Jeremy Corbyn confronted the Tories with the poverty they're creating at PMQs - and all they could do was laugh

[blacksunday]

The Tories seem to forget that they were the last government - at some point they will have to take responsibility for their handling of the nation

--

As Jeremy Corbyn stood for his second PMQs today, the mocking Tory laughs told us everything we need to know about their enduring Bullingdon Club-style politics. Old habits die hard, it seems. But Corbyn opened strongly, with an issue that unites the Labour party: the cuts to working tax credits which penalise the lowest earners, known colloquially as the Tory work penalty.

Again, the Tories laughed at the name ‘Kelly’, so apparently unbelievable do they find the first names of Corbyn’s constituents; they soon fell silent, however, as they heard of her struggle as the mother of a disabled child earning minimum wage in a 40.5-hour-per-week job. Corbyn tackled the bullyboys by pausing at their laughter this time. ‘Some may find this funny,’ he said, as he continued to talk about mass inequality and the housing problem in London. It was a subtle highlight of something glaringly obvious: for millionaires protected by Tory policies, inequality bolstered by unfair taxes and buy-to-let properties really is hilarious.

Cameron’s reply to the work penalty issue was the same old line: apparently a £20-a-week increase in wages will magically solve the problem. This is not true, of course, as Corbyn promptly replied: working families are set to be £1,300 a year worse off as the Conservative government hammers the working and middle classes so as to give to the super rich.

Cameron claimed that Corbyn’s figures on poverty were wrong, but perhaps that is something to do with the fact that the Work and Pensions Secretary fixed the definition of ‘poverty’ recently. You don’t feed and clothe homeless children by changing a definition, and the government should be ashamed. The fact that 50 per cent of wealth is in 1 per cent of hands globally is shambolic, and reports today that inequality is growing in the UK even as our country now has the third most ‘ultra-high net worth individuals’ in the world put paid to Cameron’s claims to have driven opportunity. There could be no bigger proof that his policies continue to squeeze the middle and punish the poor.

cont'd

www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-confronted-the-tories-with-the-poverty-theyre-creating-at-pmqs-and-all-they-could-do-a6693756.html

Cue several underlined bolded spin and links from Conservative Party Office.
Tedious isnt it!

sugar21 .... I have been around a long time and I want to remain around for just a while longer, so I see my participation here to both enlightening and challenging the lies/rollocks with qualified replies, a PUBLIC SERVICE.

Why, apart from the Russian Troll House representative we KNOW get paid mucho Roubles (but in a shite economy), do all the people spreading lies/inaccuracies on here get paid - as if so, they're not good value even at the MW.

I've said earlier, I don't give a rats tail WHO people vote for, but at least know the FACTS rather than the spin trying to hide incompetence through the best decade in 100-years (1997-2007) to CREATE a sustainable economy during a global boom - using once in a generation tax windfalls, that wasn't just an opportunity missed, but those policies totally mullahed the balance of what they inherited.

LuisCarol …. Re your Why is it the worst recession for 80 years?

Technically speaking because we LOST over 6% of output (GDP) from 2008 into 2009, which as the second link shows, was both the longest and deepest recession for several decades – which also was an economic recession after a financial one triggered it.
www.economicshelp.org/blog/7501/economics/the-great-recession/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_Kingdom

In 1997 for some reason a new financial regulatory tripartite was formed (taking sole responsibility away from the BoE) that included the new Financial Services Authority with far too wide a regulatory brief (from high street car warranties to city Hedge Funds) and through the size of their mandate - and being TOLD by Labour to ‘lighten’ banking regulation – they ‘dropped the ball’, making our financial recession worse than most countries who NEVER had to part nationalize their banks.
metro.co.uk/2011/04/11/gordon-brown-i-made-big-mistake-on-banks-before-financial-crisis-650630/

www.theguardian.com/business/2011/dec/12/labour-regulations-city-rbs-collapse

So any economic recovery had to first get back that 6% of GDP and rely on a broken banking system that USUALLY helps the rebound from a recession.

But the UK economy over 13-years had become too unbalanced relying on the City profits/taxes and a huge increase in High Street bank lending consumption/taxes to pay for a massive increase in 100% tax funded State employment (see first graph below and then others for examples of Labour’s ‘investment’) at a faster rate than the private sector SUPPORTING both that employment and a large increase in welfare/benefits/tax credits.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3236690/Number-employed-state-falls-lowest-level-Second-World-War-pay-rises-fastes-rate-decade.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214001/The-cost-quango-Britain-hits-170bn--seven-fold-rise-Labour-came-power.html
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358144/Labours-3m-town-hall-jobs-bonanza-employed-deliver-frontline-services.html

Hence when the financial bubble burst we went into huge annual budget deficits, £153 billion by 2010, and why Labour in trying to sustain the unsustainable, were unable to help the private/business sector and citizens seeing real earning fall from 2008 with tax cuts etc, other countries were e.g. the U.S.

