Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
What I want is the difference one gets between a road bike and MTB , they are designed to different things.
The Greeks tried that. They found out that there wasn't really a choice of bike after all.
Labour behaved differently to tories - are you seriously going to argue against this?
I am.
If one party spent more on something they must have either spent less on something else, borrowed or found a way to increase tax revenue.
Increasing tax revenue is very hard, my recollection is they took a bit out of Pensions by ending 'dividend tax credit'. I don't recall big cuts anywhere else, so broadly they must have borrowed. Which they did, and now we're paying it back, so on average there's been no change.
If a government could increase productivity per person they could make a difference, but that's very hard to do.
So yeah, broadly speaking democratic govts behave about the same because they're facing similar challenges. We see this abroad as well as in the UK.
it's how you share out the money. Tories tend not to do so on universal health provision for everyone's benefit. Labour have done this.
...anyway. How democratic is NEC's suspension of constituency meetings? Or has this been done up thread?
it's how you share out the money. Tories tend not to do so on universal health provision for everyone's benefit.
Cite.
[quote=johnx2 ]I'm not talking bikes, I'm talking doubling spending on the NHS.
and not understanding analogies
This whole Corbyn thing seems pretty simple to me, he is never going to pursuade swing voters that he has a compelling proposition by continuing to address rallies of momentum supporters. He needs to get a decent PR team and get on TV to tell the undecided what he has to offer. If he is obstinate enough to believe that he can bring labour to power without doing this, and by ignoring his team, that were elected under Millibands mandate, not his, then he is on a hiding to absolutley nothing.
Regardless of his politics labour desperatley needs someone to do leadership better, and thats to address the media and the direct team to engage the electorate, not the bloody members he is always banging on about.
Cite
since you ask so nicely...
http://www.health.org.uk/chart-how-did-uk-nhs-spending-change-over-different-parliaments
my recollection is they took a bit out of Pensions
From Private pensions Labour took £5bn a year and the raid on pensions reduced the value of retirement funds by over £100bn.
TBH with you along with the Iraq war this was up there as one of the worst Blair / Brown year policies with the result that the countries pension system in a huge mess.
djglover - Member
This whole Corbyn thing seems pretty simple to me, he is never going to pursuade swing voters that he has a compelling proposition by continuing to address rallies of momentum supporters...
I'm not so sure about that.
If you look at Scotland that's exactly how the SNP did an almost clean sweep of the other parties (56 out of 59 seats). That and a public that believe that the politicians they are electing will pursue the policies they are espousing.
Like it did with the SNP it will need a few years to achieve this level of support. If I was a Tory PM I'd be looking for an excuse to have a GE sooner than 2020 to prevent this happening.
epicylco, you're drinking too much SNP cool aid. The SNP are not a grass root movement. They are top down.
They got to power from a combination of slick advertising, some grassroots, a change in perception of westminster politics and taking advantage of an incredibly weak Labour party.
Corbyn won't sweep into power in the back of hustings, that only a few percent of the people actually attend.
seosamh77 - Member
epicylco, you're drinking too much SNP cool aid...
No, I only vote SNP for one reason. Independence. I don't care how they manage their party internally.
However I do watch them closely and they seemed to have mastered the trust perception issue - maybe because of party discipline or maybe because it's a very simple one issue cause. As long as they are credibly pursuing independence, they could have Attila the Hun in charge as far as I care (actually he wasn't a bad bloke - I think a Blairite was in charge of the Roman media at the time. 🙂 )
Absolue genius from Stephen Collins in this mornings Guardian....
[url= https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7325/28341754895_8382b5cbe8_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7325/28341754895_8382b5cbe8_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/KbsUjt ]Screen Shot 2016-07-16 at 12.58.57[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/14162682@N00/ ]bin lid[/url], on Flickr
😆
He's still better than Chris Evans.
I liked Mark Steel in the Independent, he helped me to understand why binners is so supportive of the coup against Corybn :
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyns-supporters-are-so-dangerous-they-took-over-labour-before-they-were-even-born-a7136711.html ]Jeremy Corbyn's supporters are so dangerous they took over the Labour Party before they were even born[/url]
[i]Eagle claims that she could win a general election – and to be fair she might have a slight chance, as long as she’s allowed to keep all the other parties off the ballot paper. She does have a gift for explaining her ideas, after all. Asked on the Today programme why she voted for the Iraq war, she said “I’m a Northern working class girl who understands the nuances of modern life.” [/i]
Ah yes, [b]"a Northern working class girl who understands the nuances of modern life"[/b]........binners's kind of woman.
