***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 8 *****
==========================================================
Continuing debate.
PLEASE NOTE:-
To try and maintain some kind of logical order of discussion, if you start a new subject then reply to this post and remember to change the default subject header.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 2 Dec 15 at 19:02
|
Don't get it.
Corbyn is being open, honest and true to his stated beliefs.
What is the Labour Party's problem? He's their leader, democratically elected by *their* process. And now they seem to be deciding that whatever the people who voted want, they disagree with him and so they won't support him.
Goodness knows that politicians generally are an appalling race, the Labour politicians do seem to be taking stupidity to a whole new level.
And, in this case, I probably agree with him.
|
What I don't get is this: why is Dave Cameron worried about not getting his wish in Parliament in a vote on Syria? Why does he need to know that Labour are with him? Hasn't he got a majority? Doesn't this show that he's expecting some of his own party to oppose him? In which case, the Tories are just as divided as Labour. So why is only Labour being analysed on the subject? Is this another case of the BBC's inherent right-wing bias?
(Last comment slightly TIC, but you get where I'm coming from.)
|
>> What I don't get is this: why is Dave Cameron worried about not getting his
>> wish in Parliament in a vote on Syria? Why does he need to know that
>> Labour are with him? Hasn't he got a majority?
Not a big one.
>> Doesn't this show that he's expecting
>> some of his own party to oppose him?
Not being a big one, he hasn't got much wriggle room to allow for sickness, missing, late or recalcitrant MPs. (dont forget you have to be there to vote), plus with a big vote like military action, he wants to be seen to be given a big mandate.
|
|
I thought this is what whips were for.
|
>> I thought this is what whips were for.
They are, but if you have to whip a vote you have no legitimate mandate. And whips are not 100%. And every whipped vote creates another dissident and a leadership challenge further down the line
|
>>I thought this is what whips were for. <<
Whips were made to be worn with very high heeled leather boots and black stockings.
Pat
|
Rather like my T shirt that says:
Happiness is whips, chains, baby oil and warm custard...
Yes it was bought at a beer festival
|
You're right. It's the PLP who disagree with him. And they nominated him.
It won't leave the shadow cabinet covered in glory if they resign en masse to trigger a new leadership contest.
I expect it will be avoided by having a free vote.
|
>> Don't get it.
>>
>> Corbyn is being open, honest and true to his stated beliefs.
>>
>> What is the Labour Party's problem? He's their leader, democratically elected by *their* process. And
>> now they seem to be deciding that whatever the people who voted want, they disagree
>> with him and so they won't support him.
The Labour party is not one whole entity at the moment.
Ed Miliband opened the door for activists (and others) to register and have a vote for the leader, so loads of them did. It would seem that Joe Average didn't.
Mostly, the MPs are middle of the road or Blairite types... whereas the activists and similar are more Left.
So there's a civil war brewing because most of the MPs are on a different track than JC, the activists and unions.
Either JC will clamp down on the outspoken shadow ministers / MPs, have mass resignations or deselections and the Labour party will shift Left... or... he will have to resign, a moderate leader will have be found and it will stay slightly Left of middleish.
|
>>Either JC will clamp down on the outspoken shadow ministers / MPs, have mass
>>resignations or deselections and the Labour party will shift Left... or... he will have to
>>resign, a moderate leader will have be found and it will stay slightly Left of middleish.
Agreed. although I'm not sure which way it will go.
It would be better for the country in the long term if the Labour party moved left to join Corbyn, but I am not sure it will happen.
|
>> It would be better for the country in the long term if the Labour party moved left to join Corbyn, but I am not sure it will happen.
Yes FMR. But as you imply, the MPs may well be too conservative to allow it. The carphounds don't deserve the highly principled Corbyn.
|
He is seemingly very highly principled.
I could never vote for him, and we could never see eye to eye politically and would argue a lot, but the guy has got principles, no doubt about that.
Still a s***e party leader though.
|
>> >>
>> Yes FMR. But as you imply, the MPs may well be too conservative to allow
>> it. The carphounds don't deserve the highly principled Corbyn.
>>
Highly principled, or a stubborn old dinosaur who never forgets and never learns? I'm always wary of anyone who has gone through life and all it throws up while still thinking like they did when they were sixteen.
|
The carphounds don't deserve the highly principled Corbyn.
>>
"Principled" is a strange word to describe someone who supports terrorists who would have happily killed YOU. And I mean you AC.. a former running dog of the capitalist press..
