You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn
November 9 2026 2.59pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Jeremy Corbyn


Page 65 of 279 < 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >
npn Flag Crowborough 02 Oct 15 1.52pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 1.46pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.32pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 1.30pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am


In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population.

[Link]


Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries.

From the article...

Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it.

So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success?


I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed?

Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides.

Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy.

[Link]


You make some good points. Even though I'd put myself slightly left of centre I think the only real system that can work in the modern western world is a "capitalism with a conscience" (the name needs work). I think what the last recession did has highlighted that capitalism, whilst realistically is the only way that the world can live, still has it's major flaws and injustices. Companies and individuals are now being forced to behave in a more 'moral' way (whatever that means now) due to the shift in public opinion.


[Link]

Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright.

I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth.

As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument.
How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy?

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am)


Couldn't agree with this more.


Whilst it is a pretty glib phrase, there are cases where it's entirely appropriate - for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter I used to travel to away games with, was always very in favour of "taxing the sh*t out of the rich". However, when they decided to means-test child benefit (can't remember the limit, was it £50K pa per household?) it transpires that, for that test, he fell into the "rich" category and would therefore lose child benefit as he was too wealthy. He absolutely did his nut, blaming the Tories for taking this cash off him. So it transpires that, in his mind at least, "tax the rich" actually very quickly came to mean "tax the richer than me".


All very amateurishly done that change. If one partner was earning more than £50k they lost the benefit but if both were earning less - could be £40k each - they kept it. Odd. Your mate was right in blowing his top if he knew that.


His wife don't earn much - was purely that he was caught, and doesn't consider himself 'rich', ergo, it's wrong!

What could be classified as rich though?
When Mrs gusset started full time work again , we lost a lot on tax credits. A pain, but only fair as we earn enough to get by.
A lot of working poor in this country are really struggling to get by. Is it envy on my part for me to want them to earn enough to live on?

As an aside, how long will it be before those that have lost their jobs at the steel works in Redcar are described as welfare scroungers by many (who subscribe to the blame the victim narrative that's ever more prevailant) on here?


Absolutely. I have no issue with people asking for increased taxation with a view to a better society. In fact, I'd say I am firmly behind the idea (provided it's done right and the money's spent well). What I object to is "Increase taxation! No, hang on, not MY taxation, I meant that lot over there because they've got a nicer car than me. I've only got 4 bedrooms and 2 cars, I'm not RICH".

I was hit by the child credit thing too and, much like yourself, thought "you know what, that's fair enough, I can't justify it". I was just using an example of the attitude that p*sses many off

 
Stuk Flag Top half 02 Oct 15 1.55pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 1.30pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am


In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population.

[Link]


Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries.

From the article...

Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it.

So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success?


I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed?

Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides.

Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy.

[Link]


You make some good points. Even though I'd put myself slightly left of centre I think the only real system that can work in the modern western world is a "capitalism with a conscience" (the name needs work). I think what the last recession did has highlighted that capitalism, whilst realistically is the only way that the world can live, still has it's major flaws and injustices. Companies and individuals are now being forced to behave in a more 'moral' way (whatever that means now) due to the shift in public opinion.


[Link]

Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright.

I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth.

As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument.
How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy?

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am)


Couldn't agree with this more.


Whilst it is a pretty glib phrase, there are cases where it's entirely appropriate - for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter I used to travel to away games with, was always very in favour of "taxing the sh*t out of the rich". However, when they decided to means-test child benefit (can't remember the limit, was it £50K pa per household?) it transpires that, for that test, he fell into the "rich" category and would therefore lose child benefit as he was too wealthy. He absolutely did his nut, blaming the Tories for taking this cash off him. So it transpires that, in his mind at least, "tax the rich" actually very quickly came to mean "tax the richer than me".


All very amateurishly done that change. If one partner was earning more than £50k they lost the benefit but if both were earning less - could be £40k each - they kept it. Odd. Your mate was right in blowing his top if he knew that.

No he wasn't, he just wanted to keep getting free cash. ie He was looking out for himself. They should get rid of the each bit though and cap it at household incomes of 50K or more.


Edited by Stuk (02 Oct 2015 3.40pm)

 

Optimistic as ever
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 02 Oct 15 2.02pm

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 9.46am

Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Oct 2015 7.04am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 6.55am

Why does everyone keep talking about nationalising things assuming that it will provide a better service than the public sector when all evidence suggests the contrary?

