tendency. An elite party within a party.
It really is wonderful, wonderful stuff and the idea of him as Prime Minister of a country he appears to have made a career out of despising has a Cobra-like fascinating appeal about it. Will we live to see? :lol:
I suspect your best bet would be to go for Nicola - before it's too late. :wink:

Posted By: ProVox

Spanner:
    Quote:
  • Perhaps he should make you Chancellor of the Exchequer with your expertise in how to produce money from nothing.

As you obviously consider yourself to be far more knowledgeable than me on the subject ..... how about giving us you obviously far more credible explanation on the subject of the creation of currency ? That is of course if you know the difference between money and currency!
If you can’t come up with a creditable rebuttal then you are just another ill-informed self opinionated idiot and best just ignored like an irritating squeaking hinge.

Posted By: ProVox

Tibbs:
    Quote:
  • Give him a break. He's only just finished trying to sort out the Greek mess. Helping Tsipras and Syriza "Run rings around the EU". Yes, that's another (classic) Provox quote! Laughing

Another squeaking hinge! :roll:

Posted By: ProVox

Hudswell:
    Quote:
  • Again yesterday Labour showed their true colours...spend and be dammed....balance the books never...a disastrous party that thankfully will never see power under its current regime.

Before you comment try and find out what you are talking about ...... as far as financial management is concerned you know nothing! The best way to hide deceit is in full view..... the Emperors new clothes? Does it rng a bell?
Balance the books ......... do you really understand anything about the system? :-s

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ProVox wrote:
    Tibbs:
      Quote:
    • Give him a break. He's only just finished trying to sort out the Greek mess. Helping Tsipras and Syriza "Run rings around the EU". Yes, that's another (classic) Provox quote! Laughing

    Another squeaking hinge! :roll:

I'm mortified! :cry: After we only just drank to an absence of rust. :wink:
Sorry readers - you had to be there. 8)

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ProVox wrote:
    Hudswell:
      Quote:
    • Again yesterday Labour showed their true colours...spend and be dammed....balance the books never...a disastrous party that thankfully will never see power under its current regime.

    Before you comment try and find out what you are talking about ...... as far as financial management is concerned you know nothing! The best way to hide deceit is in full view..... the Emperors new clothes? Does it rng a bell?
    Balance the books ......... do you really understand anything about the system? :-s

Hudswell. I offer some sound advice, based upon long, long experience and I am sure supported by a great many members of this Forum:
DON'T FALL FOR IT! :shock:

Posted By: spanner

  • ProVox wrote:
    Tibbs:
      Quote:
    • Give him a break. He's only just finished trying to sort out the Greek mess. Helping Tsipras and Syriza "Run rings around the EU". Yes, that's another (classic) Provox quote! Laughing

    Another squeaking hinge! :roll:

You are obviously well oiled!

Posted By: ProVox

  • spanner wrote:
    • ProVox wrote:
      Tibbs:
        Quote:
      • Give him a break. He's only just finished trying to sort out the Greek mess. Helping Tsipras and Syriza "Run rings around the EU". Yes, that's another (classic) Provox quote! Laughing

      Another squeaking hinge! :roll:

    You are obviously well oiled!

Just provide the explanation and show me where I am so mislead ..... as you ridicule the subject of currency creation when it is explained to you .... you must have an alternative explanation?
Tibbs is quite capable of forming his own reply ..... I doubt he needs any help from you! :?

Posted By: Hudswell

Devil, for someone who claims to be apolitical you do seem to have a bit of a downer on the conservatives, and yes I am a Conservative voter because despite there faults they are dragging the UK by the chin straps from the mire consecutive Labour Governments have dropped the UK in, I vote....I have right to comment...now if you voted you perhaps would have that same right. ProVox, did you read this? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/16/richard_murphy_corbyn_economics/?page=1 I may not know an awful lot about economics but it made sense to me. Government is not all about the money you do realise, the primary role of Government is Defence of the Realm, something I suspect Mr Corbyn would quite happily hand over to others...and any windfall from his financial policy would no doubt be blown on a bloated welfare service designed to keep his supporters in the manner they have become accustomed....you people really make me laugh, you have grown fat and lazy and are quite happy to sit back and vent forth your opinions gained from the safety of your armchairs...safe in the knowledge that all this is not really going to impact on you..

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Devil, for someone who claims to be apolitical you do seem to have a bit of a downer on the conservatives, and yes I am a Conservative voter because despite there faults they are dragging the UK by the chin straps from the mire consecutive Labour Governments have dropped the UK in, I vote....I have right to comment...now if you voted you perhaps would have that same right.

The UK labour Governments DIDN't drop them in the mire.
Not even the Conservatives have claimed that, they infer it with their 'left behind' and 'inherited' comments but they NEVER say 'caused by Labour'.

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    • ProVox wrote:
      Hudswell:
        Quote:
      • Again yesterday Labour showed their true colours...spend and be dammed....balance the books never...a disastrous party that thankfully will never see power under its current regime.

      Before you comment try and find out what you are talking about ...... as far as financial management is concerned you know nothing! The best way to hide deceit is in full view..... the Emperors new clothes? Does it rng a bell?
      Balance the books ......... do you really understand anything about the system? :-s

    Hudswell. I offer some sound advice, based upon long, long experience and I am sure supported by a great many members of this Forum:
    DON'T FALL FOR IT! :shock:

NO NO NO NO NO NO - DON'T GO THERE!
There's others on the forum who don't realise they know less than you about economics but have a concrete, unmovable view that they know more than everybody else try to prove it (and they ignore Truman Capote's comment "I believe more in the scissors than I do in the pencil".

Posted By: crissbroon

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    • crissbroon wrote:
      • Mr Tibbs wrote:
        I am absolutely loving Jeremy Corbyn's (did I spell it right?) every move.
        Like some people I remember from my past, that were totally prone to disaster at almost every step (Frank Spencer springs to mind) ................ I follow his every move, purely because I am totally fascinated with exactly what he might do/say next.
        Labour Leaders, from Keir Hardie to Callaghan, must be turning in their graves.
        It's probably a once-in-a-lifetime spectacle.
        Enjoy!

      "Its probably a once in a lifetime spectacle".
      You must have been on a different planet in your past then.
      If you don't call the antics of Cameron, Osborne, Teresa May, Clegg etc as disasters then you need to look at your priorities. These idiots change their beliefs and principles every other day depending on what the Daily Mail is writing about them or the BBC is saying about them.
      I was in stitches at Teresa May the other day when, after years of telling us that migrants to UK are essential to the wealth of the UK she promptly does a U turn and now tells us they contribute absolutely nothing to the UK and they will come down hard on them.. Why the change of heart? An article in the Mail stating the numbers of migrants that she didn't even know about. Hilarious.
      You can try to ridicule Corbyn all you like but you need to first look more closely at the numpties that you want to elect. Millions of Brits are doing just that and most like what they hear and see of Corbyn. Those that can distinguish the man from the truthless media portrayal of him that is.
      The most costructive contribution the media can come up with is about his dress sense or what the man said in the seventies. Sadly, that is how much Britain has lost its way. Most of the politicians of the last 3 decades have not shown an ounce of integrity between them.
      It is sadly lacking and if Corbyn is reiterating the same noises from the seventies at least it shows he has sustained hi beliefs and principles. They will not change depending on the headline of the day.

    It's difficult to work out if we are talking about the same person here. Are you, for instance, referring to the Jeremy Corbyn that's opposed his own party's agreed and accepted policies on approximately 500 occasions and who now calls for "Unity"? :lol:
    There's so much that can be said about him, you could easily fill a book. Hardly a day passes where he doesn't deliberately wander off-course in order to slip over some dayglo orange, political banana skin.
    As I said, I love the man and suspect that the Conservative's greatest fear is his being ousted.
    Corbyn's own Parliamentary Party are increasingly resembling the people at Caligula's court, wondering who's going to disappear next, as he tries to circumvent their dwindling influence and replace it with what appears to be a new "Praetorian" militant guard. I think they used to call it something like Militant Tendency. An elite party within a party.
    It really is wonderful, wonderful stuff and the idea of him as Prime Minister of a country he appears to have made a career out of despising has a Cobra-like fascinating appeal about it. Will we live to see? :lol:
    I suspect your best bet would be to go for Nicola - before it's too late. :wink:

Yes, well spotted. It is the same Jeremy Corbyn that opposed his own party members 500 times. The fact that Labour were wiped out in the last election may provide you with a clue that he was right to do so. may be a clue for you why he is now Labour leader. Unlike most of the modern day politicians , if he thought his party was wrong regarding their policies then he would bl++dy well say so. There is little doubt that in recent years the Labour Party had lost their way and had not a clue what and whom they represented. That is why Corbyn is a breath of fresh air. If you find him amusing its probably because you are not used to someone who will stick by his principles regardless what the morning headline is..

Posted By: devil

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Devil, for someone who claims to be apolitical you do seem to have a bit of a downer on the conservatives

I do not like how the Conservatives squander money they do not have. It makes no sense paying increasing interest on the escalating debts they have incurred; it costs the country money that would have been better served to aid the poor, to improve the defaulting NHS, to educate kids who will never know, later as adults, what a debt-free country means. I have also been totally opposed to PQE (and every form of QE) since it was proposed, so I have a "downer" on Corbyn et al., as well.
Quite frankly, the UK has such an economics problem that no political party can keep their promises -- and finks ain't going to get better until one party has the guts not to be all things to all men (dream on!). I can't see that happening in my lifetime.
I have had the privilege of living most of my life in a more or less socialist (real, not political) country where the political and monetary systems and the economy have really worked over many decades. Perhaps no longer, but the Communists have been in minor positions of power, as have the ultra-nationalists. However, 29% of the government seats are still held by socialists, who share an equal number by a middle-of-the-range party. I have seen it: socialism can and does work, but not the watered down socialism of most of the UK parties, including the three main ones.
And how dare you allow me not to express an opinion?

Posted By: ProVox

  • spanner wrote:
    • ProVox wrote:
      I don't claim to be an expert on the military

    Shock! Horror! Something you are not expert on!!!!!

I'm still waiting for you to shoot me down and prove that I am not well versed when it comes to The Banks and the monetary system. Go on make Tibbs happy .... he would be delighted to see me go down in flames.
BTW; I have never in my life claimed to be an expert on anything ........ met plenty who claimed to be. I am just keep myself well informed on subjects that interest me and rarely make comments I subjects I know absolutely nothing about ...... like the Cyprus Problem, Cypriot politics or football!!!!. :|

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

Devil, I'm glad you are well. Keep taking those coloured tablets! :) I've been away for some time. Eight months I think. Prior to that IIRC you would rather have had your ole legs cut off with a rusty saw than get involved in these sorts of "discussions". I wondered what, if any particular thing, changed your view? PS What's happened to my, cooling, end-of-summer bloody thunderstorm? :wink:

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • crissbroon wrote:
    Yes, well spotted. It is the same Jeremy Corbyn that opposed his own party members 500 times. The fact that Labour were wiped out in the last election may provide you with a clue that he was right to do so. may be a clue for you why he is now Labour leader. Unlike most of the modern day politicians , if he thought his party was wrong regarding their policies then he would bl++dy well say so. There is little doubt that in recent years the Labour Party had lost their way and had not a clue what and whom they represented. That is why Corbyn is a breath of fresh air. If you find him amusing its probably because you are not used to someone who will stick by his principles regardless what the morning headline is..

