Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  > Corbyn - time to go?      Home login  
Joined: 12/4/2013
Msg: 476
view profile
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..Page 20 of 22    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
I very much doubt benefits are a net cost at all. people at the lowest rungs of society spend most of their money locally unlike richer people who buy BMWs and holiday abroad.

As for student debt, I can't be bothered to look it up but I bet the taxpayer is on the hook for most of it. You don't start paying it nback until you're earning decent wages and it gets written off when you get to 45 years old anyway.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 477
view profile
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 3/22/2018 9:30:31 AM
"However, Debbie Abrahams, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said Labour’s spending plans included £20bn over the next parliament to reverse Tory cuts to social security. She added that the party was committed “to ending the benefits freeze at the earliest opportunity”.

“Our plan will improve support for young people, sick and disabled people, unpaid carers, working families, bereaved families and pensioners,” she said."

Nice big statement that from Debbie Abrahams. London labour will do this and london labour will do that. Happy days indeed.

But alas it seems like debbie is in soapy bubble with the politburo. Sounds like london labour are a wee bit stalinist to me like..........

"The shadow work and pensions secretary, Debbie Abrahams, is being investigated by Labour over a “workplace issue” understood to be connected to claims of bullying, something she has vehemently denied.

In a brief statement, Labour said Abrahams had stood aside from her frontbench role while she was investigated.

She said she had experienced “aggressive, intimidating and wholly unprofessional” behaviour from unnamed people in Jeremy Corbyn’s office and had made her own complaint to Labour and to parliamentary authorities.

“My treatment by certain individuals in the leader’s office over the last 10 months has been aggressive, intimidating and wholly unprofessional. My treatment in the last week has shown a bullying culture of the worst kind. As such I am making a formal complaint to both the Labour party and parliamentary authorities.”
Joined: 1/21/2015
Msg: 478
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 3/22/2018 11:48:15 AM
That'll be Labour busy shafting itself again........
'Jennifers Gromits' The well known election loser
comes to mind (look it up-can't be bothered explaining)

What we are seeing is yet another of the several billion reasons
why I would vote 'Britain First' over Labour any day..........

 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 479
view profile
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 3/24/2018 4:45:34 AM
So just a wee bit infighting in london labour but i reckon full civil war soon. All the dafties who jumped on the st jeremy of corbyn wagon regarding ignoring the brexit vote must now be questioning what exactly DOES london labour want regarding brexit.

It gave me a good chuckle reading this below. Sacked for not doing as he was told. The rank hypocrisy of the london labour politburo lol.

DON'T DO AS I DO DO AS I SAY...........

"Owen Smith has called Jeremy Corbyn’s decision to sack the former shadow Northern Ireland secretary a “mistake”, and defended his choice to break with Labour party policy by calling for a referendum on the final Brexit deal.

Smith, who was sacked on Friday evening after writing an article in the Guardian on the issue, said his decision to openly support a second Brexit vote was based on principle, and warned the Labour party was in danger of “sleepwalking” towards adopting a Brexit position that would damage the British economy."

"Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour whip

The total number of votes cast by Jeremy against the whip, from 1983 onwards is 617.

These are made up as follows:

1983: 19 – which made him the 8th most rebellious Labour MP

1987: 36 – 7th most rebellious Labour MP

1992: 72 – 3rd most rebellious Labour MP

1997: 64 – the most rebellious Labour MP

2001: 148 – the most rebellious Labour MP

2005: 216 – the most rebellious Labour MP

2010: 62 – 3rd most rebellious Labour MP

In other words, whilst Labour was in government, Corbyn was consistently the most rebellious Labour MP, rebelling a total of 428 times."

Wonder if corbyn is a racist for saying that cheap migrant labour drives down wages?
Joined: 8/8/2014
Msg: 480
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 3/24/2018 10:55:20 AM
Eagle 70s is and magic soul. ..too .. this town is getting
Like a ghost town.. the man with the golden can thank
your lucky stars...ghost town is 80s. .inspired by Maggie! !

Jennifer's ear was that 87 or 92...wasn't it the seven year war or
something or have I got the whole thing wrong..

Corbyn won't get the printing press (and hence no socialism) if he doesn't
row in behind "it's all the Russians' fault" meme..

He's not racist for insisting an increase in the supply of
something lowers its price...

Jo wants a one world government ...he's either napoleon or
boxer...I'm a globalist but only in the sense that I want
8 billion sovereign individuals ..

When you're in love with a beautiful woman. go it alone...
Dr hook ....

Has chap gone home ???

Jenkins ' ear ......war of Austrian succession. .....apparently
1992 jennifer's ear....boogie!@#$!!I just can't control feet...

