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.

And I don't think you're stupid! A certain person calls anyone who disagrees with her (or, more accurately, anyone who points out she's a mouthpiece of RT talking points) stupid.

I never mentioned being stupid either, actually said this was a good debate.

'Claig - you need to find a more cutting insult, Isitme may be many things but stupid isn't one of them!'

I don't think you have read enough of Isit's posts if you think that.

The question was "is Isit a politician or a SPAD?"

I said no because even though they may be hypocrites, they display a higher intellectual quotient than Isit. Although, I accept I may be wrong and Isit may have scraped into the Monster Raving Loony Party as an apprentice SPAD on a probationary contract subkect to 6 monthly review.

Alyosha ... re your link and; A conservative report which recommended regulating mortgage lending less heavily.

Tusk, tusk, you have provided an August 2007 Conservative "Submission to the Shadow Cabinet" link by some Thick-Tank(whatever).

Do you not see that this is neither Conservative Policy or relevant to the financial crash 'time line' that began around September 2007?

To put his into time line context;

In 1997 UK Bank Mortgage Lending was at £21 billion a year and the Average Price of a UK home was £73k.

In late 2007 UK Bank Mortgage Lending had risen to £115 billion a year and the Average Price of a UK home had risen to approx £232k.

Household Debt over the same time (as a percentage of income) rose from 97% to 168%.

Spot that the Black Horse had already 'bolted through the stable door'?

Re the Euro Major MAY had been as keen as Blair was on joining the Euro, but similar to Brown, Major had what he called 'the (MP) bastards' (which included our favourite train spotter Portillo) who would have had none of it.

FYI and relevant to this thread, that split in the Conservative was just one of the reasons voters gave for giving Blair such a honking great majority of around 170 Westminster seats.

Re claig.... just ignore the prairie hat when looking for a non informative bun fight - as due to Russia bombing in Syria, it will be under a lot of pressure to discredit me, and my anti Assad stance, on other posts.
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house

Mate, mate, it was endorsed by Cameron!

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560100/Tories-plan-14bn-cuts-to-red-tape.html

The point is that the conservatives were talking about deregulating lending.

And I don't see how you can blame rising house prices on Labour - I blame on the banks. And on Thatcher, for transferring public housing into private assets at an enormous discount and huge cost to London, which as a result now has rents so high key workers (i.e. poeple who make your Lattes) can't afford to live in London.

I'm sure if Labour had attempted to regulate bank lending more, the conservatives would have been the first to squeal about red tap smothering British success etc. etc.

Isitme - we are in agreement on Syria! Will Corbyn publicly criticise Putin for his intervention? Or is foreign intervention OK if Russia does it?

I made that point about bank regulation above Alyosha, you are so right! The screams would have been heard across the city.

Alyosha ... hmmm ... dangerous times as Putin is pushing his same self interest luck as versus Ukraine only openly.

Putin/Iran have been getting their anti Sunni Muslims/Western dominoes in a line, by letting Shia Iran off sanctions and allowing them in to help the now post Saddam Shia Iraq.

The danger to the West is this Russia-Iran-Iran-Jordan block threatening the other (rich) Sunni Gulf States - more than Iran via Shia citizens in other countries is already doing - but also Turkey and Israel will feel threatened as well.

Not really for this threat, other than underlining the reason to retain a Trident nuclear deterrent put in place since the Cold War began with the old Soviet Union. IMO.

Alyosha .... you do not want to get onto Labour's housing record, any more than you want to pursue the blame on any Tory opposition party for Labour's policies - that really is lame - but look up that Labour 13-year record versus the previous Tories 18-years (where on average Labour built half) - and look up Brown's 2004 Barker Housing Report, and ask why nothing done.

_Cameron in opposition PRIOR to the crash was against ALL the red tape/regulation the Labour Party introduced with new Laws that numbered over 4,200 in 13-years - more than probably through the previous century combined.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blairs-frenzied-law-making--a-new-offence-for-every-day-spent-in-office-412072.html

I think the Trollys(?) Tax guide increased by thousands of pages under Labour.

(July 2005) What Blair really thinks about the FSA (Brown formed)
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2918368/What-Blair-really-thinks-about-the-FSA.html

^“Tony Blair is gripped by a desire to slash red tape - or so he claimed in a speech last month. That address attracted notice principally for Tony Blair's surprising and controversial statement that the Financial Services Authority is "seen as hugely inhibiting of efficient business" - but his assertions roamed wider than that.”

“No one in any business - be it vast or tiny - needs to be told that the burden of regulation has increased since Labour came to power in 1997. The British Chambers of Commerce estimates that the cost for business of coping with red tape from Whitehall and Brussels will be £39bn this year - four times as much as in 1997.”

