Jeremy Corbyn.

[BigGully]

Worked for Norman Lamont...

Did he ? Seriously I cannot recall, I can however remember him shadowing the Deutsch Mark in the Exchange Rate Mechanism and putting interest rates up to 15%.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Did he ? Seriously I cannot recall, I can however remember him shadowing the Deutsch Mark in the Exchange Rate Mechanism and putting interest rates up to 15%.

He took the deficit to it's highest point since '75/'76.

 

[El Presidente]

Yes great, just print more dosh when we need it. Dish it out to all and sundry,what a spending frenzy, what a recipe for financial shambles.

Errr.........isn't that is the policy pursued by the Bank of England under the last government in the form of quantitative easing?

 

[El Presidente]

Not if you get to see Rachel Burden. She sounds like a fox.

She was in the studio with Adam Parsons, Nicky Campbell and me. The voice was like melted Toblerone and she WINKED at me when she asked a question.

#Love

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I know this is tongue in cheek. I used to see German grandparents every year in the time of the existence of East Germany, and they lived very close to the town in Bavaria, where the railway line crossed into East Germany - one of the very few that did. When the trains crossed into the workers paradise, where everyone was equal, the EG authorities removed all markings indicating "First Class". On occasions, however, they were left, and the locals always used to say that was because communist dignitaries were on the train.
When EG dissolved, western TV crews went around Wandlitz ( I think that is how the suburb is written?) looking at the palatial homes of the communist bosses living in total seclusion from the mass of the population, who of course had no idea of the extent of the opulence of their existence.
Much fanfare will now be made of justice/equality/fairness etc etc but human nature needs to change first.

I work in Prenzlauer Berg and the next district north is Pankow. This is where a lot of communist bosses etc used to live. The area is notable for it's very large houses, away from the densly populated areas, and an example of what you're saying.

 

[Goldstone1976]

She was in the studio with Adam Parsons, Nicky Campbell and me. The voice was like melted Toblerone and she WINKED at me when she asked a question.

#Love

I do hope you didn't "wink" back...

I'll have a listen on catch up - it's always worth it.

 

[BLOCK F]

Errr.........isn't that is the policy pursued by the Bank of England under the last government in the form of quantitative easing?

No economist me, El Pres, but I understand there is a difference between the Q.E. that BoE set up and the kind of ' peoples QE' that Corbyn advocates.

 

[El Presidente]

I do hope you didn't "wink" back...

I'll have a listen on catch up - it's always worth it.

I did manage to shoehorn a spurious mention of the Albion into an interview about the Rugby World Cup finances too!

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Yes great, just print more dosh when we need it. Dish it out to all and sundry,what a spending frenzy, what a recipe for financial shambles.

You have misunderstood my point.
There is an acknowledged need to address the deficit.
By taking it away from the poor, you effectively remove the full value of that money from the economy, which constricts growth.
The government will also see a drop in income from VAT etc.
The same is not necesarily true when taking the money from the super rich.

A fairer split between where the money is taken is necessary to pay off the deficit and keep the economy moving.
As I have previously indicated, I believe this government are focussed on ideological cuts, rather than building for the future.

 

[El Presidente]

No economist me, El Pres, but I understand there is a difference between the Q.E. that BoE set up and the kind of ' personal QE' that Corbyn advocates.

Agreed, but both involve printing money. One gave funds to the banks to pay bigger bonuses and indulge in interest and exchange rate manipulation........and the other is BAD.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I know this is tongue in cheek. I used to see German grandparents every year in the time of the existence of East Germany, and they lived very close to the town in Bavaria, where the railway line crossed into East Germany - one of the very few that did. When the trains crossed into the workers paradise, where everyone was equal, the EG authorities removed all markings indicating "First Class". On occasions, however, they were left, and the locals always used to say that was because communist dignitaries were on the train.
When EG dissolved, western TV crews went around Wandlitz ( I think that is how the suburb is written?) looking at the palatial homes of the communist bosses living in total seclusion from the mass of the population, who of course had no idea of the extent of the opulence of their existence.
Much fanfare will now be made of justice/equality/fairness etc etc but human nature needs to change first.