It carries on :
[i]That put the Chilcot report in its place. It was all very well Sir John writing millions of words about weapons inspectors and UN resolutions, but instead of that waffle he should have asked everyone if they were from the North. Tomorrow she’ll be asked, “Why are you in favour of Trident?” and her answer will be “I’ve been to Manchester and understand the rules of table tennis.”[/i]
[b]"he should have asked everyone if they were from the North"
"I’ve been to Manchester and understand the rules of table tennis"[/b]
lol
They miss report *all* Politicians.
A couple of stories from Labour MPs have come out recently which speak to Corbyn's lack of leadership:
From Bristol MP Thangam Debbonaire:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
And from Newcastle MP, Chi Onwurah:
"I nominated Jeremy Corbyn because I didn’t want the debate to within the party to continue as it had. I was tired of pussyfooting around the fabled centre ground of politics which seemed to be defined as anywhere a tad to the kinder side of Tory policies. I wanted a party whose deep Labour roots fed a passion and commitment to making a better country for all of us.
And when Jeremy was elected with his huge mandate I welcomed the opportunity to change the economic narrative, to grow our party and champion real, radical change. As Shadow Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy I looked forward to working, under Jeremy’s leadership, on subjects I was passionate and indeed knowledgeable about.
But unfortunately that leadership did not emerge. The timing of the no-confidence vote was certainly not of my choosing, I wanted to focus on holding the Government to account and, critically, determine the narrative of Brexit. The Labour Party needed to recognise the hard work of our Remain campaigners, accept the outcome, commit to hold the Government to account for it and demonstrate determination to develop a Brexit that worked for ordinary people.
Unfortunately, what we got from the Leader’s office was an email promoting the two main Labour Leave campaigners, followed by another triumphantly explaining why Jeremy was the man of the moment – the voice of the Leave voter, and then a call for Article 50 to be triggered immediately. That combination of ineptitude and arrogance, added to the experience of the past ten months, determined my vote."
Wow. JC has never been in charge of anything, its clear he has no management or keadsrship skills. Chairman of Stop the War is really not the same as leading a department as a Minister never mind a party
Unfortunately, what we got from the Leader’s office was an email promoting the two main Labour Leave campaigners, followed by another triumphantly explaining why Jeremy was the man of the moment – the voice of the Leave voter, and then a call for Article 50 to be triggered immediately. That combination of ineptitude and arrogance, added to the experience of the past ten months, determined my vote."
Even I couldn't make this up !
You dont even get it right when describing what sort of stuff you are capable of making up....is there nothing you can get right? 😛
Warning:joke content to be clear
Its a mess for sure
The longer it goes on the less likely I am to vote for Corbyn
Jamba - I think we've got it cracked:
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[img] 
[/img]
So... as predicted when he announced it.. Jeremy has shown his political guile by blundering straight into Dave's enormous, and clearly signposted elephant trap
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/17/corbyn-puts-trident-fore-labour-divisions-deepen ]Labour leader tells the Guardian he has been campaigning for peace all his life and will put nuclear disarmament at the heart of his re-election campaign[/url]
I'm sure it'll go down a storm in the 80's political theme park that is the present labour party 'membership'. Meanwhile anyone outside the 6th form common room will shake there heads at the naive predictability of it, then wander off to see which far more pressing issues the grown up are talking about this week
I also hate people who campaign for peace and dont like weapons of mass destruction
I show this by simply attacking them in a childish manner then accusing them of being immature
Defeat his argument on nukes rather than just kick him
PS your appeal to the authority if the electorate is the aame electorate who just voted Brezit.
I never knew you so admired their judgments on complicated matters
I also hate people who campaign for peace and dont like weapons of mass destruction
Or you could be less emotive, and hysterical, (not to mention less 80's) and use the phrase that he's actually advocating...
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament. Which is something quite different, and prefectly demonstrates how hopelessly naive his political judgement is.