Fascinating times indeed. I agree about Labour returning to its roots. With Blairism and your relative's efforts :D :wink: I never quite understood what Labour had become all about. Although it gave the distinct impression that it had evolved into the party of the immigrant and benefit claimant, principally at the cost of it's core, working-class vote.
Nevertheless, the general consensus seems to have been that Milliband lost because he had taken Labour too far to the left. And the answer is ................... Corbyn? :?
Jeremy needs to win an awful lot more than what seems his "army" of supporters (inflated out of all context by the media you excoriate) to get into No 10. Or, is it as some are suggesting, there's no real expectation or even interest in actually gaining power at the top?. Better to exercise it at the bottom. In the factories and on the streets.
It all sounds a bit...................................... 1917-ish :shock:

Posted By: Hudswell

Devil, we seem to be in the business of "Daring" each other.....and you know what they say "Who Dares Wins" :) Oh and Keacka, the Conservatives are just being polite...Recent Labour Governments have been a disaster for the UK...that's why they were shown the door...

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • Hudswell wrote:

    ProVox, did you read this?
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/16/richard_murphy_corbyn_economics/?page=1
    I may not know an awful lot about economics........

OH NO!......................... HE WENT THERE! :shock: :shock: :shock: :lol:

Posted By: Hudswell

:D Always happy to provide somebody a soapbox.... 8)

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • Hudswell wrote:
    :D Always happy to provide somebody a soapbox.... 8)

Rushes off here to get popcorn......................................... :lol:

Posted By: ProVox

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    • spanner wrote:
      • ProVox wrote:
        I don't claim to be an expert on the military

      Shock! Horror! Something you are not expert on!!!!!

    Listen, next Thursday is Provox's birthday. I am sworn to be nice to him ......................... all day long.
    It's gonna be soooooooooooooooo hard. :cry:

I told you that in confidence so, for breaking that confidence you now have to buy me a beer as birthday compensation ........ otherwise I shall be forced to send Ahmed and Abdul round to collect! :wink: :D
You should take a leaf from my book and try being nice ..... I can assure you it doesn't hurt a bit! :wink:

Posted By: ProVox

Hudswell:
    Quote:
  • ProVox, did you read this?
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/16/richard_murphy_corbyn_economics/?page=1

Yes ...... and it didn't change my life one little bit!
    Quote:
  • I may not know an awful lot about economics but it made sense to me. Government is not all about the money you do realise, the primary role of Government is Defence of the Realm, something I suspect Mr Corbyn would quite happily hand over to others...and any windfall from his financial policy would no doubt be blown on a bloated welfare service designed to keep his supporters in the manner they have become accustomed....

The defence of the realm requires money .... you do realise? So you would rather see the money spent on sophisticated and expensive never to be used weapons and overseas bases where the military seemed to be required to defend everybody else’s realm ........ whilst the British people slide back into the dark ages via a collapsing health service, inferior educational system, rising crime but fewer police on the streets, a constant terrorist threat, rising civil unrest, no decent homes available for young people etc! Which of course will also continue to impact the military .... as it has done already.
I’m sorry but you do realise that the military ( mainly MOD ) squander billions every year whilst those who actually do ‘ defend the Realm ’ continually seem to suffer from inferior or lack of equipment to do the job.
    Quote:
  • ....... you people really make me laugh, you have grown fat and lazy and are quite happy to sit back and vent forth your opinions gained from the safety of your armchairs...safe in the knowledge that all this is not really going to impact on you.

Presumably you came to that conclusion because the description fits you? FYI: Personally .... I still work physically on average for about 30 hrs a week, in the sun. This is of course relaxation compared to the 70 hour weeks, in the sun I did up untill retirement 15 years ago. At 75 yrs the safety of my armchair is well earned and believe me I am very aware of what is going to impact me, you and our families.......... you don't .....but it is a waste of time trying to explain it to you!
I refer you to post #186 ......... http://hiddensecretsofmoney.com/videos/episode-4 ............ Informed or ignorant? ......... your choice! Understand the basics and you will be in a position to draw your own conclusions.
Or maybe, as an alternative to my acquired understanding of the monetary/banking system that most economists agree is teetering on the edge of a financial precipice, Kwacka, Spanner, Tibbs, Devil or anybody ...... could give us all a link to a similar explanation as to how THEY know the system works? I have asked dozens of times but they never come up with any support for their ridicule and vilification.
BTW: Don’t take too much notice of Tibbs ........ nice enough guy but he just cannot resist stirring. He doesn’t add much to a discussion but he has good entertainment value!
:)

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

It's a proven fact - many, many times - that the slide into animosity with Provox is directly proportional to contact with him. Unless of course you are a signed up sycophant. Well, I did try to warn you. Keep going - and you will see exactly what I mean. :wink:

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ProVox wrote:
    Hudswell:
      Quote:
    • ProVox, did you read this?
      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/16/richard_murphy_corbyn_economics/?page=1

    Yes ...... and it didn't change my life one little bit!
      Quote:
    • I may not know an awful lot about economics but it made sense to me. Government is not all about the money you do realise, the primary role of Government is Defence of the Realm, something I suspect Mr Corbyn would quite happily hand over to others...and any windfall from his financial policy would no doubt be blown on a bloated welfare service designed to keep his supporters in the manner they have become accustomed....

    The defence of the realm requires money .... you do realise? So you would rather see the money spent on sophisticated and expensive never to be used weapons and overseas bases where the military seemed to be required to defend everybody else’s realm ........ whilst the British people slide back into the dark ages via a collapsing health service, inferior educational system, rising crime but fewer police on the streets, a constant terrorist threat, rising civil unrest, no decent homes available for young people etc! Which of course will also continue to impact the military .... as it has done already.
    I’m sorry but you do realise that the military ( mainly MOD ) squander billions every year whilst those who actually do ‘ defend the Realm ’ continually seem to suffer from inferior or lack of equipment to do the job.
      Quote:
    • ....... you people really make me laugh, you have grown fat and lazy and are quite happy to sit back and vent forth your opinions gained from the safety of your armchairs...safe in the knowledge that all this is not really going to impact on you.

    Presumably you came to that conclusion because the description fits you? FYI: Personally .... I still work physically on average for about 30 hrs a week, in the sun. This is of course relaxation compared to the 70 hour weeks, in the sun I did up untill retirement 15 years ago. At 75 yrs the safety of my armchair is well earned and believe me I am very aware of what is going to impact me, you and our families.......... you don't .....but it is a waste of time trying to explain it to you!
    I refer you to post #186 ......... http://hiddensecretsofmoney.com/videos/episode-4 ............ Informed or ignorant? ......... your choice! Understand the basics and you will be in a position to draw your own conclusions.
    Or maybe, as an alternative to my acquired understanding of the monetary/banking system that most economists agree is teetering on the edge of a financial precipice, Kwacka, Spanner, Tibbs, Devil or anybody ...... could give us all a link to a similar explanation as to how THEY know the system works? I have asked dozens of times but they never come up with any support for their ridicule and vilification.
    BTW: Don’t take too much notice of Tibbs ........ nice enough guy but he just cannot resist stirring. He doesn’t add much to a discussion but he has good entertainment value!
    :)

This thread is about Jeremy Corbyn!
Sorry - just couldn't resist it.

Posted By: Hudswell

Having served in the Armed Forces, the Army for 39 years, (and whilst I did retire at quite a senior position I did it by working my way from the non commissioned ranks through to the commissioned ranks) I actually do know a smidgen about the state of the Armed Forces, of course the Army in particular. The Army has never been better equipped and although I do have issues with Army 2020 it will still be able to carry out its defence mandate....don't believe all you read in the fringe press...oh and I would rather defend abroad than on the streets of the U.K..now if Labour have their way I suspect it's defence policies really would finish it off...Oh and having only retired 2 years ago I can still manage to prise myself out of the Armchair and give most a run for their money, and yes I am very aware of the current threats at home and abroad..I try to keep my hand in...so no need to explain. It is interesting that you dismiss the link regarding PQE out of hand which indicates, to me at least perhaps an unwillingness to challenge the dogma you seem intent on pursuing. And to suggest the United Kingdom is slipping back into the Dark Ages is simply ridiculous, it has problems of course as do all countries, but at least we have a Government determined to put it back on track...dispite the efforts of the left.

Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Having served in the Armed Forces, the Army for 39 years, (and whilst I did retire at quite a senior position I did it by working my way from the non commissioned ranks through to the commissioned ranks) I actually do know a smidgen about the state of the Armed Forces, of course the Army in particular. The Army has never been better equipped and although I do have issues with Army 2020 it will still be able to carry out its defence mandate....don't believe all you read in the fringe press...oh and I would rather defend abroad than on the streets of the U.K..now if Labour have their way I suspect it's defence policies really would finish it off...Oh and having only retired 2 years ago I can still manage to prise myself out of the Armchair and give most a run for their money, and yes I am very aware of the current threats at home and abroad..I try to keep my hand in...so no need to explain.
    It is interesting that you dismiss the link regarding PQE out of hand which indicates, to me at least perhaps an unwillingness to challenge the dogma you seem intent on pursuing.
    And to suggest the United Kingdom is slipping back into the Dark Ages is simply ridiculous, it has problems of course as do all countries, but at least we have a Government determined to put it back on track...dispite the efforts of the left.

I don't claim to be an expert on the military ..... I only have what I read or see on TV to go on, not like you.
Your link told me nothing that I was not already aware of ..... but at least I didn't declare it as '10 minutes of my life that I will never get back' . As I said it told me nothing new. Actualy, if you understood what he was saying he supports what I say .... the BoE and commercial banks create currency out of thin air and they destroy it when the government pays it back. The BoE bulletin I have previously posted explains all that and more.
Of course the UK is slipping back ..... at least in that both the MSM and independent news sites agree. So the Government is putting it (NHS, Education, policing etc.),'back on track' and how do they propose to pay for it ...... borrow even more fiat money from the banks to repay with more austerity or increase taxation? :roll:

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Having served in the Armed Forces, the Army for 39 years, (and whilst I did retire at quite a senior position I did it by working my way from the non commissioned ranks through to the commissioned ranks) I actually do know a smidgen about the state of the Armed Forces, of course the Army in particular. The Army has never been better equipped and although I do have issues with Army 2020 it will still be able to carry out its defence mandate....don't believe all you read in the fringe press...oh and I would rather defend abroad than on the streets of the U.K..now if Labour have their way I suspect it's defence policies really would finish it off...Oh and having only retired 2 years ago I can still manage to prise myself out of the Armchair and give most a run for their money, and yes I am very aware of the current threats at home and abroad..I try to keep my hand in...so no need to explain.
    It is interesting that you dismiss the link regarding PQE out of hand which indicates, to me a least perhaps an unwillingness to challenge the dogma you seem intent on pursuing.
    And to suggest the United Kingdom is slipping back into the Dark Ages is simply ridiculous, it has problems of course as do all countries, but at least we have a Government determined to put it back on track...dispite the efforts of the left.

Just a tad of bonding (perhaps). I also served in the Forces (31 years RAF) and worked my way up through the ranks to an exalted Commissioned position. Well, OK, OK, not really "exalted". :(
Provox has spent a very, very long time out of the UK and like most subjects gets his "expertise" tap, tap, tapping away every day. Despite your considerable experience, if he has spent a lot of time "researching" defence you will find that you actually know very little about the "real" facts - unlike him.
I too find his description of life in the UK as - err - err - bonkers.
I think the UKG spend something like £160B a year on the NHS. Defence spending I believe is around £60B.
In my annual trips to the Old Country I can't honestly say I have detected any descent into the "dark ages". In fact my family and lots of friends seem quite prosperous.
As far as"constant terrorist threat" is concerned - details/incidences?
Young people's homes? Despite quite a reasonable job and salary I couldn't afford to buy a house until I was in my early 30s, both my kids owned very nice houses in their early 20s.
Crime? Better reported but...................... what are the real statistics compared to the past? Again, can't say I have seen much. Despite quite an extensive family i don't know anybody who has been mugged or burgled, for instance.
Again - I advise staying well away from anything to do with banking or money. The Forum has had a very, very generous portion of all that from Provox in the past 18 months or so.
Trust me.

Posted By: Byker

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    Trust me.

Be careful...My Dad always said that was Hebrew for F*** You.
Nice to see you stirring the pot again Mr T! :D

Posted By: ProVox

  • Byker wrote:
    • Mr Tibbs wrote:
      Trust me.

