Jeremy Corbyn

Its pretty clear the media have real power and the politicians know this
Dave had a go at the owners of the mail re Dacre, May has dropped Levesson 2, Blair kissed diggers arse to get an endorsement etc
You do not need to take our word for the power/influence of the press you only have to look at how our leaders deal with them

Of course its not everything but its disingenuous* in the extreme to deny that having them on your side helps and that having them do hatchet jobs on you harms you. We all know this is true and only a fool [ or the very RW trolly] deny this.

* your perfect MO eh

Also to add in the nature of being clear and open there was a big surge of voter registrations for under 30's in the run up to the deadline. Maybe the worm is turning (well the PM is certainly turning on a regular basis)
On the emigration numbers perhaps people see a better future outside of the UK at present I certainly do and have no real intention to return at the moment.

How will the nine new companies raise cash for future investment? Will it increase government debt?

Question for the May fans - how will she actually manage to reduce immigration?
From the outside it looks like strangling markets, taxing people out of contention and making sure the UK can't recruit the people it needs. If anyone is looking at a good old Rover/British Leyland style future it's the tories here.

Different people may see different things. For me it's

Diane "my S doesn't stink" Abbott and Amber "just keep digging you odious woman" Rudd

[img] [/img]

Offsetting profits for investment would be a good thing?

If they are going to meet the stated stated objective of reducing profit in order to reduce prices, and they earmark profit to fund investment, what is paying the bond returns?

Also can you answer the McDonomics question, why won’t the bonds be government debt?

much like the Eu being anti democratic and wanting straight bananas

straight bananas referenced again - as I pointed out they did require grade 1 bananas to be of a straightness that the bananas from the Canaries couldn't meet, so they suddenly all became grade 2 bananas, seriously affecting their trade. So they had to rename them to something else to get around it.

Grading according to straightness, not quality. Very sensible and a great use of their time.

Amber "just keep digging you odious woman" Rudd

Well at least we can all agree on Rudd.

Could a Corbynite explain why the bonds issued to nationalise the twenty odd water companies won't be government debt, I'm trying to understand McDonomics

I'm not massively versed on this but I assume they borrow at a very low rate 1.5% or so. And the yield is much higher than that. It's also infrastructure spend and not just creating debt by paying for teachers etc.

In other words youd could say it's a debt but it's a debt that creates growth and money for our own coffers and therefore an investment. The balance sheet is effectively levelled by owning the infrastructure.

The other option is a share swap for bonds but I don't know how that works.

There's always a downside - paying share holders or handing over control Chinese power companies. Pick your poison.

I'd sooner have the debt and investment.

From Craig Murray - the red line is where Theresa May took over at the Home Office.
[url= https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Screenshot-237_LI.jp g" target="_blank">https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Screenshot-237_LI.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

I just read up on the bond swap. So the shareholders are now bondholders and get paid interest.

I'm not massively versed on this but I assume they borrow at a very low rate 1.5% or so. And the yield is much higher than that. It's also infrastructure spend and not just creating debt by paying for teachers etc.

Both Corbyn and McDonnell have been on air stating they aren’t borrowing to fund this

Also can anyone answer the McDonomics question, why won’t the bonds be government debt?

as governments can borrow at the best rates

they borrow at rates according to their credit rating. We were AAA and we've been downgraded - and could happen again in the future.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/13/what-are-government-bonds

How are the water company bonds going to be structured?

Are the bond holders going to get less than their current total shareholder return?

What is the impact on UK pension funds?

Don't forget, sales of water are going to rise under Corbyn

[img] ?w=240[/img]

Don't forget, sales of water are going to rise under Corbyn

Don't be mean

Can we go back to arguing about left wing main stream media again, it's kinder

DA is for sure costing the LP votes. I've seen Sarah Champion do well in interviews, DA

Anyone who doesn't think the media are biased or dont have an agenda are naive in the extreme. Think of how Miliband was treated in the last election.

But the main thing for me is that the BBC takes its lead from the newspapers, reporting the news in the DM etc as if it is news rather than biased tittle tattle. CH4 news manages to avoid this why cant the BBC?

CH4 news manages to avoid this why cant the BBC?

Why can't OU Conservative Association president Nick Robinson or Cameron dinner guest Sarah Montague avoid appearing biased? Hmm ... tricky one!

The BBC bias thing is one thing the left and the right seem to agree on.

With the BBC I get the impression they pick up the papers to decide what to report rather than doing there own investigating.

allthepies - Member

The BBC bias thing is one thing the left and the right seem to agree on.

Correct- even lifelong conservative Nick Robinson agrees that the BBC is biased against Corbyn. The BBC Trust has also found Laura Kuennsberg broke their accuracy and impartiality code.