Springs forward falls back.....we are losing an hour
off Monday though......since you've been gone...rainbow
I think .....I spent an unhealthy amount of time with my
accountant today .....all I have to do is pay my corp tax now
and he says he won't bother me until my personal tax return
next January. ....schools out....burn baby burn
I think it's tavares. .......disco inferno...
Joined: 8/8/2014
Msg: 481
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 3/25/2018 2:39:35 AM
It's a very unfortunate mural. The British left really do have a problem with Jewry. Very backward people..

Still I don't believe jeremy Corbyn is a racist. He's right to regret his support for the mural. I blame the silly artist, who ruined a great chance to eviscerate the bankers.

The bankers, who do sit on the backs of humanity, playing their monopoly paper games. While we all vote for their puppet politicians who keep the people by means of fear and hope in increasing debt serfdom, bribing them with small amounts of their own labour and killing them and their children in wars of patriotism, fake freedom, theology and any number of godless ideologies such as Western democracy.

If you don't fix the money you only fix its symptoms, that is zilch.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 482
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 3/25/2018 6:09:58 AM
Vlad, Corbyn wasn't on the "front bench", or a member of the "shadow cabinet" when he rebelled.
But nice to see you standing up for someone who wants a second referendum, just like wee Nicky.
Corbyn rebelled on most of the same issues on which I would have, like Iraq, Kuwait etc.,
- so did robin cooke and Claire Short, who both resigned or were sacked.
Your continued "demonisation" of labour, orchestrated by the tories, and using "assets" like Cambridge Analytica, to spread their targeted propaganda, might explain why there are now more Tory Scots MPs than there are labour.

It's a very unfortunate mural. The British left really do have a problem with Jewry. Very backward people..

You really don't seem to do much thinking, before you post.
You support the conservative party and a monarchy, both of which are all about "conserving" OLD, backward-looking "traditions", and "customs", etc.

My views on religionS and "race" don't represent any party, and are considered to be something of a "minority" view.
"Identity politics" has reared its ugly little head (again) in recent years, and this has caused politicians to pander to majority delusions.
"Offending" any of these bunches of religious "cults" loses votes.
It's all about "populism" and "demographics" these days...
I would prefer to win the arguments logically, and using science.
IMO., we should be moving away from these primitive, discredited "beliefs", and not pandering to them.
But I'm not a politician.
I can say anything I like.

"Jewish" is just another religion.
-Just another erroneous set of "beliefs".
-But like I said; it's all about "identity politics" these days.
-They also CLAIM to be a "race", despite it being obvious that anybody can choose to join, or to leave this alleged "race", at any time, -and they have always done both!
-And they continue to do so.
Ironically, the only other people who thought they were a "race", were the nazis. [/Godwin. -No returns]

But Britain's historic involvement in the establishment of some sort of "religious theme park" in the former Palestine is a mistake which still "haunts" the whole world today.
The "Balfour Declaration" which started the whole thing, was addressed to "lord Rothschild", a prominent "jewish" banker. [/Rhyming Slang]

When Britain still had an empire, they routinely imposed their own adopted religion on the conquered territories,
-in the case of "israel", when they moved out, they imposed another, which complimented their own "woo-filled" beliefs in the myths contained in the "bibble".
Religion and politics are synonymous in many places.

Essentially, the people who believe themselves to be "jews" claimed that a big, invisible sky-pixie "gave them the land", some 3,000 years ago, and about 100years ago, the British government concurred; that this was a "valid claim".
After WWII., we would have probably given them Belgium, if they'd asked for it.
-The "guilt" caused by that one monstrous mistake, caused another.
You couldn't make it up.

Belief in this drivel has caused chaos, destruction, mass murder, and misery, both in Europe, during WWII., and in the Middle East, where all three "abrahamic" religions originated, ever since their inception, and they continue to do so today.

Tiptoeing around these delusions, simply for the sake of getting a few more votes, is not something I could ever do.

why I would vote 'Britain First' over Labour any day..........

I don't think anyone is surprised.
Have a nice Sunday.
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 483
view profile
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 3/25/2018 9:15:08 AM
"Vlad, Corbyn wasn't on the "front bench", or a member of the "shadow cabinet" when he rebelled."

I never said he was............

"But nice to see you standing up for someone who wants a second referendum, just like wee Nicky."

Who is sticking up for him? I merely posted an article............

"Corbyn rebelled on most of the same issues on which I would have, like Iraq, Kuwait etc.,
- so did robin cooke and Claire Short, who both resigned or were sacked."

So were the SNP. And was corbyn at one time extremely anti eu." As was his mentor tony benn........