    Be careful...My Dad always said that was Hebrew for F*** You.
    Nice to see you stirring the pot again Mr T! :D

FFS don't encourage him! :roll:

Posted By: ProVox

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    • Hudswell wrote:
      Having served in the Armed Forces, the Army for 39 years, (and whilst I did retire at quite a senior position I did it by working my way from the non commissioned ranks through to the commissioned ranks) I actually do know a smidgen about the state of the Armed Forces, of course the Army in particular. The Army has never been better equipped and although I do have issues with Army 2020 it will still be able to carry out its defence mandate....don't believe all you read in the fringe press...oh and I would rather defend abroad than on the streets of the U.K..now if Labour have their way I suspect it's defence policies really would finish it off...Oh and having only retired 2 years ago I can still manage to prise myself out of the Armchair and give most a run for their money, and yes I am very aware of the current threats at home and abroad..I try to keep my hand in...so no need to explain.
      It is interesting that you dismiss the link regarding PQE out of hand which indicates, to me a least perhaps an unwillingness to challenge the dogma you seem intent on pursuing.
      And to suggest the United Kingdom is slipping back into the Dark Ages is simply ridiculous, it has problems of course as do all countries, but at least we have a Government determined to put it back on track...dispite the efforts of the left.

    Just a tad of bonding (perhaps). I also served in the Forces (31 years RAF) and worked my way up through the ranks to an exalted Commissioned position. Well, OK, OK, not really "exalted". :(
    Provox has spent a very, very long time out of the UK and like most subjects gets his "expertise" tap, tap, tapping away every day. Despite your considerable experience, if he has spent a lot of time "researching" defence you will find that you actually know very little about the "real" facts - unlike him.
    I too find his description of life in the UK as - err - err - bonkers.
    I think the UKG spend something like £160B a year on the NHS. Defence spending I believe is around £60B.
    In my annual trips to the Old Country I can't honestly say I have detected any descent into the "dark ages". In fact my family and lots of friends seem quite prosperous.
    As far as"constant terrorist threat" is concerned - details/incidences?
    Young people's homes? Despite quite a reasonable job and salary I couldn't afford to buy a house until I was in my early 30s, both my kids owned very nice houses in their early 20s.
    Crime? Better reported but...................... what are the real statistics compared to the past? Again, can't say I have seen much. Despite quite an extensive family i don't know anybody who has been mugged or burgled, for instance.
    Again - I advise staying well away from anything to do with banking or money. The Forum has had a very, very generous portion of all that from Provox in the past 18 months or so.
    Trust me.

I thought this thread was about Corbyn ..... not ProVox? Sorry couldn't resist it!

Posted By: spanner

  • ProVox wrote:
    I don't claim to be an expert on the military

Shock! Horror! Something you are not expert on!!!!!

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • spanner wrote:
    • ProVox wrote:
      I don't claim to be an expert on the military

    Shock! Horror! Something you are not expert on!!!!!

Listen, next Thursday is Provox's birthday. I am sworn to be nice to him ......................... all day long.
It's gonna be soooooooooooooooo hard. :cry:

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ProVox wrote:
    • Mr Tibbs wrote:
      • spanner wrote:
        • ProVox wrote:
          I don't claim to be an expert on the military

        Shock! Horror! Something you are not expert on!!!!!

      Listen, next Thursday is Provox's birthday. I am sworn to be nice to him ......................... all day long.
      It's gonna be soooooooooooooooo hard. :cry:

    I told you that in confidence so, for breaking that confidence you now have to buy me a beer as birthday compensation ........ otherwise I shall be forced to send Ahmed and Abdul round to collect! :wink: :D
    You should take a leaf from my book and try being nice ..... I can assure you it doesn't hurt a bit! :wink:

I just let you win at golf! Then presented you with the"most appalling golfer of the year" prize, which you know rightfully belonged to me. Jeez, some people are never happy. :P

Posted By: ProVox

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    • ProVox wrote:
      • Mr Tibbs wrote:
        • spanner wrote:
          • ProVox wrote:
            I don't claim to be an expert on the military

          Shock! Horror! Something you are not expert on!!!!!

        Listen, next Thursday is Provox's birthday. I am sworn to be nice to him ......................... all day long.
        It's gonna be soooooooooooooooo hard. :cry:

      I told you that in confidence so, for breaking that confidence you now have to buy me a beer as birthday compensation ........ otherwise I shall be forced to send Ahmed and Abdul round to collect! :wink: :D
      You should take a leaf from my book and try being nice ..... I can assure you it doesn't hurt a bit! :wink:

    I just let you win at golf! Then presented you with the"most appalling golfer of the year" prize, which you know rightfully belonged to me. Jeez, some people are never happy. :P

I beat you fair and square ....... and presenting me with the booby prize was just revenge!
You have gone the same way many of those in powerful positions go ..... you get drunk with power! I mean just look at your excuse ...... I beat you ..... it is only the second time I have ever played 'golf' ( With a magnificent 3 holes in 20 whacks ) ....... and yet you class me as " most appalling golfer of the year ". Honestly .... how can that be so.
Next year it will be my turn and I am getting Putin to caddy for me ......... oh .... and I am getting Corbyn to caddy for you!!!!!!! :lol: :wink:

Posted By: Byker

  • ProVox wrote:

    You should take a leaf from my book and try being nice ..... I can assure you it doesn't hurt a bit! :wink:

Not sure about that, I tried it once, it was on a Sunday, it made me feel quite nauseous. :ill:
The relevance to this thread is that it was a very long time ago...About the same time that Corbyn bore any relevance :D

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

Try to forget Trident per se for a moment, whether you agree or disagree with its relevance. It's more an issue of credibility I think and actually relates to a lot of core Labour Party policies in the current la-la land of Corbymania.
Anyway:
"Labour's Jeremy Corbyn to become CND vice-president"
"Labour leader due to address CND conference, described by organisers as the most important gathering of anti-nuclear activists in a generation"
"Jeremy Corbyn has reinforced his anti-nuclear stance by becoming vice-president of CND in a move that risks further splitting Labour.
The move by the Labour leader is a clear indication of his determination to keep campaigning against the renewal of Britain's nuclear deterrent."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/17/jeremy-corbyn-vice-president-campaign-nuclear-disarmament
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34558956
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11937746/Jeremy-Corbyn-courts-new-anti-nuclear-row-by-becoming-vice-president-of-CND.html
The situation:
It will apparently remain Labour Party policy to support the UK's nuclear deterrence capability and the associated program for the replacement Trident submarines.
It is Corbyn's very own Shadow Defence Minister's policy to support the UK's nuclear deterrence capability. She is far from alone in the PLP on this, very far.
It is the Unions' policy to support the UK's nuclear deterrence capabliltiy. Principally to retain the thousands of jobs involved at the likes of Barrow-in-Furness and Faslane (plus an enormous number of small-to-medium engineering associated businesses).
Despite this it is Jeremy Corbyn's oft stated policy that, as a lifelong pacifist, he wants rid of it. Apparently making sure of course that the people who would be involved are all gainfully employed in making things like DVD flange-sprockets, in competition with the Chinese. Moreover, he has stated clearly that "when" he becomes Prime Minister he has absolutely no intention of authorising Trident's use - under whatever circumstances you can imagine.
So, are we to build the subs, to keep people in work and perhaps, like this weeks rib-tickling, farcical about-turn on economic policy, let there be Labour Party abstentions on the issue? After Corbyn threatened to sack Shadow Cabinet members who didn't vote along the Party's line, then rescinded (again) that is. This though on the clear and loudly proclaimed understanding that there will be absolutely no consideration about Trident's actual use - ever, during his Premiership.
The Unions acted to ensure that this absurd situation wouldn't come to light at Labour's recent conference by vetoing a debate on the subject . Well, no change there then, none the less, very sensible.
"For now, there is bad blood. Mr Corbyn is opposed not only by two huge unions but some senior colleagues. One describes a day that saw a vote on Trident talked up then axed by conference as an utter shambles. Some even thought they might have to resign over the issue here in Brighton."
But............................ it ain't going away guys. The can's just been kicked down the road.
I can't understand how anybody, regardless of political persuasion, could see this as anything other than absolutely farcical chaos.
Forget Trident. As an issue of Political Party politics and the leadership thereof how do you rate Corbyn? Surely, here is a man totally unsuited for the job, voted from Monster Raving Loony obscurity into the position by the Unions and an "army" of people who got a say for the price of a cheese sandwich (thanks for that one Ed).
My apologies for using links to the "MSM" - without their being given prior approval regarding acceptability on this particular issue.. :roll:

Posted By: ProVox

There is no arguing with the fact that if what is stated is accurate, then the PLP policies are in chaos. Had Corbyn had the b*lls that Putin has, he would have had the lot of them quietly taken care of and disappeared. But, he isn’t like that thankfully ........ you should be pleased?
I would find it hard to believe that there is any body on this forum who would not like to see the end of nuclear weapons completely? In fact the end of all these weapons that create so much death and destruction around the Globe and if Corbyn could, through being VP of CND, get things moving in that direction that would be a good thing. However, he does seem to be a rather weak character and I doubt he will have that much influence. But if you look at what is represented as his views on the nuclear issue, they are not that potty!
We have Trident, old technology and really past its sell by date. We have never had to use it or even threaten to use it but it has cost the UK billions to acquire and retain. Was it a good investment? Did it protect us? Have we ever been threatened by anyone since Hitler?
Surely the threat to the Realm is now from within, not from without and the money could be far better spent on internal security? Expand home based military full and part time units ( a National Guard ?) with SAS type training in urban-warfare, Coastal Command type surveillance of our territorial waters, with fast, light and well equipped ‘ gun-boats ’ to do the protection work on-the-ground (Water)?

There are more countries in the world without these weapons than there are with them. Australia, Canada, Japan, Germany, Sweden, South American countries and only Pakistan and India having them in Asia. Whilst there is certainly a possibility that the latter two could go face-to-face with them, they do not present a threat to the UK. ( I discount North Korea because I think they have very few weapons and their capability for launching is supposedly primitive ) The others manage without spending on these horrendous weapons but nobody has suffered from a nuclear attack or threat to date ................. except for Japan!!!!!
If ( and it’s a big IF !) there was a nuclear attack on the UK we could fire off a few missiles in retaliation and the response would be total annihilation. So pushing the button when we have BEEN attacked would be too little, too late and a death wish! So Corbyns view is not so daft.
Only the US still has a philosophy of ‘ first strike ’ in response to a perceived threat with or without UN approval and although they are working toward the weapons being simply deterrents, they are not there yet.
If NATO (European) countries allow US nuclear weapons on their soil they are de facto an extension of the US military and leave themselves open to an attack should the US launch a pre-emptive strike against whoever . ( The scenario painted here obviously assumes Russia/China/Iran being the bad guys that the US would target .......... I don’t think Lichtenstein or Andorra present any credible threat ..... in reality I don’t think there is any threat to the UK directly from any other country .)
The danger to the UK and other European countries is being closely associated with a military that could drag us into a nuclear confrontation. The Afghan hospital attack was very obviously a cock-up ............ what would have happened if this had been a Russian cock-up and someone like McCain or Hilary Clinton had the launch codes. It doesn’t bear thinking about!
IMO: Any nuclear exchange will end in the extermination of mankind .......... so why not forget the replacement of the existing equipment and spend the money on things that do benefit society ...... whilst we can?
Again IMO: I think the threat is far closer to home ..... home for me being Cyprus where our close neighbour has an unknown and illegal stockpile of nuclear weapons of unidentified type and quantity and from the leaderships rhetoric, would not hesitate to use them. :?

