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.

It was too good a line not to use isit, you haven't yet come up with one quite as sharp.

"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."

Labour did not provide the crash, sorry, you are aware that it was an international crisis? All of your points regarding spending/regulation during the 2000s are negligible because you fail to acknowledge that any Conservative Government would have spent the same, and would have had lighter touch regulation.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

Darling's spending plan involved slower cuts, much more progressive taxation than the Tories tax cuts for the wealthy which are paid for with increasses in regressive taxes like VAT.

Most people recognise that Brown was heavily involved in helping shape the reactions to the world crisis, and that he did an extremely vital job.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/12/gordon-brown-leaves-british-politics-legacy-few-can-rival

Oh and your " there has been no recession since 2010" claim, well ok I'll give you that, but only because the ONS has fiddled its statistics to say that actually there wasn't one and we had one quarter with negative growth and one quarter with 0.1% growth, which they admitted may have a 1% margin of error.

The level of growth we have had though is the lowest on record, despite running up more debt than every other Labour Chancellor combined.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11900934/UK-GDP-growth-stronger-previously-though-recovery-ONS.html
www.theweek.co.uk/politics/46683/budget-omni-shambles-even-bishops-are-revolting

I have been critical of Labour, so I'm not deluded or whatever, I don't find "lies on the internet" I have actually specifically found right wing sources to prove the ones I've just posted.

You're too partisan to argue with Isit, you simply come out with COD economics and shouty claims and actually fail to acknowledge any points put to you.

Now, I'm going to the pub to actually talk to my friends. You stay in your mummy's spare room with your tinfoil hat on there's a good boy.

I never said Labour caused the crash, and the Conservatives def would not have spent the same as Labour, as a core diff is the Conservative's don't believe in the same growth rate (cost) of the State as Labour - who appeared to use the early 2000's to 'create' employment, as manufacturing employment went down the pan-hole, and again in 2008 as the recession showed the private sector job losses were mirrored by Labour employing more 100% tax funded emplyees - economic unbalancing/lunacy, which would have contributed to the annual budget deficit.

Show me Darlings spending, taxation and cuts plan, 2 1/2 years after the crash started?

Labour lost nearly 7% of output/GDP they hardlyrecovered, they decimated manufacturing, OF COURSE in was a slow recovery, what was left, the City, also Donald Ducked, to grow the economy???

That's not partisan, that is what happened, and it is time people spreading anti Tory lies, and OWNED those (incompetent) facts.

Stay down the pub and look at Labour's record through your beer glasses.

You certainly don't "own" anything when many of your sources are from things like the Cambridge network.

m/business/2015/feb/26/uk-business-investment-falls-at-fastest-rate-since-financial-crisis

There is lots of evidence that points to the fact that investment is falling and the economy is still over reliant on consumption, hence your rebalancing of the economy argument is nul.

Another one is : Conservatives def would not have spent the same as Labour , when the link above shows that they pledged to do just that.

Anyway, its just me and you ranting at each other now isn't it, I'm certainly not going to change my mind and neither are you, waste of energy.

TTFN

lontimelurker101 .... you are seeing what you WANT to see, not the honking latest Business Investment post on Business Investment AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE (repeated for the soft of head below) - but in summary, you were WRONG on every criticism (of the many) you had on the previous page;

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.

•Business investment currently at highest level as a share of GDP since 2000
•EY ITEM Club’s forecast predicts investment by UK companies (trending up) will reach a record high in 2019

• Labour LOST GNP, more GNP lost in a recession probably for 100-years, that loss of output was a massive set back to recover from..

-Labour saw Business Investment fall 20% and would have lost more business investment as they spent their 13-year time over regulating/red tap and taxing businesses - and promised the country they would cut less, tax more AFTER the 2010 General Election

There is no way the Conservatives would have bloated the State the way Labour did from 2001, as they spent several years reducing it to size in 1979, for several years after the 1991 recession - and as the graph below shows, from 2010 - as a core Conservative policy is it should be as large as it needs to be.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3236690/Number-employed-state-falls-lowest-level-Second-World-War-pay-rises-fastes-rate-decade.html

Labour has no idea how to grow the Private Sector/wealth creators (as they'd accuse themselves of sucking up to business) so they grow the only thing they know how, the Public Sector as that graph on both sectors employment growth above shows, in 2001 and 2009.

Here is the definition of GDP;
www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp

Private Consumption/Spending + Government Spending + Business capital Spending + Net Exports (Exports – Imports).

