Corbyn Speech

[claig]

Very well delivered. No spin, no pregnant pauses, no coached phoney hand gestures. A couple of flat jokes written by teenage whizzkids from Oxbridge, but that is to be expected. Very natural, totally unaffected, a refreshing change from what we are used to. Modernisers now face real competition.

Istime,

" Nation Debt of around £1 trillion."

Only when you count in unpaid pensions in that debt, an unfair figure really.

Your argument uses figures like £30 billion, but the deficit was lower as a % of GDP than under the Conservatives in 17 years of rule. There's no point quoting figures cause its not in real terms.

"NATIONALISED THEIR LARGE BANKS in 2008, as it certainly wasn’t the U.S." Oh contraire, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, whilst not banks were mortgage providers, nationalised for the same balance sheet reasons that RBS was. US banks also recieved much larger cash bailouts than our banks.

The 1997 regulations that were removed made much less difference than the ones in the big bang, sorry, the big bang is what gave us an unbalanced economy in the first place.

www.theguardian.com/business/2011/oct/09/big-bang-1986-city-deregulation-boom-bust

I will agree however that Brown should have done more, however it wasn't likely due to the influence of the city and their pressure groups was it?

The bollocks you spout about an unbalanced economy? Well mostly unbalanced due to over reliance on the financial sector due to the Tory decimation of manfucaturing due to their economic policies in the 1980s.

"huge public sector/welfare state they built to fund"

Just simply isn't true, WHAT public services are no longer provided that the state used to provide? Lots of jobs have been cut from libraries, tax offices, CAB, local councils, Sure start, mostly to the detriment of the public. They have not benefited from any of the "deficit" reduction policies and many of those council jobs have been contracted out at a higher rate, see Barnet and Capita for further details, than they council were paying in the first place.

Your article about state pay from the daily mail also sites "private sector pay booming" which is based in the fact that pay has increased above inflation... when inflation is about 0 this is easy, in real terms rates of pay have decreased massively across the last parliament. Also many jobs that people have gained to "reduce" unemployment are 0 hours contracts, or part time work, instead of full time, the hidden under employed.

"its not wonder he couldn't cut the deficit in the first term". Yes because he strangled the growth that he inherited pretty quickly, and in fact had to quietly return to Labour spending plans. He also created more debt than Labour did in 13 years in 3 years in power

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/21/uk-borrowing-_n_4316084.html

He in fact has created more debt than every Labour Chancellor EVER:

www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/06/17/the-coalition-will-leave-more-debt-than-all-labour-government

Oh and BTW your current PM and COE were pledging to stick to Labour spendin plans and called for lighter regulation right up until 2008

So, take your Daily Mail, poorly sourced evidence, and yourn and your rebuttal, again, gosh I love kicking Tory arse

Oh and the Tories have nothing to do with "pay booming" the inflation rate is caused by a slow down of the Chinese economy, and the Saudi's pumping more oil than is needed, hence a reduction in price, cost push infation is not effected by government policy.

Don't mess with the best...

Very good posts, longtimelurker101.

But I fear that Isit will continue to 'mess with the best; (i.e. mess with us ) because Isit is Piers Gaveston ignorant.

All the media are on message in their questioning of Corbyn. All of them bar none ask him the same question to try and undermine him "Do you want to be Prime Minister?"

It is a low down tactic that the Establishment have obviously told them to try; they never ask Osborne or Farron or anyone else that question. But the good news is that Corbyn is beginning to get better at interviews. He has a tendency to get ratty with interviewers, but as he grows into the job and learns their Establishment tricks, he is getting better at fending them off.

gosh I love kicking Tory arse

Don't mess with the best...

You do realise that what should be best for this country is not football team type politics were you get a high off 'kicking' the opposition.

Its sad that you think you are 'the best' for doing that.

I personally don't care what party someone likes particularly. I don't think people should be attacked for that. It troubles me most when people become firebrand preachers for their party and unable to be critical of its weaknesses. It is something I dislike about Corbyn's popularity - it is very blinkered and sycophantic. Hence why I go on about the 'dream' being actually quite a dangerous thing. Not because it threatens the government, but because I don't think it can ever deliver on its promise so at some point it will lead to resentment and disillusionment because of its lack of practical application and acknowledgement of realities that don't fit with it ideology.

