Forum menu
sometimes (imo) you have to forgoe civil liberties for security
Not to.mention for the trains running on time. Really - how did that philosophy work out in N Ireland?
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.
You mean like when Theresa May voted 49 times aginst Labour's anti terrorist legilation?
sometimes (imo) you have to forgoe civil liberties for security
[img]
[/img]
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
...although they're not reversing the cuts to any large degree, are they?
sometimes (imo) you have to forgoe civil liberties for security,
and sometimes (imo) you have to forgo security for civil liberties. Difficult isn't it?
Or, Jonny M saying he's a Marxist.
As a matter of interest, Cap'n, which specific writings of Marx do you take issue with? Or are you just, y'know, spouting crap?
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.
Or is it sticking up for your principles?
The sharing fairly bit?
Or is it sticking up for your principles?
Good old Marxist principles
John McD has claimed that borrowing for investment somehow "doesn't count" but I can tell him that as a fund manager
Surely managing investment funds is not the same as running a country?
Borrowing for infrastructure means the money stays in the economy and grows it, so it's different. Even I know the difference between operational and capital expenditure.
May has managed to reduce a 20 point lead down to 5 in just 3 weeks
this against a terrorist loving, marxist, allotment dweller with a numerically dyslexic shadow home sec, that 9 out of 10 media barons are trying to hatchet...
Yeah May will win, but its a shite state of affairs when we have someone so painfully incompetent running the show 😯
Or is it sticking up for your principles?
They were more than his principles, they were the founding principles and values of the Labour Party.
For many years Tony Blair and his self-serving cronies ceased to be Labour politicians, during that period Corbyn (and a few others in the PLP) remained Labour politicians.
Castigating Corbyn for remaining loyal to Labour is as absurd as castigating him for being right about the way to achieve lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
Surely managing investment funds is not the same as running a country?Borrowing for infrastructure means the money stays in the economy and grows it, so it's different. Even I know the difference between operational and capital expenditure.
I think even as a country you still have to make the repayments, or people stop lending to you.
As a country you can play tricks like printing money with which to pay off your debts, but you can only do that so many times before even fund managers start to notice that they're being taken for a ride.
I think even as a country you still have to make the repayments, or people stop lending to you.As a country you can play tricks like printing money with which to pay off your debts, but you can only do that so many times before even fund managers start to notice that they're being taken for a ride.
the whole point of investing in infrastructure is that it pays back itself, obviously it has to be enough to cover the original investment
The biggest problem with using infrastructure spending as an investment vehicle is any payoff is going to be a long term thing, but with the current state of our debt/defecit, we need much quicker results.
Plus its a gamble, and trying to gamble your way out of a sticky spot is extremely dicey, and the results of it going wrong would be extremely unpleasant.
Investment in infrastructure is necessary. Energy, transport, housing, health and social care all need investment. If by spending money on these things the economy grows (as history suggests) then ****ing great.
Why is austerity not a gamble? I'd rather have my money in a well managed investment fund than in a savings account that pays 0.5%
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
ID not confirmed, but it looks suspiciously like a certain person
For many years Tony Blair and his self-serving cronies ceased to be Labour politicians,
What you mean the Labour party were electable?
Is it just me or judging by the postings on this thread are the right wing freaks here become little bit scared?
[img] 
[/img]
Don't worry ninfan we can knock one up of CMD and a pig if you want.
Is that the former MP for Belfast west in front of him? How history might have been different if we could have found a road to peace earlier.
ID not confirmed, but it looks suspiciously like a certain person
george best?
Pinochet, good comparison, murdered about the same as the IRA, tortured a lot more though
and of course Thatcher actually lobbied for him not to be tried for War Crimes, although thatcher was unrepentant to her grave and never condemed him, to be fair he was a great proponent of the free market, so exceptions can obviously be made
Thatcher isn't the one standing for PM funnily enough.
allthepies - Member
Thatcher isn't the one standing for PM funnily enough.
She isn't, damm that is confusing. However I would assume the usual suspects will be along to condemn the behaviour of meeting, harbouring and protecting such people when they should have been dealing with their crimes.
This for me is morally wrong and there is plenty the UK could be doing here
[img]
[/img]Liam Fox’s declaration of “shared values” with Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippines leader whose war on drugs has killed 7,000 people, has prompted dismay about the government’s approach to human rights as it seeks post-Brexit trade deals.The international trade secretary, who will also visit Malaysia and Indonesia on his trip, said in an article published in local media that he wanted Britain to build a stronger relationship with the Philippines based on “a foundation of shared values and shared interests”.