“Of course the bureaucrats of Brussels are only half of the problem. At the end of May the prime minister delivered an embarrassing rebuke to the City watchdog, the FSA, which was set up by the new Labour Government in 1997.”

“Blair said: "Something is seriously awry when … the Financial Services Authority that was established to provide clear guidelines and rules for the financial services sector and to protect the consumer against the fraudulent, is seen as hugely inhibiting of efficient business by perfectly respectable companies - that have never defrauded anyone."

The FSA being told to leave bank balance sheet growth alone by Brown (as mentioned on the the previous page) clearly had to make other work for it to do, which is what fat, inefficient government does.

..and that sums up Labour; apart from building up a fat State, they haven't got the know-how to sustainably GROW an economy, they only know how to FIDDLE with it.

Isit, your arguments are now a bit rabid, you're not actually being logical but ideological.

'your arguments are now a bit rabid'

Love the understatement, longtimelurker101

Longtimelurker101 .... being ideological means to you won't accept the truth...like what Labour's growth in the Public Sector payroll to end boom and bust did, to our unfunded pension liabilities.

Still believe within the National DEbt?

Apr 2015; “Public sector pension scheme liabilities rise to £1.3 trillion
citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/public-sector-pension-scheme-liabilities-rise-to-1-3-trillion/a807925

The jump, which is an 11% increase on the £1.2 trillion reported for the 2012-2013 period, makes the cost of paying for public sector pensions nearly the same size as Britain’s deficit, which is currently running at £1.4 trillion,

I find it fitting that Corbyn’s appearance at the Conference was likened to Mr Bean.

“You're about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse kicking contest.”
(Rowan Atkinson)

Corbyn:Nukes 'Didn't Do USA Much Good On 9/11'

”The Labour leader kicks off a row in his shadow cabinet after saying he would not be prepared to use Britain's nuclear weapons.”
news.sky.com/story/1561619/corbyn-nukes-didnt-do-usa-much-good-on-9-11

The Labour leader said he would "not press the nuclear button" if he were prime minister and restated his opposition to renewing Britain's nuclear weapons system.

What good would a Prime Minister be that refuses to defend his own country and a long term Cold War enemy knows about it.

I don't support the current additional interference in the mortgage market.

Lets be honest, no one is EVER going to press the button, everyone would be dead first day. That's it, over, a few priviliged few thousand left world wide with few ways of communicating with each other, or finding anything other than the tins they've stored for sustinance.

By all means keep trident, for face, but admit that is what its for.

Isitme...

Do you accept that the conservatives were fully onboard with Labour's plans for the banks? The evidence points to the fact that they wanted even less oversight & regulation for consumer lending that actually existed at the time!

Labour didn't build enough houses...but then again maybe we wouldn't to build so many houses if the conservatives hadn't given away millions of state assets to those lucky enough to live in council accommodation.

And aren't the conservatives busy cutting quangos - and transferring their responsibilities to other organisations, i.e. exactly what you criticised Labour for doing??

Re Iran, it's interesting. Time will tell if Iran will liberalise on contact with the rest of the world, sanctions on it vs. Russia seem to be accelerating in different directions!

Longtime - well the point is that it is "MAD". If you say you won't use it you can't bluff that you will, and MAD falls apart.

Alyosha ...

Re the banks again look at the time line; when Darling announced the plan to nationalise, I believe he said 'the banks cash points were going to run out of money the next day' so options were kinda limited - and Northern Rock was a cock up, the first 'run' on a UK bank for 140-years - and all bank equities were getting shorted by the likes of Hedge Funds and the government left it too late to put in curbs on 'shorting'.

Your vague reference to evidence of too much regulation I have addresses above, there was numerous calls from everyone including Blair to cut NEEDLESS regs and red tape, but Labour was in government/responsible, not the Tories.

Re homes here is the record both party's pre crash, using 18-years of Tory stats (including a bad recession in 1990) but not Labours recession starting in 2008. Also note the Barker Report commissioned, but nothing was done about it;

Taking council/social homes; using Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLC) figures, and using the full 18-year term of the last Conservative government (including a few recessions) but only the first 11-years under Labour (before the worst recession in nearly a century), the Conservatives averaged 50,761 new social housing sector homes a year, while the last Labour government averaged 24,299 per year.

Putting the decline rate in context, the new social housing sector build HIGH was 88,530 new homes in 1980 (around the time ‘Right to Buy’ was a policy) and the LOW was 130 new social homes in 2004 at the height of an immigration boom – no doubt STILL selling off Right to Buy Homes, with a resulting large NET REDUCTION of council housing stock for that year.

The (2004) Barker review: key points

www.theguardian.com/money/2004/mar/17/business.housing

“Kate Barker, a member of the monetary policy committee, was asked a year ago by Gordon Brown and the deputy prime minister John Prescott to carry out a review of the housing market in the UK.”