I want this country to do well and what is best for everyone within our limitations. And there are limitations. There are policies I would like, but know just wouldn't work in practise because they would be harmful elsewhere.

gosh I love kicking Tory arse

Don't mess with the best...

So much for 'kinder politics' that JC taliked about yesterday....

I want the country to do well, I really do. I want people to get the opportunity to succeed whatever their start in life, I don't want the country to be run for the benefit of corporations and those whose interests are in big business and who already hold wealth.

I have said numerous times on these pages that I am critical of the former Labour administration ( they should have built more social housing, they should have regulated the banks more, they should have forced companies to pay more tax and got rid of non-doms).

I LOVE disabusing people of the notion that it is "all Labour's fault" as perpetuated by the right wing media.

I'd really like people to wake up and see how their views are shaped by the portrayal of things like benefits and immigration by a right wing media which panders to the interests of their very wealthy owners.

I'd like people to be a bit more compassionate. Again the idea that people are poor because its their own fault, just as in that they are wealthy because of their own hard work needs to be addressed. The attitude towards people on benefits is appalling, almost regarding them as some sub-human underclass.

I'd like people to acknowledge the role that economic circumstance and just luck play in how people live their lives rather than victim blaming.

So yes, when it comes to "kicking arse" I do enjoy it, more because the speel that people come out with to support their odious opinions is often unfactual or based on the partisan press evidence, and its generally used to support some very nasty comments.

Truth telling and ass kicking, if you ask for it, I have to let you have it.

And yes, I should be nicer, I'll take that approach next time. Sorry.

I LOVE disabusing people of the notion that it is "all Labour's fault"

Do you also LOVE disabusing people of the notion that it is 'all the tories fault'?

I did that above, I have said numerous times Labour could have done things better, have said it numerous times on these boards. I've often been critical of the Labour administration on many matters, also think we should be releasing the Chilcott inquiry and taking Blair to the Hague for war crimes trials if the findings point in that direction.

I also think after 5 years in power you should be stopping blaming the last lot, how long can it go on for? The current administration will still be doing it in 2020.

'Truth telling and ass kicking, if you ask for it, I have to let you have it.'

I think Isit has truly asked for it and finally got it .

'And yes, I should be nicer'

I think you should be nicer to Grazia. She is not a troll, she is a longterm capitalist poster and is good fun.

But I don't feel you need to nicer to Isit, if anything you have been too 'kind', too Corbyn with Isit.

Isit is now Wasit and Hadit. Way to go!

Longtimelurker101 ….. is there ANY DANGER of you posting some facts rather than Labour propaganda?

• Firstly in saying that the UK government pension liability was in the £1 trillion of National Debt Labour passed to the Conservatives, according to the 2012 figures below if that was the case we would HAVE NO National Debt.

www.if.org.uk/archives/2031/ons-reveals-full-uk-pension-liabilities

More important are the total government liabilities of £5 trillion. These break down as follows:
• Government employee pensions: £1.2 trillion (unfunded: £0.9 trillion; funded: £0.3 trillion)
• State pensions: £3.8 trillion (all unfunded)

• Next I repeat you cannot look at any Labour Government GDP ratios as it was BASED on an unsustainable financial bubble, the State hiring at a larger percentage that the private sector, the UK government spending rising faster than any other European country, and our welfare/benefits/tax credits rising faster than nearly every other country – which was completely the opposite to the structure of the Conservative economy before it.

• Moving on the Uk may have Zero Hours (less than 2% of the workforce?) Contracts that many employees want and have been around since the late 1990’s – so all through the last Labour administration that didn’t even mention them as far as I can see - but we have more job security and FAR FEWER TEMP than the likes of the Eurozone, with HALF their unemployment rate.

Aug 2015; ”The New World of Work: recovery driven by rise in temp jobs”
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b2171222-31e4-11e5-8873-775ba7c2ea3d.html

• Next in 2010 and Labour’s GDP ‘dead cat bounce’ after losing around 7% growth in 2008/9, when real earnings started to penalized workers and government money taps on full, , tell, me apart from PUTTING UP National Insurance, what WERE Labour’s new private sector growth policies?

