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.

Don't go

haha, I'd like to think that was genuine, but probably not.

No really, I've enjoyed this, but man is it time consuming, and not productive, we spout data and points back and forth. No one ever changes their minds ( well I have and admitted it), but seems futile.

Don't take it to heart!
I lurk and read, post not so much, but it's nice to see someone arguing intelligent and informed points from the other angle. This board is dominated by right wing lobbyists.

Not everyone bothers arguing with isitme or the rest of them, so it's good to see someone try.

?

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

Increasing the population indeed DOES demographically help a country, and I have no problem with immigration, pref with some controls.

But I reiterate the why do it in secret and neither announce in before the 1997 General Election or the one after – hardly ‘honest’ politics old bean – especially (if being really cynical on the subject of elections) as multicultural commonwealth citizens who tend to vote socialist, CAN vote in UK General Elections, but EU citizens cannot.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

It is a shame when posters leave, but your pure theory of socialist politics will always struggle with those who not only ask questions, but look at the record of delivering those same old politics whether re branded old, new, honest, fresh, different (whatever) – is it any wonder Labour want to lower the voting age to spotty kids.

piss off isitme.

squidzin .... This board is dominated by right wing lobbyists.

Are you reading/counting the political views on the SAME board I'm on - I only started posting on here as I had not seen so much mis information in one place - under the label of 'informing' women.

I too spend way too much time here and kick myself every evening when 'stuff' hasn't been done - but when I see 1970s/1980's politics rebranded as WHATEVER, whenever - it does get my goat up.

FYI I am no more a lobyist or member of a party, as find SOMEONE in the Conservatives who knows who I am and I'd give you a pressy, as I'm a political 'no one' - but as I say I have always asked questions and do my research - it really clarifies the mud politicians throw, decade after decade.

piss off isitme.

Now I think feck whatever stuff I was going to do and get off this board, as if I'm spoiling the shite that ignorant tossers like you put out, I'm performing a important public service. X

I think it's all too easy to get wound up by posters like isitme to be honest squidzn - where you're 'debating' with an ill-thought out Tory mouth piece, linking to the Torygraph or Mail. It's like discussing something with a cartoon figure i.e. 2 dimensional at best. It isn;t really worth the key-strokes, imho.

And your theory of right wing rhetoric, which espouses the markets and small government will always fail because in the end governments have to come and bail you out.

In fact right wingers really want an advanced type of socialism, which is happening in this country right now, they want THEIR interests protected by the state, everyone else can go hang. Keynes for the city and the landowners, those with capital as it were, Friedman style free markets and racing to the bottom for everyone else. Cheered on as the rentier class get wealthier and wealthier and the rest of us get to save for our sickness pay, see our education and health services sold off, all for because of the dreams of avarice of a select few.

You simply exist, Isit, to protect the vested interest of very few people, and you manage to take some desperately aspirational Daily Mail reading types with you by giving them just the smallest bit of compromise. Sadly they don't realise that its like the master feeding his dog the scraps from his table.

You have also yet failed to tell me something that the Tories have done well for the economy in the last 5 years. Defict redcution whilst increasing the debt more than all Labour Chancellors ever combined? Bravo.

But, I digress, how do you delete your account?

I think it's all too easy to get wound up by posters like isitme to be honest squidzn

Of course it is, I point out FACTUALLY that the purist policies of socialism either don't work in a sustainable economy - and the record of the bottom wipes lecturing the board on how nasty the Tories are - have a WORSE record for dumping on the people.

Truthful facts that appear outside the Daily Mirror comic, are no less true for appearing in other papers.

My "ill thought out" facts will wipe the floor with anyone trying to peddle lies or misinformation, don't they squidzin? Nudge nudge, wink, wink.

And your theory of right wing rhetoric, which espouses the markets and small government will always fail because in the end governments have to come and bail you out.

Which economy was Greece built on, the overly large wealth sapping State Labour model, or the Tory model?

