Jeremy Corbyn.

[MattBackHome]

Looking forward to this PMQ

 

[vegster]

Pmq's are going to be fun, the Tories are bricking it. They are going to try to tear him apart if they can.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

Looking forward to this PMQ

Surprising start. Clever by Cameron to fall into line.

 

[Don Quixote]

What Corbyn is bringing to PMQs is great.

 

[MattBackHome]

Surprising start. Clever by Cameron to fall into line.

I'm going to tire very quickly of this 'Marie' and 'Stephen' bollocks.

Edit - but it's already far improved without the braying partisanship.

 

[Bold Seagull]

This is bad so far....

PMQ's with reasonable questions and sensible responses.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

I'm going to tire very quickly of this 'Marie' and 'Stephen' bollocks.

Edit - but it's already far improved without the braying partisanship.

Agreed. Corbyn hasn't really landed any blows yet but he will. Cameron doing a good job of putting the sensible Tory position.

 

[MattBackHome]

Agreed. Corbyn hasn't really landed any blows yet but he will. Cameron doing a good job of putting the sensible Tory position.

I just think that there's a faux sincerity in using 'real' peoples' first names - it reminds me of Nick Clegg which is never a good thing.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

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.

Fair enough. It is more of an emotive term than is really necessary for my argument.

Money being taken from any demographic, that will spend the full value of that money, will equally impact on the growth potential of the economy as a whole.


I believe Corporations, top earners, the middle classes should be expected to contribute to the deficit reduction, alongside a review of government spending on welfare.
We are supposed to be "all in this together".
Balancing the cost of deficit reduction across all of these groups will spread the impact to the economy as a whole.

The corporations, some of whom have contributed to, benefitted from, or been culpable for the crisis, are not being targetted to anywhere near the same extent as the british people.

 

[Bladders]

I was like the first round of a boxing match, just feeling each other out.


This Jock is annoying though

 

[Bladders]

I was like the first round of a boxing match, just feeling each other out.


This Jock is annoying though

...........and put back in his box with ease

 

[Hastings gull]

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

ON the subject of typical post! Your substantive point, as you put it, was that general corruption and self seeking would not be a part of his government. Agreed? I did acknowledge that whilst this may apply to him personally, I used an individual case to illustrate that the substantive general point already has its flaws, which you do not dispute. People will always look out for number 1 - that is not to say that this should always be the case and that it is necessarily right, just that this is what happens in life. If you wish to think that hypocrisy/self seeking/ etc will never happen in a left-wing government, then that is your right - I would just hope that when your illusions are shattered, as they surely will be, given human nature, that you are not disappointed.

 

[narly101]

Corbyns shirt, jacket and tie combo really needs updating. The guy is living in the 70's!

 

[Moshe Gariani]

ON the subject of typical post! Your substantive point, as you put it, was that general corruption and self seeking would not be a part of his government. Agreed? I did acknowledge that whilst this may apply to him personally, I used an individual case to illustrate that the substantive general point already has its flaws, which you do not dispute. People will always look out for number 1 - that is not to say that this should always be the case and that it is necessarily right, just that this is what happens in life. If you wish to think that hypocrisy/self seeking/ etc will never happen in a left-wing government, then that is your right - I would just hope that when your illusions are shattered, as they surely will be, given human nature, that you are not disappointed.

Nonsense. The substantive point is about policy.

 

[Hastings gull]

Nonsense. The substantive point is about policy.

What on earth are you talking about? What policy? You picked up originally on my point about the hypocrisy of East German communist leaders, and said that JC would not tolerate that sort of obscenity. I pointed out that one of his close allies is already guilty of the same sort of hypocrisy that you proudly state will not be tolerated. No one has spoken in our exchange about any policy - just the failings of human nature which transcend political leanings.

 

[Goldstone1976]

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.

So cynical. Regrettably, so true.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

What on earth are you talking about? What policy? You picked up originally on my point about the hypocrisy of East German communist leaders, and said that JC would not tolerate that sort of obscenity. I pointed out that one of his close allies is already guilty of the same sort of hypocrisy that you proudly state will not be tolerated. No one has spoken in our exchange about any policy - just the failings of human nature which transcend political leanings.

Nonsense. I briefly rebutted a (trivial) assertion that Jeremy Corbyn should be compared to corrupt politicians elsewhere.

I went onto say that I like what I have heard from him on policy.

You started ranting about Diane Abbott and her son's schooling.

 

[beorhthelm]

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.

you seem to have built a view based on the premise that "the rich" keep all their money in a box and nothing happens with it. (i wonder how widespread this view is, alot of left assumptions seem to flow from similar misconceptions). you also seem to have formed the view that reducing a benefit is taking money from someone, rather than not giving them as much, and overlooked that this is an expense of government. this is a widespread view that leads to all sort of logical somersaults, but i suppose its two sides of the same coin.

lets look at the proposition "taking away from the poor" constricts growth. it might reduce some consumption, but growth is a result of all consumption, investment, production etc.
so look at the alternative "take away from the rich". thats going to be about the same for the day to day living, except amplified by the increased amount the rich can consume. if we assume they don't spend it all, the surplus is invested. even if just on deposit, it will go into the machinery of the economy, it doesn't sit idle. the loans that you or a business take out to consume high value goods or expand is funded from this and the economy grows.

if we go back to the "taking" from the poor, its really "not giving". if you reduce this amount, the government pays out less, so need to take less from the poor and rich a like as taxes. see that substantially increased tax free allowance from the Liberals (shamelessly nicked)? who benefits most, the poor/low income or the rich? granted its not so clever for the individual not getting so much, but the economy does keep moving this way. you can keep the economy moving by constantly taking from one group feeding it back to another for no productive output, but you can keep it moving better, grow more, if you let the economy move the money around itself productively.

 

[simmo]

Corbyns shirt, jacket and tie combo really needs updating. The guy is living in the 70's!

Funnily enough I noticed that (more than anything to be honest). His suit looked like something he had recycled out of a second hand sofa

 

[beorhthelm]

I went onto say that I like what I have heard from him on policy.

i have read that he will be letting unions and Labour party conference direct policy. how do you feel about that?