Last edited by: madf on Sat 28 Nov 15 at 19:00
|
|
Rubbish, both of you. Corbyn doesn't 'support terrorism'.
|
Problem is that Political parties expect to be led. They might not agree with the leadership, the leadership policies, but they expect to be told what to do and what to stand for.
Corbyn want to lead by consensus, allow and embrace disparate views and policies. He is no leader.
The parliamentary wing of the party can't cope with it. Headless chickens.
|
I'm in agreement with Corbyn regarding Syria. Going in would be a complete disaster as history has shown us time and again. The Syrians should be left to sort it out themselves, if they need help they have plenty of neighbours who have as much to fear from ISIS as they do.
Advice and equipment yes, boots on the ground or planes in the air, no.
|
>> I'm in agreement with Corbyn regarding Syria. Going in would be a complete disaster as
>> history has shown us time and again. The Syrians should be left to sort it
>> out themselves, if they need help they have plenty of neighbours who have as much
>> to fear from ISIS as they do.
>>
>> Advice and equipment yes, boots on the ground or planes in the air, no.
>>
+0.5
Leaving the Syrians to sort it out means more refugees here...and no guarantee it will not last 50 years.
TO AC
A Left wing view of Corbyn.
"You won’t get it because Labour’s best traditions also include anti-fascism and internationalism while your support – to me, inexplicable and shameful – for the fascistic and antisemitic forces of Hezbollah and Hamas flies in the face of those traditions. In particular, your full-throated cheer-leading for the vicious antisemitic Islamist Raed Salah is a deal-breaker."
leftfootforward.org/2015/06/an-open-letter-to-jeremy-corbyn/
Last edited by: madf on Sun 29 Nov 15 at 10:33
|
>> A Left wing view of Corbyn.
With the important qualification that it's written from an explicitly pro-Israel viewpoint.
The Palestinians have no voice through the ballot box in Israel and the world powers (UN etc) won't hold Natanhyahu's feet to the fire to get any movement on implementing previously agreed peace accords.
While in no way defending the anti-semitism or violent excesses og Hamas etc what other voices exist for Palestinians?
|
A view from what's supposed to be the lefties organ on the Labour situation and lack of a way forward:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/29/labour-mps-party-agonies-no-way-to-lose-corbyn
Rawnsley's analysis seems spot on to me.
The driver for Miliband's OMOV reform was to keep hands of the left wing bogeymen of the Trade Union movement, in particular Len MCluskey, away from the party's controls. In fact of course, as in 1981 and Benn v Healey, the unions are to the right of the LP constituency membership.
|
|
What a pompous superstitious racist pile of poo madf. Not your fault of course but I'd be ashamed to have written that.
|
>> What a pompous superstitious racist pile of poo madf. Not your fault of course but
>> I'd be ashamed to have written that.
>>
I actually think Corbyn is correct on not bombing Syria. I see no gains and lots of losses. Unless we have ground troops and neutralise external support from Turkey and Saudi.
He is ,however, doing his best to split his Party. I expect a three line whip. If you truly BELIEVE, there can be no compromise. Period.. If I had Corbyn's beliefs, I would think the same ..
|
Corbyn must be on a short lease as leader. A blanket refusal to assist the UN in ridding the earth of this poisonous sect, is beyond belief. Whether the UK should join in on bombing Syria depends on what is meant by "bombing Syria". If the phrase was "bombing, and shooting ISIS, and all their active network" then all but pacifists would concur, I suspect. The difficulty is that the terms of engagement are not known. I can't recall any indication of what the extent of UK involvement could be, other than a reference to our very own Brimstone missiles to carry out closely targeted elimination, a capabilty said to lacking by the USA. Difficult to believe. In any event the Saudis have such missiles, and are more capable of inserting spotters with a chance of survival:)
|
>> Corbyn must be on a short lease as leader. A blanket refusal to assist the
>> UN in ridding the earth of this poisonous sect, is beyond belief.
Quite... and nicely goes to show how ridiculous pacifism is.
No one sane would wish for a war, but sometimes you have to step up to the plate, through no choice.
|
>> >> Corbyn must be on a short lease as leader. A blanket refusal to assist
>> the
>> >> UN in ridding the earth of this poisonous sect, is beyond belief.
>>
>> Quite... and nicely goes to show how ridiculous pacifism is.
>>
>> No one sane would wish for a war, but sometimes you have to step up
>> to the plate, through no choice.
>>
Corbyn's not a pacifist and isn't proposing a pacifist position on this issue. If anything, he wants more action not less, believing that air power alone won't make any difference. He probably has a point.
Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 1 Dec 15 at 09:58
|
>> Corbyn's not a pacifist
He looks like one to me
|
Anyone who was Deputy Chairman of Stop The War is a pacifist by definition. To deny it is so risible it beggars belief.
Also by definition anti Westerm anti Capitalism and pro Russia.
|
>> Anyone who was Deputy Chairman of Stop The War is a pacifist by definition. To
>> deny it is so risible it beggars belief.
>> Also by definition anti Westerm anti Capitalism and pro Russia.
The first sentence is an arguable proposition.
The second is nonsense.
|
>> >> Corbyn's not a pacifist
>>
>> He looks like one to me
>>
Oh, well, guilty as charged then. Take him down.
Good job you were never a copper.
|
>> Oh, well, guilty as charged then. Take him down.
>>
>> Good job you were never a copper.
>>
So what are you saying then?... A good copper never follows his/her instincts, follows what their 5 senses give them, form an informed opinion.... then try to back it up with fact.
Are you suggesting a dreadful, politically correct, enforced numbness where you cannot form an opinion in case you got it wrong? You force yourself to remain artificially neutral?
Surely most people use their life experiences to form a preliminary judgement.. and the good ones keep an open mind and are willing to change tack if the evidence changes?
|
>> I expect a three line
>> whip. If you truly BELIEVE, there can be no compromise. Period.. If I had Corbyn's
>> beliefs, I would think the same ..
I expect a free vote. You can't tell other people what to believe when it is about dropping bombs on people.
|
>> I expect a free vote. You can't tell other people what to believe when it
>> is about dropping bombs on people.
>>
I disagree. If Corbyn truly believes that bombing is wrong then he should do everything in his power, including a three line whip, to ensure that it does not happen.
|
>> I disagree. If Corbyn truly believes that bombing is wrong then he should do everything
>> in his power, including a three line whip, to ensure that it does not happen.
That would be a very paradoxical position for him to take; effectively, that he will be bound by his conscience but others must do as he says.
Has he a mandate for that position? I don't think so. In any case his belief is not principle-based but pragmatic, an opinion; he thinks it won't work.
Neither would a three liner work - the PLP will defy the whip, topple Corbyn, and plunge(sorry) Labour into greater chaos.
Corbyn is in a corner of his own making. He has previously said such votes are a matter of conscience and a free vote, so how can he now say otherwise?
It's very interesting - the higher a politician goes, the more they have to fudge, duck, dive, lie and compromise. It's very easy for a "man of principle" to challenge the machinery when there is no chance of being responsible - once leader, having committed himself to his binary approach on some big issues, he is constantly sawing at the branch he stands on whatever he does.
STOP PRESS: NEC member Pete Willsman has just been on world at one saying Corbyn is too soft and it must be a three liner or (something, I'm not sure what, but he was quite cross)
|
>> I disagree. If Corbyn truly believes that bombing is wrong then he should do everything
>> in his power, including a three line whip, to ensure that it does not happen.
I can see your point... it's just that he is hopelessly out of step with much of his MPs and a huge chunk of the electorate.
|
|
I agree and he is out of step with me but if he genuinely believes military action to be wrong the I can't see how he can do otherwise without betraying his principles.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 30 Nov 15 at 17:23
|
>> I can see your point... it's just that he is hopelessly out of step with
>> much of his MPs and a huge chunk of the electorate.
Some of his MPs and Some of the electorate. There is still much of the "tricked into war by blair" feeling around in the house, and the country.
|
Today's 'Matt' in the Telegraph
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
|
I bet the French wished they never got involved in this quagmire.
The terrible results where to see in Paris.Who is feeding this group called Isis.Was it he Yanks to get writ of Assad or the Saudis.They are driving around in Toyota's causing havoc.
We here so many reports and opinions.I always find that people who want bombing never had one dropped on them.I remember my mother telling me the bombing in Rotterdam while she was there.Scared stiff is a understatement.
|
>> We here so many reports and opinions.I always find that people who want bombing never
>> had one dropped on them.I remember my mother telling me the bombing in Rotterdam while
>> she was there.Scared stiff is a understatement.
I was bombed when I was a child. I was never frightened. I found it exciting.
I guess I would think differently nowadays.
|
I don't think "bombing Syria" is the right thing to do.
Not because I think that ridding the world of these ISIL savages is a bad thing, but because I do not think it will work.
Boots on the ground will be needed and who better to step up to the plate than those Middle Eastern and other countries , some in Africa, who are infested by these people and their close counterparts?