'I have been around a long time and I want to remain around for just a while longer'

Oh, what a shame. Endless reams of more of the same.

I'd love a hide poster button for this thread alone. As it is I just don't read the crashingly boring link ridden monstrosities. I'm not sure if many people do tbh.

I'd love a hide poster button for this thread alone. As it is I just don't read the crashingly boring link ridden monstrosities. I'm not sure if many people do tbh.

I've created a script for 'Greasemonkey', which is a Firefox plugin, to do exactly that. You can hide posts from spambots like 'Isitmebut'.

I'd be happy to share it, but it's a bit buggy right now, and sometimes you have to reload page with it disabled in order to post on the thread. :P

The TwosDoctor …. Re you inaccurate propaganda OTHERS would rather read;

Like Corbyn is a 1970’s ‘throwback’ to a era (read error) where over that decade Manufacturing fell from around 29% of our economy to around 23% when sod all else - nationalising industries failed despite huge amounts of taxpayers money being thrown at it - and Labour in 1979 passed on to the Conservatives around 20% inflation and interest rates and an economically unsustainable;

Income Tax Basic Rate; 32%.
Income Tax Higher Rate; over 60% up to 83%.
Tax on unearned income e.g. investment; over 90%.
Corporation Tax; 50%.

These were what the hard left dinosaurs want to tell you were ‘the pre Thatcher good old days’, despite the likes of Germany and Japan without any of the above negative conditions and several million work days lost by strikes every year, beginning to steal our industrial market share – while the trade unions thought that they ran the country – until ‘the people’ had enough and looking for someone to FINALLY sort it all out, elected Thatcher.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent

”The Winter of Discontent refers to the winter of 1978–79 in the United Kingdom, during which there were widespread strikes by public sector trade unions demanding larger pay rises, following the ongoing pay caps of the Labour Party government led by James Callaghan against Trades Union Congress opposition to control inflation, during the coldest winter for 16 years.”

So only a socialist idjut would call an uncompetitive UK industry, dying through the 1970’s, losing business to overseas companies with NONE of the labour and high tax baggage we had, “outsourcing” - to the likes of China who then also had salaries at around 1/6 of ours.

This why you fools can NEVER create a sustainable economy, as you STILL have not worked out what drives it, and even worse, what you KEEP doing wrong.

Spot the Astroturfer :o

Oh god its all just so much waffle. With no actual point.

Spot the bullsquirter probably on grass, in historical facts denial, with hysterical ideological excuses and numb-nut accusations.

I'm going to compare 1997 with 2010 .

Revised figures for 2010 apparently show a true deficit of 7.7% (after what a poster referred to disparagingly as the biggest financial crisis in 80 years). 1997 deficit was just on 8% and with weaker growth than on 2010.

HTH

'Spot the bullsquirter probably on grass, in historical facts denial, with hysterical ideological excuses and numb-nut accusations.'

I don't think anyone has failed to spot you.

Ooh, I see I've taught someone the real tax rates pre 88, although I'd like to point out they were the same under the tories and date back to at least 1950ish.

They always laugh. Remember when Ed Balls struggled with is shadow budget because of his stutter, so they laughed and heckled him, making it worse and worse? They knew they relied on only the 'leftwing nutcase' media reporting on it. Cameron and Gideon pissing themselves laughing at someone with a speech defect - that's always the mental image I have of them now.

Moriarty.... you are joking right, you can't be playing a Ed Balls disabled card unless trying to make excuses for his record.

Ed Balls was THE most consistent heckler from Labour, sitting at the front bench from 2010 promising “fighting the Tories tooth and nail” opposing everything they tried to do - as HIS/Brown’s strategy of ‘deficit denial’ and sitting there with their thumbs-up-bums believing the State could be bigger than the private sector supporting it – was sustainable ‘growf’.

You could hear and see him at every PMQT and Budget , usually shouting and signalling “flatlining” re the economy as Osborne turned it from the basket case Labour left, to the strongest growing economy in the G7.

And the fact Balls was Brown’s advisor around 1997 when without telling anyone in the General Election, they sold nearly half our gold, put up Home Stamp Duty from a Flat 1% and raided Private Pensions decimating many AND instigated looser banking regulation etc etc etc.