Should we privatise everything then? The army, navy and airforce? The police? The fire service? The NHS? Parliament and local government - why elect people, couldn't we give the jobs to the highest bidder?


Did I say that? Defence of the country, its people and its law should of course be the responsibility of government because that cannot realistically be expected to be provided by citizens. The NHS I think should stay free at the point of service but I have no problem with privatising parts of the background to make it more efficient. I have family that work in the NHS and they endorse that, as long as it is free to use who the bloody hell cares?

My point was that because the railways are providing a poor service now, does not mean that you can wave a magic wand, nationalise it and assume that it will provide a better and cheaper service. The same goes for utilities, I don't want my power being at the hands of the unions, I don't particularly like rolling blackouts since my business that I run from home relies on it.

Corbyn is promoting fantasist economics and policies and it won't wash with the British electorate.

Are you arguing that defence etc needs to be run by the state because of its size and complexity? But the state is not capable of running lesser endeavours? I too have no problem with parts of the NHS being run privately. The service and pricing of the railways does not seem significantly better than it used to be - certainly not the astronomical prices. Why would power supplies be in the hands of the unions? Workers in private companies are quite capable of being in unions and striking. Corbyn is promoting alternative policies to current ones, not fantasist at all. Many of these policies were in force during the 1960s, arguably our decade of greatest prosperity.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 02 Oct 15 2.24pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.23pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Oct 2015 11.22pm

A poll in the Telegraph today showed 85% of respondents sided with Corbyn re the pressing the nuclear button question.

Ahhh...another little 'grenade' to drop in and walk away from eh Nick?

How many 'respondents' were there? Just to give it some context...

It seems that the results have changhed! Thje question was 'if you were prime minister, could you push the nuclear button'
Yesterday evening it was 85% no. Today its 75% yes.

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 12.27pm)

Oddly though there never has been a 'nuclear button'. Although only the UK Prime Minister, and in his absence his appointed Nuclear Deputies have the capacity to order a launch.

One of the first things a new prime minister does is to sign letters for each trident submarine, that if the UK is destroyed and the prime minister and all deputies are not able to communicate, detailing whether they wish to launch or not. These are seal in safes on each submarine and never opened (and destroyed when the prime minister leaves office).

 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
OldFella Flag London 02 Oct 15 2.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 1.46pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.32pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 1.30pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am


In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population.

[Link]


Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries.

From the article...

Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it.

So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success?


I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed?

Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides.

Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy.

[Link]


You make some good points. Even though I'd put myself slightly left of centre I think the only real system that can work in the modern western world is a "capitalism with a conscience" (the name needs work). I think what the last recession did has highlighted that capitalism, whilst realistically is the only way that the world can live, still has it's major flaws and injustices. Companies and individuals are now being forced to behave in a more 'moral' way (whatever that means now) due to the shift in public opinion.


[Link]

Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright.

I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth.

As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument.
How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy?

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am)


Couldn't agree with this more.


Whilst it is a pretty glib phrase, there are cases where it's entirely appropriate - for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter I used to travel to away games with, was always very in favour of "taxing the sh*t out of the rich". However, when they decided to means-test child benefit (can't remember the limit, was it £50K pa per household?) it transpires that, for that test, he fell into the "rich" category and would therefore lose child benefit as he was too wealthy. He absolutely did his nut, blaming the Tories for taking this cash off him. So it transpires that, in his mind at least, "tax the rich" actually very quickly came to mean "tax the richer than me".


All very amateurishly done that change. If one partner was earning more than £50k they lost the benefit but if both were earning less - could be £40k each - they kept it. Odd. Your mate was right in blowing his top if he knew that.


His wife don't earn much - was purely that he was caught, and doesn't consider himself 'rich', ergo, it's wrong!

What could be classified as rich though?
When Mrs gusset started full time work again , we lost a lot on tax credits. A pain, but only fair as we earn enough to get by.
A lot of working poor in this country are really struggling to get by. Is it envy on my part for me to want them to earn enough to live on?

As an aside, how long will it be before those that have lost their jobs at the steel works in Redcar are described as welfare scroungers by many (who subscribe to the blame the victim narrative that's ever more prevailant) on here?

