Blah Blah

Anything to say on the Tory lies that someone punched one of their team outside the hospital then? Or are you going to let that one go Uncle?

Uncleglen, you ARE a little xenophobic Tommy Robinson idiot. Discuss.... oh wait, you don;t ever discuss scrutiny of your vile opinions do you? As for champagne socialism, there are many more people in Southwark who earn just above min wage. They are people who rely on the NHS, welfare safety nets, adult social care and all the other stuff that the Tories frequently decimate. A vote for Boris is a vote for lies, narcissism and a Singapore style tax haven where most of the country will be worse off. And that includes YOU Uncle.

Uncleglen is straight out of the Tommy Robinson playbook. He just pops up here and there to spout the same nonsense, never sticking around to actually engage in any challenge to his unfounded and factually incorrect views.

It is blatantly obvious that Corbyn is divisive. But in the light of an even divide on Brexit, would any other leader of the party be fairing any better? What might have made the difference arguably, would have been a more likeable leader making the Tories desire a GE less than they did in the end. Also, Jo Swinson could have helped steer Parliament to a vote of nc and a unity coalition, but chose not to - presumably thinking that the Libdems were about to gain at Labour's expense. Political expediency created the Brexit mess in the first place, and looks set to keep it going.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > uncleglen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > I didn't listen to ANY of the claims by either > > side during the run up to the referendum > > Sounds about right Indeed. Although he seems perfectly able to spout out every repeated lie of the Leave side - funny that eh? He also listens to the likes of Stephen Yaxley Lennon and other far right mouthpieces, so make of that what you will. As for nostalgia for some fake version of the past, he also seems to have forgotten the cod wars (and ignores the importance of protecting fish stocks) and seems to think Turkey of all places, are responsible for the decline of manufacturing in the UK! He clearly has conveniently forgotten the rise of Asia BEFORE we even joined the EEA and the takeoves, before asset stripping, of the 80's namely by people like Goldsmith senior. Even the Thatcher government had to do something about that. In short, Uncle is a Farage repeated broken record, and fools no-one.

As far as is known, wreaths date back to pagan rituals to mark the change of seasons. Given that Christmas is essentially a rehash of the pagan winter solstice festival, I would think a lot of these things have their roots in that. The yule log was definitely part of a pagan ritual. Any religious symbolism involving Christ is a relatively recent invention.

What distortions of the truth would they be Uncle? Meanwhile, if you really do want to see distortions of the truth, I suggest you watch Boris Johnson's car crash of an interview with Andrew Marr on iplayer. I suggest you also revisit the claims made by both sides during the referendum campaign ;)

And you contradict yourself Uncle as people on your part of the politcal spectrum do, by banging on about freedom of speech on the one hand and then sneering at a protest group exercising their right to exactly that on the other. Geo-politics is a complex thing, you are right about that, but at the same time, the people have every right to hold to account actions taken in their name by global leaders wielding disproportionate amounts of power. And that should start by acknowledging that the left and right are equally accountable on that level.

Indeed. The worst thing that can happen for remain supporters thinking of switching away from Labour to the Libdems, is that they gift Boris seats in Labour marginals and therefore a working majority that pretty much rules out any chance of a 2nd referendum. This is precisely why Farage decided not to stand candidates in Tory held seats, marginal or otherwise. Personally, I think Jo Swinson has been naive. She was the one person blocking a government of unity following a NC vote, by refusing to allow the leader of the opposition lead that coalition. That was the one sure fire chance to seize control of the Brexit process and get no deal off the table. A GE was always a huge risk, but you know these politicians always seem to think they are more popular than they really are. If Boris wins that majority on the 12th, she will be blamed for not having enabled that option to bring down the government. If Parliament is hung, she is going to have to agree to the very Corbyn led coalition she was so stubbornly opposed to before the election.

