Forum menu
Good effort drj. To get it spot on you need to channel a frothing Mark Francois a bit and throw in a few more bingo words “Venezuela” “sixth formers” “trident” etc
The master shows how it's done:
But Corbyn IS a friend to the IRA and HAMAS, DID hold Venezuela up as an example of a Socialist Utopia, and the Shadow Chancellor DOES believe in Marxist economics. Have a read of the utterly bonkers, incoherent Postcapitalism by Paul Mason, a love letter to Marx and early 20th century Soviet Socialism. But hey, free stuff, owls for everyone.
So go on – why is Burnham a good candidate and Corbyn a bad leader when they share the same views on brexit?
Yeaaaaars ago I thought Corbyn would be a good choice for Leader (I voted Labour after he became Leader)… and thought that Burnham would be an awful one… I can be wrong about one, and not the other… but why is that at all relevant to the idea that since then Corbyn has gone down so much in my (and I'm far from alone) estimation?
Do you not think this is a bit of a niche cul-de-sac with regards to a present thread about Magic Grandad TJ? An expression of preference from the last leadership election 3 years ago?
I wasn't aware of Andy Burnhams Brexit position Uncle Jezza. But then he's not the one setting labour party policy on the issue, so why would I?. Given that his opinions have absolutely no bearing on things as he's not even an MP
But if it makes you feel better... having googled his opinion on Brexit, he can **** right off as well then.
As for playing the race card in the Manchester election? I've absolutely no idea what you're on about. Google isn't bringing anything up either, so you're going to have to enlighten me....
he can **** right off as well then.
Cool - that will do. He made a really nasty speech stoking up anti immigration feeling in the campaign for the mayor
The tragic part of all of this is that the opposition have had probably the biggest open goal to shoot at for decades and have somehow managed to spectacularly scuff the shot in a way that, if it was a real football incident, would be a viral YouTube video clip seen and laughed at by millions. The Tories seem to be doing their level best to wrestle themselves to the ground by the corner flag while everyone just watches on and Vince Cable seems to have disappeared for half time refreshments and not come back. I don't think I have ever felt this strongly before that it wouldn't be worst thing in the world if the whole lot of them at Westminster Palace disappeared into a vortex never to be seen again.
Is the story about JC asking to meet Trump true? BBC are reporting it as though it is, but I haven't heard if it's been confirmed or denied by Labour.
If it's true it seems barking. Corbyn's refusing to attend the state dinner where Trump's role is a figurehead of his nation, but *is* willing to meet Trump the politician.
I appreciate their have plenty of political common ground - their economic policy is near identical: stimulus on steroids whether it's the right time in the cycle or not. But I'd have thought a sane stance would be the exact opposite: Meet Trump in his HoS role, but refuse to meet Trump in his political role. And I'd have thought many people would want Corbyn not to meet Trump in either role.
I can't make sense of it.
"I can’t make sense of it."
Refuse to have dinner with someone then immediately ask for a meeting. Bonkers. I suspect it is true or else Corbyn would have denied it surely?
“I can’t make sense of it.”
Obviously Jeremy is the only person in the land that is capable of bringing the entire country together, so with refusing and requesting to meet trump will appeal to everyone.
A cunning plan if ever there was one!
Obviously Jeremy is the only person in the land that is capable of bringing the entire country together, so with refusing and requesting to meet trump will appeal to everyone.
A cunning plan if ever there was one!
Jackie Smith said the same about the Brexit strategy. Bringing everyone together by being vague about what the strategy is.
Did you see his happy little face yesterday though? Back in his comfort zone and natural habitat...
“I can’t make sense of it.”
I reckon the angle JC is going for is "happy to meet you in a business role (two politicians discussing potential policy), not happy to meet you in a social role designed to honour you as a visitor to the country (because you're a *ty human being)". Same scenario as if you had to meet with a *ty client - you'd be polite and businesslike at work, but you wouldn't socialise with them because they're a ****.
^ That is how I saw it. Don't go to a party thrown in their honour, do go to business meeting with them. Makes sense to me if it is someone important who is also a ****
I reckon the angle JC is going for is “happy to meet you in a business role (two politicians discussing potential policy), not happy to meet you in a social role designed to honour you as a visitor to the country (because you’re a *ty human being)”. Same scenario as if you had to meet with a *ty client – you’d be polite and businesslike at work, but you wouldn’t socialise with them because they’re a *.
Not so. State visits are exclusively and by definition for Nations and represented by their Heads of State and are nothing to do with the individual who happens to be the HoS at the time. (Eg the US HoS gets a state visit to every big D-Day commemoration regardless of who the HoS is.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_visits_received_by_Elizabeth_II
So I think Corbyn's doing the opposite of what you say. Trying to honour the man/politician with a meeting, but refusing to Honour the Nation via their HoS.