It won't happen, I fear, as it is not beyond the bounds of possibility (or rumour, maybe) that a part, at least, of ISIL funding comes from Oil-State sponsored fanatics in the Middle East itself.
|
It's certainly a right proper mess.
The members of the party chose a leader. The MPs didn't want him. The country doesn't want him, but the party members are ecstatic - likewise the big unions.
Woe betide the MPs if they revolt against him as they'll be deselected. You couldn't write this stuff. I did enjoy this article though:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12021977/Labour-MPs-have-only-one-option-a-mutiny.html
The idea is that the MPs could take over the party; Corby could stay in office, but the whipping would be done according to the MPs' wishes, not The Leader's.
(I love the way he refers to himself as The Leader. Shades of Stalin, Mao, Hitler etc.)
And to those who say he is a man of principle, is the opening of this article incorrect?
What do you call a man who promises to do one thing and then does the opposite? A liar? A hypocrite? Or just plain Jeremy Corbyn?
On Thursday night Corbyn wrote to all Labour MPs explaining that he could not support David Cameron’s proposal for air strikes in Syria. This surprised the shadow cabinet, who had just had a meeting with the leader in which he had – they thought – signed up to collective decision-making on the Syria vote. Myself, I wouldn’t have believed a word he said – but then I would never have served in the current shadow cabinet at all.
Something must be done by the Labour MPs if their party is to have a future. But I think they'll bottle it. And I fear that will be the end of Labour.
|
>> (I love the way he refers to himself as The Leader. Shades of Stalin, Mao, Hitler etc.)
God what cobblers. One would almost think this was a far-right website sometimes.
How many people here have ever met or conversed with Jeremy Corbyn? I have, and he struck me as a modest, low-key individual, serious, hard-working and humane.
I hate the hat he's wearing in the big photo in today's Terrorflag, but then I'm a bit of a hat critic, indeed rather down on hats in general. The beard's OK though, it could pass for a decent unshaven look.
|
>>God what cobblers.
Really? He has this way of referring to himself in the third person as 'the leader' without saying of what he is leader, which I consider to be most peculiar usage of the English language.
“It is the leader who decides. I will make up my mind in due course,†he said.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/29/jeremy-corbyn-warns-rebels-im-not-going-anywhere-syria
I was not trying to compare HIM to such men; merely the way he styles himself. It amuses me!
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Mon 30 Nov 15 at 17:20
|
Well it's a free vote as I expected.
Whether that is because he appreciates the delicacy of telling people what to think on a matter of conscience, or because he foresaw the embarrassing rebellion (after a "severe kicking" in the shadow cabinet) against an attempt to whip the vote, we will never know.
His fig leaf is that he had hoped for a party consensus which had not been achieved, and therefore it is the right decision. We know that is just a pretext because there was never any hope of a consensus.
He would have been better to tell the truth, at least it would have been consistent with the persona of an honest politician.
I don't doubt that he is genuinely less artful than the Bullingdon boys on the bench opposite, and certainly less than Blair. He needs to protect that perceived quality, it's all he has, but he must try to be more calculating with it. So far he has got almost everything wrong.
|
Point about Corbyn is that he's shy and retiring. He doesn't think he has a prescriptive right to be leader of anything, so feels he has to mention it in case people don't get it.
The 'Bullingdon boys' do feel they have a natural right to run the country. Dunno whether I'd call them 'artful' though.
|
>> The 'Bullingdon boys' do feel they have a natural right to run the country.
Good point. Therefore a right to do what they think is necessary.
>>Dunno
>> whether I'd call them 'artful' though.
I was trying to avoid libel. 'Artful' in my dinosaurus is a synonym of adroit, ingenious, masterly and shrewd but also of sly, crafty, scheming and tricky. Take your pick!
|
>> Well it's a free vote as I expected.
It was perceptive when you said it, but it'd become more obvious in the last hours. I'm not sure what else he could have done.
I've seen a few things in the last 48hrs slinging rocks at his integrity. Perhaps they're true, but i like to think not.
I remember when I first got senior in business. Whatever you lot think, I pride myself on being a manager of people with an unbeatable level of integrity. Which is what I always aimed to be.
Realistically though, I often dodge questions, lie directly, lie by omission, lie by misdirection, tell half truths, omit, fudge and confuse. [I maintain that my motives are the best, but I quite get it if you don't accept that].
My point being that if you want to do the best for your people, then you need to be the leader. If you want to be the leader, then you need to do what your supporters want, which may not always be what is best for your people.