Indeed. I suspect the 'no to Nato' is the 'Stop the War' addition, as I haven't seen the other groups advertising it as that. I have the impression it is a 'No to Trump' demonstration predominantly attracting those opposed to racism, climate change denial and the other ills he is known for. As for Nato, I wonder what the original poster has to say about Putin in Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. China's expansion into the South pacific etc. Or are we only going to blame America for global tensions, armed conflict etc and ignore the role all of these superpowers play?

I was determined to no post on this thread, not being a kiljoy, BUT can we at least ban the sale of real trees? Don't we waste enough stuff needlessly on this planet already?

How about people stop buying real trees that are dumped as soon as xmas is over? Just more needless waste.

This for me is Boris Johnson's worst failure and illustrates the real danger of this lazy narcissistic man continuing as PM. And yet he gets away with it. Truly awful.

I have to agree. The very idea that Corbyn is some kind of carer driven ideologue is pure fantasy. In reply to Rockets; Everyone seems to forget where the bulk of the Labour PLP sits. They are very quiet at the moment but they are by no means Corbynistas. No-one thinks Corbyn will win a majority in the election. The best that is expected is a coalition, that can get us to a 2nd referendum on Brexit, before another GE. So what Corbyn can actually do in government is going to be very limited. Corbyn also was not elected by the Unions, he was elected by two thirds of the membership (and twice at that). Maybe learn how the Labour Party actually works before commenting on how leaders are elected? There is a debate to be had about irresponsible borrowing for sure. But it is also worth remembering that John McDonnell has a record for staying within budgets when he was head of finance at the GLA. Much of that manifesto actually only returns us to the tax and spend of Blair. Corporation Tax for example was higher under Thatcher, much higher. Yes the difference is the level of borrowing, so let's have a detailed debate around that, based on pure economics, over some vague dismissal of both the need for that kind of investment and how it is paid for. On the NHS, Corbyn is absolutely right to push the evidence for pharma being on the table in any US trade deal. You would have to be completely stupid to think the US won't push for this, and even stupider to think a government desperate for a trade deal won't cave in to something. This is a perfect demonstration of how much more difficult trade negotiations become on our own, as opposed to being part of a large trading block. We were able to remove the NHS from TTIP precisely for that reason. We won't be able to do that so easily on our own, and desperate for a trade deal. I can however agree that Labour should be doing better, but do not make the mistake of confusing what needs to be addressed (and Labour are right in the need for radical thinking on many of those issues) and the failure of a leadership to set out a credible manifesto that can offer solutions that persuade an electorate. A Labour led coalition is going to be the best outcome from a pretty dire political offering this time round (for many reasons) I think.

The prospect of a Johnson/Cummings government, leading us to the abyss of a Singapore style tax haven, is also enough to make me overlook my concerns about Corbyn and vote Labour. I suspect there will be a lot of last minute tactical voting in fact.

Those earning over 80k are just 10%, so not really a vote loser that one. The other two affect far more people and definitely are vote losers. It comes back to this culture we have of seeing tax as bad and expecting lower variations of it AND better public services. Something will have to give sooner or later, to pay for adult social care and other looming crisis. And while Corbyn may not be the solution, a debate absolutely needs to be had and won around tax and spend that focuses on better overall outcomes and not the 'what's in it for me' mantra that dominates free market political debate. Just back on the points above around nationalisation. There is no reason to think whatsoever that nationalisation today will resemble anything that existed in the 70s and before. There is a big difference between state owned companies trading in a global free market and state owned monopoly that shuts out any competition. One of the myths of the left around the EU for example has been that members states can not renationalise a company, when actually it is the monopolisation of a sector that is against EU rules. So whilst I take on board the points about workers ownership, incentivisation and unions made above, it also has to be pointed out that the opposite of that, wage suppression, zero hours contracts, and tax avoidance on profits sent offshore, also have consequences that are bad for the economy. We need to pull back from that too.