If you heard Balls stuttering, it was probably when they asked him ‘exactly what did you do with the proceeds of the gold sale, Mr Balls’?

AllThePrettySeahorses ... re your following;

Revised figures for 2010 apparently show a true deficit of 7.7% (after what a poster referred to disparagingly as the biggest financial crisis in 80 years). 1997 deficit was just on 8% and with weaker growth than on 2010.

Again hiding behind percentages, as I said, any fool of a government can buy unsustainable 'growf', so if the government is spending around £450 bil a year in 1997 looking to balance the budget in 2001 versus around £700 bil with masses of debt in 2010 trending UPWARDS - which economy is in better shape?

And worse still, under Labour, there were no plans to fix anything, as we'd got into the shite with their best efforts/policy design, they didn't know another way without a honking great cheque book.

Ooh, I see I've taught someone the real tax rates pre 88, although I'd like to point out they were the same under the tories and date back to at least 1950ish.

Sad, as yesterday you were a gobby "60% tax under Labour in 1979. Nope" and saying 'it is the Conservatives that raise taxes for the workers' - now you need to go back to the 1950's.

What no challenge to the penal tax rates under Labour in 1979 mentioned about to the TwosDoctor??????

The truth is clearly that WHATEVER they were PRIOR to 1979, it was the Conservatives that lowered the taxes for workers from that date, not always in a straight line - only for New Labour from 1997 who had to promise they would not put income taxes up like Old Labour to get elected, to try and put every other tax up - often on aspiration i.e. Housing Stamp Tax and a Council Tax that went up an average of 110% in England over 13-years.

Okay, more economics 101. It is meaningless to compare national debts and/or deficits using monetary value because of the different sizes of the economies. Ergo, Labour still outperformed the Tories; both comparing 94 to 08. CBA going into more detail as just about to enjoy hotel transylvania 2 with dd.

AllThePretty Seahorses …. I’ll give you that ‘size matters’, but you don’t seem to want to acknowledge WHY was it bigger, and that it wasn’t sustainable.

If an economy is BIGGER because;

• A government has increased its own spending by over 50% to close to £700 bil a year and ‘creating’ jobs/titles that are 100% tax funded/reliant.

• That government is over reliant of City profits and high street banking hugely increasing the sizes of their balance sheets (lending) e.g. UK Mortgage Lending annually £21bil in 1997 vs £115bil in Sept 2007.

Then it is UNSUSTAINABLE, whether it crashes as it did from late 2007 and leaves a huge annual budget deficit, or with proper regulation, the air was let out of that financial bubble gently over years – thereby allowing time for the government to reign back its spending or substantially put up taxes to meet its boom time promises.

Socialism 101; works fine until it runs out of everyone else’s money.

Well, it appears globalisation has worked its magic again sounding the death knell for our steel industry. That's neotardery for you, exporting well paid jobs to the cheapest countries and racing us to the bottom. I bet the ham faced moron and the sweaty coke fiend will bail out their friends in the Shitty, 'cos that's their next job.

TwosDoctor .... I do not expect someone who thinks that the 1970's was a huge UK industrial success to understand an economy cannot function without trade with other countries.

I do not expect someone who has never run a business in any competitive environment to understand that there is no god given right for a country to have jobs, especially as that seemed to be Labour view up to 2010 sitting with thumbs up bums hoping businesses it had loaded with taxes for 13-years and struggling in the worse recession in 80-years - was going to repair itself.

Even after Labour had lost around 1 million manufacturing jobs in its first 7-years DURING a global consumption boom - without a word being mentioned by the socialists who blamed Thatcher for all the industrial shit that happened before she came to power.

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/million-factory-jobs-lost-under-labour-6150418.html

I do not then expect you to understand then that businesses often stay in business DESPITE government, not because of, and that businesses oversees in say emerging market companies WITHOUT the heavy hand of government via its taxes, regulations and red tape - with salaries FAR LOWER than here will have a competitive advantage.

I DO however expect someone I told a while ago when talking about gold, that the global commodity market having been on a 10-year boom, often then goes into a 20-year slump - and when the global economy away from the UK is still struggling, even economies like China - then many commodity prices will remain weak for quite a while longer.

The global steel industry has struggled for several years, the plant that was rescued 3-years ago has made substantial losses every year since as everyone involved from union to employee seems to understand.

Moreover the last time we kept supporting ailing industries, with taxpayers money e.g. nationalised, Labour had to call in the IMF in 1976, to sort the COUNTRY out.