Tell me the masses/poor do better in a collapsed economy, whether in state control Venezuela under Chavez, or fat State Greece printing Euro money.

'The 'class war' drives you tossers, not reality, how sad.

But you haven't wiped the floor with me isit, mwahaha.

The purist policies of capitalism don't work either, everytime markets are left alone to operate they start to get out of control and crash. In fact there are many economists who think that without the socialist poicies of Keynes we would have seen more frequent and larger crashes since the 1930s.

You have also yet failed to tell me something that the Tories have done well for the economy in the last 5 years. Defict redcution whilst increasing the debt more than all Labour Chancellors ever combined?

If your ideology cannot see the mess the UK was in May 2010, with no plans to fix it, and what the Tories have achieved - then best you do fuck off as that is pathetic politics and in complete denial.

The purist policies of capitalism don't work either, everytime markets are left alone to operate they start to get out of control and crash.

True they crash and self correct, especially if an Old Labour clunming fist thinks he has harnessed capitalism and brags he'd cured 'booms and busts'

But how did China get out of their population eating insects at the height of Chairman Mao?

How did Russia do for the masses under communism before embracing the capital/free markets?

How many tens of millions of 'the people' died thanks to those fucking experiments?

Anyhoo ... night, night, don't let those red bugs bite.

"The overly large wealth sapping State Labour model, or the Tory model?"

The Tory model which has created more debt than any Labour Chancelor ever? The Tory model that caused the house price bubbles of the 1970s and 80s? The Tory model that caused recessions in 1980s or 1990s? Oh Please do better dear.

Or the Labour model which saw the longest period of rising prosperity in modern history?

The Labour model which your beloved chancellor said he would follow if he got into power? The Labour model which he criticised for too much regulation of the banks? You can't say you disagree with it now, when you agreed with it.

"Tell me the masses/poor do better in a collapsed economy, whether in state control Venezuela under Chavez, or fat State Greece printing Euro money."

Tell me, do the masses and the poor do better when you sell off their state owned assetts to your cronies under the guise of "capitalism". Do the masses and the poor do better when you lower their working rights and make the wage slaves of the corporations.

Do the masses do better when your Friedman policies are implimented by Thatcher's favourite murdering bastard Pinnochet ( we can both reference South America see)

Greece, as I've stated above is not a fair example, your chums at Goldman helped them cook the books to get in.

Ah see, China and the USSR are poor examples, they weren't really socialist, state capitalist more like. Your economics really does need some work old bean.

"If your ideology cannot see the mess the UK was in May 2010, with no plans to fix it, and what the Tories have achieved"

There was a plan, Darling put it forward, its the one dear Gideon started to follow in 2012 after he caused a triple dip recession by strangeling the economic growth he inherited from Labour ( yes that's right the economy was growing).

What have the tories achieved? The slowest recovery for over 100 years ?

Have they achieved any of their aims? Rebalancing the economy? No thats not happened. The march of the makers? Nope. Deficit gone in one parliament? Nada. Getting the private sector to invest? (tumbeweed)

Oh they have managed to do things they said they wouldn't do like a top down reorganisation of the NHS, things like that, stuff they had no mandate for. To flog off national assets at far lower prices than they should have been sold at, to transfer national assets into the hands of corporations for very little, to award big contracts for public services that COST MORE than when they were done in house. Lets have a round of applause.

Now I'm sorry, but really Isit, you must concede, the fact that you are swearing, throwing ad homs, quoting from right wing papers, means that your arguments are pretty flawed, dear heart. I am not a socialist, get me, I believe in equility and equity.

Isitme -

You're not addressing the core issue. Right to buy was an awful policy from inception, and no matter the sticking plaster the conservatives (and Labour after them) attempted to put over it, it has massively contributed to the mess London has today.

Do you agree with that, that Maggie Thatcher made a huge mistake? I mean electorally she successfully bribed millions, but in terms of housing it was an idiotic policy. And now the conservatives want to extend it to housing association flats! Which everyone agrees is mad (maybe you disagree?)