As Fox visited the Philippines, Theresa May was in Saudi Arabia as part of a wider government effort to shore up the UK’s trading position after Brexit. Speaking to the BBC, she refused to criticise the government’s bombardment of Yemen, which is estimated to have killed more than 10,000 civilians and displaced more than 3 million people.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/liam-fox-meets-philippine-president-rodrigo-duterte
While reassuring them that they have his full backing, Duterte told the troops he is ready to bear the consequences of fighting the extremists.Then the president went on to remark: "You can each rape three women and I will protect you".
He also told the troops that they were free to arrest any person or search any house if necessary.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/35672663/philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte-shocking-rape-comments-to-filipino-troops/#page1
How can this be defended?
[quote=mikewsmith said]
She isn't, damm that is confusing.
Well it seems to be confusing a few.
How do you square the current government pandering to Saudi and the Rodrigo Duterte given his current comments that it's OK to rape 3 women and he has the soldiers backs, he has boasted of offing people and sanctioned executions without trial?
just pointing out hypocrisy allthepies
eg
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/09/saudi-arms-sales-lawyers-warn-break-international-law-yemen
[img] 
[/img]
of course our involvment in Middle Eastern wars is keeping us safer and has no blowback for the UK 🙄
Rodrigo Duterte given his current comments that it's OK to rape 3 women and he has the soldiers backs,
but we have shared values with the man!
well Im sure liam fox does
Not to mention that Maybot voted agianst Labours Terror laws 49 times, thats on par with Corbyn 😉
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10426/theresa_may/maidenhead/divisions?policy=1053
Communist
IRA
Terrorist
GOTO Start
Error Error Error
Bot broken
Has anyone managed to explain McDonomics and why the bonds issued to buy the Water Companies won't be debt as stated by both JC and JM?
No because it clearly is. John McDonnell is far from stupid (unlike Corbyn), so I can only assume he's working on the premise that most people don't understand bonds and finance.
Not read it fully. But as a point I don't care as to how it's described, I think those policies are worth a serious look at the moment.
I'd like to see the full breakdowns of current investment and profits made in order to see how it was all performing. Prior to formalising how to bring it back into public ownership a detailed review of the structures in place and efficiencies that can be achieved should be done. That should identify the scope and costings available.
If you maintained the current pricing with zero savings you could repay debt and maintain investments levels while acquiring an asset for the tax payer. Any efficiency from unifying billing and regulatory work would either allow more investment or repayments as it would not be going into private companies.
Not read it fully.
You are Diane Abbott and I claim my £5
Butt as a point I don't care as to how it's described, I think those policies are worth a serious look at the moment.
What problem are you trying to fix?
I'd like to see the full breakdowns of current investment and profits made in order to see how it was all performing.
You can see it now, there is a full review every five years, and they publish the data, you have a number of Quango's that regulate all facets of the industry
Prior to formalising how to bring it back into public ownership a detailed review of the structures in place and efficiencies that can be achieved should be done. That should identify the scope and costings available.
If you haven’t done already how do you know there are efficiencies?
If you maintained the current pricing with zero savings you could repay debt and maintain investments levels while acquiring an asset for the tax payer.
On what basis? How are the “not debt” bonds structured?
Any efficiency from unifying billing and regulatory work would either allow more investment or repayments as it would not be going into private companies.
Is it one billing system or nine? Who pays for the new system? Who pays for the write off of the existing billing systems?
How much do you think the reduction in regulatory work would reduce the average customers bill by?
You can see it now, there is a full review every five years, and they publish the data, you have a number of Quango's that regulate all facets of the industry
That one in 15 reported rising profits and falling investment. Great for the consumer.
How much do you think the reduction in regulatory work would reduce the average customers bill by?
Is that the full aim? How about delivering a fit for the future service and infrastructure.
As for acquiring assets and paying off debts it's a profit making business so diverting the profit into general government debt reduction does contribute.
I see you are comply opposed to public ownership though. If it's a sweetener somebody could flog it again later and a small group of people could make a killing on the privatisation 🙂
small group of people could make a killing on the privatisation
Osborne had more than one best man? 😯
I saw a bit of peston yesterday and was impressed by the way Corbyn actually answered the questions.
He came across as a an educated , honest man.
Still wouldn't vote for him but he is far less punchable than may.
Both on telly tonight aswell.
Anyone remember the equivalent debate last time with Milliband getting the audience members name wrong 3 times lol!
John McDonnell is far from stupid (unlike Corbyn), so I can only assume he's working on the premise that most people don't understand bonds and finance.