"Your continued "demonisation" of labour, orchestrated by the tories, and using "assets" like Cambridge Analytica, to spread their targeted propaganda, might explain why there are now more Tory Scots MPs than there are labour."

Oh dear. You just cannot accept that SCOTTISH LABOUR stand in elections up here. You struggle with that eh?

Is that the same targeted propaganda that obama used? Funny that eh?

You want to know why Scottish torys have more representation than Scottish labour?

You have commented yourself about the disgrace of the libdems going in partnership with the tories. You gloated when the libdems were rightly slapped for doing so.

Wee london labour and Scottish labour went into partnership with the tories during indyref.

That is WHY Scottish labour got slapped. One day that fact might enter into your ill informed posts regarding Scotland.

Ps is corbyn a racist for saying cheap migrant labour drives down wages?
Joined: 8/8/2014
Msg: 484
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 3/25/2018 9:51:34 AM
Chuckles ...well I for one was surprised when bunny dissed our dear Prince charles. You can't take it jo that there are at least two people on here who leave you standing when it comes to revolutionary radicalism .

I am not a monarchist but a constitutional monarchist. .
I've related this to you for the last time=!!

Not in 83, 87, 92, 97, 01, 05, 10, 15 or 2017 have I voted for the conservative and unionist party. How that makes me a conservative I shall never comprehend especially since I regard them as SOCIALISTIC globalist SCUM.

The eu is a slave vassal camp of Donald Trump. I knew Tony Benn and while Tony Benn wasn't my friend you sir are not Tony Benn.

As for targeted propaganda ....what ???'s completely normal..

And yes I don't do much thinking before I post.
Joined: 10/17/2016
Msg: 485
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 3/25/2018 5:53:30 PM
Here is summat odd.... I would vote for Boris. That maniac is a genius
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 486
view profile
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 3/30/2018 8:44:14 PM
And so it came to pass that st jeremy of corbyn sat on a nest of jew hating vipers. But, they wailed. It is not anti jew we cry, it is anti zionism.

Alas after many years of accusing ANYONE who questioned the mass importation of cheap exploited labour of being an istismophobe their wailings fell on deaf ears. And caused much merriment amongst working class citizens who watch as london labour squirm.

The jew haters in london labour now feeling emboldened because the party is now led by some 70's throwbacks.

Reap what ye sow london labour..............

"The idea of free movement for EU citizens is politically toxic now. But we can change public perceptions

This isn’t to question the anti-racist politics of the Labour leadership: for the London Labour* left, issues of race and defending migrants and refugees were always an article of faith, not least for the shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott.

Jeremy Corbyn’s first act as Labour leader was to speak at a rally in defence of refugees, and speeches by leading figures emphasise challenging the scapegoating of the foreign-born.

No owen. You hated st jeremy of corbyn. Yet you have had an 'obama on the way to george looneys place in hollywood to collect a big fat cheque' type revelation?

After years of calling ANYONE questioning the mass importation of cheap migrant labour as racists and istismophobes we have taken our revenge.

The fvckin abbottsaurus has a cheek talking about racism. She is a hypocritical racist lying cvnt. It was alright when SHE sent Finish nurses back to their homeland because they were 'too white and had probably never seen a black person'.

Funny old game innit?

* london labour eh? Thought they did not exist?

Josef Spartacus
YOU claimed many many times that anyone claiming cheap migrant labour drove down wages was a racist. St jeremy of corbyn has said cheap migrant labour drives down wages.

Is HE a racist?

You keep forgetting to answer.

Get yourselfs a nice big carry oot and some crisps. The 'tolerant' (unless you are a jew) london labour party are about to kick off a civil war.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 487
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 3/31/2018 7:05:09 AM
IMO., Labour, in common with all other political parties have "made a rod for their own backs", by aligning themselves with the currently fashionable, "identity politics".

Speaking only for myself; if I were "labour", I'd be asking for a definition of "semites", rather than simply capitulating to yet another "mass-media", capitalism-driven attempt to discredit labour as a movement, by promising to "make changes". It's a panicked response IMO.

The word "Semite" is actually a purely linguistic definition, -nothing more.
Though there exist some people who wish to declare it an "ethnicity" or "race", this is nonsense, and unsupported by science and facts.

The most widely spoken Semitic languages today are (numbers given are for native speakers only) Arabic (300 million),[5] Amharic (22 million),[6] Tigrinya (7 million),[7] Hebrew (~5 million native/L1 speakers),[8] Tigre (~1.05 million), Aramaic (575,000 to 1 million largely Assyrian fluent speakers)[9][10][11] and Maltese (482,880 speakers).[12]

If "semites" exist at all, then surely the most "anti-Semitic" of all communities, are the people who believe themeselves to be "jews", in the newly formed "israel", for the way they have pushed the indigenous "semites", the Palestinians, from their lands.