[img] 
[/img]
WHOOSH! Back to the 80's we go! And as we've said before.... those who don't learn by history, are doomed to repeat it
Defeat his argument on nukes rather than just kick him
Good morning electorate.
I presently have in my hand a cricket bat with some nails through the end of it.
Around us are lots of other people also holding cricket bats with nails through the end of them. Some of them are proper mad, nasty bastards, and they don't like us very much
There are also some even nastier bastards, who are frankly psychotic, proper nutjobs, presently figuring out how to get the nails through the end of their cricket bats.
What I am proposing is that we ditch our cricket bat with nails through the end of it, and rely instead on the goodwill of the proper nasty, mad bastards, who don't like us very much, to not use their cricket bats with nails through the end of them.
I'm sure it'll all be fine
Vote for me! Then lets all have a nice sing song 😀
Binners - I thought Corbyn's policy was to build the submarines in order to retain the jobs, but not actually put any nukes in them?
Which to me seems very odd.
I see that Thangam Debonnaire has reported receiving death threats from a Bristol University student who told her to 'get in the sea'. Presumably the student plans on drowning her.
Binners - I thought Corbyn's policy was to build the submarines in order to retain the jobs, but not actually put any nukes in them?
So far from not learning from the 80's, when everyone thought the labour parties policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament was insane, he's had a good think about how how he could make it even more bonkers?
And he's played a blinder!
Spending billions on building the delivery sytem, but having nothing to deliver from it, and therefore rendering them complete white elephants with an absolutely ****ing enormous price tag hanging off them.
Genius!!!
No wonder Dave dropped the Trident debate in as his parting gift. I'm sure he'll be sat back laughing his tits off watching this farce!
Binners - I thought Corbyn's policy was to build the submarines in order to retain the jobs, but not actually put any nukes in them?
It is. He's a political genius.
Indeed binners, Corbyn's position on defence is a mass vote loser. He has given MPs a free vote I imagine fully in the knowledge that applying the whip is pointless as most Labour MPs will ignore him and it. The subs without weapons is comedy gold.
He couldn't whip - because the whip would have to be for party policy which is 'for'. He's rebelling himself. What's weird is that Emily Thornberry is abstaining!
I think the subs-no bombs line was to appease the union who weren't going to back him because of jobs, hopefully by now he's either had time to assure them that jobs would be found, got the backing of the union regardless, or decided it was a silly thing to do.
Bizarre situation when the leader is voting against party policy.
Malcolm Tucker has this one summed up:
"Jesus Christ, see you… You're a ****ing omnishambles, that's what you are. You're like that coffee machine, you know: from bean to cup, you **** up."
[s]@ Binners How many nations have used nukes? How many have them? Have all the other non nuclear nations been nuked ? Given this how can you argue it sonly our "cricket bat" that stops us being nukes/ [/s]
ah **** it jamby agrees with you ...go away and think about that
its worth noting that attitudes to nukes is about the same as attitudes to the EU its a pretty even 50/50 split unless you get all your news from the RW media.
ah **** it jamby agrees with you ...go away and think about that
Cats are lying down with dogs, it truly is the end of days.
As ridiculous political fudges go though, the multi-billion subs without nukes has to win some kind of prize.
Hell, that's probably 350 million a week or something we could be spending on the NHS.
its worth noting that attitudes to nukes is about the same as attitudes to the EU its a pretty even 50/50 split unless you get all your news from the RW media.
once again, I'll correct your language, as you're being deliberately disingenuous and emotive.
If you went out in the street and asked the public if they supported UNILATERAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT - which is what Jezza is advocating - you'd get 50% support? Seriously? Is that what you're saying?
Well... all he needs to do is get the 50% of the population that supports this policy to vote for it at the next election and we can hand him the keys to number 10
Binners, you seem to have degenerated into a very low grade troll on this issue, which it has to be said is somewhat disappointing
I thought Corbyn's policy was to build the submarines in order to retain the jobs, but not actually put any nukes in them?Which to me seems very odd.
No odder than building the submarines, paying for the missiles, and clearly never having any reason or wish to use them.. It's even less odd than implicitly accepting that last position, while attacking the former.
Binners, you seem to have degenerated into a very low grade troll on this issue
Why do you say that? It was on the front page of the Guardian this morning, and as I read it 3 letters crystalised in my mind...