And as for all those houses, if Ken Livingstone's original affordable housing quota had been adhered to, perhaps they would help. But as it is building £4million flats that no one will live in is hardly going to help key workers & the low paid live in London.

Squidz - stop with the petty insults.

Alyosha ... I AM addressing the core issue e.g. housing, on a thread where some toss pot in a conference that was a member of the last Labour administration, with "honest politics" is blaming the Conservatives for a housing crisis - that largely manifested itself through the 2000's, due to Labour policies, or lack there off.

The Right To Buy back in the early 1980's was no gimmick to a leader who tried to lift the incentive to the working people who had been taxed to the ying yangs, to strive for a better life for them and their - in a time where even with aspirations, bank mortgages for the masses (without 'a computer that says', 'yez') were tough to get.

Did right to buy passing state assets to 'the people' and Grammar Schools improve social mobility, yes, should we bother tracing what happened to those home to make a political point, if that floats your boat.

The KEY in right to buy housing was the replacement rate, not high enough under the Tories, abysmal under Labour while encouraging mass immigration.

Longtimelurker101 ... I'll get around to your total list of misinformed Tory lies, with the facts freely available on the 'interweb', soon - if you have got over your emotional goodbye, throw toys out of pram, hissy fit - and still around. lol

P.S One more 'comeback' and you'll equal Frank Sinatra.

If i wanted a comeback, I'd have licked your mother's chin...

Labour are quite right to blame the conservatives, as the long term effects of Right to Buy in London have been nothing short of catastrophic, and not content with that, the Tories now want to destroy the last remaining affordable housing in London, and privatise assets they don't even own...

As you know, Thatcher made councils pay back their central govt. debts with Right to Buy sales before they could build more houses. Then of course you have the issue that where do you build these houses in London? There's not exactly unlimited space and land is very expensive. The net result is extremely obvious: less affordable housing in London, the gift of free money to those lucky enough to live in council houses, the erosion of affordable housing in our capital.

Alyosha ... the Conservatives sold homes to the people, as I say, the problem is the replacement rate, that was DOUBLE that of Labour with £trillions to spend but clearly a low priority.

Mass immigration that was not a housing problem in 1997, Brown raiding private pensions and interest rates globally coming down so savings went into bricks and mortar, Brown lowered the Capital gains tax to encourage private investment, while councils dragged their feet;

“Councils hustled over housing, says National Trust chief”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27007451

^“But the government said it valued and protected the countryside and councils had had a decade to come up with plans.”*

^“In 2004, the Labour government introduced local plans, requiring councils to set housing targets and identify a rolling five-year supply of developable land.”

“And, in April 2012, planning law in England was further changed to speed up decisions, with a "presumption in favour of sustainable development" unless negative considerations "significantly and demonstrably" outweigh positives.”

So it was the combination of Labour's policies (or lack of), not Thatcher, that changed the structure of UK housing buy/rent e.g. if Labour only built 130 social homes the 2004 year they opened the door to the EU, AFTER Right To Buy sales, they would have had a NEGATIVE figure.

“Labour's 'rent cap' row: how renting has grown, in charts”

“The charts and tables here show how property ownership is changing, who is renting – and for how much.”
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/10800343/Labours-rent-cap-row-how-renting-has-grown-in-charts.html

“The subjects of renting and buy-to-let spark anger like few others and Labour's latest suggestion – that rent increases could be capped and minimum lengths of tenancies introduced – has added fuel to the controversy.”

“What are the facts behind Britain's growing army of renters? This graph, from the February 2014 English Housing Survey, shows that since 2005 ownership has been in decline relative to renting, which started to climb in 2000.”

“For the first time, according to this year's data, people renting from private landlords outnumbered social renters.”

longtimelurker101 .... you call me a potty mouth AND kiss your own mother with yours, tusk tusk.

Anyhoo, re your last post, I have never read so many untruths, you do really need to stick to websites where you all spread ties and pat each other on the back and say how clever you all are.