Same scenario as if you had to meet with a *ty client – you’d be polite and businesslike at work, but you wouldn’t socialise with them because they’re a ****.
The state dinner *is* undeniably work, I very much doubt the Queen and other people attending want to be there, but, it's their job. Trump and the Queen are attending as Heads of State, if either of them weren't Heads of State they wouldn't be there. Meetings outside it might be work, but might not. In Corbyn's case I'd guess both are work. (Assuming the Leader of the Opposition is supposed to be there, maybe he's not in which case I'm not sure why it's significant.)
Don’t go to a party thrown in their honour, do go to business meeting with them.
I think you've got it the wrong way round. If not that explains it and it makes sense, but a quick google suggests that's not the case and it's mental.
Obviously Jeremy is the only person in the land that is capable of bringing the entire country together, so with refusing and requesting to meet trump will appeal to everyone.
A cunning plan if ever there was one!
Which is EXACTLY the same position as the leader of the Liberal Democrats has. The only difference is that the chattering classes on STW aren't keen to make petty point-scoring comments aimed at the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
This is the same leader of the Liberal Democrats, now the new hero of the chattering classes on STW, who as Business Secretary in the coalition government of 2010-15, along with LibDem Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander, were among the most vocal supporters of austerity :
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/22/budget-taxandspending
A policy which only a couple of weeks ago was denounced by the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights as a clear violation of human rights obligations (and also a policy which btw Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to reverse)
Quote from the UN report :
"Considering the significant resources available in the country and the sustained and widespread cuts to social support, which have resulted in significantly worse outcomes, the policies pursued since 2010 amount to retrogressive measures in clear violation of the country's human rights obligations"
This is what Vince Cable had to say about Donald Trump's state visit to the UK :
“There is no problem with doing business with the American government, but, he shouldn’t be honoured in any particular way, most American Presidents are not."
Vince Cable clearly doesn't have a problem with talking to Donald Trump, but he did not approve of him being offered a state visit. Which is precisely why Vince Cable refused to attend the state banquet too.
So why no criticism of Vince Cable on STW? I can't be because of hypocrisy - surely not?
And to give a fuller picture, this was the Green Party's views on Trump's state visit when it was first announced:
"It is deeply disappointing that in its desperation to pander to the new US President the Government has ignored almost 2 million British people who made it clear they do not want to give a racist misogynist the highest honour our country has to offer.
"Donald Trump’s presidency has already been marked by an utterly disgraceful travel ban, while his apparent intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement highlights his contempt for environmental protection.
"We should be showing backbone and leadership by taking a stand against the President's damaging policies - not rolling out a red carpet."
Jeremy Corbyn has always made it abundantly clear that he willing to talk to people of all political hues, including those with whom he strongly disagrees, especially when it is to promote and advance justice and peace. In fact he has often been criticized for doing precisely that.
It is accepted protocol for the visiting head of state on a state visit to the UK to meet with the Leader of HM opposition. Corbyn decided that it would provide the opportunity to talk on a range of issues including, the climate emergency, threats to peace, and the refugee crises, so an invitation was issued.
That does not in anyway conflict with his decision not to attend a lavish over opulent banquet in Buckingham Palace attended by an elite assortment of self-serving sycophants, and instead talk to tens of thousands of people in Central London deeply concerned with the climate emergency, LGBT rights, global justice, racism, poverty, and misogyny.
Can you imagine the outcry if Corbyn had agreed to attend the state banquet? There are indeed valid reasons to criticise Corbyn, his attitude towards Donald Trump isn't one of them.
This is the same leader of the Liberal Democrats, now the new hero of the chattering classes on STW, who as Business Secretary in the coalition government of 2010-15, along with LibDem Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander, were among the most vocal supporters of austerity :
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/22/budget-taxandspending /blockquote>
He called for an EU referendum in 2007 as well.
This is what Vince Cable had to say about Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK :
“There is no problem with doing business with the American government, but, he shouldn’t be honoured in any particular way, most American Presidents are not.”It's bollocks though. Every landmark D-Day Anniversary the president gets a state visit. It's not honouring the individual, it's honouring the nation via it's head of state. Cable's position is as mental as Corbyn's. Ironically, Trump is probably the only person in the world who actually thinks the state visit is to honour him personally.
Which is precisely why Vince Cable refused to attend the state banquet too.
I'm staggered the leader of a party with 11 MPs is expected to go.
So why no criticism of Vince Cable on STW?
