Jeremy Corbyn

i really don't understand this idea that private health insurance is the way forward.
it's basically another tax

The problem with private health is that companies compete on price. So in order to lower premiums and get customers they limit cover in the small print, like other insurance companies do. Dealing with them for your carpets is bad enough, can you imagine how that feels when you are haggling over your kid's health?

In the USA, cover is limited so unless you are lucky you can still end up with massive bills, or other stuff that just doesn't get done. Plus the emphasis on care is commercial rather than human. For example, most people have babies in hospitals with doctors rather than at home or with a midwife. And because it's not an illness, most people's insurance does not cover it so you are on the hook for tens of thousands each kid. Just hope you don't get accidentally pregnant. And guess what, insurance doesn't usually cover birth control either.

It cost my sister £3000 to have each of her children in Holland because of gaps in the insurance

AlexSimon - Member

Owen Smith is a funny one. He was heavily involved in NI peace talks previously, and it was always a bit peculiar that most of his policies were the same as Corbyn's during the leadership campaign. The basis of the campaign seemed to be 'I'm not him' which was always odd.

It was so weird. They obviously started the coup without really thinking about what to do next "Let's bring down Corbyn!" "OK we're having a leadership vote, who wants to run". And then as you say they went "What's he like? Corbyn! Who's he not? Corbyn!" I think the theory was that Corbyn supporters would go "Well the PLP have trashed our guy but now they're providing us with a Party-approved replacement offering the same- presumably they won't trash him."

For me the benefit of insurance would be the money would be going into a fund designed to be run solely for [s]health care and at arms reach from the government[/s] the benefit of big businesses.

[quote=fifeandy ]It should be part of the rules of ANY referendum that an impartial 3rd party compiles a booklet (at the governments expense) of relevant information which is delivered to every household with registered voters so people have the correct information to make their own mind up without having to actually do their own research.

I doubt it would have made a difference. The perceived wisdom is that facts don't win elections.

I was only pointing out the £350 million lie to fact check ninfan, not because it would have made a difference. Since ninfan is spinning as predicted, how about a straight answer to this question: do we send £350 million a week to the EU? I'll take the lack of a straight answer as an admission that you are wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40338820

Britain Elects? @britainelects Jun 18

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 44%
CON: 41%
LDEM: 6%
UKIP: 2%

(via @Survation)

"It cost my sister £3000 to have each of her children in Holland because of gaps in the insurance"

It cost me £2360 for 4 nights in an NHS hospital because my wife needed a bed with enough space for a cot AND a chair for me to sit on after some complications with the birth. Other NHS hospitals provide the same for free. So the "free" system here is anything but.

Is a 'Day of Rage' really a good idea?

I'd need some convincing that inciting anger is *ever* a good idea but doing it at a time when people are driving Vans into people outside Mosques and blowing up Kids at concerts strikes me as a very bad idea.

John McDonnell wants 'rage' to bring down the Government: What does he think the election was for?

As for the name "Movement for Justice By Any Means Necessary". Isn't that just a little ominous?

Party sources insisted Mr Corbyn had no plans to attend the rally or speak at the event and in a comment a spokeswoman said: “The Labour Party has no involvement whatsoever in this event.”

So the day of rage is linked to JC how?

No, but let them have their say and see if they behave

We have a functioning democratic process which is the better way of rejecting politicians that you do not approve of. Obviously this time around, the two major parties put forward quite different views but failed to attract sufficient support to exercise these visions, which leaves us in a mess - domestically and internationally (Brexshit)

Bringing down a government that is the result of the process ^, "by any means necessary" because it doesn't align itself to your minority interests is an interesting concept...flawed but interesting.

Still we will probably have another opportunity to do it properly again soon....

So the day of rage is linked to JC how?

John MacDonnell was on R4 this morning it'll be here when available:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qj9z/episodes/player

'Twas around 07:15.

bbc link appears to work in arrears so no use atm, ta anyway

Bringing down a government that is the result of the process ^, "by any means necessary" because it doesn't align itself to your minority interests is an interesting concept...flawed but interesting.

Just utterly unhelpful. MacDonnell can say this government is illegitimate because it didn't win but nor did any of the other parties. So what do we do? Have daily elections until there's a clear winner? Even that doesn't work becuase even if election No6 came up with a conclusive result there would still have been 6 days of illegitimate government.