Do you see from the above that when Labour spend, say, £170 bil plus of government/tax payers money on new government Quangos stuffed with apparatchiks and another 1 million new employees including hundreds of thousands assistants, managers and non jobs - with business investment and exports flat to pan-holing - the GDP that generates is both BOUGHT by government and unsustainable until either the money runs out or hit a recession.

So if all public sector spending/consumption there really is 'the wrong type of GDP', if looking to BUILD GROWTH/PROSPERITY UP from a solid growth base, which has to therefore be Private Sector led.

This is why when socialists say they want to add shed loads more to £1.6 trillion of national debt in order 'to invest', they have to be nailed down to WHAT the feck they want to invest in - as it it is bound to be rebuilding an unsustainable State - that only can work for those employed by the State with Final Salary Pensions, until the money runs out again.

I have a first from the LSE in economics dear, do seek to educate me on economics some more.

You simply see what you want to see too.

Marvellous, your mother must be very proud; I didn’t even get an ‘ology in Economics, or much else come to that.

But maybe if as it appears, that after all that studying YOU still can’t work out the State/Public Sector/welfare/benefits cannot be increased - needing annually around £30 billion a year plus of government borrowing of top of the tax receipts of a financial bubble to fund it – to a size still larger than the Private Sector that needs to support it, maybe your mum can still get her money back?

Just saying.

P.S. Half the politicians in Westminster have economics somewhere in their degree, but similar to you, don't appear to understand that if one government passes a huge budget deficit on to another, then opposes every cut for 5-years, and the national debt increases annually by that deficit - to then accuse the receiving government of INCREASING the national debt - is either cynical politicking or a shite education.

P.P.S. I guess that the great outpouring of grief on Mumsnet at the passing away of Denis Healy (not), really is a sign of the far-left times.

Some crazy left wing trade unionist croaks who was not a moderate Labour public servant for many years, and you'd have thought someone called Kim had died in North Korea. sad.

'I didn’t even get an ‘ology in Economics, or much else come to that.'

Who'd have thunk it? There's still time to go back to school and take a basic course if you meet a further eductaion college's entrance requirements. Alternatively, you could always read 'Basic Economics for Dummies (Without the Maths)'.

'sad'
Your potty mouth and disrespect is tragic.

Try and get it right - it's Healey.

Didn't get an 'ology in spelling either, it seems.

We are doing quite well at present although I am not happy with the huge deficit. Most people know the Tories are the safer hands in all this which is why we have 5 years of Tory rule and hopefully 5 to come after that.

claig ..... comrade, based on your economic input on these boards, I've forgotten more than you'll ever know, about most things actually.

A word to the unwise, it is one thing to cut and paste others views for Russia, its another thing to both understand them, and be allowed to have your own opinions not handed to you by supervisors.

P.S. My spelling does suck, your first factual opinion that just could, maybe, be your own. Good spot.

It's obvious that you have a high estimation of your "knowledge" and are proud of your lack of 'ologies, but posts full of "feck", "lol" and puerile sexual innuendo together with the disparagement of your betters - longtimelurker101 - in an attempt to get your weird kicks only show you up for the hollow house of uneducated, boorish, bullying, boring baloney that you are.

'P.S. My spelling does suck'

If only it was just your spelling.

"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"

This started off as a good-natured thread when I started it, then you got your kicks with the likes of teh post above. After reading your diatribes, I feel unclean. Try and keep the level of debate above the gutter and have some humility and realise when you are debating with people far more educated than you - longtimelurker101, Alyosha and just about everyone else on the entire board. Then your posts may be more pleasant and we won't need to skip the pages of Daily Mail quotes which don't answer what anyone else has asked.

As Alyosha rightly said

"Isitme -

You're not addressing the core issue."

You never are. You're only addressing your own issues, and by God you've got a few.

Here is another one of patronising posts explaining why you do what you do

"I only started posting on here as I had not seen so much mis information in one place - under the label of 'informing' women."

So you wanted to add your misinformation? This is a discussion board where anyone can post their point of view. There is no "label of informing women", it is a discussion. Treat other posters (including the far better educated longtimelurker101) with a bit of respect and join in a discussion rather than continuing with your mission to misinform in your desperate attempt to score points against everyone's point of view while calling everyone "tossers" or "socialist fools" because they are self-evidently more educated than you and got an 'ology or two.

Claig … basically I take as I find, and although I can now guess longtimelurker is one of your Troll Room team and you need to rescue him, when accusing me of being disrespectful, may I suggest that you go back to page 3 and longtermlurkers post to me (below) that you thought answered your prayers – but was a red rag to an economically competent Tory animal, who even disregarded the filthy disrespect he showed to my mother on page 6.