Good to see you are feeling a bit better, teacher


 

Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it..
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 02 Oct 15 2.31pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Oct 2015 2.02pm

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 9.46am

Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Oct 2015 7.04am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 6.55am

Why does everyone keep talking about nationalising things assuming that it will provide a better service than the public sector when all evidence suggests the contrary?

Should we privatise everything then? The army, navy and airforce? The police? The fire service? The NHS? Parliament and local government - why elect people, couldn't we give the jobs to the highest bidder?


Did I say that? Defence of the country, its people and its law should of course be the responsibility of government because that cannot realistically be expected to be provided by citizens. The NHS I think should stay free at the point of service but I have no problem with privatising parts of the background to make it more efficient. I have family that work in the NHS and they endorse that, as long as it is free to use who the bloody hell cares?

My point was that because the railways are providing a poor service now, does not mean that you can wave a magic wand, nationalise it and assume that it will provide a better and cheaper service. The same goes for utilities, I don't want my power being at the hands of the unions, I don't particularly like rolling blackouts since my business that I run from home relies on it.

Corbyn is promoting fantasist economics and policies and it won't wash with the British electorate.

Are you arguing that defence etc needs to be run by the state because of its size and complexity? But the state is not capable of running lesser endeavours? I too have no problem with parts of the NHS being run privately. The service and pricing of the railways does not seem significantly better than it used to be - certainly not the astronomical prices. Why would power supplies be in the hands of the unions? Workers in private companies are quite capable of being in unions and striking. Corbyn is promoting alternative policies to current ones, not fantasist at all. Many of these policies were in force during the 1960s, arguably our decade of greatest prosperity.

The degree to which the state actually runs defense in the UK is debatable. It certainly is entirely dependent on third party companies, which have outside UK interests. In theory its cheaper for the state to outsource defense research, procurement and development and infrastructure, but in reality it has only been the case where projects have failed.

In reality the UK defense and MOD become very dependent on these contractors and suppliers, to the point that they end up having to bankroll their incompetence and failures; its a gravy train for companies, and a lot of ex-MOD / Military and Government Ministers friends who are signed on to companies as 'special consultants', on projects that latterly spend billions providing million pound solutions.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 02 Oct 15 2.34pm

Which is why we'll go ahead with Trident, not because its the best solution, not because its the only solution, or because its the cheapest solution - Its the solution that will buy a lot of jobs in the private defense industry, and get put a lot of money into UK defense contractor companies pockets.

Those people who end up signing the agreements, usually end up with friends or family working for the preferred bidder, along with several ex-military officers who'll receive 'lucrative jobs' that they're utterly unqualified and lacking experience to perform.

 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
npn Flag Crowborough 02 Oct 15 2.50pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Oct 2015 2.24pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 12.23pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Oct 2015 11.22pm

A poll in the Telegraph today showed 85% of respondents sided with Corbyn re the pressing the nuclear button question.

Ahhh...another little 'grenade' to drop in and walk away from eh Nick?

How many 'respondents' were there? Just to give it some context...

It seems that the results have changhed! Thje question was 'if you were prime minister, could you push the nuclear button'
Yesterday evening it was 85% no. Today its 75% yes.

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 12.27pm)

Oddly though there never has been a 'nuclear button'. Although only the UK Prime Minister, and in his absence his appointed Nuclear Deputies have the capacity to order a launch.

One of the first things a new prime minister does is to sign letters for each trident submarine, that if the UK is destroyed and the prime minister and all deputies are not able to communicate, detailing whether they wish to launch or not. These are seal in safes on each submarine and never opened (and destroyed when the prime minister leaves office).


Yes, I read the "is there a red button" article on the BBC web page, too! That's plagiarism, that is

 
nickgusset Flag Shizzlehurst 02 Oct 15 3.35pm

Quote OldFella at 02 Oct 2015 2.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 1.46pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.32pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 1.30pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am


In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population.

[Link]


Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries.

From the article...

Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it.

So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success?


I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed?

Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides.

Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy.

[Link]


You make some good points. Even though I'd put myself slightly left of centre I think the only real system that can work in the modern western world is a "capitalism with a conscience" (the name needs work). I think what the last recession did has highlighted that capitalism, whilst realistically is the only way that the world can live, still has it's major flaws and injustices. Companies and individuals are now being forced to behave in a more 'moral' way (whatever that means now) due to the shift in public opinion.