The BBC bias thing i

Yet they employed Paul Mason

Why can't OU Conservative Association president Nick Robinson or Cameron dinner guest Sarah Montague avoid appearing biased?

Ah, now where were you when Robert Peston, son of Labour peer Maurice Peston, became editor of BBC business news, or when committed Labour Party supporter Andrew Marr became political editor of BBC news?

Ah, now where were you when Robert Peston, son of Labour peer Maurice Peston, became editor of BBC business news, or when committed Labour Party supporter Andrew Marr became political editor of BBC news?

Rage at the TV and scream at the red tories

Only caught a bit of Corbyn on ITV this morning, he was adequate on the IRA questions but was well prepared with the corporation tax etc
He did seem to be a in suit too big for him

Didnt see Marr, but if its as jambs says 😉 Abbot is an easy target these days, Rudd should be getting a roasting -she was already planning further policing cuts before Manchester attack, will they still be happening?

she received the same warnings of police understaffing leaving us vulnerable as May did and chose to ignore them too

Robert Peston, son of Labour peer Maurice Peston

I bow to your knowledge of genetics. I hadn't realised that political orientation was hereditary.

It's more likely than catching it at a dinner party 😉

[quote=DrJ said]
I bow to your knowledge of genetics. I hadn't realised that political orientation was hereditary.

Indeed, perhaps he's seen the error of his fathers ways.

I bow to your knowledge of genetics. I hadn't realised that political orientation was hereditary

As well as being non-hereditary you are more likely going to have an opposing view to your parents in your formative years which may well stay with you.

Hilary Benn eg.

Hilary Benn eg.

Yes exactly, a good example of different views to their parents.

(intended)

BBC have a duty to report the facts and its a fact that Corbyn is unelectable with a long track record of stuff shich makes him so. The BBC are falling over themselves to be impartial its just impossible or Corbyn to come over as anything but inept.

@big_n_daft McDominics - brilliant 🙂 it's not debt on planet LoneyLeft because John McD says so. Also many equity funds can't own bonds or have holding limits by asset class so couldn't keep any bonds exchanged for shares. It's a right mess and I have been on the other side when bonds I owned in a fund I managed which could only hold bonds where converted to equity and I was a forced seller at the worst time/price.

People have posted here a 250bn borrowing number for Labour but its way way more than that, its 250bn for the Investment Bank alone, plus nationalisations of water at unknown prices, extra borrowing for operating costs/capital spending on nationalised railways plus all the other borowing required when their tax proposals bring in much less than they estimate (as the IFS pointed out).

John McD has claimed that borrowing for investment somehow "doesn't count" but I can tell him that as a fund manager we absolutely take into account all borrowing when calculating debt sustainability and thus the interest rate we will require. As for governments being able to borrow at the lowest rate, thats only true for strong and credit worthy governments, once the wheels come off rates go up very quickly. See Denis Healy having to go to the IMF

@kimbers et al what I don't understand is why Corbyn / Abbott etc can't just flat out say, "we apologise, we where totally wrong" Diane's hair-do analogy was clearly scripted I can't imagine what she was thinking. The list of Islamic Jihadi groups she voted against declaring terrorist organisations was staggering (I think all Islamic/Jihadi apart from Kurdistan Workers Party). She made the appalling statement that some of those on the list where simply "dissidents" but then of course refused to say which.

Go on, admit it. Your a little bit worried that May will **** this up so badly corbyn might actually get in...

Yes Tories will just flat out lie if it makes the interview easier.

Funny how Tories per year in office borrow more than Labour isn't it?

they borrow at rates according to their credit rating. We were AAA and we've been downgraded - and could happen again in the future.

The BBC are falling over themselves to be impartial its just impossible or Corbyn to come over as anything but inept.

I have to completely agree with Jambalaya's last comment. Why Corbyn and Abbott can't just give a straight apology is beyond me.

Maybe they're just being honest.

Maybe they're just being honest.

Yep, you mean like Jez saying,

I’ve been involved in opposing anti-terror legislation ever since I first went into Parliament in 1983

Or his ex, who is angling to be the Home Sec lest we forget, saying,

Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us

Or, Jonny M saying he's a Marxist.

They're just being honest. Good for them.

I wonder when weak&wobbly is going to apologise to the victims of the bombs raining down in Yemen?

Why Corbyn and Abbott can't just give a straight apology is beyond me.

The cynic in me thinks that is explained by this:

Also many equity funds can't own bonds or have holding limits by asset class so couldn't keep any bonds exchanged for shares. It's a right mess and I have been on the other side when bonds I owned in a fund I managed which could only hold bonds where converted to equity and I was a forced seller at the worst time/price.