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

So that lurker comment above set the tone of the ‘debate’ between the lurker and myself, but that did not affect the structure and content of the debate, as he threw at me with attitude widely used (but inaccurate) anti Tory economic propaganda, which I have taken the time to answer with qualified FACTS.

The majority of his anti Tory propaganda was so economically inaccurate, that unless peddling an agenda, I can only think that his first was in Lame Socialist Enlightenment.

I have had the discussion/debate, I have qualified MY answers to both the lurkers and Alyosha’s points (whose ‘point’ wanted to blame Thatcher for Labour’s last 13-years housing record) and now patiently wait for them to discuss with facts, where “my Tory arse is getting kicked” next.

Of course posters on a discussion board are free to post their opinions, especially in a debate, but posting the FACTS (especially in direct answer to points raised within a debate) is not misinformation, quite the opposite – something I wouldn’t expect a Putin mouthpiece like you to ever understand.

I agree that some of longtimelurlers posts were in very poor taste and almost descended to your level. There is no need for that type of debate. Maybe longtimelurker was having a bad day, I don't know. But a man of your undoubted "knowledge" should surely be able to rise above that and use your "knowledge" to refute lomgtimelurker's educated, informed posts and ignore the unnecessary attacks.

'The majority of his anti Tory propaganda was so economically inaccurate, that unless peddling an agenda, I can only think that his first was in Lame Socialist Enlightenment.'

You seem to think that every poster who disagrees with your "knowledge" is "peddling an agenda". Are you guilty of the psychoanalytic concept of "projection". DO you ascribe to everyone else what is characteristic of you? People have different opinions, show a bit of respect and if you have the "knowledge" then by all means demonstrate some of it by arguing a counter position without calling people "tossers" and assuming that they are "peddling an agenda". It's a discussion board, not an ideologue's party apparatchik spin board.

claig ... I'm guessing that from your comments, that you are both trying to discredit me and wind me up in various ways, to get a basis to complain to the mods - how pathetic. Lol

Why don't you just mind your own business, or read ALL THE KNOWLEDGE my qualified facts/opinion depart over several pages, and either add something construct to the lurkers posts/opinions yourself - or better still, wait for them to ANSWER my last.

One informative post is more effective than regurgitating 10 peoples unqualified opinions 10 times on the same thread - try it sometime.

'to get a basis to complain to the mods'

I very rarely complain to the mods. I only did so when someone attacked Xenia in a nasty way and when someone repeatedly called me anti-semitic.

'Why don't you just mind your own business, or read ALL THE KNOWLEDGE'

Because I started this good-natured thread and am fed up of reading unknowledgeable rants by uneducated people who show no respect to any poster who disagrees with them and calls them "tossers" and "socialist fools" when they themselves proudly admit that they haven't even obtained an 'ology. I feel unclean after reading these abusive bullying hectoring humourless posts splattered with swear words, insults and puerile sexual innuendo which are ruining civilised and sane discussion. I don't like bullies and their attempt to demean other posters who disagree with them.

'how pathetic. Lol'

You're not funny. Your "lols" and your "fecks" are not amusing.

Isitme - notwithstanding the rather difficult to follow spat between you & everyone else...

Again you haven't answered the main points - how are councils going to replace property in London when selling at huge discounts and with barely available land? Available land is snapped up & held for years by property companies, and we need houses in London, not 30 miles out in commuterville which will costs thousands for already poor people to commute in.

Also just for clarity, I never thought claig was anti-semitic, just that she was using anti-semitic code words. But having read Jon Ronson's "Them" (v.good) I accept that many people spout NWO talking points without realising their long history of being used as anti-semitic dog whistles.

Alyosha ... As I say, I take as I find, you have not disrespected me, have I disrespected you?
I reiterate the social housing market of course would have been affected by Right To Buy brought in by Tories in the early 1980’s, but while more were sold than rebuilt, there was no housing crisis in 1997 that I remember.

Yet through the 2000s the following structural changes happened to ownership/renting/supply when in theory, apart from government stopping Right To Buy, government money to build or give incentives was freely available.

“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

Re your how are councils going to replace property in London when selling at huge discounts and with barely available land? Available land is snapped up & held for years by property companies,

I have no idea, I am neither the current London Mayor or prospective one, especially in the local authorities role if not granting planning permission for property companies for years – but as I suspect the problem is local authority England wide – so lets see in the London Mayor campaign, what ‘thinking outside the (planning) envelope’ is put forward by all candidates.