One of the many reasons to like Jeremy Corbyn is the absolutely certainty that he would take no part in this sort of obscenity. Human nature does involve the survival of the fittest and primarily self-interested motivations - which is why we desperately need leadership and policy making from someone like Corbyn.

 

[BLOCK F]

You have misunderstood my point.
There is an acknowledged need to address the deficit.
By taking it away from the poor, you effectively remove the full value of that money from the economy, which constricts growth.
The government will also see a drop in income from VAT etc.
The same is not necesarily true when taking the money from the super rich.

A fairer split between where the money is taken is necessary to pay off the deficit and keep the economy moving.
As I have previously indicated, I believe this government are focussed on ideological cuts, rather than building for the future.

I understand what you are saying, but it is just not that simple.
The best way to get the country's finances in order is to create a strong economy and increase employment.
Of course the poor and vulnerable must be protected, but just how far welfare should go with things like tax credits is indeed worth consideration. If you consider it ideological to aim to make work pay and sensibly restricting benefits to those who really need them, then that is your view. I would say that is building for the future.
No system is perfect and no system ever will be and there have been some strange decisions made re benefits; however, it is a huge subject, no doubt worthy of an NSC binfest in due course.

 

[BigGully]

You have misunderstood my point.
There is an acknowledged need to address the deficit.
By taking it away from the poor, you effectively remove the full value of that money from the economy, which constricts growth.
The government will also see a drop in income from VAT etc.
The same is not necesarily true when taking the money from the super rich.

A fairer split between where the money is taken is necessary to pay off the deficit and keep the economy moving.
As I have previously indicated, I believe this government are focussed on ideological cuts, rather than building for the future.

I find it difficult to empathise with those that are always referred to as poor or vulnerable, I never quite know who these are and how exactly they acquire this title.

I do not need faux outrage, why not itemise their income as I suspect you mean those in receipt of benefits, these are in the public domain so it can easily be obtained.

We can then to different degrees decide whether they really are poor or vulnerable, I have been both in receipt of benefits some years ago and worked extremely hard for the most part and I can honestly say I feel far more vulnerable working for a living than not.

I just find it unhelpful when these terms are so readily offered in any debate with an almost non negotiable caveat of non challenge and total acceptance.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Agreed, but both involve printing money. One gave funds to the banks to pay bigger bonuses and indulge in interest and exchange rate manipulation........and the other is BAD.

Well played sir.

 

[Flex Your Head]

Interesting times if a / some Blairite(s) do cross-over to the Tories.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34267886

 

[Hastings gull]

One of the many reasons to like Jeremy Corbyn is the absolutely certainty that he would take no part in this sort of obscenity. Human nature does involve the survival of the fittest and primarily self-interested motivations - which is why we desperately need leadership and policy making from someone like Corbyn.

No, he personally might not, for all I know, though his past has hardly been marred by poverty! But that is no guarantee that his cronies will think the same - they too are human beings with "primarily self-interested motivations". Just ask Mrs Abbott, who loves the ides of comprehensives for everyone else's children, but not quite for her little precious darling - he shouldn't be mixing with all those rough children of labour supporters. This "sort of obscenity" as you call it has already started.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Christ alive it will be staggering if Corbyn survives the month the way the media are harassing the poor *******.

 

[Bladders]

Christ alive it will be staggering if Corbyn survives the month the way the media are harassing the poor *******.

He sounds different too when interviewed, almost thinking about every word he's saying as it will be scrutinised which isn't coming over very well imo, which is a shame as part of his appeal was his easy going straight talking when in front of the camera.

 

[pastafarian]

Corbyn knows exactly what he is doing.

I was sort of hoping the decisions he makes were down to the fact he doesn’t know what he is doing and is in fact a clueless moron

If you are correct however that would make him a very dangerous individual for everyone in this country

 

[Moshe Gariani]

No, he personally might not, for all I know, though his past has hardly been marred by poverty! But that is no guarantee that his cronies will think the same - they too are human beings with "primarily self-interested motivations". Just ask Mrs Abbott, who loves the ides of comprehensives for everyone else's children, but not quite for her little precious darling - he shouldn't be mixing with all those rough children of labour supporters. This "sort of obscenity" as you call it has already started.

Typically pathetic Tory response. Can't argue the substantive general point so divert to an individual case.