Regarding the 2010 UK £1 trillion of National Debt and budget deficit of £153 billion passed to the Tories, what were the Labour Party’s (who had the UK books for 13-years) firm deficit reduction plans in 2010 to REDUCE those State fixed costs the coalition had to cover – and who in the Labour Party was willing to CUT the budget deficit by £153 billion to flatten the overspend THEY LEFT?

Lastly you can no more lamely blame the in between leader Conservative opposition for Labour’s prolificacy, than you can give credit to the Labour Party for opposing every budget deficit cut for 5-years – especially when the Tories did NOT have the UK books e.g. with the GROWTH of early off balance PFI debts as well

“Crippling PFI deals leave Britain £222bn in debt”
www.independent.co.uk/money/loans-credit/crippling-pfi-deals-leave-britain-222bn-in-debt-10170214.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8779598/Private-Finance-Initiative-where-did-all-go-wrong.html

Now cut the fecking victory lap and answer THOSE points DIRECTLY, without waffle.

Awaits another great post by Longtimelurker101, who has lurked for far too long in my opinion, and looks forward to the prospect of Isit's ass being handed over to Isit on a plate yet again.

Only conclusion is that Isit must be a glutton for punishment.

Isitme - the economic cycle surely means that in your terms every uptick is a "bubble" including the ones under Thatcher & Major? And if not, why not?

Alyosha .... if you still have not worked out that from around 1997 that there WAS an Anglo Saxon financial bubble, where bank balance sheet leverage rose markedly and virtually every asset price was going up (and THEN deflated), please do some basic reading elsewhere.

Just look at UK bank balance sheet growth and company/individuals debt levels from 1997, after Brown 'manufactured' that bubble by purposely taking the BoE off of the main regulation of the banks, and within his new regulatory tripartite (including the Treasury and BoE) was the new Financial Services Authority (FSA) - who admit they totally dropped the regulatory ball, but were told to go 'light touch' by Labour.

metro.co.uk/2011/04/11/gordon-brown-i-made-big-mistake-on-banks-before-financial-crisis-650630/

FSA says Labour leadership had encouraged it to take a 'light touch' on banks and must take share of blame for financial crisis
www.theguardian.com/business/2011/dec/12/labour-regulations-city-rbs-collapse

Brown admits he did not understanding the basic facts of global finance e.g. the interbank market and the possibility of contagion, but clearly thought he was being clever controlling TWO of the three new regulators.

claig ... personally I just can't WAIT for Longtimelurker's response to my post, ESPECIALLY to my "UK pensions liabilities form our national debt" - and if you had more brains than a wet u-kipper, you'd realise WHO was giving the facts and who was waffling with 6th form socialist rhetotic - in Corbyn's NEW politics, whose denials seem all too familiar to the OLD Labour politics Corbyn was an MP within.

Yes - but what about the easy credit bubble in the 80s? or the House price bubble?

Between 1997-2008 wasn't the only bubble ever recorded in human history, was it?

Unsustainable financial bubble?

Which was begun by the movement in the Thatcher era to a much larger dependency on the financial industry? During this era the BOE contolled interest rates which for most of it were around 5%. I admit there should have been tighter controls, but the Tories have been in 5 years and not introduced them, and have in fact re inflated this bubble, using state backed assets through help to buy.

Also, its very hard for anyone who backs the Tories to criticise any spending or regulatory policy for this time. YOUR CHANCELLOR said they would follow Labour spending plans, and called for lighter touch regulation right up until 2008, they were aware of the situation as much as Labour.

0 hours contracts may make up 2.5% of the work force, but that is around 800,000 people ( far more than are long term unemployed or sick, but you will still jump around and scream about the number of people who are benefit scroungers), also the number grew by about 19% in one year, again masking the unemployment figures.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/02/number-of-workers-on-zero-hours-contracts-up-by-19

Also there are a huge number of people in part time work wanting more work that are unable to get it. Again masking the unemployment figures
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/underemployed-workers-in-the-uk/2012/rpt-underemployed-workers.html

Again this skews your figures.

Our unemployment rates are not comparable to the EU's because the EU has countries in it where 50 % of their youth are unemployed.