Posted By: Byker

It's very good to fantasise about how the world would be better without WMD, it would be, but in the history of mankind we have yet to be able to un-invent something, and given our nature we never will.... So...Given our position in the world, whether real or perceived, our government, and most of the opposition, believe we need to keep a nuclear deterrent, this costs an absolute bundle, it is there as a deterrent, meaning we will not attack with it but will let our potential enemies know that if they try to wipe us out, they get toasted as well (AKA the status quo), BUT the leader of the Labour party says, LOUDLY AND PUBLICLY that he will never hit the red button, SO our potential enemies, know that if JC is in power we are a sitting target that can't hit back, we will have wasted a huge amount of our resources on something we will not use. Not to put a fine point on it...How ****ed up is that?

Posted By: bromerzz

Should Labour under Corbyn, God forbid (whichever God you might think exists) ever get in power then maybe the Military will see sense and have a Coup and take over the running of the country. The Military tends to be right wing and mainly Conservative supporters. The Peoples Flag is only allowed to be flown as deepest Red because of what our Armed Forces have done and continue to do for the benefit of the country, with the possibility that we have pre emptive strike capability using nuclear weapons behind us if needed, with a Prime Minister with the balls to act for the benefit of the British nation (pre any Sharia takeover). A few tactical weapons popped in here and there can go a long way!

Posted By: ProVox

Byker:
I agree with what you are saying about the destruction of the technology but ..........
    Quote:
  • SO our potential enemies, know that if JC is in power we are a sitting target that can't hit back, we will have wasted a huge amount of our resources on something we will not use.

What enemies? Surely, our real enemies are well embedded in UK society and freely express their dislike ( hatred ) of all we stand for? So, what do we do ......... we create laws to protect our enemies human rights, cut back on policing and make servicemen with experience in dealing with insurgents and terrorists, redundant.
Quote: Not to put a fine point on it...How ****ed up is that?
As a point of observation: I could never understand why the Russians got so upset when the US installed an anti-missile defence system in NATO countries on the Russian borders. After all, they had nothing to fear as these were just defensive weapons and presented no threat to Russia. Then I read an interesting article that explained why.
With the US’s stated intent of retaining their right to a first strike capability against a perceived threat against the US, its allies or on Israel, it would mean that their missiles are in the air before the Russians are aware of it. (‘ perceived threat’ is a dangerous concept ) Russia would immediately activates their missile systems (how long this takes I don’t know ) and of all those that are not destroyed in the initial US attack, many would be bought down as they were launched in retaliation, leaving their country defenceless ...... and destroyed. I then saw the problem from their point of view ........... and this is what is going on now. It is the Cuba Crisis in reverse! :(

Posted By: ProVox

  • bromerzz wrote:
    Should Labour under Corbyn, God forbid (whichever God you might think exists) ever get in power then maybe the Military will see sense and have a Coup and take over the running of the country. The Military tends to be right wing and mainly Conservative supporters.
    The Peoples Flag is only allowed to be flown as deepest Red because of what our Armed Forces have done and continue to do for the benefit of the country, with the possibility that we have pre emptive strike capability using nuclear weapons behind us if needed, with a Prime Minister with the balls to act for the benefit of the British nation (pre any Sharia takeover).
    A few tactical weapons popped in here and there can go a long way!

Yes ........... go a long way to ensuring total annihilation, unless of course they choose an enemy that cannot fight back! :roll:

Posted By: Byker

  • ProVox wrote:
    What enemies? Surely, our real enemies are well embedded in UK society and freely express their dislike ( hatred ) of all we stand for? So, what do we do ......... we create laws to protect our enemies human rights, cut back on policing and make servicemen with experience in dealing with insurgents and terrorists, redundant.

Right now I agree the home grown radicals are our biggest enemies but the world is changing far to fast to discount the possibility of a rogue state Middle Eastern state getting WMD, there have been reports this month of Russian gangs trying to sell radioactive material to Isil terrorists in Moldova, they were thwarted but who knows what plots are going on elsewhere. While the current situation is terrorism based and any WMD would be planted within (rather than launched at) us, that again could change very quickly.
While I think we should take very hard action to root Islam completely out of Europe (to do this we need to forget equal human "rights"), we shouldn't take our eyes off of other possibilities.

Posted By: ProVox

  • Byker wrote:
    • ProVox wrote:
      What enemies? Surely, our real enemies are well embedded in UK society and freely express their dislike ( hatred ) of all we stand for? So, what do we do ......... we create laws to protect our enemies human rights, cut back on policing and make servicemen with experience in dealing with insurgents and terrorists, redundant.

    Right now I agree the home grown radicals are our biggest enemies but the world is changing far to fast to discount the possibility of a rogue state Middle Eastern state getting WMD, there have been reports this month of Russian gangs trying to sell radioactive material to Isil terrorists in Moldova, they were thwarted but who knows what plots are going on elsewhere. While the current situation is terrorism based and any WMD would be planted within (rather than launched at) us, that again could change very quickly.
    While I think we should take very hard action to root Islam completely out of Europe (to do this we need to forget equal human "rights"), we shouldn't take our eyes off of other possibilities.

Absolutely .... 100%! Although I would point out that to develop a delivery system for a WMD takes a lot of time, knowledge and money .... and thankfully their Prophet forgot to write that into his instruction manual!!! :wink:

Posted By: mouse

  • ProVox wrote:
    • Byker wrote:
      • ProVox wrote:
        What enemies? Surely, our real enemies are well embedded in UK society and freely express their dislike ( hatred ) of all we stand for? So, what do we do ......... we create laws to protect our enemies human rights, cut back on policing and make servicemen with experience in dealing with insurgents and terrorists, redundant.

      Right now I agree the home grown radicals are our biggest enemies but the world is changing far to fast to discount the possibility of a rogue state Middle Eastern state getting WMD, there have been reports this month of Russian gangs trying to sell radioactive material to Isil terrorists in Moldova, they were thwarted but who knows what plots are going on elsewhere. While the current situation is terrorism based and any WMD would be planted within (rather than launched at) us, that again could change very quickly.
      While I think we should take very hard action to root Islam completely out of Europe (to do this we need to forget equal human "rights"), we shouldn't take our eyes off of other possibilities.

    Absolutely .... 100%! Although I would point out that to develop a delivery system for a WMD takes a lot of time, knowledge and money .... and thankfully their Prophet forgot to write that into his instruction manual!!! :wink:

But I thought it was only electronic money anyway and doesn't really exist. :wink: :lol:

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    Try to forget Trident per se for a moment, whether you agree or disagree with its relevance. It's more an issue of credibility I think and actually relates to a lot of core Labour Party policies in the current la-la land of Corbymania. .......................................
    .........................Forget Trident. As an issue of Political Party politics and the leadership thereof how do you rate Corbyn? Surely, here is a man totally unsuited for the job, voted from Monster Raving Loony obscurity into the position by the Unions and an "army" of people who got a say for the price of a cheese sandwich (thanks for that one Ed).

Well, I suppose that was absurdly naive of me. :(
Thank you for your response Provox. Don't get excited, just practicing for Thursday.
I think your first sentence or so brushed lightly on the OP but then degenerated into the usual anti-US (Israeli) grossly prejudiced diatribe. I could take issue with much of what you posted, as did subsequent members' posts but if it's a discussion/debate on the subject of Nuclear weapons you're seeking then perhaps another thread in another section would be appropriate?
Apart from that I - with apologies - quote Kwacka from a recent response to Spanner:
  • Kwacka wrote:
    I just get bored reading the same post by the same people over and over (and over) again.
    I really must try to control myself more in the future.

I do take note of your comment re Putin, which is essentially correct. Nemetsov, Politkovskaya, Magnitsk, Estemirova, Markelov, Baburova, Klebnikov, Litvinenko (closely followed by the "suicide" of his boss Berezovsky) all being vocal critics of Vlad and all subsequently violently done away with, wherever they happened to be. And all followed by the irrepressible, free and independent Russian State media rushing in with agressive denials, sometimes before rigor mortis had even set in.
Not to mention of course a very, very long list of "show trials" for some of his other detractors. But as you have often said, Putin is not a Dictator, he is far too popular for that and " Answerable to the Russian people " well, apart from those above and I wouldn't be surprised quite a few more who have simply been "disappeared".
You do so love your "strong" tyrants, don't you? Well, much like a lot of Russians it appears.
But there I go - falling into the same trap as Byker, et al.
Yes, Jeremy is a very nice man. Well, as long as you haven't had somebody murdered by his "friends" the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc of course. An idealist some people might say. But the sort of man to lead one of Britain's great political parties and perhaps sit in No 10, deciding the direction and even fate of the UK? :?
Now I see Mouse has opened the door to what could be your zillionth posting on "money creation". I'm confident you will be able to neatly turn this into another sermon on Banking in the same way you used to turn posts as bland as the current weather into a "Zionist conspiracy" thread.

Posted By: ProVox

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    • Mr Tibbs wrote:
      Try to forget Trident per se for a moment, whether you agree or disagree with its relevance. It's more an issue of credibility I think and actually relates to a lot of core Labour Party policies in the current la-la land of Corbymania. .......................................
      .........................Forget Trident. As an issue of Political Party politics and the leadership thereof how do you rate Corbyn? Surely, here is a man totally unsuited for the job, voted from Monster Raving Loony obscurity into the position by the Unions and an "army" of people who got a say for the price of a cheese sandwich (thanks for that one Ed).

    Well, I suppose that was absurdly naive of me. :(
    Thank you for your response Provox. Don't get excited, just practicing for Thursday.
    I think your first sentence or so brushed lightly on the OP but then degenerated into the usual anti-US (Israeli) grossly prejudiced diatribe. I could take issue with much of what you posted, as did subsequent members' posts but if it's a discussion/debate on the subject of Nuclear weapons you're seeking then perhaps another thread in another section would be appropriate?
    Apart from that I - with apologies - quote Kwacka from a recent response to Spanner:
    • Kwacka wrote:
      I just get bored reading the same post by the same people over and over (and over) again.
      I really must try to control myself more in the future.

    I do take note of your comment re Putin, which is essentially correct. Nemetsov, Politkovskaya, Magnitsk, Estemirova, Markelov, Baburova, Klebnikov, Litvinenko (closely followed by the "suicide" of his boss Berezovsky) all being vocal critics of Vlad and all subsequently violently done away with, wherever they happened to be. And all followed by the irrepressible, free and independent Russian State media rushing in with agressive denials, sometimes before rigor mortis had even set in.
    Not to mention of course a very, very long list of "show trials" for some of his other detractors. But as you have often said, Putin is not a Dictator, he is far too popular for that and " Answerable to the Russian people " well, apart from those above and I wouldn't be surprised quite a few more who have simply been "disappeared".
    You do so love your "strong" tyrants, don't you? Well, much like a lot of Russians it appears.
    But there I go - falling into the same trap as Byker, et al.
    Yes, Jeremy is a very nice man. Well, as long as you haven't had somebody murdered by his "friends" the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc of course. An idealist some people might say. But the sort of man to lead one of Britain's great political parties and perhaps sit in No 10, deciding the direction and even fate of the UK? :?
    Now I see Mouse has opened the door to what could be your zillionth posting on "money creation". I'm confident you will be able to neatly turn this into another sermon on Banking in the same way you used to turn posts as bland as the current weather into a "Zionist conspiracy" thread.

Another tirade of personal abuse .... at least I try to make encourage debate or discussion, you do nothing but bully and abuse. None of the above has the slightest relationship to the OP, at least a discussion on 'money creation; is associated with Corbyns proposals! You are brainwashed in your unshakeable beliefs which are about 30 years out of date.
Anyway TLDR ..... got better things to do! :)

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ProVox wrote:
    Anyway TLDR ..... got better things to do! :)

That'll be the day! :lol: :lol: :lol:
And:
You admire tyrants?
Putin/Assad/Khamenei. Supporting them and their views, rushing to their defence without question. Openly expressed admiration on quite a few occasions.