[Link]

Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright.

I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth.

As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument.
How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy?

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am)


Couldn't agree with this more.


Whilst it is a pretty glib phrase, there are cases where it's entirely appropriate - for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter I used to travel to away games with, was always very in favour of "taxing the sh*t out of the rich". However, when they decided to means-test child benefit (can't remember the limit, was it £50K pa per household?) it transpires that, for that test, he fell into the "rich" category and would therefore lose child benefit as he was too wealthy. He absolutely did his nut, blaming the Tories for taking this cash off him. So it transpires that, in his mind at least, "tax the rich" actually very quickly came to mean "tax the richer than me".


All very amateurishly done that change. If one partner was earning more than £50k they lost the benefit but if both were earning less - could be £40k each - they kept it. Odd. Your mate was right in blowing his top if he knew that.


His wife don't earn much - was purely that he was caught, and doesn't consider himself 'rich', ergo, it's wrong!

What could be classified as rich though?
When Mrs gusset started full time work again , we lost a lot on tax credits. A pain, but only fair as we earn enough to get by.
A lot of working poor in this country are really struggling to get by. Is it envy on my part for me to want them to earn enough to live on?

As an aside, how long will it be before those that have lost their jobs at the steel works in Redcar are described as welfare scroungers by many (who subscribe to the blame the victim narrative that's ever more prevailant) on here?

Good to see you are feeling a bit better, teacher


Stop being a pillock .

 
OldFella Flag London 02 Oct 15 3.46pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 3.35pm

Quote OldFella at 02 Oct 2015 2.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 1.46pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.32pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 1.30pm

Quote npn at 02 Oct 2015 1.22pm

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.53am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.51am

Quote DanH at 02 Oct 2015 11.46am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.31am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 11.17am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 11.06am


In 20 years, this capitalist world has reduced the number in absolute poverty by almost a billion, despite growing world population.

[Link]


Most of which happened in China (due to allowing private business to grow- not conglomerates I hasten to add - and in developing countries.

From the article...

Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the .25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it.

So because many more people earn over .25 a day, can we assume capitalism has been an unfettered success?


I don't pretend that capitalism is perfect, but show me a socialist country that has actually made its people wealthier. It's a false system, if you punish those who create at the top, they simply will not bother to innovate as there is no incentive to do so. If you raise taxes on big business, who do you think will suffer? It won't be those at the top, it will be efficiency savings (read job cuts) at the bottom. Would you rather those people were unemployed?

Capitalism can be accused (quite rightly) of being cold and ruthless, but the end result is a darn sight better than what socialism provides.

Maggie said it perfectly on socialism, "Once they talk about the gap, they'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich were less rich." The politics of envy.

[Link]


You make some good points. Even though I'd put myself slightly left of centre I think the only real system that can work in the modern western world is a "capitalism with a conscience" (the name needs work). I think what the last recession did has highlighted that capitalism, whilst realistically is the only way that the world can live, still has it's major flaws and injustices. Companies and individuals are now being forced to behave in a more 'moral' way (whatever that means now) due to the shift in public opinion.


[Link]

Although the term socialist is loosely used here, I think this list shows that those countries that take a more 'socialist' attitude to helping the worst off are doing alright.

I don't think for one minute that Corbyn is looking for a 'state runs everything' situation, but more of a rebalancing of wealth.

As for the politics of envy comment that gets bandied about. What coswallop. A facile argument.
How does not wanting a few individuals creaming cash off of everyone else to the detriment of society and the health of the planet constitute envy?

Edited by nickgusset (02 Oct 2015 11.52am)


Couldn't agree with this more.


Whilst it is a pretty glib phrase, there are cases where it's entirely appropriate - for example, a dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporter I used to travel to away games with, was always very in favour of "taxing the sh*t out of the rich". However, when they decided to means-test child benefit (can't remember the limit, was it £50K pa per household?) it transpires that, for that test, he fell into the "rich" category and would therefore lose child benefit as he was too wealthy. He absolutely did his nut, blaming the Tories for taking this cash off him. So it transpires that, in his mind at least, "tax the rich" actually very quickly came to mean "tax the richer than me".