Government seems to be doing what it can, but no one can see another solution, which is very sad for the workers/areas affected.

I very much doubt that Isitmebut is being paid to post here. If I were Tory Central Office and intended to pay posters to post propaganda, I'd make sure I'd employ someone who could write well - who knew how to make short, punchy points in an accessible manner. I certainly wouldn't employ someone who makes long, rambling, incoherent posts that are largely unreadable as the result of excessive and largely arbitrary use of bold and underline.

In fact, the use of underline alone (which died a death with the advent of word processing) marks isitmebut out as the sort of person who in the past used to send newspapers long reams of illiterate drivel written in green ink.

Hackmum ….. thank you for your ‘non payment’ endorsement, I’ve been saying for ages that Tory HQ would never pay for someone with my education; a bolt standard Comprehensive that most politicians want every citizens children to go to, except their own - and why would a poster who understands ‘stuff’ and worried about me and mine, NEED to be paid to post?

Those who USUALLY try to criticise/put me down, are usually those who do not (or intellectually cannot) contribute to a thread, but don’t like the facts I provide as interferes with either what they WANT to believe, or more like what they are PAID to place on here e.g. misinformation, as evidenced by the pure bollocks they post under their name.

Indeed hackmum, I see that you have not contributed ONE post to this thread, is it because the subject matter on both pages were too much for you, but with a yearning TO ‘contribute’ you feel the need to post a nasty on my education, presentation, and style – as if there was a fecking PRIZE awarded at the end?

As if you READ others inaccurate posts here that those with agenda would prefer, where there are then a hundred mindless posts of yes they did and no they didn’t the original propaganda sticks – whereas I take the time to answer with the FACTS for them to challenge or agree with – its called a debate.

So hackmum I might be illiterate, so then why don’t you ADD SOMETHING TO THE THREAD AND CHALLENGE what I am saying - with the use of qualified links should readers like you want ‘eloquence’ and further reading on the subject some may want to use in reply - hopefully as you are so smart, WITHOUT “long, rambling, incoherent posts” even on what are reasonably complicated subjects that can’t be answered with a one line equivalent of a grunt?

Isitmebut - you ask why I don't post on this thread.

In one of my favourite books, Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility, Elinor has to listen to a particularly idiotic and disagreeable character witter on about how a cottage can accommodate just as many people as a large house. Austen writes: "Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition.”

That's how I feel about your posts - you don't deserve the compliment of rational opposition.

hackmum ... what a rather self superior long winded post, in effect saying, that you want to attack the poster rather than the points being made.

What a 'nice' person you are.

I use facts and both explain and qualify them, where as you want to just sit back in judgement of a persons education/style rather than challenge the facts as presented - how priggish is that?

Why don't you use that brain 'the size of a planet' and attack to points as others do and we end up with a debate, rather than self appointed censorship - proving that you could actually ADD something rather than your reading list?

Re the misinformation within the opening post, I believe that we have established fairly early on that Conservative MPs were NOT laughing at the subject matter.

Furthermore as it turns out that Mr Corbyn is more Che Guevara than Catweazle, if (when Corbyn scowls across menacingly) Conservative MPs want to keep their knee caps, they could be well advised to respect the vested interests in Mr Corbyn's ongoing success as Leader of the Opposition and power of a Privy Councillor.

”Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership campaign part-funded by supporters of terror”

Donation made to Jeremy Corbyn's campaign revealed to be from pro-Hamas supporter Dr Ibrahim Hamami
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11938212/Jeremy-Corbyn-campaign-part-funded-by-Hamas.html

The Labour leader made an inaccurate declaration to Parliamentary authorities about the payment which obscured the donor’s true identity.

Ibrahim Hamami, a vitriolic opponent of the Oslo peace accords and a supporter of the current wave of stabbings of Jews in Israel, gave £2,000 to Mr Corbyn in August, one of only three main individual donors to his campaign. Two of the three have now been exposed as supporters of terror.

Mr Corbyn listed the donation in the Commons register of members’ interests as being from “Dr Ibrahim Hamam”, but Dr Hamami confirmed to the Telegraph on Saturday that he was the donor.

Mr Corbyn’s spokesman declined to answer questions about the donation or why it had been reported incorrectly. Mr Corbyn has close links with many terrorist groups, including the IRA and Hamas.

Jeremy Corbyn refuses to comment on new reports of 'close links' to IRA
Reports claim the new Labour leader attended pro-IRA events for a number of years
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-refuses-to-comment-on-new-reports-of-close-links-to-ira-a6689681.html