What we're doing is right: The party with the most seats will try to soldier on for a bit, then it will fall and we'll have another election then. It's not perfect, but it's civilised and it's best for everyone.

bbc link appears to work in arrears so no use atm, ta anyway

It'll be up soon. I think they wait for the show to end so any time now I would have thought.

Well, I listened, and while I'm not McDonnell's biggest fan, I felt that outofbreath might have been misrepresenting what he said based on his previous posts. And of course, outofbreath didn't let me down.

outofbreath might have been misrepresenting what he said

Well it was 7:15 and I was chasing about to get out of the house so I might have misheard. Specifically what did I get wrong?

So no link to JC and Labour Party then?

Conservatives 318
Labour 266

Only one winner there between these two parties

McDonnell's words where clearly and deliberately chosen to subvert democracy which is absolutely "par for the course" with him and the hard left

[quote=jambalaya ]Conservatives 318
Labour 266
Only one winner there between these two parties
McDonnell's words where clearly and deliberately chosen to subvert democracy which is absolutely "par for the course" with him and the hard left

majority = 326

no-one won, or we wouldn't be in this mess.

So no link to JC and Labour Party then?

Until DD says specifically what I got wrong I'm standing by what I said.

Well it was 7:15 and I was chasing about to get out of the house so I might have misheard. Specifically what did I get wrong?

It starts at around 1.10 into the link and finishes around 1.15. Why don't you have a listen yourself? This kind of thing helps when you've decided you've already worked out what he's going to say based on your own preconceptions, and then post it on the internet without listening properly. So if you expect me to help you out on that, sorry, but I've given you the interview time, go and have a listen yourself.

jambalaya - Member
Conservatives 318
Labour 266

Only one winner there between these two parties

& 65.14 million losers!

lets be honest the rest of parliament hates the tories and what theyve done to the country.....

which is why they are having to deal with the DUP bigots - who hate gays, womens rights, science etc etc etc

McDonnell's words where clearly and deliberately chosen to subvert democracy which is absolutely "par for the course" with him and the hard left

Someone else who hasn't listened either I'm guessing.

Conservatives 318
Labour 266

Not quite the 150 seat majority you predicted, eh jamba?

Not quite the 150 seat majority you predicted, eh jamba?

Further revised to 75-100 lets not forget.

So nowhere near that either. 😀

So if you expect me to help you out on that, sorry

I didn't expect you to state what I'd got wrong, I expected you to evade doing so. Which you have.

Here's the link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08tvjf6

About 1hr13.

McDonnell's words where clearly and deliberately chosen to subvert democracy which is absolutely "par for the course" with him and the hard left

Because the right are above doing such things....

Righty fing ho!
😆

Because the right are above doing such things....

I'm not sure that makes it a good idea.

Organised by Movement for Justice By [b]Any Means Necessary[/b] (MFJ), the Day of [b]Rage[/b] will see protesters march on Downing Street at around 1pm calling on people to "[b]bring down the Government[/b]".

Any Means = illegal
Rage = violence
Bring down the government = anti-democratic

All this endorsed and encouraged my McDonnell

I didn't expect you to state what I'd got wrong, I expected you to evade doing so. Which you have.

You've already admitted you weren't really listening. Go back and have a proper listen instead of "chasing around the house" and then posting what you wanted to hear on the internet.

And now you're expecting me to help you out?

Why don't you want to have a listen to it?

I'm not sure that makes it a good idea.

agreed, but mcdonnel was hardly subverting democracy

he made some very good points

May specifically asked for a mandate for her hard brexit, she thought she was getting a coronation, she got a pillorying!

They campaigned on a manifesto they are now junking

The tories are just getting that austerity is the problem here, scapegoating the EU for falling living standards was always only going to work for so long.

They have no majority, no coalition and no leader

if the Tories respected democracy theyd go back to the electorate

Any Means = illegal
Rage = violence

All this endorsed and encouraged my McDonnell

Yep, you didn't listen then. Interview starts at 1.10 and finishes around 1.15 in the link. If you can find an endorsement of violence or any illegality by McDonnell, I'll be impressed.

I really can't understand why we have to do this when a quick 5 minute listen to the interview would sort it out. Why do you feel the desperate need to misrepresent this kind of stuff all the time?