You are vehemently anti-USA and Israel?
That's a revelation?
You have posted probably hundreds of times on the subject of banking and money creation and do so at every opportunity?
Yes - and? Does that need some sort of proof?
This is "bullying" and "abuse". I don't thinks so Provox, not at all. It's simply a statement about what you do.
As far as having nothing to do with the OP goes. Your long post on Nuclear weapons, a sharp tangent away from #250 does? Hypocritical? There's that word again.
What an odd world you inhabit. :roll:

Posted By: mouse

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    • ProVox wrote:
      Anyway TLDR ..... got better things to do! :)

    That'll be the day! :lol: :lol: :lol:
    And:
    You admire tyrants?
    Putin/Assad/Khamenei/Kim Jong Un even on occasions. Supporting them and their views, rushing to their defence without question. Admiration.
    You are vehemently anti-USA and Israel?
    That's a revelation?
    You have posted probably hundreds of times on the subject of banking and money creation and do so at every opportunity?
    Yes - and? Does that need some sort of proof?
    This is "bullying" and "abuse". I don't thinks so Provox, not at all. It's simply a statement about what you do.
    As far as having nothing to do with the OP goes. Your long post on Nuclear weapons, a sharp tangent away from #250 does?
    What an odd world you inhabit. :roll:

Buddy Holly. :?

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • mouse wrote:
    • Mr Tibbs wrote:
      • ProVox wrote:
        Anyway TLDR ..... got better things to do! :)

      That'll be the day! :lol: :lol: :lol:
      And:
      You admire tyrants?
      Putin/Assad/Khamenei/Kim Jong Un even on occasions. Supporting them and their views, rushing to their defence without question. Admiration.
      You are vehemently anti-USA and Israel?
      That's a revelation?
      You have posted probably hundreds of times on the subject of banking and money creation and do so at every opportunity?
      Yes - and? Does that need some sort of proof?
      This is "bullying" and "abuse". I don't thinks so Provox, not at all. It's simply a statement about what you do.
      As far as having nothing to do with the OP goes. Your long post on Nuclear weapons, a sharp tangent away from #250 does?
      What an odd world you inhabit. :roll:

    Buddy Holly. :?
I think he got the inspiration from John Wayne in "The Searchers" atually. He says it quite a few times.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

Begs the question of course, if it's a case of "TLDR" ........................what's he getting upset about? :?

Posted By: ProVox

Tibbs:
Although this has nothing at all to do with Corbyn ...........
If you post ‘ point-for-point’ questions, then expect ‘ point-for-point ’ replies! .... at least from me that is almost guaranteed ............. I won’t just tell you ‘it’s all rubbish ’ or ‘ a load of ‘bo**ox’ I will spend (waste ) time telling you why.
Your problem is you ask the questions but get abusive and start browbeating ( bullying ?) tactics when the replies do not comply with your opinion. In case you haven’t worked it out yet .......... I have never been a ‘ Yes Sir, No Sir .... three bags full Sir’ type and never will be no matter how much of a ‘ hardman ’ the bully thinks he is!
Although reading answers is not really your forte, I will do you the courtesy of replying ( as no doubt you knew I would ?) ............
    Quote:
  • You admire tyrants?

No ........ I admire leaders/people with strength of character, people who can form their own opinions and make up their own minds. Not people that just swallow everything they are told and then expect others to do likewise. I don’t necessarily have to agree with the POV such individuals present but I will listen to that opinion.
    Quote:
  • Putin/Assad/Khamenei/Kim Jong Un even on occasions. Supporting them and their views, rushing to their defence without question. Admiration.

Putin? Yes .... to me the only real world leader with any balls. The rest .... supporting their views? Not really as I don’t really know enough about them to comment. Although if I were to judge according to the MSM opinion of them I would put them on a par with Hitler or Vlad the Impaler. But there again ..... the sheep were misled by Blair through the MSM ( who at the time I regarded a bit like I do Putin now... we can’t always be right! Can we?) and your military pals all went to war and many died, on a lie. Maybe had the Internet been as expansive and informative then as it is now, they could have strung him up before he managed to murder so many people! (....like he and those you admire so much did to Saddam and Ghadaffi and would also do to Assad ...... given the chance .)
But ‘ Rushing to their defence without question’ ? Hardly........ but when what is posted is unproven rubbish and can be substantiated as such ....... YES. ( Too many instances to reference here but quite willing to elaborate.)
    Quote:
  • You are vehemently anti-USA and Israel?

No ........ I vehemently oppose both administrations ( USA and Israel are countries .... not people !) and even if your only source of information is the MSM, they are both pretty unpleasant regimes when you see what they are doing to others! I feel the same about the Poroshenko regime in Ukraine but then I read the other side of events as well as MSM. But I do realise there are those that have nothing but admiration for the actions of these regimes, in spite of the death and destruction they inflict on others.
    Quote:
  • That's a revelation?

No ..... that is your arrogant opinion and also self opinionated ‘bullsh*t!
    Quote:
  • You have posted probably hundreds of times on the subject of banking and money creation and do so at every opportunity?

Likely ....... even thousands ...... I don’t keep score!
When it arises in a thread .... YES. Because it is something I know quite a lot about and realise that others do not. It permeates almost everything that is daily life to us all. The problem is that NONE of the detractors and those that turn it into some sort of snide joke ...... have the slightest clue what they are looking at and, not once in all the years I have posted on the subject has anyone come back to me and said ‘YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE ........ and provided some tangible proof! Why?
I would add that I also admire Yanis Varoufakis ( Strength of character and knowledgeable ) but even he could have no political impact without the backing of The Party. That is why he resigned. He has the same economic views as Corbyn but has vastly more knowledge on the subject of both economics and ‘monetarism’.
    Quote:
  • Yes - and? Does that need some sort of proof?

Not really sure what that comment is getting at but .... I inevitably provide proof and from reliable sources. I don’t just spout my own unsupported opinion and it is ALL verifiable. ( assuming you are still on the banking/financial theme? )
    Quote:
  • This is "bullying" and "abuse". I don't thinks so Provox, not at all. It's simply a statement about what you do.

Yes .... your opinion! I explain ..... you try to belittle and ridicule because you have very little real knowledge and little to say when it comes to making your own reasoned point of view on any subject.
    Quote:
  • As far as having nothing to do with the OP goes. Your long post on Nuclear weapons, a sharp tangent away from #250 does?

But your post does? We were discussing Corbyn and his defence proposals ..... if you wanted a YES/NO answer, then make the thread a poll. Or is it just you want to expound your selective point of view with no one daring to question it?
    Quote:
  • What an odd world you inhabit.

At least I try to take notice of other opinions by spreading my attention across various sources. I am afraid the ‘Soviet Union = Bad ..... USA = Good’ is a bit old hat and out of touch with the real world of today, as is the common concept of ‘money’ and ‘Banking ‘. People are now beginning to question what they are being told. They no longer snap to attention .... and follow like sheep ....... well, you prove there are some that still do.
So who’s world is real? ( I presuppose that neither of us is a fool ) ......is it ...... a) That of the person with deeply entrenched and long term established views imbedded in their mind since the 1950’s ..... or b) that of the one that tries to keep up with what is happening in the outside world ......... using modern tools to do so? :-k

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Byker wrote:

    While I think we should take very hard action to root Islam completely out of Europe (to do this we need to forget equal human "rights"), we shouldn't take our eyes off of other possibilities.

Very courageous of you to stand up and say "just to show how it should be done I accept that I, personally, should henceforth be consideredf as having no 'human rights'.

Posted By: Byker

  • Kwacka wrote:
    • Byker wrote:

      While I think we should take very hard action to root Islam completely out of Europe (to do this we need to forget equal human "rights"), we shouldn't take our eyes off of other possibilities.

    Very courageous of you to stand up and say "just to show how it should be done I accept that I, personally, should henceforth be consideredf as having no 'human rights'.

I know I wouldn't have....In an Islamic state.
So why are you so damn worried that should we worry about theirs in the West?

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

Provox. TLDR! :lol: No, that would be rude. Tonight is a patio table-fondue (goodbye to Sgh). Invariably either a lot of delicious fun or a total disaster. Sometimes involving an element of fire extinguishing. :shock: I will read and digest later. Hopefully your post - and the fondue. So here, a straight off-the-cuff: What I can say, just for the record, is that my #250(?) was about the credibility you can assign to Corbyn, as Leader of the Labour Party, given his history and clearly stated views. It was framed in the light of just one of the Party's present dilemmas, brought about by the man's totally conflicting opinions, here on the aspect of the UK's nuclear deterrent (currently brushed under the carpet). I invited views on Corbyn's position wrt that. I could have called on other aspects of his Monster Raving Looney background and aims. However, it wasn't posted as a cue for a lengthy discussion on the political aspects of those weapons per se. It doesn't matter what Provox thinks of the UK deterrent, it matters what the Labour Party and its new "leader" think. Your "response", #251, paid little more that lip-service to that, then went off on a somewhat tangential track, involving some of your favourite prejudices. Furthermore, much of it was simply wrong, although I acknowledge that you seem to think that Corbyn's view is logically correct. Pity we have to wait to see both the PLP and electorate's opinions on the matter, although they pretty much gave it to Micheal Foot when he rolled out his disastrous unilateral wheelbarrow back in the early 80s. When I addressed one of your references in it (Putin) your consequent accusation that I had rushed off-topic was extremely hypocritical I submit. You could even say, laughably so. Perhaps more later, although I'm pretty sure that most will have had enough of all this. Don't you think?

Posted By: ProVox

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    Provox. TLDR! :lol:
    No, that would be rude.
    Tonight is a patio table-fondue (goodbye to Sgh). Invariably either a lot of delicious fun or a total disaster. Sometimes involving an element of fire extinguishing. :shock:
    I will read and digest later. Hopefully your post - and the fondue. So here, a straight off-the-cuff:
    What I can say, just for the record, is that my #250(?) was about the credibility you can assign to Corbyn, as Leader of the Labour Party, given his history and clearly stated views. It was framed in the light of just one of the Party's present dilemmas, brought about by the man's totally conflicting opinions, here on the aspect of the UK's nuclear deterrent (currently brushed under the carpet). I invited views on Corbyn's position wrt that. I could have called on other aspects of his Monster Raving Looney background and aims. However, it wasn't posted as a cue for a lengthy discussion on the political aspects of those weapons per se. It doesn't matter what Provox thinks of the UK deterrent, it matters what the Labour Party and its new "leader" think.
    Your "response", #251, paid little more that lip-service to that, then went off on a somewhat tangential track, involving some of your favourite prejudices. Furthermore, much of it was simply wrong, although I acknowledge that you seem to think that Corbyn's view is logically correct.
    Pity we have to wait to see both the PLP and electorate's opinions on the matter, although they pretty much gave it to Micheal Foot when he rolled out his disastrous unilateral wheelbarrow back in the early 80s.
    When I addressed one of your references in it (Putin) your consequent accusation that I had rushed off-topic was extremely hypocritical I submit. You could even say, laughably so.
    Perhaps more later, although I'm pretty sure that most will have had enough of all this. Don't you think?

YES .... as have I!

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Byker wrote:
    • Kwacka wrote:
      • Byker wrote:

        While I think we should take very hard action to root Islam completely out of Europe (to do this we need to forget equal human "rights"), we shouldn't take our eyes off of other possibilities.

      Very courageous of you to stand up and say "just to show how it should be done I accept that I, personally, should henceforth be consideredf as having no 'human rights'.

    I know I wouldn't have....In an Islamic state.
    So why are you so damn worried that should we worry about theirs in the West?

Simple, I'm in the west.
If we adopt the same attitudes as those that don't place the rights of everybody (including ourselves) we sink to their level and can't complain if the same attitudes are used against us here.

Posted By: Byker

  • Kwacka wrote:
    Simple, I'm in the west.
    If we adopt the same attitudes as those that don't place the rights of everybody (including ourselves) we sink to their level and can't complain if the same attitudes are used against us here.