They did this, based on the myths contained in their allegedly "sacred" books, which claimed that a big, invisible sky-pixie "gave" them the land, about 3 thousand years ago.
Based on that, they drove 700,000 people from their homes, bulldozing entire villages, some with the occupants still inside, armed, supported, and funded by Britain, America, the west, even Russia, they murdered any who objected, and claimed the land as "theirs".

It's funny how people always claim religions are a good thing, or benign, yet they turn a blind eye to the injustices committed "in its name".
Yesterday, heavily-armed "israeli" soldiers opened fire on unarmed civilians, protesting inside the wire which confines them to their allocated ghetto: the Gaza Strip.
They killed 16(?) and wounded hundreds more, by shooting through the barbed-wire fences.
So much for "good Friday" eh?

Like most religious extremists, they are quite prepared to kill anyone who they feel has "disrespected" their religion.
-And their religion says that "god gave them the land", so they're prepared to kill anyone who disagrees with that.

This is really an example of the dangers of "identity politics".
The "jews" don't accept that it's simply another deluded religion, they claim it's both an "ethnicity", AND a "race".
So (alleged) "anti-semitism" mysteriously becomes "racial hatred".
-Despite the fact that anyone can leave or join this alleged "race", and they always could, and have.
"Jewish" is a very good (extreme) example of the folly of the entire paradigm of "race";
the only genes which have been found so far, which link them at all, historically to that area, are shared with the Palestinians, if "jews" are a "race", then the Palestinians, who they treat so appallingly, are also members of it.
But religions dictate "facts".
And they hate to be challenged.

I'm not "anti-semitic", because it's an entirely fictitious category, invented by people who believe in sky-pixies.
I'm against ALL such invented categories, and the "nationalism", and division, and conflicts, which they inevitably spawn.

But I don't expect someone who'd be prepared to fight and/or kill someone, for simply wearing a different coloured scarf, to understand any of that.
Like most people, you're only happy when you're surrounded by like-minded individuals who share your own delusions of "tribal identity", and confirmation bias.
It's a herd mentality.

I'm happiest alone.

Religions and alleged "races", and "nationality" are all rolled into "identity politics", which are the cause of most of the world problems and injustices today.
It's all "self-ascribed" nonsense of course, with no foundation in science, to substantiate any of it, but I don't know of any uk politicians who are brave enough to publicly say that, including Corbyn.

And now, a musical interlude:

Have a nice weekend.
Joined: 12/4/2013
Msg: 488
view profile
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 3/31/2018 7:22:55 AM
Boring song JV - try this one.

Happy Easter
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 489
view profile
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 3/31/2018 10:14:35 PM
Oor jo
See? You CAN do a decent ish post sometimes. As for identity politics they are not going away anywhere soon. I admit there are things and issues i identify with.

One of them is atheism. So in that regard you yourself 'identify' with something.

Now that silly london labour bint who got binned yesterday is a victim of the political climate SHE helped to create. Secret facebook pages that you could only access by INVITATION.

For st jeremy of corbyn to say he was not aware of some of the anti jewish hatred posted on the site is frankly laughable.

So i seen on sky news that twat eddie izzard took the daft bints job. Now eddie izzard ticks all the right boxes for generation snowflake. But does london labour actually think working class areas which used to be labour strongholds are going to pay any attention to a geezer dressed as a wummin?

Working folk have very little choice in picking political folk to represent them. Which is why voter numbers were in freefall. Until brexit. For once the VOTE COUNTED.

But i cannae wait on izzard going to say Redcar where thousands were thrown out of work when the steel plant closed. Some middle class twat wearing make up and high heels berating working class voters for voting brexit will be a right vote winner.

Oh and you avoided the question AGAIN. Is corbyn racist for saying imported cheap migrant labour drove wages down?
 vlad dracul
Joined: 4/30/2009
Msg: 490
view profile
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 4/12/2018 1:24:52 AM
"As an MP, (sadiq khan) he once went straight from voting in parliament for post office closures to a public meeting where he protested against post office closures."

Do any of yous lot live in or near londinistan? This was quite an interesting take on sadiq khans role as mayor of londonistan. His win in the election to become mayor of londinistan was greeted with a mass kleenex moment by the elitists. It was a rerun of obama getting elected.

But poor citizen khan. He will not back st jeremy of corbyn. So now he's a cvnt............