Are you still suffering after the shattered dreams of a 150 seat majority?

You've already admitted you weren't really listening.

I've just listened again and my recollection turns out to be spot on, which is why you can't state which bit I got wrong.

However I *did* miss the bits about him calling for 'insurrection' and praising the rioters who he said "kicked the **** out of Millbank" first time around so it *was* worth a second listen.

Calling something a "Day of Rage" doesn't mean you expect people to go round being violent, just as calling something "Feed the World" doesn't mean you go round with a microwaved ready meal for the entire population of the planet; it's a figure of speech.

Of course you actually knew that, and it's just more stupid, stupid trolling - very boring, but ultimately corrosive for democracy.

All this endorsed and encouraged my McDonnell

for someone who so openly backed a campaign that repeatedly used bigotry, xenophobia and lies you are looking a bit silly ,
even your hero farage actually said hed take up arms if he didnt get his brexit !

I'm glad you've had a listen outofbreath. But I'm not surprised you still can't see where you misrepresented him. And you're still doing it.

But I'm not surprised you still can't see where you misrepresented him.

Neither you nor I can see where I misrepresented him!

If you could you would quote it.

A bit later on in the same R4 programme you'll hear the Chief Whip (IIRC) saying that he'd like to throw members off the roof of the building. Shall we also criticise him for inciting violence?

All this endorsed and encouraged my McDonnell

Getting more & more desperate aren't you..

You'll lie about anything if it'll further your own agenda - the words "snakes belly" spring to mind..

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/brexiter-to-claim-he-was-just-kidding-20170621129978 ]Jamby's next Gambit[/url]

if the Tories respected democracy theyd go back to the electorate

Whether they respect democracy or not they will be going back to the electorate, the situation dictates that.

All that's under debate is whether we incite rage in the meantime. Doesn't Manchester & Finsbury suggest that encouraging anger is unhelpful?

[quote=sobriety ]Jamby's next Gambit

I believe that is already termed the 'Edinburgh defence' in honour of TJ.

to subvert democracy which is absolutely "par for the course" with him and the hard left

Well I had a listen and it did leave me uncomfortable. It started well, the right balance of acceptance combined with reasonable suggestions of how they'll oppose the government. But his interview with the Morning Star and repeatedly stating his view that the government was undemocratic and illegitimate has to be unwise, especially before a protest labelled "day of rage".
I'd actually prefer a Labour government rather than the mess we have now. But how would labour forming a government, not being the largest party be any more legitimate or democratic ?

I'd actually prefer a Labour government rather than the mess we have now. But how would labour forming a government, not being the largest party be any more legitimate or democratic ?

agreed

youd have to go back to the polls till you get a clear majority, even then Brexit being the business of the day and so divisive things would still be difficult

if only people had listened to project fear

repeatedly stating his view that the government was undemocratic and illegitimate has to be unwise, especially before a protest labelled "day of rage".

I see. And how about the parts where he repeatedly said that protests should be peaceful, and cited the example of Ghandi?

I see. And how about the parts where he repeatedly said that protests should be peaceful, and cited the example of Ghandi?

Obviously he's going to say that, no main stream politician would say anything else. And despite Ghandi's message Indian independence and partition cost 100,000's of lives. When people are angry they'll look between the lines and see the message the want to see.

Obviously he's going to say that, no main stream politician would say anything else. And despite Ghandi's message Indian independence and partition cost 100,000's of lives. When people are angry they'll look between the lines and see the message the want to see.

I see. And how about the parts where he repeatedly said that protests should be peaceful, and cited the example of Ghandi?

That was the inteviewers point: They go to the IRA and tell them bombing is the best way to influence government, they go to their core voters and tell them to get angry and out on the street and call for insurrection to change the government. Then they go on R4 saying it's good to be peaceful.

The interviewer was suggesting they change the message according to the audience.

JM didn't really address that point - or I thought he didn't.

The interview was basically the usual Robinson party political broadcast

They go to the IRA and tell them bombing is the best way to influence government

They go to the IRA and tell them bombing is the best way to influence government

You've lost it.

Source?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/18/john-mcdonnell-apologises-for-ira-comment-labour

"It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table.”

They go to the IRA and tell them bombing is the best way to influence government

When people [s]are angry[/s] hate lefties they'll look between the lines and see the message the want to see.