I am not left wing, nor fervent or fanatical. Clearly [to me at least] Corbyn is all three. Not only do I admire his stance, I completely sympathise with his dilemma; do your best and get kicked out, or do less but be there for a long time.
And other than one time in Amsterdam about 10 years ago, I don't get hunted down by the press. Whereas Corbyn must know that every part of the UK media is just waiting to blast his incompetence across their headlines.
I find it easy to empathise with honourable people, however much I disagree with them. And to me Corbyn seems honest. Desperately wrong and misguided, but honest.
I do hope he is.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 30 Nov 15 at 19:08
|
>> And other than one time in Amsterdam about 10 years ago, I don't get hunted
>> down by the press.
Yeah, Tanya the Tranny was always apt to go blabbing her mouth off.
|
|
Tanya the Tranny wasn't the issue, she was too busy with some aging account consultant from IBM, it was Dora the Dodgy that did for me.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 30 Nov 15 at 19:20
|
>>>>
>> Something must be done by the Labour MPs if their party is to have a
>> future. But I think they'll bottle it. And I fear that will be the end
>> of Labour.
>>
It won't be the end of Labour, any more than the Foot era was. If they get hammered at the next election they'll simply re-invent themselves with a new leader and wait for people to get sick of the Conservatives, which will happen in time. Elections are never won, they are lost by the sitting party.
|
|
We have a typical politicians expecting miracles situation. The RAF say they need 24 Tornados for a combined Iraq / Syria job.The Tornados are have been run down prior to phasing them out of service, spares are becoming scarce and to keep 24 operational you need near 50 for the training of crews and maintainers, replacements for aircraft which are defective, in extended maintenance and repair etc. We ain't got enough of them for the job.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 30 Nov 15 at 17:41
|
|
It doesn't work like that, 24 (50) dedicated to the task. Then you need the same again for training rest, leave, etc I don't know exactly how the RAF do things but for an extended commitment the Navy need a minimum of four times the hardware and personnel that the task requires. You can get away with less for short commitments. How many of the squadrons in your list are fully operational, in training, reserve, etc?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 30 Nov 15 at 18:03
|
>> I don't know exactly how the RAF do
>> things but for an extended commitment the Navy need a minimum of four times the
>> hardware and personnel that the task requires.
In the Old Bill it was 6.
If you wanted one PC permanently, you had to have 6 minimum available.... one early shift, one late shift, one night shift, two on days off (5 week shift pattern) and one more for training / sickness / court / etc.
|
|
That is an impressive list of RAF squadrons but I wonder how many are at full strength. I would put money on most if not all being short of operational aircraft and personnel.
|
>> In the Old Bill it was 6.
>>
The Navy four is four complete sets of personnel. Your six would be 24 with maybe a few skimmed of the backup. You don't get days off at sea. :-)
|
They have 88 Tornados. There is no evidence that they have insufficient aircraft to complete the proposed bombing mission in Syria. You have provided no information whatsoever thqt this is not the case.
|
Missed the edit.
It is impossible for all our Tornados to be operational. Some will be in pieces in a workshop some will be used for training, etc.
The Americans have done almost 4,000 missions, we have done less than 400, last time I heard. We are hardly contributing a war winner.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 30 Nov 15 at 19:18
|
The bombing mission in IRAQ/SYRIA/ISILVILLE is not exactly onerous or extensive, they have no must have need to fly 4 missions a day, its not a target rich environment, its not hazardous (ISIL are not over equipped with effective SAMS). This is for show only, "we are there as well" statement. So you dont need squadrons and squadrons of 24 hour a day air cover.
|
>> This is for show only,
>> "we are there as well" statement. So you dont need squadrons and squadrons of 24
>> hour a day air cover.
That makes it even worse - aligning with the Great Satan with for great effect on ISIL.
|
|
No matter what we do it will be a token presence.
|
>> The bombing mission in IRAQ/SYRIA/ISILVILLE is not exactly onerous or extensive, they have no must have need to fly 4 missions a day, its not a target rich environment, its not hazardous (ISIL are not over equipped with effective SAMS). This is for show only "we are there as well" statement. So you dont need squadrons and squadrons of 24
>> hour a day air cover.
All depends on the tasking orders, lots of it will be recce missions. We could do more, there will be dozens of sorties across iraq and syria involving Nato. Whether we do more is a choice. Raptor sorties will especially in demand.
|
>> They have 88 Tornados. There is no evidence that they have insufficient aircraft to complete
>> the proposed bombing mission in Syria. You have provided no information whatsoever thqt this is
>> not the case.