"According to people at City Hall, Sadiq Khan writes some of his own press releases. I can believe it: they’ve certainly become a lot more excitable since he took over.

I like to imagine the Mayor of London, late at night, combing the thesaurus for fresh superlatives to bugle his ‘unprecedented programme of far-reaching improvements’ for the taxi trade (allowing black cabs in more bus lanes) or his ‘bold package of measures’ to revive street markets (creating a London Markets Board and an interactive map).

One release even panted that Khan had ‘personally scrutinised’ the New Year’s Eve fireworks display ‘to make the acclaimed event the most exciting yet’.

Language like this — the bold mayor, the German Democratic Republic, the powerful Commons paperclips committee — is normally taken to mean the exact opposite of what its user intends. Yet even though we are nearly halfway through Khan’s term, most people still accept him at face value.

Few seem to have noticed that, outside the realm of the press release and the TV interview, he is underachieving badly.

Before the election, Khan promised that his housing policy would ‘rival the NHS with its transformative effect on society’. He said he would ‘support housing associations… to ensure a minimum of 80,000 new homes a year’, more than in any year, save one, in London’s entire history.

Few expected Khan to keep such epoch-making promises. But we did expect him to do something. City Hall figures show, however, that in the first year of Khan’s term, London did not start building a single social rented home.

With two years of Khan’s term nearly now gone, the great social justice warrior has finally managed to begin (drum roll) 1,263 social rent homes, many of a type he once denounced as ‘not genuinely affordable’.

The same pattern applies in most other mayoral policy areas: big promises, followed by things going inexorably backwards.

Crime is up by 12 per cent since he took office, with a far bigger rise in murders. February and March were the first months in history when London homicides exceeded New York’s.

On transport, Khan claimed that he could ‘both freeze fares and invest record amounts modernising London’s transport infrastructure’. Fares have, in fact, only been frozen for some travellers.

But the impact (together with a cut in government grant) has still left Transport for London so short of money that it can no longer pay the interest on its debts.

As it said in a leaked memo: ‘If this was our household budget, this would be the same as not having enough money left over from our salary each month to pay our interest–only mortgage or get our car serviced.’ TfL has now been forced to suspend routine road maintenance, stop many investment programmes, and make serious cuts to the bus network. Even the first phase of this has reduced services by 7 per cent overall — and on some routes by 50 per cent.

For the first time in 25 years, public transport use is falling, with tangible impacts on congestion. The drop might, of course, have been greater without the fares freeze: but in London it is the quantity and quality of service, more than its price, which has driven usage. And each year, the revenue foregone, and the damage to services, will compound.

Khan’s promise of both real-terms fare cuts and increased investment exemplifies his greatest weakness — his wish to have it both ways, or more brutally his long-standing inability to make decisions.

Depending on how strictly you count it, for instance, Khan as mayor has voiced between two and six different ‘no. 1 priorities’.

As an MP, he once went straight from voting in parliament for post office closures to a public meeting where he protested against post office closures.

He wobbled interminably over Boris’s Garden Bridge, reversing his position five times. He was against Heathrow expansion, then in favour, and is now against it once more — and so the list goes on.

In politics, making decisions which make a difference — building homes, raising fares to invest, taking roadspace for cycle lanes — is contested and risky. So it’s easy to see why Khan prefers to act like the shadow cabinet member he once was, using the job mainly as a platform to build his personal profile and attack the government.
It wasn’t me, Miss, it was the Tories!

But Khan is not in opposition. He is in office, the holder of substantial powers and responsibilities, and there is a limit to how long he can carry on blaming all London’s problems on others. Nor is it in Londoners’ interests to attack the government constantly when it gives you most of the money you spend. Perhaps Khan is becalmed because he saw the mayoralty mainly as a stepping stone to his actual goal of the Labour leadership. Now that option has receded, his lack of purpose at City Hall has become clearer.

Yet for the moment, at least, people seem very happy with Khan. His approval ratings are high. Those who watch him closely — most of his Labour colleagues in councils and the London Assembly, a handful of journalists — know he’s not doing well. But why hasn’t the public noticed?

For one, the mayor of London is under less political and media scrutiny than any other major leader. London’s paper, the Evening Standard, does a bit but not enough.

The national press sees him largely as local news. Most people’s knowledge of Khan is limited to favourable snapshots: lantern-jawed TV clips after terror attacks, or encounters with the kind of enemies anyone would kill for. Every ding-dong with Donald Trump, Chris Grayling or a far-right turniphead disrupting one of his speeches is political gold for him.