"It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA. Because of the bravery of the IRA and people like Bobby Sands, we now have a peace process.”

Here's the bit you missed.

“In 2003 we were trying to impress upon all sides that we should sign the peace process, the Good Friday agreement. At one point in time it looked as though we were going to lose the peace process. There was a potential for the republican movement to split, there were many that were arguing they would continue what they described as the armed struggle.

“I went out and argued for the peace process and I made this speech to a group of republicans because one of the problems we had is that if there was a feeling that they were defeated or humiliated – and this was on both sides – they would not stand down. So I made this speech and I urged them to put their weapons away and to participate in the peace process. It was a difficult time.

“I think my choice of words was wrong. I accept that. I should not have said the issue about the honouring. I actually said afterwards that there is no cause that justifies the loss of life in this way. What I tried to do for both sides is to give them a way out with some form of dignity otherwise they wouldn’t lay their arms down.

“I accept it was a mistake to use those words. But if it contributed towards saving one life or preventing someone else being maimed it was worth doing because we did hold on to the peace process. There was a real risk of the republican movement splitting and some of them continuing with the armed process.”

but oob you said

They go to the IRA and tell them bombing is the best way to influence government

which is a [b]lie[/b]

he was talking after the GFA about what happened during the troubles, not telling them to do it b4hand

I think youve been reading the sun/mail/telegraph too much and are being sucked in by their lies

Here's the bit you missed.

Lets assume that's true. Would that not further confirm the interviewer's point? They just say whatever the audience needs to hear to acheive their objective?

Or to put it another way: "That was the inteviewers point: They go to the IRA and tell them bombing is the best way to influence government, they go to their core voters and tell them to get angry and out on the street and call for insurrection to change the government. Then they go on R4 saying it's good to be peaceful."

Which is exactly what I said.

the "righties" are proper cracking up! 😆

They go to the IRA and tell them bombing is the best way to influence government

so he instructed the IRA to do their bombing campaign??

source?

I think you may have been out in the sun too much

I think I may pop along to this protest after work now, youve made up my mind oob, congrats

I think I may pop along to this protest after work now, youve made up my mind oob, congrats

I'll hide in Waterstones, I bet you won't be going in there.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-psychology-of-looting

I'll hide in Waterstones, I bet you won't be going in there.

funnily enough I wasnt planning on any violence, despite sinister Mcdonnells subversive message, that only you can see 😉

teamhurtmore - Member
No, but let them have their say and see if they behave

We have a functioning democratic process which is the better way of rejecting politicians that you do not approve of. Obviously this time around, the two major parties put forward quite different views but failed to attract sufficient support to exercise these visions, which leaves us in a mess - domestically and internationally (Brexshit)

Bringing down a government that is the result of the process ^, "by any means necessary" because it doesn't align itself to your minority interests is an interesting concept...flawed but interesting.

Still we will probably have another opportunity to do it properly again soon....

If they can't survive a wee protest ffs, change the government now, hand jezza the keys.

you do realise the tories just 2 years ago were a shoe in for government for 20 years!

was always a myth anyway

conceding influence to the swivel eyed and pushing the message that the EU was the source of our ills always had a limited shelf-life

I was obviously assuming a modicum of competence. 😆

funnily enough I wasnt planning on any violence

Exactly how are you planning to express your 'rage'? Will you need to get specially worked up for it once you're there, or will you turn up angry?

outofbreath - Member
funnily enough I wasnt planning on any violence
Exactly how are you planning to express your 'rage'? Will you need to get specially worked up for it once you're there, or will you turn up angry?

Exactly how are you planning to express your 'rage'? Will you need to get specially worked up for it once you're there, or will you turn up angry?

probably just read some of your rightwing press b4hand, job done!

[img] [/img]

tho obvs wont be driving any vans into people as a result tho

Even the Queen's sounding a bit skeptical here! 😆

tho obvs wont be driving any vans into people as a result tho

Is that obvious? Osbourne was clearly a naturally angry person. Was he incited to get more angry? Did that incitement push him over the edge? I wouldn't be suprised to find it did.

Calling for more anger is *never* helpful.

Lets assume that's true. Would that not further confirm the interviewer's point? They just say whatever the audience needs to hear to acheive their objective?