”She was specifically required to look at what was behind the lack of supply of housing in the UK and the inability of the housing market to respond to this. Also within her remit was the role of the house-building industry, the level of competition within it, its capacity, technology and level of finance.”

“The main findings”

• ^In 2001, around 175,000 houses were built in the UK. This was the lowest number since the second world war. Over the past 10 years, the number of new houses built has fallen and is now 12.5% lower than in the previous decade.”
• A weak supply in housing means a less stable economy. This has an impact on the flexibility of the labour market, which in turn puts a strain on economic growth.
• These pressures mean a greater divide between "haves and have-nots", driving a gulf between people who can afford housing and those who cannot. According to the review, in 2003 there were 93,000 households in temporary accommodation compared to 46,000 in 1995.
• One way to reduce the pressure on house prices is to increase the number of houses available. According to the review, a total of 70,000 new private sector houses would be needed to reduce the price trend in real house prices to 1.8%.
• To get that inflation down to 1.1%, house builders would need to get busy building an additional 120,000 private sector homes per annum.
• To make real differences to the present backlog of people in most need, along with the other recommendations, would require up to 23,000 additional social homes a year.

P.S. Labour were still selling off social/council homes, but building far fewer homes to replace them.

"Mandela was a terrorist.

I don't really think it's acceptable to blow up little kiddies to get you point across."

When you're own are being raped and murdered, abused and being treated as sub human? You can't stand and fight? When the world leaves you on your own because it suits them? When no one listens?
Or did you think Apartheid S.A merely segregated the races?

Ok, then lets use this logical of yours. Churchil was a war criminal... yeah?

Oh and Isit, you can't jump around and start saying "but labouyr didnt do anything" I made that point. The Tories started it and sold more housing, and brought in the restrictions on what councils could do with the money.

Have you not had your Rabipur yet?

Longtimelurker101 …. “Rabipur”?

As Corbyn preaches about the new “Straight Talking, Honest Politics” I assumed you were talking about a new brand of plug-in air freshener, imagine my shock. Lol

“The Tories started it” passing state assets on to ‘the people’, just like ‘the Tories started the concept of the Private Finance Initiative, but you can always trust Labour to screw it up.

Forgetting as irrelevant that it was the Labour Party that first proposed a right to buy concept in the 1959 General Election but lost it, I wasn’t “jumping around and starting but Labour didn’t do anything” – I previously told Alyosha not to get me started on Housing, but was poked again.

But now we are on the housing subject, listening to conference Corbyn on Housing, the way he was accusing the Conservatives for their lack of housing, and NOT in the “adult, civilised and respectful new way” he is preaching – you would not think that Corbyn was an MP during the last 13-years of Labour – when the issue was NOT JUST they were not building enough homes.

The new issue was the DEMAND side of homes that Labour was encouraging via a secret mass immigration policy as early as 2000, and the opening of our doors to EU workers in 2004 they had the choice to defer, as the likes of Germany and France did.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

And judging by Corbyn’s view we should let in boat loads of more Syrians to the UK, I very much doubt that Corbyn would have objected to that new millennium mass immigration policy.

So it is one thing for Labour not to build enough homes through a time of £plenty for the indigenous population, it is another entirely different incompetence to also ENCOURAGE mass immigration into the UK while not building enough homes - and compounding the problem by STILL selling off council homes.

Especially when the 2004 Barker Housing Review Brown commissioned, that said at lease 120,000” additional new homes should be built per annum (on top of the 175,000 per annum then being built), would neither have known about that 2000 ’sofa government’ policy ,or what was to come in the UK from 2004.*

So that was the 2010 housing shortage starting point the Conservative coalition inherited in 2010, that ‘honest politics’ Corbyn blames for the CURRENT housing shortage and high demand driven rental market.

"encourage mass immigration" which was part of a policy to deal with our ageing population no?

Immigrants from Eastern Europe are also net tax contributors, about an extra £20 bn more than they take from the state.

Stop blaming immigration for all the problems, the vast majority of the council housing stock was sold off and not replaced in the 1980s. You cannot get away from that fact, more that a million of the 1.5 sold had gone by 1987.

In fact, there were something Labour did to right to buy, changing the rules and making it so that the "first refusal" on the properties had to be the previous owners e.g the council, and increased the amount of time you had to have been a lease holder.

Anyway, its been good this debate, but my worthy adversary, I shall take my leave of you. I've decided actually to delete my MN account, if I can work out how, I simply waste too much time here, and actually this sort of thing can be better put to use actually for something rather than just floatsum and jetsum on the internet.

Oh and btw, I don't think you can call me on rabipur when upthread you are enjoying Corbyn's portrayl as Mr Bean.

I did rather enjoy piggate though, that was funny.