People have posted here a 250bn borrowing number for Labour but its way way more than that, its 250bn for the Investment Bank alone, plus nationalisations of water at unknown prices, extra borrowing for operating costs/capital spending on nationalised railways plus all the other borowing required when their tax proposals bring in much less than they estimate (as the IFS pointed out).

John McD has claimed that borrowing for investment somehow "doesn't count" but I can tell him that as a fund manager we absolutely take into account all borrowing when calculating debt sustainability and thus the interest rate we will require. As for governments being able to borrow at the lowest rate, thats only true for strong and credit worthy governments, once the wheels come off rates go up very quickly. See Denis Healy having to go to the IMF

The terrorism stuff makes them look dreadful but maybe they think it's far less of a vote loser than more analysis of the policy which is clearly impossible unicorn promising. There won't be enough money, and there won't be enough parliamentary time. (Brexit will surely involve every government department.)

So perhaps Labour (perhaps reasonably) think floating voters won't think Labour are going to seriously support terrorism against Britain while in office. But they (perhaps reasonably) think floating voters could easily be persuaded that Labour will will chase a load of wealthy people and businesses abroad and leave us with an unsustainable debt to service at a time when the UK is not a popular place to lend to.

So perhaps Labour think every uncomfortable minute fielding questions on terrorism is a minute they don't have to talk about policy.

Funny how Tories per year in office borrow more than Labour isn't it?

So which party should a floating voter who wants a higher government spend vote for?

Re the BBC. The right always say it's left biased and the left always say it's right biased. Has there ever been an objective study to work out if there *is* bias there - it seems pretty straight down the middle to me. There is "misleadingness" that that seems to be to make a non-story seem interesting rather than to support a particular viewpoint.

Yep, you mean like Jez saying,

I’ve been involved in opposing anti-terror legislation ever since I first went into Parliament in 1983

I can't see the problem with that. Anti-terror legislation has been used to deny the most basic rights which have existed for hundreds of years. Anti-terror legislation has been used to justify internment without trial and the Diplock courts. And of course unsurprisingly it has led to the most appalling miscarriages of justice of modern time, ie, completely innocent people being framed.

If internment without trial and the Diplock courts were such a good idea why aren't they being introduced now?

Or don't we have a terrorist threat now?

David Davies stood down iirc.

If you want an increased govt spend on services vote Labour, if you want increased govt borrowing vote Tory.

The terrorism stuff makes them look dreadful but maybe they think it's far less of a vote loser than more analysis of the policy which is clearly impossible unicorn promising. There won't be enough money, and there won't be enough parliamentary time. (Brexit will surely involve every government department.)

So perhaps Labour (perhaps reasonably) think floating voters won't think Labour are going to seriously support terrorism against Britain while in office. But they (perhaps reasonably) think floating voters could easily be persuaded that Labour will will chase a load of wealthy people and businesses abroad and leave us with an unsustainable debt to service at a time when the UK is not a popular place to lend to.

So they perhaps Labour think every uncomfortable minute fielding questions on terrorism is a minute they don't have to talk about policy.

nah I think they have a geninene belief that the Tory model of cutting your way to growth hurts the poorest and ultimately costs you more in the long term as society is damaged , eg health, education, policing, security all the things that the Tories traditionally neglect

That said Brexit is obviously going to make things tough, raising corp tax as we desperately try to keep business here post brexit it only makes sense if were to e kept in the single market & customs union

likewise we cant afford the 6bn a year hit to our economy of Mays (never gonna keep it anyway) 10k immigration fuzzy promise

Not to mention things like an investment bank have long term returns

@ernie good to see you back. The civil liberties argument has merit, as I posted above sometimes (imo) you have to forgoe civil liberties for security, eg search warrants or being arrested on suspicion of committing a crime we have accepted those. Its a genuine trade off and worth a discussion. Where Corbyn et al have dug themselves a massive hole is trying to block the classicifation of organisations as terrorist, describing defeats for the UK Government at the hands of terrorists as desirable, of siding with the objectives of terrorists in the midst of a violent campaign (reunification of Ireland, troops out), of describing the death by hunger strike of Bobby Sands as a contribution towards peace etc etc.

The "rap sheet" goes on and on. It's a lifetime's worth of taking sides against the government of the day including your own party. When you want to be the Government that's going to come back and haunt you.

@kimbers the Tories have been trying to "cut their way" to a sustainable level of spending. An analysis of the Labour manifesto showed they will keep 78% of the Tories spending cuts. Spending money is easy, raising it is much more difficult.