The quote is accurate: I remember watching him say it on Question Time.

Most people would be pleased that he was working to make the GFA a success, but not you it seems.

Exactly how are you planning to express your 'rage'?

A strongly worded letter to the Times, I would have thought. Isn't that the correct way to effect political change?

Really - this discussion is pathetic even for alt-STW standards.

Joe, I have long argued that the Tories would do their proverbials in over Europe. They always have and always will. This is just the latest version albeit a more serious one due to Brexshit.

We have two major parties with weak and ineffective leaders surrounded by similar colleagues around them. The third party is about to follow suit. Hence my other frequent comment, why do people keep arguing for these collective muppets to be controlling more of our economic resources. Barmy idea.....

Truly desperate times, especially when A guy who has shown high levels of incompetence and a failure to instill confidence in those who work closely with him, is now perceived as a new Messiah. Another barmy idea...

Funnily enough the guy I am missing, despite his dodgy politics, is Angus the big man. He shone out in the leadership debates and then loses his seat to the Tories. You boys do some funny things up North!!!

Lets assume that's true. Would that not further confirm the interviewer's point? They just say whatever the audience needs to hear to acheive their objective?

The quote is accurate: I remember watching him say it on Question Time.
Most people would be pleased that he was working to make the GFA a success, but not you it seems.

Nicely dodged.

If they can't survive a wee protest ffs, change the government now, hand jezza the keys

I prefer a coalition TBH - it's actually more democratic if you think about it.

For once, politicians are forced to work with each other.

The downside is the unsavoury bedfellows one may have to have to affect a coalition......

I'll say it now - I've no love for the Tories & less for the DUP, I voted Liberal.

I had no idea about Dennis Skinner's traditional heckle. Excellent.

Labour MP Dennis Skinner is well-known for his joke to Black Rod on these occasions.

So what's he come up with before now?

1980 Labour MPs blocked Black Rod’s path.

1987 “Tell her to sell up!”

1988 “Ey up, here comes Puss In Boots!”

1989 “Oh, it's a good outfit!”

1990 “It tolls for thee, Maggie.”

1992 “Tell her to pay her taxes.”

1993 “Back to basics with Black Rod.”

1995 & 1996 “New Labour, New Black Rod.”

1997 “Do you want to borrow a Queen's Speech?”

2000 “Tell her to read the Guardian.”

2001 “You’re nowt but a midget!”

2003 “Did she lock the door behind her?”

2005 “Has she brought Camilla with her?”

2006 “Have you got Helen Mirren on standby?”

2007 “Who shot the harriers?”

2008 “Any Tory moles at the palace?”

Black Rod: “I’m going to miss you Dennis.”

2009 “Royal expenses are on the way.”

2010 “No Royal Commissions this week.”

2012 “Jubilee year, double dip recession. What a start” – prompted Tory cries of “shame!”

2013 “Royal Mail for sale. Queen's head privatised.”

2014 “Coalition's last stand.”

2016 “Hands off the BBC!”

2017 "Get yer skates on. First race is half past 2."

When people are angry they'll look between the lines and see the message the want to see.

That certainly seems to sum up oob's approach to the matter.

Isn't that the correct way to effect political change?

That's what makes this so dumb. Inciting anger to achieve political change is not only counter productive it's also utterly pointless when there are so many legitimate and effective chances to effect change through actual democracy. (We have a lame duck government who will be lucky to make it to the Autumn. We've had very closely spaced elections recently.)

teamhurtmore - Member
Joe, I have long argued that the Tories would do their proverbials in over Europe. They always have and always will. This is just the latest version albeit a more serious one due to Brexshit.

We have two major parties with weak and ineffective leaders surrounded by similar colleagues around them. The third party is about to follow suit. Hence my other frequent comment, why do people keep arguing for these collective muppets to be controlling more of our economic resources. Barmy idea.....

Truly desperate times, especially when A guy who has shown high levels of incompetence and a failure to instill confidence in those who work closely with him, is now perceived as a new Messiah. Another barmy idea...

Funnily enough the guy I am missing, despite his dodgy politics, is Angus the big man. He shone out in the leadership debates and then loses his seat to the Tories. You boys do some funny things up North!!!

I agree AR will be a big miss, one of the SNP dudes that I really liked.