F
F
S!
So I thought I'd come and ask his disciples what they thought? And so far, so predictable. I'm sure Ernie will be along in a minute to quote a post I put up 12 months ago which proves that Jezza is doing an absolutely fantastic job, and is coasting towards a landslide at the next election on a platform of unilateral nuclear disarmament, while still spending all the money on building the subs. All seems a bit.... We will defend your inalienable right to have babies.....
If we've got these empty subs maybe we could have a lottery. The weekly winner gets them for the weekend.
That might be the electoral gold he's looking for.
Why do you say that?
Because your posts keep proving it to be accurate?
[img] 
[/img]
As ridiculous political fudges go though, the multi-billion subs without nukes has to win some kind of prize.
like having greggs baking all the products and then binning them
I think we can all agree nuclear subs without nukes is a really really pointless thing
It won't stop at subs either. He will disband the military completely
,but in order to compensate resort to cardboard cut outs of tanks/Aircraft placed around the coast.( But don't worry as the cardboard factory will create jobs for folk)
😀
He will disband the military completely
and the security services, and then the police to be replaced by political commissars (not commissaires!!) 😉
subs without weapons is comedy gold.
#jambafact
Couldn't you try, just once, to write something truthful? Go on. I know you've got it in you!!
I think we can all agree nuclear subs without nukes is a really really pointless thing
Oh undoubtedly. But not really any more pointless than nuclear subs with nukes that you'll never use unless you're already less than four minutes away from being hotter than the surface of the sun yourself.
It won't stop at subs either. He will disband the military completely
And if he did, so what? If Blair had done that instead of fabricating a reason to invade Iraq, then we wouldn't have ISIS.
Who is going to invade the UK should we disband most of our military? Nobody (well, apart from us) has invaded Ireland. Nobody invades Iceland. Why would they want to invade another lump of rock in the North Atlantic?
Nobody invades Iceland.
Well the US and UK kind of did in WW2, to ensure the Germans didn't.
Nobody invades the Rep. of Ireland because the UK happens to be in the way and has interests on the same bit of rock, hence, you'd have to go through the UK to get to them.
Why would they want to invade another lump of rock in the North Atlantic?
ask Putin, the Russians had mapped the UK extensively during the cold war, the mapping is purely military and clearly had input from people who had driven around to assess bridge weights etc
What about pirates? They've been keeping a low profile of late! They're clearly just waiting for their post-Jezza moment! The opportunistic bastards. AAAAAAARRRRRRRRR
[img] 
[/img]
Couldn't you try, just once, to write something truthful? Go on. I know you've got it in you!!
Yawn. Corbyn has turned himself into a joke. Nuclear Subs with no nuclear weapons, is comedy genius.
SNP MP for Faslane will vote to renew Trident
[img] 
[/img]
ask Putin, the Russians had mapped the UK extensively during the cold war, the mapping is purely military and clearly had input from people who had driven around to assess bridge weights etc
And you honestly think they'd actually do it?
Frankly I'd prefer lower taxes, better health, better education, and better infrastructure.
But if you'd rather piss money up a wall, then I suppose you're entitled to your opinion.
Hypotheticals aside, does anyone honestly think the UK is under threat of invasion if we had a smaller military and no trident? If so, on what sort of timescale, and who by? And... why?
yawn
Facts. So boring.
Oh undoubtedly. But not really any more pointless than nuclear subs with nukes that you'll never use unless you're already less than four minutes away from being hotter than the surface of the sun yourself.
[img] 
[/img]
congratulations, you have sucessfully proven that you don't understand the concept of a [u]second strike[/u] continuous at sea deterrent
Hypotheticals aside, does anyone honestly think the UK is under threat of invasion
I'd rather not risk it....
[img] 
[/img]
Hmm.. those leadership testimonials posted by CaptJon are pretty damning.
Any Corbyn supporters care to comment?
congratulations, you have sucessfully proven that you don't understand the concept of a second strike continuous at sea deterrent
No, really I haven't. Tell me the point of nuking another country after you've been nuked? What happens if the country you're supposed to be deterring either doesn't care, or assumes it's a bluff? And to be committing a first strike, they'd have to be pretty unhinged, so not sure how your logic works here.