But it won't be the Labour Party running those nationalised companies Fishbiscuits. It will be people who know how to run large companies and ideally keep them in the black. Some things, like transport however, will always be subsidised, but at present we are subsidising private franchises while they make good profits. As for debt, like all borrowing, investment is a good option that ideally pays for itself over time. We are in a race to the bottom economy at the moment with a public who want tax cuts AND better public services. Sooner or later, things like adult social care are really going to bite and there will be no option but for increased borrowing for any party if they want to win elections.

Exactly diable. There are so many good examples of state owned companies successfully competing in the open marketplace and doing very well. That is profit that goes back into the state sector. Instead, we have an economy that sheds profit into offshore accounts, with no returned investment. For an economy to feel the benefit of growth, profit needs to remain within that economy as much as possible. This is why things like raising minimum wage and tax on fixed assets are more effective than tax on profits, that can be manipulated by creative accounting. Economies that regulate to both keep and incentivise investment of profit onshore do better than those who don't.

Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't know about anyone else but the exchange > between blah blah and Mahoody on this and other > threads makes me want to crowd around the pair of > them and slowly chant > "Fight fight fight" till teacher comes and breaks > it up LOL, not the fighting type I'm afraid and I quite like rats too ;)

No Mahoody, how about you list companies that have given a majority of their share holdings (and therefore ownership) to external investors. How about you also cite the estimated trillions of pounds lost through tax avoidance every year from the moving of profit to the offshore interests of the top earning individuals and corporations. You think the public are idiots clearly. As for your silly 'message' comment, you are in a public forum posting childish hysterical rubbish about a party leader, and others have every right to challenge you on that. You have not started from any position of sensible debate, looking at say the details of any manifesto, so why should anyone treat you like an adult? The UK economy bears no resemblance to that of Venezuela or Greece whatsoever. Any economist would tell you that. Also, plenty of strong economies have nationalised sectors that work very well. You could cite half a dozen countries within the EU alone on that. This addiction to privatisation has been detrimental to certain areas of the UK economy. It has led to price fixing in the energy sector (and bear in mind one of the big six is the FRENCH STATE OWNED energy company) and sectors like transport are still heavily subsidised by the tax payer while those franchisees are making huge profits. This is not a good deal for the public. There is nothing wrong with nationalisation, it is how the sector is run that matters, and in some cases, those foreign state owned energy and transport companies do very nicely exporting their services. Why are we giving contracts to French state owned energy companies? Or Dutch state owned transport companies? We can do that for ourselves surely?

Nope, pension funds invest in the markets, and can and do change where they put their money (part of the game of turning a profit in fact). Most companies do not float most of their shares out to external investors. This is to prevent takeovers. Stop embarrassing yourself, seriously. As for Chavez, is Corbyn proposing to remove diversity from our economy and rely only on the profits of one resource? No he isn't. But what a surprise that you seem to know very little about exactly just what went wrong in Venezeula. A bit like your non existent understaning of the economy of Greece.

Except that isn't true Mahoody. That is not how national debt works. Nor are comparisons to Greece relevant either as she was failing to effectively collect tax at all and had much deeper fundamental economic issues. Labour governments actually have a better record on debt repayment and deficits than Tory ones. There are so many links to this online, and you can google the data for yourself, but the thing to consider is what fuels the debt. Infrastructure and investment is good. Consumer credit is bad. There was a very good explanation of this by Economist Mariana Mazzucato on Thursday's Newsnight. http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/conservative-budget-deficits-on-average-theyre-twice-the-size-of-labours Having said all of that though, Corbyn's spending spree is going to depend on a number of things going right to even begin to be deliverable. And the danger of it also is that it makes the Tories look relatively prudent, even though they too are promising massive investment through borrowing. The difference is of course, that Corbyn is promising a radical change that breaks the ownership of the economy by a few privileged wealthy barons, and Boris is promising to change nothing. Take your pick which serves you best.

Echoing the points above, how about the BBC stop trying to pass gimmicks for quality journalism.

These guys do everything. https://www.stanleysonline.co.uk/