Who exactly will we be able to complain to?
They are using our very values as a weakness to enable them to invade and destroy Western values, and eventually our culture, and then the throat cutting will begin.
I just hope those bleating about their "rights" are at the front of the queue.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ProVox wrote:
    • Mr Tibbs wrote:
      Provox. TLDR! :lol:
      No, that would be rude.
      Tonight is a patio table-fondue (goodbye to Sgh). Invariably either a lot of delicious fun or a total disaster. Sometimes involving an element of fire extinguishing. :shock:
      I will read and digest later. Hopefully your post - and the fondue. So here, a straight off-the-cuff:
      What I can say, just for the record, is that my #250(?) was about the credibility you can assign to Corbyn, as Leader of the Labour Party, given his history and clearly stated views. It was framed in the light of just one of the Party's present dilemmas, brought about by the man's totally conflicting opinions, here on the aspect of the UK's nuclear deterrent (currently brushed under the carpet). I invited views on Corbyn's position wrt that. I could have called on other aspects of his Monster Raving Looney background and aims. However, it wasn't posted as a cue for a lengthy discussion on the political aspects of those weapons per se. It doesn't matter what Provox thinks of the UK deterrent, it matters what the Labour Party and its new "leader" think.
      Your "response", #251, paid little more that lip-service to that, then went off on a somewhat tangential track, involving some of your favourite prejudices. Furthermore, much of it was simply wrong, although I acknowledge that you seem to think that Corbyn's view is logically correct.
      Pity we have to wait to see both the PLP and electorate's opinions on the matter, although they pretty much gave it to Micheal Foot when he rolled out his disastrous unilateral wheelbarrow back in the early 80s.
      When I addressed one of your references in it (Putin) your consequent accusation that I had rushed off-topic was extremely hypocritical I submit. You could even say, laughably so.
      Perhaps more later, although I'm pretty sure that most will have had enough of all this. Don't you think?

    YES .... as have I!

Excellent! Point made then.
Moving on........................

Posted By: geof j

i get really peed off with politics, Corbyn "seems" to be a loon, Camaroooon seems to be weak, Blair signed up to the Yanks a year before the declaration of his intent on Iraq,Boris is an opportunist photo opportunity, the UK taxpayer paid billions to rescue certain banks, but fails to rescue our steel industry, the NHS is in a mess, immigration is seeking to change the culture of what was the UK .why oh why do we listen to BS politicians, let alone pay them from our hard earned wages through taxation, the UK need someone who is strong with absolute policies that benefit the UK! vote ME :) cos i would not give in to Europe, Not give up the UK defence , Improve the NHS by getting rid of the overpaid ,under performing chiefs at the top, prevent mass migration to the UK by disallowing benefits to anyone unless they had subscribed to social security for more than 3 years,and reject those outright without papers or passports, tax the bankers, insurance companies ,after all they earn a fortune out of promises for investment, bang huge windfall taxes on those companies that think they can use tax avoidance in the UK to make them rich, hang about, i will just close all tax loopholes that will then affect all of todays present politicians who nare in it for themselves. when i see a politician that is there for the REAL public, then he will have my vote.

Posted By: ProVox

GeofJ:
vote ME ........Just let me read your manifesto first ........
    Quote:
  • cos i would not give in to Europe,

Sounds like a good idea to me.
    Quote:
  • Not give up the UK defence ,

Neither would I ..... bring our troops home.
    Quote:
  • Improve the NHS by getting rid of the overpaid ,under performing chiefs at the top,

Definitely .... you could also add local councils and education to that?
    Quote:
  • prevent mass migration to the UK by disallowing benefits to anyone unless they had subscribed to social security for more than 3 years, and reject those outright without papers or passports,

No question about that ........ and maybe send refugees back to their own country at a future date?
    Quote:
  • tax the bankers, insurance companies ,after all they earn a fortune out of promises for investment,

Goes without saying .... again maybe revise the banking system to prevent all the abuse?
    Quote:
  • bang huge windfall taxes on those companies that think they can use tax avoidance in the UK to make them rich, hang about, i will just close all tax loopholes that will then affect all of todays present politicians who (s)nare in it for themselves.

I can see you being a Right Honourable already!
    Quote:
  • when i see a politician that is there for the REAL public, then he will have my vote.

I have found mine ...... where do I vote ....... GeofJ for Prime Minister \:D/ =D> =D> =D>

Posted By: geof j

cant see i would get very far Provo, i've only got one vote ,and that's yours :lol: but politicians need to get serious, i cannot believe we are witnessing the closure of the steel industry, made unviable by the Chinese cheap steel, and the UK's position on green energy, yet the tax payer has to pay 70billion to the banking mafia to save it, then sell it back to shareholders at a loss!? if parliament was a company it should declare itself bankrupt!

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

A kindred spirit:
Lord Warner, ex-Health Minister and top adviser to the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, resigns the Labour whip.
In his resignation letter to Corbyn:
".........I have watched for some time the declining quality of the Labour party’s leadership, but had not expected the calamitous decline achieved in 2015. The Labour party is no longer a credible party of government-in-waiting. The approach of those around you and your own approach and policies is highly likely to worsen the decline and in (sic) the Labour party’s credibility.........."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/19/labour-no-longer-credible-party-lord-warner-resigns-whip
"calamitous decline ". Pretty much sums it up I suspect, despite Corbyn's "Army" of supporters' euphoria.
"There are are far too many people who want to luxuriate complacently in the moral righteousness of opposition – we are not just a debating society.
We are not just a Sunday socialist school. We are a great movement that wants to help real people living on this earth at the present time. We shall never be able to help them unless we get power."

Denis Healey in a speech to the Labour Party conference, 1959.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose?

Posted By: Kwacka

Hardly a great loss to the Labour party, would think they'd be glad to see him go.
    Quote:
  • Lord Warner who wanted to charge people £10 to use the NHS resigns Labour whip.
    We all know that the media and television are past masters at creating mountains from molehills, but this time they have managed to create a molehill from a grain of sand

new Agenda - 2012 (blog)

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • Kwacka wrote:
    Hardly a great loss to the Labour party, would think they'd be glad to see him go.
      Quote:
    • Lord Warner who wanted to charge people £10 to use the NHS resigns Labour whip.
      We all know that the media and television are past masters at creating mountains from molehills, but this time they have managed to create a molehill from a grain of sand

    new Agenda - 2012 (blog)

I suspect, as the trickle of people resigning, being deselected or simply refusing to have their names linked with Corbyn continues there will be a regular refrain of " Hardly a great loss to the Labour Party."
The current Shadow Cabinet is of course pretty much the B/C team of potentials. Some were virtual non-entities (well, like Corbyn) who were probably as surprised to get "the call" as much as you or I would have been. Nevertheless, let's see how many of even those can resist the urge to take to the lifeboats over the next 12-18 months or so.

Posted By: ProVox

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    • Kwacka wrote:
      Hardly a great loss to the Labour party, would think they'd be glad to see him go.
        Quote:
      • Lord Warner who wanted to charge people £10 to use the NHS resigns Labour whip.
        We all know that the media and television are past masters at creating mountains from molehills, but this time they have managed to create a molehill from a grain of sand

      new Agenda - 2012 (blog)

    I suspect, as the trickle of people resigning, being deselected or simply refusing to have their names linked with Corbyn continues there will be a regular refrain of " Hardly a great loss to the Labour Party."
    The current Shadow Cabinet is of course pretty much the B/C team of potentials. Some were virtual non-entities (well, like Corbyn) who were probably as surprised to get "the call" as much as you or I would have been. Nevertheless, let's see how many of even those can resist the urge to take to the lifeboats over the next 12-18 months or so.

Try a reasoned assessment of his policies and criticise them .... instead of just attacking the man! Just imagine Corbyn if he suddenly morphed into another strongman like Putin and could transform some of his policies into a reality. :-k

Posted By: Hudswell

What policies? We have seen little substance to date..just some vague concepts.

Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    What policies? We have seen little substance to date..just some vague concepts.

My lips are sealed ........ try looking at his 'vague concepts' and working out what they mean if implemented. 8-[
Up-Date:
20.25 : Try this .... I am sure Tibbs won't mind me posting a link to The Daily Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11775739/jeremy-corbyn-policies.html

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Hudswell wrote:
    What policies? We have seen little substance to date..just some vague concepts.

1. They're in opposition, they don't need to develop policies for the next 4 years.
It's their job to either support or argue against the government's policies.
2. Of course you haven't heard of any policies. They used to be decided at the party conference before it became the pasteurized, bland party conference of the other main party. I don't know if the next conference will be the same will remain or return to the original where debates actually took place; probably not, any discussion would be immediately leapt upon by the infamous left-wing media as proof of the Labour Party 'falling apart'.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs


Well, first of all of course I will obviously - once again - call attention to the usual PV hypocrisy.
Here you post an article from the "MSM" moreover, the despicable Daily Telegraph, to support your views. Whereas, I have lost count of the times you have discarded out-of-hand others similar offerings on the basis that the "MSM" is entirely controlled by .................... Them
As far as the article is concerned:
"Bombing Syria will "kill many people" and may not defeat Isil"
The consensus is that Assad has killed somewhere between 200,000 - 250,000 of his own people, in order to stay in power. Daesh figures are less easy to obtain, although their barbarity is well publicised - mostly by themselves. However, a figure of 50,000 deaths (mostly simple butchery) in Iraq alone for 2014 has been floated. DYOR. Not bombing Daesh will obviously be very welcome to their "cause". Ask your pin-up Putin for his views on the subject.
"Two years ago I voted against bombing Syria when the enemy was the Assad government." As did Parliament - that's the trouble with those despicable Western democracies isn't it? They have this stupid system of voting for stuff.
"Cutting off the supply of money and arms to Isil from “some of our supposed allies in the region” would be a more effective way of tackling Isil"
Fantasy - words. How exactly are you going to stop the Gulf states from providing funding for the Sunni war against the Alawite Shias in Syria? Good luck with that one.
" Ending austerity is principally Mr Corbyn's objective. He would achieve this by introducing higher taxes for the rich, while protecting those on welfare. "
The UK debt is, IIRC, about £1.6 trillion. The siren call of "Vote for me and you won't have to pay your debts" has been well trampled on hereabouts - try Syriza in Greece (" running rings around the EU "). It's simply vote-for-me populist bull*** - oops, there's that word again!
Define "the rich" and perhaps try researching what happens to HMG revenues when "the pips squeek". Deja vue.
" Mr Corbyn has indicated that, while he wants Britain to stay in the European Union, he does not want to see worker rights overlooked as part of David Cameron's renegotiation strategy."
Jeremy has been anti-EU for decades. Another U-turn, because of course otherwise he would drown in resignations. Here rests the reality attached to his leadership of the Labour Party. More to come, I am sure.
Free floating here:
Leave NATO?
Give up the UK's nuclear deterrent - as an example to the world?
Negotiate with Argentina on the future of the Falkland Islands?
I am sure - given the time - there would be much more but ..............a simple question:
Do you think this is a manifesto for government?
PS
I ignore the PQE aspect in order to (wishful thinking?) restrain Provox from posting, yet another few hundred words on "money creation"

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • Kwacka wrote:
    • Hudswell wrote:
      What policies? We have seen little substance to date..just some vague concepts.

    1. They're in opposition, they don't need to develop policies for the next 4 years.
    Well - good luck there.
    It's their job to either support or argue against the government's policies.
    Agreed but - don't you think its kinda gone way beyond that?
    2. Of course you haven't heard of any policies. They used to be decided at the party conference before it became the pasteurized, bland party conference of the other main party. I don't know if the next conference will be the same will remain or return to the original where debates actually took place; probably not, any discussion would be immediately leapt upon by the infamous left-wing media as proof of the Labour Party 'falling apart'.