Khan also benefits from two important hopes held by most decent people: that Britain’s multi-faith society should succeed, and that Labour should be rescued from the claws of the hard left. At the same time it’s assumed he speaks for Londoners on Brexit — Londoners who are happy only because the regressive impacts of his policies haven’t bitten yet (the bus cuts, for instance).

But it’s also because the Tories are so useless. Khan’s underperformance — along with the gift that is Momentum — could help them avoid at least total disaster in May’s London borough elections. Why aren’t they jumping on it?
Joined: 8/6/2018
Msg: 491
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 8/21/2018 6:00:52 AM
St Jeremy of Corbyn is currently in my home town, in fact hes speaking at a community centre around half a mile from my flat today. Actually just been told that hes speaking at a local church hall (which has even less capacity than the community centre).

I'd be recognised and turfed out if I went (not because Im so famous, just because some local Labour folks know me from campaigning at election time) and Ive no intentions of going anyway

Support is dipping up here for Labour (probably the Richard Leonard effect) and he's up to tell us how great it would be for us Jocks under a Corbyn led Govt

I'll pass on that one.
Joined: 12/4/2013
Msg: 492
view profile
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 8/21/2018 6:46:16 AM
I don't understand what is happening with the electorate except maybe to say that I was wrong. I quite like Corbyn but he and his fellows have zero impact on persuading voters that the Tories are rubbish. Given the austerity measures which no one seems to like, constant stories about the NHS in crisis, Grenfell and now headline news about failing prisons. this government ought to be an easy target but labour have made no inroads.
Joined: 8/6/2018
Msg: 493
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 8/21/2018 6:52:45 AM

I don't understand what is happening with the electorate except maybe to say that I was wrong. I quite like Corbyn but he and his fellows have zero impact on persuading voters that the Tories are rubbish. Given the austerity measures which no one seems to like, constant stories about the NHS in crisis, Grenfell and now headline news about failing prisons. this government ought to be an easy target but labour have made no inroads.

His Brexit position has done him no favours, he has lost a lot of support over that from Labour voters. As has the Labour habit of abstaining. The press doesn't help in my view, I think we have a very biased one and there are people in England who are seeing now the amount of bias that Scottish people saw in the 2014 referendum. Labour is also still chock full of Blairites as well, personally I don't think Labour would do any better under a Blairite leader than they would under Corbyn. I think he's the best they've got, he's just weak opposition. When hes had the chance to nail May at PMQs he hasnt taken it. Ian Blackford has been better opposition in my view.

The issue is that too many people are politically apathetic. They don't vote and think all parties are the same.

The Corbyn bounce was talked of up here, but in reality they clawed back 1 vote for every 50 they lost in 2015 and it was 1 in 113 if you took Ian Murrays share out.

Richard Leonard is just plain old shite. I was actually worried when he got it over Sarwar as he had a socialist rep but he's been a wet lettuce. Sturgeon hands him his backside on a plate every week at FMQ's and he is another reason why support for Labour is dipping in Scotland.
Joined: 8/6/2018
Msg: 494
Corbyn v Johnson coming soon ..
Posted: 8/29/2018 9:48:05 AM
Its pretty awful the anti semitic stuff thats being levelled at Corbyn. As far as Im concerned repeat a lie often enough and it will become truth.

He's had death threats on a petition that was started, I believe police are now involved.

God knows I am no fan of Labour and Corbyn but this is shameful, the daily mail have an awful lot to answer for as far as I am concerned.
Joined: 7/20/2010
Msg: 495
view profile
Corbyn - time to go?
Posted: 9/8/2018 8:12:03 PM
its not corbyn that neds to go its the labour party that needs to go.

Were in the mess now cause of labour party policies destroying the economy and the tories r geting blamed for all the cuts to servises. Maybe if labour were to learn how to run the economy we wouldnt be in the finacial mess were in now.

take my local council. Under the tories we had the lowest council tax in the country and the best local servises in the country and ha d abudget surpluss at thend of the year. labour council took over. council tax doubled services cut in half and a big defecit at the end of the year.

So how can the torries do it but not labour?
Im not a tory supporter i vote for whoever has the beat chance to beat labour.

When i left school it was a labour govt tax bands were 33% for the poor 35% for the rich. When thacther got in tax for the poor dropped to 10% and went to 70% for the rich.
After looking at taxes over the year labour have always had far higher taxes on the lowest earnes than the torries and lower taxes on the rich. At 1 point tax on the poor was 90% and only 5% for the rich under labour.
All the figures prove labour r for the rich and tories for the poor.

NHS thought up by the torries voted against by labour then laour bought it in when they got into govt claiming it was their idea. Torries thought of pensions and benefits labour fought against it.