There was a plan, Darling put it forward, its the one dear Gideon started to follow in 2012 after he caused a triple dip recession by strangeling the economic growth he inherited from Labour ( yes that's right the economy was growing).

What was Labour/Darling’s plan other than a rough percentage of HOW MUCH they’d cut; where were the government of 13-years individual departmental cuts and more TAX INCREASES they said they’d put in place after the General Election?

Labour lost around 7% of GDP output 2008/9, what did they get back by 2010, and if a government spends money we have not got on a fat State full of over 1 million additional employees from 1997, consuming, that will generate (unsustainable) GDP – so hardly anything for Osbourn to build upon.

You say that there was a Triple Dip Recession after 2010, do you know what a recession IS duffus? There were no further recessions after Labours, there were ‘flatlining’ months, as Osbourn had to rebalance the UK economy from Labour’s unsustainable public sector/other spending providing a £153 bil annual overspend, far larger than the UK private sector that was meant to support it.

What have the tories achieved? The slowest recovery for over 100 years?

Labour provided the largest economic recession in nearly 100-years, the Labour government could not STIMULATE the UK economy fiscally as the £153 bil government overspend was just supporting their fat State they built - and by making the financial recession far worse by allowing the bank balance sheets from 1997 to grow too large and then crash – the banks were not in a position to FUND any economic recovery.

*So Osborne had to sort Labour's first recession, before the second recession could take hold.

continued....

more...

Have they achieved any of their aims? Rebalancing the economy? No thats not happened. The march of the makers? Nope. Deficit gone in one parliament? Nada. Getting the private sector to invest?

There has already been a lot of UK rebalancing for a start getting the basics right that fully tax funded Public Sector employment don’t pay for the wealth creating Private Sector. Dah.

Sept 2016; Number of people employed by the state falls to its lowest level since the Second World War as pay rises at fastest rate for a decade
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3236690/Number-employed-state-falls-lowest-level-Second-World-War-pay-rises-fastes-rate-decade.html

At the same time the economy is being recast, with more people working in the private sector while austerity means the number employee by the state continues to fall.

Private sector employment stood at 25.74 million in June, 472,000 higher than in the same month in 2014.

In 1997 UK Manufacturing was around 23% of our economy, by 2010 it was 12%, many of the jobs lost in Labour’s first 7-years BEFORE the crash even started – and the last figure I saw here a while ago, was back up to around 16%.
www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/million-factory-jobs-lost-under-labour-6150418.html

This was all Labour ‘made’, LAWS,_ around 4,300 new offences over 13-years.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blairs-frenzied-law-making--a-new-offence-for-every-day-spent-in-office-412072.html

The UK Budget Deficit of £153 bil in 2010 was not cut in one parliament_ as the Structural Deficit was larger than thought and Osborne had to plug holes in Labour’s spending plans, give back £billions to the economy to both boost the Private Sector companies suffering from the worst recession and try compensate workers for those that has real earnings falls since 2008, and help pensioners that had derisory rises/protection under Labour etc etc etc.

Re UK Business Investment_ don’t worry yourself about that, thanks to Conservative help, not continual Labour tax rises, they can forward plan for years with confidence;

Sept 2015: Record Business Investment.
www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/uk-economy-to-avoid-threat-of-secular-stagnation/

Record investment levels by firms mean that the UK economy will avoid the threat of secular stagnation. This defies warnings from some leading economists that a lack of appetite to spend among companies in advanced economies will lead to persistently slow GDP growth, according to EY ITEM Club’s special report on business investment released today.

• Business investment currently at highest level as a share of GDP since 2000
• EY ITEM Club’s forecast predicts investment by UK companies will reach a record high in 2019
• Headwinds faced in the East of England include skill shortages and infrastructure restrictions

Following a sharp decline of almost 20% during the financial crisis, business investment in the UK has performed relatively strongly since the economy emerged from recession at the end of 2009. Since 2010, investment by UK firms has more than made up for the ground lost in the recession, reaching 11% of GDP in Q2 2015, the highest level since the end of 2000.