For the same reason that people don't start threads about the weird things Mad Vera from 3 doors down does. Mad Vera From three doors down is (currently) utterly irrelevant. If MVFTDD (Or Vince) could whip 229 seats in the HoC I'm sure there would be scrutiny of her.
“It is deeply disappointing that in its desperation to pander to the new US President the Government has ignored almost 2 million British people who made it clear they do not want to give a racist misogynist the highest honour our country has to offer.
“Donald Trump’s presidency has already been marked by an utterly disgraceful travel ban, while his apparent intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement highlights his contempt for environmental protection.
“We should be showing backbone and leadership by taking a stand against the President’s damaging policies – not rolling out a red carpet.”Did they then try to arrange a meeting with him?
Jeremy Corbyn has always made it abundantly clear that he willing to talk to people of all political hues, including those with whom he strongly disagrees
Chukka? Blair? The contrast of the people he won't speak to and the people he will reflect terribly on him.
Can you imagine the outcry if Corbyn had agreed to attend the state banquet?
I wouldn't have a problem with it. The USA helped us out 75 years ago. Every 25 years we invite the US HoS over as a thankyou to the American people. Apparently the Leader of the Opposition has some kind of involvement in part of the ceremonial guff around that and it's part of his job to attend. I've no problem with that. I presume as PM these responsibilities will be impossible to duck so he might as well get used to it.
As I say, ironically, Trump is probably the only person in the world who actually thinks the state visit is to honour him personally.
I'm shocked to discover that you don't agree with me outofbreath.
I’m shocked to discover that you don’t agree with me outofbreath.
Good to have you back though, the forum is much better for your posts.
Why thank you. And it's good to be back in polite company.
I'll second that it's good to have you back ernie!
I slagged off the LibDems on the Euro thread.They betrayed their supporters and the country when they had a once in a generation chance to alter the politcal landscape.Corrupted by power,austerity enablers.
Chukka? Blair?
Why would he talk to them? Who does Chukka represent other than his own ambition? As for Blair, he's spent the last 15 years trying to whitewash the blood stains on his hands. His contributions on modern politics are nothing more than a desperate attempt to secure a legacy that isn't in the form of hundreds of thousands of dead civilians.
Chukka and Blair have made it clear that nothing can be achieved by talking to them, much like Trump. There's no point talking to people with closed minds. What he should be doing is talking to the likes of the Green Party, tory moderates and labour brexiteers in an attempt to bring them together against Farage and Boris. The libdems too maybe if they can demonstrate that they are interested in anything other than their own electoral interests.
Chukka and Blair have made it clear that nothing can be achieved by talking to them, much like Trump. There’s no point talking to people with closed minds.
So he won't talk to Chukka or Blair because they have closed minds, but will talk to Trump, Xi Jinping, Hamas, the IRA because he thinks they're so open minded?
To correct myself It's not that they have open minds, but that they have power and the ability to change things, whereas Chukka and Blair have very little.
NHS budgets doubled under Blair. How's Corbyn doing?
To correct myself It’s not that they have open minds, but that they have power and the ability to change things, whereas Chukka and Blair have very little.
Correct yourself. Or to put it another way come up with another hypothesis when your first desperate hypothesis to explain it away turned out to be nonsense.
Or to put it another way come up with another hypothesis when your first desperate hypothesis to explain it away turned out to be nonsense.
We're all entitled to change our minds. You should try it sometime. 😉
NHS budgets doubled under Blair. How’s Corbyn doing?
It's all well and good for £billions of the NHS budget to go into the coffers of private contractors hungry for profit, but how much of it went into patient care? Personally I would prefer if it was all of it.
The NHS was created to make people healthier, not wealthier. A point which Blair seems apparently to have forgotten.
"The NHS has more than 100 PFI hospitals. The original cost of these 100 institutions was around £11.5bn. In the end, they will cost the public purse nearly £80bn."
And I think you might be exaggerating Corbyn's magic capabilities. Yes, in his first general election he did increase Labour's share of the vote by more than Blair ever managed to do, but I'll remind you that Blair also didn't do anything for the NHS between 1994 and 1997. He didn't even manage, during that period, to burden it with massive and crippling PFI debts.
The taxpayers paid for Tony Blair's huge generosity to private contractors, they are still paying for it now, and they will continue to pay for it for many years to come. So I would temper your enthusiasm and suggest somewhat more muted celebrations.