All very amateurishly done that change. If one partner was earning more than £50k they lost the benefit but if both were earning less - could be £40k each - they kept it. Odd. Your mate was right in blowing his top if he knew that.


His wife don't earn much - was purely that he was caught, and doesn't consider himself 'rich', ergo, it's wrong!

What could be classified as rich though?
When Mrs gusset started full time work again , we lost a lot on tax credits. A pain, but only fair as we earn enough to get by.
A lot of working poor in this country are really struggling to get by. Is it envy on my part for me to want them to earn enough to live on?

As an aside, how long will it be before those that have lost their jobs at the steel works in Redcar are described as welfare scroungers by many (who subscribe to the blame the victim narrative that's ever more prevailant) on here?

Good to see you are feeling a bit better, teacher


Stop being a pillock .

Always good to see a chap who has his priorities right


 

Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it..
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 02 Oct 15 3.53pm

Quote chris123 at 02 Oct 2015 1.00pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.25am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 10.20am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.09am


Did you read about them in the mainstream media we are going up?
Why do you think the 5 owners of 80% of the british media (who incidently don't even live here) want to keep the non-dom status quo?


Hilarious, classic left-winger blaming the media. Could it possibly be that people have seen that capitalism has increased wealth at all levels and have therefore voted for it consistently in this country?

You'll probably call the Tories "anti-democratic" in a minute.


Increased wealth at all levels? Tell that to the people relying on food banks.


The fact they have 'food banks' to go to is evidence of a wealthy society anyway...surely?

If you earn 20k you take home 83 %, 30k you take home 78%, 40k it's 75% - so from a tax point of view that's as low as I can remember.

The Tories may have reduced income tax a little, but they put VAT up to a massive 20%, and of course VAT hits the less well off harder.

 

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Stuk Flag Top half 02 Oct 15 3.59pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Oct 2015 3.53pm

Quote chris123 at 02 Oct 2015 1.00pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.25am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 10.20am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.09am


Did you read about them in the mainstream media we are going up?
Why do you think the 5 owners of 80% of the british media (who incidently don't even live here) want to keep the non-dom status quo?


Hilarious, classic left-winger blaming the media. Could it possibly be that people have seen that capitalism has increased wealth at all levels and have therefore voted for it consistently in this country?

You'll probably call the Tories "anti-democratic" in a minute.


Increased wealth at all levels? Tell that to the people relying on food banks.


The fact they have 'food banks' to go to is evidence of a wealthy society anyway...surely?

If you earn 20k you take home 83 %, 30k you take home 78%, 40k it's 75% - so from a tax point of view that's as low as I can remember.

The Tories may have reduced income tax a little, but they put VAT up to a massive 20%, and of course VAT hits the less well off harder.

and increased the free pay threshold.

 

Optimistic as ever
chris123 Flag hove actually 02 Oct 15 11.58pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Oct 2015 3.53pm

Quote chris123 at 02 Oct 2015 1.00pm

Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.31pm

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.25am

Quote We are goin up! at 02 Oct 2015 10.20am

Quote nickgusset at 02 Oct 2015 10.09am


Did you read about them in the mainstream media we are going up?
Why do you think the 5 owners of 80% of the british media (who incidently don't even live here) want to keep the non-dom status quo?


Hilarious, classic left-winger blaming the media. Could it possibly be that people have seen that capitalism has increased wealth at all levels and have therefore voted for it consistently in this country?

You'll probably call the Tories "anti-democratic" in a minute.


Increased wealth at all levels? Tell that to the people relying on food banks.


The fact they have 'food banks' to go to is evidence of a wealthy society anyway...surely?

If you earn 20k you take home 83 %, 30k you take home 78%, 40k it's 75% - so from a tax point of view that's as low as I can remember.

The Tories may have reduced income tax a little, but they put VAT up to a massive 20%, and of course VAT hits the less well off harder.

Which is less than Belgium, Czech Rep, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

 
The White Horse Flag 03 Oct 15 12.30am

Most appalling personal ratings in decades:

[Link]

Worse than Ed Miliband and he's just given a feeble Tory party a majority. British politics needs some prospect of kicking out the Tories, otherwise it's all a waste of pissing time.

Utterly depressing.

 

"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee

matt_himself Flag Matataland 03 Oct 15 7.29am


Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Oct 2015 11.22pm

A poll in the Telegraph today showed 85% of respondents sided with Corbyn re the pressing the nuclear button question.