Labour party has changes its name a few times. it started out as the communs party UK. didnt get enough votes to keep their dep[osit total votes acroos the enire UK was less than 1k. TGhey then changed their name to the socialiost party Uk and got a few more votes but still no MP. so changed it to the labour party. Thye want to have evry company and every house under govt ownership. same policies as the soviet union had. govt controlling and owning everything. torries and liberal r more for ppl owning everything not the govt.
Joined: 8/19/2018
Msg: 496
view profile
Corbyn - time to go?
Posted: 9/9/2018 1:24:03 AM
I found that refreshing cliff. Thank you. My own view is that any u.k. government must continue to seek advantage where it can from within the existing imperial American framework. This means more Warmongering, more property, stock and bond inflation. More arms length dealing with the European prison camp. More cheaper imports, including labour. More sterling weakness. And more real zero or negative interest rates.

Of course this also means greater inequality which means of course less economic potential. Which means greater poverty for our lovely violent country.

For all the unaquainted, I like to keep it simple. We are living on borrowed money, we won't pay back. We went off the cliff a long time ago. So far so good. But it's the impact. It's a global thing too.

Nobel prize (spits) winner Paul Krugman (spits) says we should print a load of funny money and prepare for an alien invasion. For me this speaks to a war economy, the old external threat, A priority, over economic progress. Rationing or true austerity with the bureaucrat firmly in charge. It's an inflationary economy where we can have gun mountains but no butter. We all know the politicians would let us play with the guns among ourselves until we grew exhausted. Then we could all start the pillage again.
Joined: 8/6/2018
Msg: 497
Corbyn - time to go?
Posted: 9/9/2018 3:22:38 AM
Your local council won't translate to all over the UK. I don't disagree that Labour caused a lot of the mess that the country is in but the tories have chosen to carry on with this austerity agenda even though they know it is not working. They are also punishing the poor with this austerity driven agenda. Their policies are killing people. Sanctions were brought in by Labour but they have spiked under the tories

Tories are not for the poor. That is nonsense. They are hammering people on benefits such as universal credit. They are cutting free school meals for poor kids. There have been bedroom tax evictions in England because people in England don't get dhp for bedroom tax. They do in Scotland. There are people dying in tents. I was in Newcastle the other week and there were people rough sleeping all over the city centre. I walked past a man with an ambulance in attendence and police as well. He was clearly dead. Tory policies have been stated to cause 120 k deaths. Lower Council tax in your area does not mean the tories are for the poor. They are not.

Some people on universal credit have waited 8 months for their first payment. The dwp can overrule a fit note and make people work who are clearly not fit to. Terminally ill people have been found fit to work. People are in fuel poverty. Travel poverty. Food poverty. I'm currently in all 3. So tell me what the tories are doing for people like me.

They give huge tax breaks to the rich while people on benefits scrape along the bottom.
Joined: 8/6/2018
Msg: 498
Corbyn - time to go?
Posted: 9/9/2018 3:35:25 AM
There are projects in my local area that are currently feeding kids who qualify for free school meals. Because it might be the only hot meal they get of the day. There is a Trussell trust food bank in airdrie in Lanarkshire that almost shut its doors the other month as it could not keep up with demand. Its usage has spiked by 103 per cent in the last 12 months

There are schools in England who have washing machines to wash kids clothes because parents have been sanctioned and have no electricity.

There is a girl called Charlotte Hughes who helps people in Ashton under Lyme. She stands outside job centres and signposts people to food banks when the dwp will not. She hands out food parcels. She writes a blog called the poor side of life. Maybe people who think the Tories care about poverty should read it.

I'm single with no kids. I get no in work allowance on universal credit. That means every pound I earn the dwp take 63p. Everyone used to get an in work allowance but George Osborne scrapped it for single people.

I was working for 2.33 on a 7.50 an hour min wage. If I had kids. Because I own my own home and claim no rent element my in work allowance would double. I would keep almost 400 pounds of my wages before the taper applied.

I keep nothing. If the Tories are for the poor why are the Scottish government spending 400 million pounds buffering the Scottish people from the worst effects of Tory party policies.

Joined: 8/6/2018
Msg: 499
Corbyn - time to go?
Posted: 9/9/2018 3:52:16 AM
Oh and as for the comment about the Tories thought of the NHS first and Labour voted against it

In outlining his 25-year vision for the NHS, the secretary of state for health, Jeremy Hunt, has been at pains to highlight the important part played by Conservatives in the founding of the service and in its subsequent guardianship. The implication was clear, as prime minister David Cameron, has said for nearly a decade: “The NHS is, and always has been, safe in our hands.”