Our debt is also uncomparable, because our interest on bonds is set by the ability of our country to pay, not on the rate set by the ECB as in Greece, we can devalue our currency if needs be, Greece couldn't. Our debt as a % of GDP is actually lower the Germany's and they aren't screaming about "doing a Greece"

www.bbc.co.uk/news/10089494

Oh, and while we're at it, we can blame the Thatcher government for a lot of benefit dependency, not Labour. Thanks to moving many claimaints in former heavy industry areas from JSA to incapacity benefit, shunting them off the claimant count of unemployment.

www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/08/06/1-million-jobless-left-out-of-uk-govt-unemployment-figures/

Funny how you lot fail to admit that, when you talk about Labour's encouragement of welfare dependency.

Interestingly, people fail to recognize the 4 years of budget surplus operated by Blair/Brown, they also fail to recognize the years and years of under investment in our public services that the Tories needed massive investment, look at the difference in the standard of our schools/hospitals etc, how many people are taught in rickety old portacabins? How many are on wards that are from the 1940s? We have way more invetment in public services just to make up for the lack of investment under the Tories.

Where were Labour's private sector investment plans? Well most economic theory would tell you that if you increase one element of AD ( in this case G) then all other elemenets will increase.

Where are the Tories? Cutting tax for the highest paid doesn't encourage entrepreneurship because entrepreneurs don't pay PAYE, it merely makes those who have SALARIES ( ie not company owners) better off.

What about cutting Corportation tax, nah that's not working either, investment is at its lowest since 2007.

www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/26/uk-business-investment-falls-at-fastest-rate-since-financial-crisis

This is despite UK corporations having more liquid assets than they EVER have around £53 billion
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e29a1cee-4c95-11e4-a0d7-00144feab7de.html#axzz3nDVqQaxv

I agree PFI really got ridiculous, but the Government is still using them, and in fact is selling off whole rafts of public services to private firms, who actually charge more and provide worse services, prime example being Barnet and Capita.

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/27/outsourcing-increase-costs-public-services
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/15/local-services-barnet-council-town-hall

Try again, dearie, facts are all there. Good debate though!

Good reply, longtermlurker101. Please keep it coming, dish some more out to Isit. This is great fun!

Sarcasm? Actually, I think I'm done here, its actully a waste of time to try to convince people who are always going to be partisan no matter what.

I have done, and will continue to acknowldege labour failing, too many of the Tory folk on here will never do so for the ones of this current or any former government. They're just brilliant.

Alyosha re your questions;
Yes - but what about the easy credit bubble in the 80s? or the House price bubble?

Between 1997-2008 wasn't the only bubble ever recorded in human history, was it?

As you know there have been 'financial bubbles' for hundreds of years, and yes loose fiscally/money expansionary UK government policies DID cause little bubbles of sorts.

*But THIS financial crash was the largest in 80-years, the UK government was putting up taxes, ignoring the private sector e.g manufacturing, but looking to bank credit/profit led economic growth to, as Brown bragged, "end booms and busts" - how DID that work out?

The fact is, bank regulations in the U.S.were put in place DUE to the Wall Street Crash in the 1920s, but were being gradually unwound in the U.S, during the 1990's, under Fed Chairman Greenspan, who Brown pre government befriended - and even if memory serves, put him on some panel and even honoured him AFTER Greenspan retired.

Clearly Brown thought by deregulating our banks he'd follow the U.S. policies, so while Labour/Brown did not CAUSE the financial crash, he weaken our banks - leading to UK bank nationalisation no one else followed, and therefore the time it took to (finance) any recovery after the 2008 financial recession - become an the worst economic recession for 80-years.

“Repeal of U.S. Glass-Steagall Act (1933) Caused the (2008) Financial Crisis”
www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis

”In fact, the financial crisis might not have happened at all but for the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that separated commercial and investment banking for seven decades. If there is any hope of avoiding another meltdown, it's critical to understand why Glass-Steagall repeal helped to cause the crisis.”

longtimelurker101 ... re the big gob victory laps then;
"Sarcasm? Actually, I think I'm done here, its actully a waste of time to try to convince people who are always going to be partisan no matter what."

No answers to the facts over Shangri La La land waffle then?

Consider your OWN arse has just been served BACK TO YOU on a red meat free platter.

Yes, Isit but WHO had the power in the UK to influence this? The banks, why did they have it, because of the Thatcher revolution in financial services liberalization.

Undoubtedly the repeal of Glass-Steagal was to blame for the banking crash, whole heartedly supported by the tories btw. Have they put this legislation back BTW, they've had 5 years? Oh no they haven't, why is that?