No! Not falling apart. They avoided debating things like Trident, membership of NATO, the Palestinian question/Israel, The future of the Falklands. You know - that kind of stuff. Sorry - rethink - yep, falling apart

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ProVox wrote:
    Just imagine Corbyn if he suddenly morphed into another strongman like Putin and could transform some of his policies into a reality. :-k

Bloody Putin again!
How confusing! On the one hand you praise the man and next offer him as an example of some terrible events (which actually you seem to admire).
Why the fascination and - why can't you see what to me - and it seems an awful lot of others - are obvious historical parallels?
What scares me is a matter of history.
Take a proud and very powerful country brought low by events (Versaille). Inject a "saviour"(das Fuhrer), a man who's unselfish and fanatical mission is to restore national pride. Give him absolute control over all of the State organs and a bureaucracy devoted to his wishes. Any opponents were dealt with violently (krystallnacht). Add an expansionist and megalomaniac desire to restore the country's previous territorial grandeur (lebensraum). I won't dwell on it but on Earth he is referred to as a "Dictator".
Does this sound familiar? Got it?
It starts with military action to "rescue" national minorities in adjacent countries.
All of this is loudly supported by the population. His popularity exceeds all records.
He has "balls" and................. believe it or not, lots of envious supporters in other countries (some subsequently and I think deservingly, hung). "Strong leadership!!!" Sieg!
It allllllll goes to his head and ...........................................50 million die.
You have to admire "strong leadership" - - - from your armchair off course - as somebody in their mid 70's - with a cache of food/water/petrol tucked away. Well, just in case - you know?
I boringly tend to worry about my young Grandkids and their future - if you know what I mean.
You?
Can we please leave Putin out of Corbyn - and, ohh, golf? :roll:

Posted By: Hudswell

Yes ProVox I have read the Tg article previously and it lists what he "stands for" they are far from policy and indeed a significant number of his own party would not agree with him....

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Yes ProVox I have read the Tg article previously and it lists what he "stands for" they are far from policy and indeed a significant number of his own party would not agree with him....

As a significant number of their own party disagree with the current Government's policy on tax credits, but I don't see many assertations that the Conservative Party are falling apart.

Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Yes ProVox I have read the Tg article previously and it lists what he "stands for" they are far from policy and indeed a significant number of his own party would not agree with him....

Read Kwacka's previous posts ! We don't often see eye-to-eye but I agree with him.
Tibbs: I will ignore your posts as, once again ,you embark on attacking people rather than their posts and as you are also averse to me (particularly) expressing any opinions/links to refute the vindictive rubbish you spout!.

Posted By: Byker

On the radio last night that Corbyn supports Arsenal...I feel sick, after a lifetime of supporting the Gunners perhaps I should switch to Chelski?
Yes I am taking him and this thread seriously! :D :D :D


Posted By: ProVox

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Come on Kwacka, that is one Policy....and yes there is disagreement in the party.....I would suggest Mr Corbyn has significantly more problems convincing his party on his "ideas"

It will depend on whether they are prepared to consider his policies, work out what they mean and the consequences if they were implemented. To do that and come to reasoned conclusion you would need to know what you are talking about in the first place. :wink:

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Come on Kwacka, that is one Policy....and yes there is disagreement in the party.....I would suggest Mr Corbyn has significantly more problems convincing his party on his "ideas"

Any evidence (beyond the press)?

Posted By: spanner

  • Kwacka wrote:
    • Hudswell wrote:
      Come on Kwacka, that is one Policy....and yes there is disagreement in the party.....I would suggest Mr Corbyn has significantly more problems convincing his party on his "ideas"

    Any evidence (beyond the press)?

He has chatting to the parliamentary Labour party over drinks!
What other evidence is there, apart from the news media and some of ProVox's dodgy websites??

Posted By: devil

JC wore a white tie. I didn't recognise him! http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03478/corbyn-tie-no-tie_3478356b.jpg

Posted By: Hudswell

Kwacka Having not had a personal invite to PLP meetings I am afraid I can only read the "evidence" delivered in a variety of news reports....oh and using my common sense...try it sometime 8)

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ProVox wrote:
    • Hudswell wrote:
      Come on Kwacka, that is one Policy....and yes there is disagreement in the party.....I would suggest Mr Corbyn has significantly more problems convincing his party on his "ideas"

    It will depend on whether they are prepared to consider his policies, work out what they mean and the consequences if they were implemented. To do that and come to reasoned conclusion you would need to know what you are talking about in the first place. :wink:

I would love to be a fly-on-the-wall when the nice Mr Corbyn patiently explains to his gathered MPS (many of them, unlike him, with the prospect of seats to loose) how:
Unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Leaving NATO.
Abolishing the charitable tax status of private schools (ie doing away with them). Does Diane Abbott, that famous "left-wing" firebrand, know about this one?
Doing away with student tuition fees, by increasing National Insurance and Corporation tax as well as slowing down the pace of the UK's deficit reduction.
Stopping the right to buy your council house scheme and removing restrictions on the amount councils can borrow.
Taking a far more liberal view on immigration.
Lifting the benefits cap completely.
Renationalising the energy companies and railways.
Sitting on the fence over EU membership.
Putting Blair on trial as an Iraq war criminal (OK, OK, I give you that one Jeremy! :lol: )
Improving relations with Russia (the Ukraine crisis was caused by the West)
Whilst supporting Israel's right to exist, increasing contact with our "friends" in Hamas and Hezbollah. "To promote peace you must talk to everybody" although - funny ole thing - that doesn't seem to include Israel ...................... or oddly enough the Sun newspaper for that matter.
........ adopting these policies will enable the Labour Party to storm to victory in the 2020 election?
Good luck with that one Jeremy!
I'm sure, as Provox intimates, the PLP just needs help in understanding these issues. Corbyn will need patience but he speaks from a position of superior knowledge, only on subjects he knows everything about, and over which he is never, ever wrong.
I can see why Provox likes him.
I can't imagine what the majority of PLP members must be thinking of all this though. Trapped in a Salvador Dali nightmare.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ProVox wrote:
    Tibbs: I will ignore your posts as, once again ,you embark on attacking people rather than their posts and as you are also averse to me (particularly) expressing any opinions/links to refute the vindictive rubbish you spout!.

Ohh, do - please - grow up Provox.
Pointing out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy in your manner is not "vindictive" it's quite simply telling things the way they are. For example (not that one is really needed) you often dismissively berate people for posting supportive links to reinforce their posts from what you term the "MSM". Ipso facto, the material is not to be believed due to its very origin. Conversely you have never had any hesitation at all in using such links when they reflect your views. This is a fact.
Furthermore, looking back at the extensive exchange and its ad hominem nadirs you had with Stabilo (as an instance) would reveal just how pious and hypocritical your complaining here is.
Moreover, as far as vindictiveness is concerned, there is nothing I could teach you about that. I have keenly felt your brand of spite and I'm not talking about words on an internet forum.
Using the "I am ignoring your posts because. ......................" response, accompanied by a scrap of faux indignation, is merely your way of avoiding awkward issues.
And - should there any shreds of lingering doubt - no, I don't like you. Most particularly because of your supercilious, self-important and know-it-all manner. In that respect I suspect that I am very far from alone on this forum
Had to get this in before midnight!

Posted By: ProVox

Taking up the Telegraph article .......
Daily Telegraph - By Michael Wilkinson, Political Correspondent, 24 Sep 2015 - What does the left winger actually stand for? Here we take a look at his views and policies on wide-ranging topics. IMO a well written article not belittling or full of ridicule of the man rather than trying to understand his policies!
Defence:
Mr Corbyn has called for a "radically different international policy", based on "political and not military solutions". Is that not a reasonable aspiration? What is the saying “better jaw-jaw than war-war". "Two years ago I voted against bombing Syria when the enemy was the Assad government. I oppose bombing Syria when Isil is the target for the very same reason – it will be the innocent Syrians who will suffer – exacerbating the refugee crisis.” Again quite a reasonable point ........... even taking the greatest care to avoid it, you cannot fight any war without killing civilians and it would also be illegal .... as it is at the moment.
“Cutting off the supply of money and arms to Isil from “some of our supposed allies in the region” would be a more effective way of tackling Isil, Mr Corbyn argues. A reasonable view? It seems to be feasible to do this when it is applied to Iran or Russia over imaginary ‘nuclear’ aspirations or ‘supposedly’ shooting down a civilian aircraft so, why so difficult to apply this to Islamic terrorists?
Mr Corbyn has been criticised in some quarters for his desire to withdraw from Nato, his opposition to the Trident nuclear deterrent and his plea to "talk to everybody" in order to secure peace in the Middle East. Maybe a bit of wishful thinking when you consider the interests that keep these wars going .... and these actions are not in the interests or for the benefit of those civilians caught in the middle of them.
Economy and Taxation.
Ending austerity is principally Mr Corbyn's objective. He would achieve this by introducing higher taxes for the rich, while protecting those on welfare. He would also introduce a new crackdown on tax avoidance, tax evasion and tax breaks for companies. Contrary to popular belief, he does want to bring down the deficit but will not set an "arbitrary" date to do so. Unless of course you ARE the rich or a Tax avoider or a Company making billions in the UK but paying no taxes .......this would seem quite reasonable?.
People's Quantitative Easing", ....... we can’t mention that because Tibbs has declared it a non-subject that offends him ..... maybe because he does not understand it. We often fear what we don’t understand.
Mr Corbyn has also said he would consider introducing a "maximum wage" to cap the pay of top executives. As he really has no control over private industry this must apply to so called executive pen pushers in the civil service, local council, education and the NHS? On current performance .... not before time?
Education.
Mr Corbyn says such a service would be “every bit as vital and as free at the point of use as our NHS”. It would essentially be a lifelong learning service, starting with universal childcare, giving more power to local authorities, rethinking the role of “unaccountable” free schools and academies, introducing a minimum wage for apprentices and putting more money into adult learning. Sounds like a good idea?
On tuition fees, the left winger wants to scrap tuition fees completely. He even went as far as offering an apology to students who have had to pay fees because of previous Labour governments. He said: “I want to apologise on behalf of the Labour party to the last generation of students for the imposition of fees, top-up fees and the replacement of grants with loans by previous Labour governments. I opposed those changes at the time – as did many others – and now we have an opportunity to change course.” Back to the days when anybody with the right educational achievement could get a university place. I am sure many grossly indebted students would agree with him.
Europe.
Mr Corbyn has indicated that, while he wants Britain to stay in the European Union, he does not want to see worker rights overlooked as part of David Cameron's renegotiation strategy. Germany has very strong unions and is acknowledged as the industrial power house of Europe. So maybe he has a point in protecting workers rights and reasonable expectations?
But, on the other hand, he has previously cited the treatment of Greece during the country’s bailout negotiations as a reason for a potential exit. Mr Corbyn said: "Look at it another way: if we allow unaccountable forces to destroy an economy like Greece, when all that bailout money isn't going to the Greek people, it's going to various banks all across Europe, then I think we need to think very, very carefully about what role they [the EU] are playing and what role we are playing in that."
However, ........... again we can’t discuss this because Tibbs has declared it a non-subject that offends him.
Housing.
Rent controls in places like central London would be introduced so that families who access benefits to pay their rent could afford to stay in what would otherwise be an area that is too expensive for them.
I know somebody that commutes daily between Manchester and London because it is cheaper than trying to rent in London and he and his wife cannot afford to buy in the south east. So IMO once again he has a valid point.
Labours future,
Mr Corbyn has already made clear that he wants to involve ordinary Labour members in the policy decision-making process much more than what currently happens. Careful Jeremy! This is what Ghadaffi did in Libya ........ created one of the finest democracies in the world, the richest country in Africa and upset ‘ShhhhhYou-know-who’ , they exterminated him and created a failed state, death, destruction and continuous conflict.
The Monarchy.
Mr Corbyn has made no secret of his desire to abolish the monarchy. He has said: “I am at heart, as you very well know, a republican. But it’s not the fight I’m going to fight.” Despite his intentions, he has admitted that it will be unlikely because of the huge public support for the Royal family. In other words getting rid of HM is not what he considers a priority.
........... and so on.