Ahhh...another little 'grenade' to drop in and walk away from eh Nick?

How many 'respondents' were there? Just to give it some context...

I would press the button. I would do it whilst laughing manically and cradling a brandy.

I also believe that as Corbyn has demonstrated he is a pussy by saying he wouldn't press the button, he is sort of bloke who apologises when he has an orgasm. You can imagine it - 'urgh, argh, urgh, argh, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh, sorry Diane'.


Edited by (03 Oct 2015 7.34am)

 

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
daven Flag Hailsham 03 Oct 15 8.17am

Having nuclear weapons is all about defence not attack.We have cut our forces to below recommended levels because of them.We will always leave the element of doubt as to whether we would use them or not,otherwise its the equivalent of us having Messi on the subs bench and announcing before the game that we will never use him.

 
Ketteridge Flag Brighton 03 Oct 15 8.48am

Quote matt_himself at 03 Oct 2015 7.29am


Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Oct 2015 11.22pm

A poll in the Telegraph today showed 85% of respondents sided with Corbyn re the pressing the nuclear button question.

Ahhh...another little 'grenade' to drop in and walk away from eh Nick?

How many 'respondents' were there? Just to give it some context...

I would press the button. I would do it whilst laughing manically and cradling a brandy.

I also believe that as Corbyn has demonstrated he is a pussy by saying he wouldn't press the button, he is sort of bloke who apologises when he has an orgasm. You can imagine it - 'urgh, argh, urgh, argh, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh, sorry Diane'.


Edited by (03 Oct 2015 7.34am)


Probably better than call me Dave 'urgh, argh, urgh, argh, arrrghhh oink oink'

 

One supporter of hacking argued that without it "you will do away with the courage and pluck of the game, and I will be bound to bring over a lot of Frenchmen who would beat you with a week's practice -Blackheath secretary at first meeting of the F.A
johnfirewall Flag 04 Oct 15 11.28am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 30 Sep 2015 9.18am

Quote johnfirewall at 29 Sep 2015 10.32pm

What on earth is this politics of kindness? Is it not the same as what Blair created? Coincidence that most his voters grew up in that era?

I think its like the 'Big Society' and 'all in it togeather' the empty vapid nonsense that politicians come out with that sounds good but is in fact a load of old bollocks in which politicians elicit support on the basis of oratory, rather than truth and policy.

Big State more like. I note that Corbyn also mentioned opportunities for the youth created by increasing university places, while a member of his cabinet slagged off apprenticeships. Similar to the Blairite obsession with sending everyone to Uni.

 
oldcodger Flag 04 Oct 15 1.04pm

Quote Ketteridge at 03 Oct 2015 8.48am

Quote matt_himself at 03 Oct 2015 7.29am


Quote Lyons550 at 02 Oct 2015 12.22pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Oct 2015 11.22pm

A poll in the Telegraph today showed 85% of respondents sided with Corbyn re the pressing the nuclear button question.

Ahhh...another little 'grenade' to drop in and walk away from eh Nick?

How many 'respondents' were there? Just to give it some context...

I would press the button. I would do it whilst laughing manically and cradling a brandy.

I also believe that as Corbyn has demonstrated he is a pussy by saying he wouldn't press the button, he is sort of bloke who apologises when he has an orgasm. You can imagine it - 'urgh, argh, urgh, argh, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh, sorry Diane'.


Edited by (03 Oct 2015 7.34am)


Probably better than call me Dave 'urgh, argh, urgh, argh, arrrghhh oink oink'

Labour and Tories are two sides of the same s*** sandwich. It all gets a bit Punch and Judy.

 
serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 20 Oct 15 12.47pm

[Link]

Lord Warner leaves the Labour Party. The man who presided over opening up NHS contracts to private health companies he himself had a stake in. I mean, this guy is such a mug it's unreal. He's playing right in to the hands of Corbyn, who will point to the fact that not only is losing an unelected Blairite no great loss pragmatically, but actually it benefits the party if you don't have w@nkers influencing party policy who have fairly explicitly tried to undo one of the most popular and successful pieces of legislation that Labour have ever achieved (the NHS).

Can they get rid of Chukka next please?

 

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Page 65 of 279 < 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 >

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Jeremy Corbyn