No, really I haven't. Tell me the point of nuking another country after you've been nuked?
Really you haven't. You don't need to nuke them back because they daren't nuke you first.
This really isn't that hard.
Facts. So boring
Feel free to quote my specific post today on this thread which is factually inocrrect.
Owen Jones on Sky earlier. "I was a member of CND is my teens but I have long since grown up"
Facts. So boring
No place for such things in the land of the BS
Tell me the point of nuking another country after you've been nuked?
I think you're attaching a degree of calm rationality that generally tends to be absent during a war involving the destruction of civilisation.
And you you've not addresed the issue of either pirates or aliens, so I'm afraid I can't take your opinions seriously
No, try reading all my post, rather than the bits that suit you.
And if we didn't have nukes, who is going to nuke us?
And if we didn't have nukes, who is going to nuke us?
Does it matter? With nukes nobody is doing any nuking.
Or they've found all your subs and destroyed them first. A kind of nuclear Maginot Line.
With[u]out[/u] nukes nobody is doing any nuking.
Correct
.
who is going to invade the UK should we disband most of our military? Nobody (well, apart from us) has invaded Ireland. Nobody invades Iceland.
It's the Scottish us English should be worried about 😉
Thing is we could give up nukes and we'd still have the ability to kill huge numbers of people via chemical and biological weapons. I'd rather we kept nukes though, and it doesn't look like the French are giving up theirs anytime soon, so why should we.
With nukes nobody is doing any nuking
So we agree they are expensive ornaments that no one will use. not made men, not dicators, not commies, not regan nor Bush
Non nuclear countries are not getting nuked either
All your subs are belong to us
Tell me the point of nuking another country after you've been nuked?
Er - that isn't the point.
The point is that another country might get nuked even AFTER it nukes us, because the subs are out at sea. So as to deter them from nuking us in the first place.
It's called a 'deterrent'.
It's called a 'deterrent'.
How about an ornamental deterrent as way of compromise?
Which to me seems very odd.
Spending 200bn on things that will never be used seems a bit odd to me.
Spending 200bn on things where if they were used they would kill half the population and doom the rest to eventually starving to death or dying of radiation poisoning seems even more odd.
I guess it's an odd world 🙂
I see no point in Trident as I cannot conceive of any situation where it can be used. Bin it and the submarines.
If situation requires in twenty years time that we have nuclear weapons, we could (a) build a small one in six months and (b) I'll volunteer to carry it to wherever it's needed and set it off. Solves all that faffing around in space and complicated ballistic trajectory maffs.
If Iran / Isreal or ****stan / India want to nuke each other let them get on with it. But if you think that nuclear weapons are the only thing keeping Putin in Moscow you're sadly misguided. We are not going to end up annexed like Crimea and it's not as if we'd stage a nuclear first strike on Russia if they invaded Finland (sorry, Finns...).
It's called a 'deterrent'.
But who are we deterring?
Russia? China? The USA??? Perhaps France - we've been at war with them more times than most other countries, and what with Brexit 'n' all...
And if you really think it would deter a terrorist organisation, you definitely need your head seeing to. If terrorists did manage to nuke us, who would our new Trident subs nuke back in this fabled second strike?
I think nukes are a deterrent. Would Iraq 1&2 have happened if Saddam had nukes? The UK has always had a deterrent and any government in power would baulk at getting rid.
Lets face it. Look at the people who are presently/or shortly could be in charge of the nuclear arsenal. The Poundland Thatcher, Donald Trumps hair, the homo-erotic shark wrestler, whichever islamist nutter is presently running ****stan, Le Pen....
Replacing trident is hypothetical. We're all bound to be dead long before its finished
[img] 
[/img]
I'm off to sit outside Greenham Common, link hands and sing kumbaya with Jezza 😥
If having nuclear weapons is a deterrent against attack why don't we make a lot more and share them around everyone.
World peace guaranteed.
I'm off to sit outside Greenham Common, link hands and sing kumbaya with Jezza
Ironically, that's the most sensible thing you've posted on this thread for quite some time
I think you'll find that both pirates and aliens are a genuine threat to the nation
I will take no pleasure in sitting back and saying I told you so as I watch you walking the plank with a cutless up your jacksie