Aye oop Ernie. Good to have you back comrade. The Croydon communist has been Missed 😃
Looking at the Corbynite social media it looks like Emily Thornberry is now persona non grata, and the latest to be airbrushed out of the politburo photographs. On top of John Macdonnel and Dianne Abbot last week
There can’t be many left in the bunker now. Just Seamus telling Jeremy what to do, Malcolm Tucker style
I was never gone binners, just incommunicado*. I still followed the forum of sorts, including of course the great EU thread. It's amazing how a dozen or so totally committed individuals have managed to keep that thread alive for so many years. All credit to you binners, your daily rants have played no small part in that. And of course you've never stopped posting those 2 hilarious stills from The Life of Brian. Oh how I have laughed, please never ever stop posting them. I'm sure you never will.
* It was seeing the very sad news of Bullhearts passing away which prompted me to re-register so that I could post my tribute on that thread. Despite never meeting him I found his determination inspirational. I cycled down to his funeral as a mark of respect.
Once re-registered it was easy to post the odd comment, too easy I guess. But not easy enough that I want to engage in that much discourse. If you know what I mean brav.
Always good to hear your views, fella
And you know I’ll never let you down on the PFJ front 😉
Looking at the Corbynite social media
Is there a special app for that?
Red Labour is my favourite. Its like a sort of left wing Corbynite mix of ISIS, Stalinism and North Korea
Designed to appeal to marginal swing voters in marginal seats, obviously
Looking at the Corbynite social media it looks like Emily Thornberry is now persona non grata, and the latest to be airbrushed out of the politburo photographs. On top of John Macdonnel and Dianne Abbot last week
There can’t be many left in the bunker now. Just Seamus telling Jeremy what to do, Malcolm Tucker style
All this stuff you are saying is just in your head, you do know that don't you?
So - Perterbough by election
the sitting labour MP found guilty of a crime and thrown out of the party, a 60% brexit voting seat, a massive amount of free publicity for the brexit party and still a labour win with the tories absolutely hammered. Looking at the results few labour votes went to the brexit party.
And as a wee bonus the brexit candidate outed themself as racist!
Ernie - what do you say to this idea that is continually expressed on here that Corbyn has taken labour policy into the realms of the hard left? I see it more as moving labour from centre right / christian democrat under blair to centre left / social democratic.
In defence of PFI it did at the time directly benefit millions of NHS patients, without out it a modernisation of the NHS infrastructure would never have happened in the way it did. The new hospitals it built are vast improvements on buildings in some cases as old as queen Victoria. Ask anyone who's worked in one.
It has however passed the bill onto future generations, but I suppose they will be the ones who benefit from them.
Anyway a 700 vote victory and 17% swing away from labour might be close enough for Corby & the 4Ms to realise the current strategy is a terrible one, but I bet it won't.
Your defense of PFI is simply wrong. Its had significant extra costs from the start. the reason for it was althugh private companies pay more for credit it does not appear on the PSBR.
If the same hospitals had been built by direct government action the costs would have been lower from day one. thus for the same spend we could have had more hospitals built.
I'm not defending the nature of PFI or the terrible contracts negotiated as part of it
But I question whether those 100+ hospitals would ever have been built without it.
Certainly not under new labour , the Tories or any government we are likely to have in the foreseeable.
Looking at the results few labour votes went to the brexit party.
Even better than that, labour still won with a slightly increased majority even though they lost 17% of their vote share. This means that the rightwing vote is split between the tories and the brexit party. If this is repeated nationally labour are a shoe-in for the next election.
Ernie – what do you say to this idea that is continually expressed on here that Corbyn has taken labour policy into the realms of the hard left?
I assume that you asking the question because you know the answer TJ!
It is very difficult for the Tories, those in the Conservative Party, New Labour, and the LibDems, to attack Corbyn on specific individual policies. We know that from the result of the 2017 general election.
Up until the 2017 general election campaign Labour support, according to all the opinion polls, had collapsed. The clear evidence was that Corbyn had been successfully vilified in the press and media, and if a general election was to be called Labour would suffer a crushing defeat at the hands of the Tories who would win a staggering landslide victory. That indeed was precisely why Teresa May called an early election, ie, the outcome was apparently guaranteed.
What actually happened, as we all now know, was that instead of Labour electoral armageddon Labour's share of the vote increased by more than any time since the end of World War 2 and the Conservatives lost their parliamentary majority.
So what the **** happened? Well under strictly enforced electoral rules Labour/Corbyn had to be afforded a fair and equal share of broadcasters output. This led to not only to Corbyn being given the opportunity to discuss his policies but for the policies themselves to come under intense scrutiny.
The result was that Corbyn's policies were found to resonate with a huge swathe of British public opinion, including in fact some Tory voters. You can in fact see the sudden change in the opinion polls when the Labour Party's 2017 election manifesto was first leaked to the press, after that Labour's share in the opinion polls steadily rose.
