Jeremy Corbyn

But in the end, his reasons for quitting are exactly the reasons people expressed for doubting him

I was more interested in how he acted than what he believed. Compare and contrast with Theresa May and her voting record on gay rights.

The Treasury has more up-to-date estimates than the ONS, and uses slightly different accounting methods. They show that the UK government paid in £13.1 billion in 2016.

That's still £252mil/wk, and would have had exactly the same effect on the side of a bus. For most people 100's of millions are fairly incomprehensible numbers which can be approximated as a *load.
So if £252mil = *load, and £350mil = ****load then £252mil = £350mil.

its not an accurate figure we literally do not send that [and the figure above ignores the £4 billion we get back]and we all know it, therefore it is a lie

Well no, we don't all know it, and therein lies the problem.
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.

That is not a bad idea !

fifeandy - Member

That's still £252mil/wk, and would have had exactly the same effect on the side of a bus.

Apparently the Leave campaign didn't think so- they felt it necessary to inflate it for greater impact.

All leave (or others do) is use unregulated social media to post that it's all lies...
The number as I've said before was used to hold discussion and keep people away from the massive issues. It worked, leave admitted it others seem to have missed the point and think it was actually true. And when pointed out what the sum is in relation to other budget items - like 5bn on railways per year...

coming back to the point about nhs funding, i really don't understand this idea that private health insurance is the way forward.
it's basically another tax, except now you have to fund the business side of things, as well as provide the healthcare.
where does the money come from?
the basic premise of the nhs is to keep a healthy, productive workforce - the basis of a strong economy.
if you're going to have a baseline of emergency care anyway ( which i presume you do, and don't just let the poor die on the streets ) then it's been shown time and again that when people get health problems, the earlier they present for care, the better the result, and the less money it costs in treatment overall. spend sooner, save later.
i really don't understand this notion that a public body cannot provide effective delivery of services where a private organisation, which also has to yield a dividend, could. it's nonsense.

Del - Member

coming back to the point about nhs funding, i really don't understand this idea that private health insurance is the way forward.

It's very popular with people who can afford the insurance and don't like the idea of supporting people who can't. If everyone bought the insurance, it'd work out far more expensive for the reason you state but the idea is, not everyone can or will.

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.

Yeah, but the choice of what information to put in such a booklet is itself a potentially partisan choice. What do you include and what do you leave out?

coming back to the point about nhs funding, i really don't understand this idea that private health insurance is the way forward.

Works great in the USA!

Oh ...

Hang on a mo' ...

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

Agree and exactly what I suggested many months ago in the Referendum thread. Yes, clearly difficult to get completely non biased but a damn sight better that lying leave and remain campaigns that just caused confusion at best and a dodgy result at worst.

coming back to the point about nhs funding, i really don't understand this idea that private health insurance is the way forward.

[i]*we probably need to increase tax take too.[/i]

the basic premise of the nhs is to keep a healthy, productive workforce

Unfortunately the NHS is more about fixing broken people than promoting and assisting in keeping people healthy (which ultimately I reckon would be cheaper).

Is it the NHS' job or governments/other depts jobs to perform promotion and maintaining of health.
And whoevers job it is where is the money coming from to do it as the current money for fixing broken people is already not enough to cover that.

So again, boils down to money.

Unfortunately the NHS is more about fixing broken people than promoting and assisting in keeping people healthy (which ultimately I reckon would be cheaper).

Stuff like this never flies, free gym pool etc always ends up why are they getting "something for nothing". Sod the it's cheaper in the long run argument the politics of envy wins every time.

Anyway - there must be an NHS thread somewhere.

Back on track.
Corbyn has just announced his new cabinet members. No reshuffle, this is just filling in the vacancies:
[img] :large[/img]

What no gerry Adams?

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.

I'd be interested in hearing a chat between OS/JC now to see how well they get on.

Owen Smith was a spin doctor for big pharma. Let's hope there's some more substance to him than appears to be the case.

ransos - Member

Owen Smith was a spin doctor for big pharma. Let's hope there's some more substance to him than appears to be the case.

Works great in the USA!

Oh ...

Hang on a mo' ...

Yeah 'cos that's the only working health model based on insurance 🙄

For me the benefit of insurance would be the money would be going into a fund designed to be run solely for health care and at arms reach from the government. Whereas in the UK all the tax gets dumped into the Treasury big pot, then split out from there, hence becomes more of a political football.

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

You'd better tell the French and Germans they are deluded then.

You really think so Dragon? Source?

OK are the schemes fully morally invested or are they part of a company or government vehicle?

You'd better tell the French and Germans they are deluded then.

Never looked at German system before but a quick search shows me that the cheapest public health insurance in Germany is 150 EUR per month.

Would you expect someone on minimum wage, zero hours, no job etc,. to be paying over £100 on health insurance in UK? Do you think that is a good system?

Guess the system you are talking about is not that one...

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.