Applying a bit of common sense says his ideas are not barmy, maybe sometimes a bit utopian, but he works toward the interests of the people not certain vested interests as Cameron does. He is a socialist and sticks to his principals.

Posted By: ProVox

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    • ProVox wrote:
      • Hudswell wrote:
        Come on Kwacka, that is one Policy....and yes there is disagreement in the party.....I would suggest Mr Corbyn has significantly more problems convincing his party on his "ideas"

      It will depend on whether they are prepared to consider his policies, work out what they mean and the consequences if they were implemented. To do that and come to reasoned conclusion you would need to know what you are talking about in the first place. :wink:

    I would love to be a fly-on-the-wall when the nice Mr Corbyn patiently explains to his gathered MPS (many of them, unlike him, with the prospect of seats to loose) how:
    Unilateral nuclear disarmament.
    Leaving NATO.
    Abolishing the charitable tax status of private schools (ie doing away with them). Does Diane Abbott, that famous "left-wing" firebrand, know about this one?
    Doing away with student tuition fees, by increasing National Insurance and Corporation tax as well as slowing down the pace of the UK's deficit reduction.
    Stopping the right to buy your council house scheme and removing restrictions on the amount councils can borrow.
    Taking a far more liberal view on immigration.
    Lifting the benefits cap completely.
    Renationalising the energy companies and railways.
    Sitting on the fence over EU membership.
    Putting Blair on trial as an Iraq war criminal (OK, OK, I give you that one Jeremy! :lol: )
    Improving relations with Russia (the Ukraine crisis was caused by the West)
    Whilst supporting Israel's right to exist, increasing contact with our "friends" in Hamas and Hezbollah. "To promote peace you must talk to everybody" although - funny ole thing - that doesn't seem to include Israel ...................... or oddly enough the Sun newspaper for that matter.
    ........ adopting these policies will enable the Labour Party to storm to victory in the 2020 election?
    Good luck with that one Jeremy!
    I'm sure, as Provox intimates, the PLP just needs help in understanding these issues. Corbyn will need patience but he speaks from a position of superior knowledge, only on subjects he knows everything about, and over which he is never, ever wrong.
    I can see why Provox likes him.
    I can't imagine what the majority of PLP members must be thinking of all this though. Trapped in a Salvador Dali nightmare.

More rambling and vitriolic tripe! Squeak, squeak! :roll:

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ProVox wrote:
    • Mr Tibbs wrote:
      • ProVox wrote:
        • Hudswell wrote:
          Come on Kwacka, that is one Policy....and yes there is disagreement in the party.....I would suggest Mr Corbyn has significantly more problems convincing his party on his "ideas"

        It will depend on whether they are prepared to consider his policies, work out what they mean and the consequences if they were implemented. To do that and come to reasoned conclusion you would need to know what you are talking about in the first place. :wink:

      I would love to be a fly-on-the-wall when the nice Mr Corbyn patiently explains to his gathered MPS (many of them, unlike him, with the prospect of seats to loose) how:
      Unilateral nuclear disarmament.
      Leaving NATO.
      Abolishing the charitable tax status of private schools (ie doing away with them). Does Diane Abbott, that famous "left-wing" firebrand, know about this one?
      Doing away with student tuition fees, by increasing National Insurance and Corporation tax as well as slowing down the pace of the UK's deficit reduction.
      Stopping the right to buy your council house scheme and removing restrictions on the amount councils can borrow.
      Taking a far more liberal view on immigration.
      Lifting the benefits cap completely.
      Renationalising the energy companies and railways.
      Sitting on the fence over EU membership.
      Putting Blair on trial as an Iraq war criminal (OK, OK, I give you that one Jeremy! :lol: )
      Improving relations with Russia (the Ukraine crisis was caused by the West)
      Whilst supporting Israel's right to exist, increasing contact with our "friends" in Hamas and Hezbollah. "To promote peace you must talk to everybody" although - funny ole thing - that doesn't seem to include Israel ...................... or oddly enough the Sun newspaper for that matter.
      ........ adopting these policies will enable the Labour Party to storm to victory in the 2020 election?
      Good luck with that one Jeremy!
      I'm sure, as Provox intimates, the PLP just needs help in understanding these issues. Corbyn will need patience but he speaks from a position of superior knowledge, only on subjects he knows everything about, and over which he is never, ever wrong.
      I can see why Provox likes him.
      I can't imagine what the majority of PLP members must be thinking of all this though. Trapped in a Salvador Dali nightmare.

    More rambling and vitriolic tripe! Squeak, squeak! :roll:

Lifted straight from Corby's dream manifesto actually.
Go on - admit it (Just joking of course. That would be a first) there are some reeeeeeeaaaaaaal Brammers in there, to go out to the country with.
But - Ok- I will come down to your chosen response level - just for you:
Pat-a-cake, pat-a-cake, baker's man.
Bake me a cake as fast as you can;


Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ProVox wrote:
    Taking up the Telegraph article .......
    Daily Telegraph - By Michael Wilkinson, Political Correspondent, 24 Sep 2015 - What does the left winger actually stand for? Here we take a look at his views and policies on wide-ranging topics. IMO a well written article not belittling or full of ridicule of the man rather than trying to understand his policies!

Coming along, right on time:
This article is from the "MSM" but is supportive. Therefore, it's validity, truthfulness and thus acceptability for consideration has been officially approved.
Try posting another from the "MSM," which paints a different picture though.
I rest my case.

Posted By: ProVox

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    • ProVox wrote:
      Taking up the Telegraph article .......
      Daily Telegraph - By Michael Wilkinson, Political Correspondent, 24 Sep 2015 - What does the left winger actually stand for? Here we take a look at his views and policies on wide-ranging topics. IMO a well written article not belittling or full of ridicule of the man rather than trying to understand his policies!

    Coming along, right on time:
    This article is from the "MSM" but is supportive. Therefore, it's validity, truthfulness and thus acceptability for consideration has been officially approved.
    Try posting another from the "MSM," which paints a different picture though.
    I rest my case.

Squeak ,squeak! It was a reasoned opinion without the sort of paranoid denunciation and ridicule that you exploit. The source is irrelevant. :roll:

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • ProVox wrote:
    The source is irrelevant. :roll:

I'll tuck that one away. :wink:
Meanwhile, I hope tomorrow goes well for you. :)
Time out.

Posted By: Hudswell

Also from the MSM http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11869528/Jeremy-Corbyn-is-no-populist-hes-an-old-Left-elitist-in-shabby-disguise.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3282540/Labour-revolt-Team-Corbyn-New-spin-chief-defended-terror-attack-policy-chief-celebrated-Tory-Ed-Balls-losing.html The man is doomed...and so is the Labour Party...happy days 😀

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Also from the MSM
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11869528/Jeremy-Corbyn-is-no-populist-hes-an-old-Left-elitist-in-shabby-disguise.html[/url]
    Yes, this is someone's opinion.
    Is it worth any more than your opinion or mine?
    • Hudswell wrote:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3282540/Labour-revolt-Team-Corbyn-New-spin-chief-defended-terror-attack-policy-chief-celebrated-Tory-Ed-Balls-losing.html
      The man is doomed...and so is the Labour Party...happy days 😀

    What he really said:
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/01/iraq.comment

Posted By: Hudswell

What he really said seems quite admiring of the terrorist insurgence in Iraq...and he will undoubtedly fit in nicely with Mr Corbyn's sympathetic views of middle eastern terrorism...the Telegraph article is indeed one mans opinion....which is suspect is echoed by the many...The current Labour line up will amount to nothing...the Government needs a strong opposition, Labour is not that..it is doomed to fail..hopefully sooner than later..

Posted By: Kwacka

Nowhere in that article does he express admiration.
http://bfy.tw/2R1O
What he DID state was his opinion that the 'coalition' in Iraq had under-estimated the desire of Iraqis to rule their own country, and the opposition was not dissimilar to those opposing occupation forces in their countries.
Nowhere could I see him suggesting that he approved of what the 'insurgents' were doing.
Comments such as
    Quote:
  • The popularity of the mainstream resistance can be gauged by recent polling on the Shia rebel leader Moqtada al-Sadr, who was said to have minimal support before his Mahdi army took up arms in April and now has the backing of 67% of Iraqis.

are statements are evidence-based rather than expressing the opinion that the insurgents were admirable.
I don't think that even someone who supported Blair's war in Iraq would say that Bush's "Mission complete" photo-call in 2003 was a true representation of the situation, then or now.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

A further article on the same issue.
"I wanted to believe in Jeremy Corbyn. But I can't believe in Seumas Milne
The Labour leader's appointment of Seumas Milne is a disaster, argues Oliver Bullough. "

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2015/10/i-wanted-believe-jeremy-corbyn-i-cant-believe-seumas-milne
New Statesman: left-of-centre?

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Mr Tibbs wrote:
    A further article on the same issue.
    "I wanted to believe in Jeremy Corbyn. But I can't believe in Seumas Milne
    The Labour leader's appointment of Seumas Milne is a disaster, argues Oliver Bullough. "

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2015/10/i-wanted-believe-jeremy-corbyn-i-cant-believe-seumas-milne
    New Statesman: left-of-centre?

Other writers have included the notorious pinkoes William Hague and Ian Duncan-Smith.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

  • Kwacka wrote:
    • Mr Tibbs wrote:
      A further article on the same issue.
      "I wanted to believe in Jeremy Corbyn. But I can't believe in Seumas Milne
      The Labour leader's appointment of Seumas Milne is a disaster, argues Oliver Bullough. "

      http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2015/10/i-wanted-believe-jeremy-corbyn-i-cant-believe-seumas-milne
      New Statesman: left-of-centre?

    Other writers have included the notorious pinkoes William Hague and Ian Duncan-Smith.

Aaaahhhhhhhh!! A Kwack-attack! :wave:

Posted By: Hudswell

Kwacka you really do have too much time on your hands...oh and it was 2003 I believe....not 1983..attention to detail please :D

Posted By: Kwacka

  • Hudswell wrote:
    Kwacka you really do have too much time on your hands...oh and it was 2003 I believe....not 1983..attention to detail please :D

Thanks for the correction, I've amended my post.

Posted By: Mr Tibbs

Another silver-spooned, millionaire "Marxist" hypocrite:
"Mr Milne, the millionaire son of the former BBC director-general Alasdair Milne, could have chosen to support his nearest local comprehensives Richmond Park Academy, where just 46 per cent of pupils achieved five GSCEs at A* to C grade in 2014, Orleans Park (68 per cent) Grey Court (70 per cent) or Christ’s School (71 per cent). Instead he and his Italian wife sent Patrick, 22, and Anna, 25, to the selective grammar schools four miles away where 100 per cent of pupils achieved five A* to C grades last year."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11951866/Exclusive-Jeremy-Corbyns-millionaire-spin-doctor-Seumas-Milne-sent-his-children-to-top-grammar-schools.html
People spent a century building Labour to be the party of working class representation. The more I learn about Corbyn and his acolytes, from sources across the spectrum - Milne (the leader of "strategy"?? You couldn't make it up) being the latest - the more it becomes apparent to me just how out-of-touch with their core voters this shambolic lot are. And these people are going to sweep the Tories from power? :roll:


[ ADVERTS: UK Stores Delivering To Cyprus | Find eBay Misspellings - Grab A Bargain! ]



Viewing Cyprus Eastern Forum Archive - Lo-Fi Version | Visit Cyprus Eastern Forum - Full Version | Questions?

TOP TIP: BUYING PROPERTY IN CYPRUS? PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU SEEK INDEPENDANT LEGAL ADVICE FIRST.
Cyprus forum covering Kapparis, Protaras, Pernera, Agia Napa, Agia Thekla, Paralimni, Larnaca, Oroklini, Pervolia & surrounding areas
Please note that the views expressed on this forum are those of the author and may not reflect the views of the management.