It’s easy to understand why Hunt might try to make this claim. Four years before the NHS officially came into being, the wartime Conservative-led coalition published a 1944 white paper that certainly set out the need for a “free” and “comprehensive” healthcare service. It was presented as a natural evolution from past provision. But how different was it from the later NHS blueprint?

Under the 1944 white paper, voluntary hospitals (financed by local fundraising and workers’ contributions) would remain independent, not be taken over by the state. They would instead contract services from newly established local joint authorities, comprising amalgams of city and county councils. These authorities would also run the existing municipal hospitals. The white paper placed local authorities at the centre of hospital governance.

It was planned, also, to establish local authority health centres, where GPs would provide primary care for the community. In short, the Conservative emphasis was decidedly more pluralistic than the state-centric nationalised service we got in 1948, similar in some way to the “internal market” in health set up after 1989.

Approaching the May general election, the NHS emerged above immigration and the economy as the most important voter issue. Popular concern had been rising steadily since the election of a Conservative-led coalition government, with Labour consistently polling 15-20% ahead on health issues. Distrust meant 85% of the public thought health spending should be protected (ahead of schools, 49%, and care for the elderly, 45%). A third of people thought the NHS was getting worse.

So if the political game for the Conservatives is about reassurance, for Labour it’s about generating a fear of creeping privatisation and underfunding. The past, in this rendition, is the anathema to which we must not return. Indeed, beyond an increasingly limited group of older people, most of us cannot imagine a positive pre-NHS past.

Speaking at the 2014 annual Labour conference one elderly supporter remembered: “Back then hospitals, doctors and medicine were for the privileged few because they were run for profit rather than as a vital state service.” It was “moving” and “heartbreaking”, shadow health secretary Andy Burnham said, “something everyone should hear.”

So how bad was healthcare before 1948? Despite what we might imagine, the public thought well of it. Gallup, polling in July 1944, found 85% of former hospital patients were satisfied with their treatment: roughly the same numbers as after 1948. The most frequent “grumbles” before and after focused on admission delays, outpatients waiting times, poor food, and so on. The national insurance-funded GP service – covering working people but not their dependents – was less popular.

All in all, three quarters of patients were content. Perhaps most surprising to our modern ears is that there was no great hunger for radical reform. Mass-Observation, surveying in 1943, found that “roughly half the population was opposed to any major change on the health front, a quarter disinterested and a quarter in favour of state intervention.”

Middle classes missed out
Contrary to what we might think, access to hospital care was restricted not to the rich but to ordinary working people. Voluntary hospitals were charitable foundations; not there to make profits. The standard method of payment was via a mutual contributory fund. These charged two or three pence a week to cover the contributor and family.

A decade before: 1932 model showcasing the work of modern hospitals to the public. Science Museum, London, Wellcome Images, CC BY
Local authority hospital provision was also expanding and improving. The largest single group excluded from hospitals was the middle classes: barred because they earned too much. Only recently had pay-bed wings been established to cater for this group. Otherwise the middle classes relied on private nursing homes, which were expensive. It was this group arguably that was the chief beneficiary of the founding of the NHS.

Many key accounts explain the formation of the NHS largely in terms of a growing reforming consensus driven by forces outside of party politics. Such an explanation, of course, suits neither political party, least of all Labour. But the past is politically malleable. Doctors, when opposing the 2012 Lansley health and social care reforms, were quick to raise the spectre of the Americanisation of health, and of a return to the bad old days of the 1930s.

You wonder if Hunt has learnt a lesson from this, but also how he will fare in his battle with the medical profession? Both Henry Willink, who introduced the 1944 white paper, and Nye Bevan, who introduced the NHS, ended up giving considerable ground to the medical lobby. Many in the Conservative Party strongly supported the British Medical Association’s objections on such key issues as the continuing independence of voluntary hospitals, resisting local authority control, a salaried medical service, and the retention of private practice.

Willink’s proposals were slowly whittled away. Bevan, too, was to face mighty battles with the BMA after 1945. Yet his is the service that we would most readily recognise today.
Joined: 8/6/2018
Msg: 500
Corbyn - time to go?
Posted: 9/9/2018 4:01:25 AM
Thatcher also gave us the poll tax. In scotland we got it a year earlier than England and Wales. Regressive. As is council tax

Apparently there are nursery kids who get their free milk first thing in the morning, because they've had nothing else to eat before they get to nursery

I am no fan of Labour as anyone who knows me will know. But to make a sweeping statement such as Labour are for the rich and Tories are for the poor when people are dying due to Tory austerity, what do the Tories do for your average poor person?

Yes Labour brought in sanctions but the Tories have chosen to carry them on. Chosen.
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  > Corbyn - time to go?