Same with corporation tax. I suspect a large number of Corbyn's supporters are blissfully unaware that corporation tax isn't set in isolation. (We reduced ours because "Japan, Spain, Israel, Norway and Estonia had all lowered their tax rates for corporate profits in 2015. Meanwhile, future reductions had been announced by Italy, France and the UK, while Japan planned further cuts." ( https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/22/corporation-tax-downward-trend-oecd-gdp-growth) We basically had to reduce the rate to try to increase revenue. It's simple supply and demand.)
Either they don't understand, or regard taxing wealthy people and businesses to force them abroad as a good thing. They can't possibly believe that there's a massive untapped source of cash available that no other government noticed.
pandering to Saudi and the Rodrigo Duterte
Of course Corbyn is seeking the job which involves pandering to Saudi and the Rodrigo Duterte. Have a read of Robin Cook's book - even if you start out wanting an ethical foreign policy it doesn't survive. In Cooks case it fell apart when 10,000 uk jobs in the same constituency relied on a sale of aircraft dashboards to Israel via the USA.
I must confess, if Corbyn wins I'm going to love all the photos of him shaking hands with Saudi Royals and turning up at Nato meetings. Plus you know all that bad press Southern Trains get? Well if Corbyn nationalizes it all that press is going to be aimed direct at him. Every late train will be the government's fault.
More and more I think Labour are fuelling all this IRA stuff to keep policy out of the press. Their source of cash is a total fiction, and there isn't parliamentary time for all these promises. The "every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" stuff is far less of a vote loser than having to explain the unexplainable: why bonds aren't borrowing or why increasing corporation tax will reduce revenue.
impressed by the way Corbyn actually answered the questions
I think (apart from policy) he's played a blinder in this campaign. Pretty sure his performance has surprised the Tories, his own party, and probably himself. Smooth talking aint going to polish the turd of his policy though, but I don't think his core vote really care about that. Trump got in with a similar "I'm going to borrow a ton of money and make everything better without anyone ever needing to pay for it" message, I'm convinced this is going to be close. (Warning: My political predictions are always wrong.)
Of course Corbyn is seeking the job which involves pandering to Saudi and the Rodrigo Duterte. Have a read of Robin Cook's book - even if you start out wanting an ethical foreign policy it doesn't survive. In Cooks case it fell apart when 10,000 uk jobs in the same constituency relied on a sale of aircraft dashboards to Israel via the USA.
And the point being lots of people are very quick to judge his actions many years ago while ignoring what is going on today by members of the current government. It's called double standards.
How do you square the current government pandering to Saudi and the Rodrigo Duterte given his current comments that it's OK to rape 3 women and he has the soldiers backs, he has boasted of offing people and sanctioned executions without trial?
Because, funnily enough - the Philippines is a generally functioning federalist democracy? Other people and parties hold positions of power, just as the senate and congress do in the United States - it would be pointless to cut ties with a country that will hopefully see the back of Duterte when his term comes to an end.
Isolating a country doesn't usually do much good to them politically - they usually get worse. It's also a country we should be making an effort to support in it's fight against ISIS developing a hold on the ARMM region.
Anyone remember the equivalent debate last time with Milliband getting the audience members name wrong 3 times lol!
That's a bit harsh. Miliband started his tenure badly but got quite slick by the end. You could see the coaching paying off.
May wouldn't have dared call a snap election if Miliband had been leader right now. Which is quite depressing. Does anyone think May is better than Cameron, or Corbyn is better than Miliband? Not many - there's a dearth of political talent right now.
I blame the press, they've made high office such a ball-ache that nobody wants it. (eg: Chukka.)
And the point being lots of people are very quick to judge his actions many years ago while ignoring what is going on today by members of the current government. It's called double standards.
No it's not. The west is typically pally with nasty people for the greater good for Britain. And we're typically not pally with people who would say: "every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us". (Unless there's a really good reason we need to be - intelligence from Gadaffi as Alan Johnson pointed out.)
Corbyn isn't pally with the IRA for the greater good of Britain, he was pally with the IRA because he thinks Ireland should be one state and that terrorism is a good way to defeat Britain and achieve that.
But again, I notice you're very keen to talk about historic terrorism and decidedly reluctant to discuss actual current policy: Why are bonds not borrowing? How can you raise corporation tax without revenue dropping as people move their HQ's abroad?
Pmsl OOB seriously. Go back and could then the posts highlighting this and see who they came from. I'd put the top 3 right wing Trump lovers come out on your list.