The general election of 2017 is now but a distance memory and Corbyn is once again attacked on a daily basis for being hard left. Plus with the now newly added extra ingredient of also being a racist who hates Jews. The number one priority is that Corbyn should not be allowed to talk about his policies, especially as they will be once again limited in that goal when the next general election campaign is declared.
On the specific question of how left-wing Corbyn's policies are, well the policies of Harold Macmillan's governments were significantly more left-wing than those proposed by Corbyn. Which of course beggars the question how hard-left were Macmillan's governments? I'll let you decide on that one.
Whilst I am generally supportive of Corbyn as the alternatives are simply too horrendous imo, I do consider him to be a bit too right-wing for the radical changes which I believe the UK requires.
BTW have I ever mentioned that Harold Macmillan (sometimes referred to as Harold Macmillian the council house builder) was the greatest Tory Prime Minister ever had?
my goodness so much nonsense 🙂
It’s all well and good for £billions of the NHS budget to go into the coffers of private contractors hungry for profit, but how much of it went into patient care? Personally I would prefer if it was all of it.
Same proportion as previously. Hospitals and health systems are big and complicated, and don't just run themselves. Would you count a ward manager as direct patient care? The people who run the lab doing tests on blood? The people who negotiate bulk purchase of drugs (at 33% of what they pay in the US system??
The NHS was created to make people healthier, not wealthier. A point which Blair seems apparently to have forgotten.
“The NHS has more than 100 PFI hospitals. The original cost of these 100 institutions was around £11.5bn. In the end, they will cost the public purse nearly £80bn.”
Over what period of time? I'm not going to argue for the brilliance of pfi, but hospitals that were needed were built quickly, and these sums are not large in the context of the NHS budget.
And I think you might be exaggerating Corbyn’s magic capabilities. Yes, in his first general election he did increase Labour’s share of the vote by more than Blair ever managed to do,
that was the post coalition collapse of the lib dem vote. The conservative vote also had its biggest increase. That was down to the woeful performance of lib dems propping up a tory govt, not to anything labour, who lost the election, did. I know people who regard it as some kind of victory for socialism. For ****'s sake...
but I’ll remind you that Blair also didn’t do anything for the NHS between 1994 and 1997. He didn’t even manage, during that period, to burden it with massive and crippling PFI debts.
Actually the NHS budget grew 4.4% over the first Blair govt, on a historic trend of 3.6% growth. Not dramatic I'll agree but in the right direction and more than the tories, and it takes time to turn of the taps, train and recruit people so money's not wasted.
The taxpayers paid for Tony Blair’s huge generosity to private contractors, they are still paying for it now, and they will continue to pay for it for many years to come. So I would temper your enthusiasm and suggest somewhat more muted celebrations.
How about numbers rather than rhetoric? Perhaps start with some reading...
It's not an unmixed picture for sure, but it's not bad and a lot better than now. And obviously outcomes are what matter (vastly reduced waiting times, increased patient satisfaction, child mortality down from 5.9 to 4.3 deaths per thousand in first year of life etc etc), inputs are just a means.
Thank you for your thoughtful critique johnx2. However I must point out a couple of obvious schoolboy errors. Firstly you claim that the 9.6% increase in Labour vote in the 2017 general election" was down to the woeful performance of lib dems". The LibDem vote in the 2017 general election fell by 0.5%. Work out the maths.
Secondly, to counter my claim that Blair also didn’t do anything for the NHS between 1994 and 1997 you provide NHS budgetary figures for a period after 1997. Have a hard think about that one.
And finally, your claim that "obviously outcomes are what matter", seems to suggest that "cost" has no relevance. I'm a carpenter John, if I came to your house to ease your front door and it took me half an hour do you think I would be entitled to say "well the door shuts now, you got what you wanted, that's what matters" when you queried the bill for £680? Think about that one too.
But I question whether those 100+ hospitals would ever have been built without it.
Of course they culd and should have been. The only reason for PFI and its varients was to keep borrowed money off the PSBR. That and it was intended to put money into the hands of the tories friends,
Admin cost grew greatly in England ( post SNP win in scotland they got rid ofg all the PFI/ internal market / trusts nonsense) to over 20% of budget from under 10%.
The same money spent sensibly could have improved the NHS much more.
I give the labour party a B- on this. Yes it did make a difference and budgets did rise even a rise in the amount of money spent on clinical work. But around half of the increase was swallowed up in admin and costs associated with PFI.
Secondly, to counter my claim that Blair also didn’t do anything for the NHS between 1994 and 1997
He had the Major govt on the ropes, and 20%behind in the polls, and then replaced it in the '97 landslide?