I doubt there's 88 of the correct standard, which is quite important, not all aircraft in the fleet can those sorts of missions. 24 tornados is fantasy it might the number needed but no way could that number be manned and sustained.
|
>>24 tornados is fantasy it might the number needed but no way could that number be manned and sustained.
>>
Thanks sooty, I may know stuff all about how the RAF works but I know a little bit about the logistics required to complete a task and have a rough idea of what kit we have available.
|
While I wouldn't place too much weight on the Express, owned by UKIP funder Lord Hollick, the Guardian also reports LAbour as 'nervous':
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/28/labour-ukip-oldham-west-byelection-fight
Even if his fundamental views were wholly aligned with my own (and they're not) Corbyn's not the rightt man for the job. AC, who's met him, puts his finger on the reason.
|
>>While I wouldn't place too much weight on the Express
You and me both guv'nor. I glance at most of the comics for a laugh every morning.
"To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worth while. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter."
Um, Aleister Crowley!!
|
>> Is he having a giraffe?
>>
>> www.express.co.uk/news/politics/623234/Nigel-Farage-Ukip-by-election-win-will-end-Corbyn-leadership
>>
Nigel's talking it up to rally the troops!
I understand quite a few UKIP activists are camped in the constituency helping out, but boots on the ground are essential.
Given that the bloc votes are already postally cast and the huge Labour majority traditionally enjoyed here, I doubt we will win, but I think we will do quite well in cutting Labour's vote.
In other closish elections where UKIP has been involved as runners up, it has often been the postal vote which has swung it - voting on the day has been modestly in our favour, or too close to call.
|
>> Given that the bloc votes are already postally cast and the huge Labour majority traditionally
>> enjoyed here, I doubt we will win, but I think we will do quite well
>> in cutting Labour's vote.
>> In other closish elections where UKIP has been involved as runners up, it has often
>> been the postal vote which has swung it - voting on the day has been
>> modestly in our favour, or too close to call.
Interesting to see the UKIP spin. But In the real world we call it massive hype followed by abject failure.
|
>> massive hype followed by abject failure.
Oh, are we talking about UKIP in the GE again?
|
|
To be fair, the last thing Farage wants is for Corbyn to go...
|
>> To be fair, the last thing Farage wants is for Corbyn to go...
>>
Ditto Cameron and the Tories.
Corbyn should have crucified the Tories on the Budget, the NHS strike and the Tory sex scandal.
Instead, Labour splits dominate reality.
Go figure
Bad Governments need a strong Opposition.
Last edited by: madf on Tue 1 Dec 15 at 12:14
|
>> Corbyn should have crucified the Tories on the Budget, the NHS strike and the Tory
>> sex scandal.
I'd leave the sex scandal out unless it's about more than copulation but on the rest madf is absolutely right.
Osborne has not only performed a handbrake turn on Tax Credits* but his entire plan for the budget surplus by 2020 required by his own law is founded on an OBR forecast of unbroken sunshine. Most such forecasts turn out to be wrong. Other reports suggest it's also dependent on immigration way in excess of 'tens of thousands'.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/01/osborne-reliant-on-rising-immigration-levels-to-achieve-budget-surplus
The NHS thing is another avoidable farrago which has allowed the BMA to give a demonstration summa- cum-laude of the benefits of a strong and determined union. Hunt looks likes a twerp again.
*Actually he's kicked the can down the road because Universal Credit will raise the same storm and issues in 18-24 months time.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 1 Dec 15 at 12:43
|
The problem is that these are two things he has got to do.
The NHS needs to be halved in size. We cannot afford to keep people alive the way we currently do. Nobody envisaged this for the NHS. No healthy person wants to pay for the prolonging of the lives of the unhealthy. We have lost all common sense on this front.
Welfare bills need to be cut drastically. It makes no sense importing Eastern Europeans to do jobs on minimum wage that the Brits won't do and therefore get paid benefits. Does it. This isn't being against immigration. This is about poor use of our own resources.
|
"No healthy person wants to pay for the prolonging of the lives of the unhealthy."
So your wife is sick. You want her finished off?
|
>> Welfare bills need to be cut drastically. It makes no sense importing Eastern Europeans to
>> do jobs on minimum wage that the Brits won't do and therefore get paid benefits.
>> Does it. This isn't being against immigration. This is about poor use of our own
>> resources.
Where is this army of the unemployed who should or could substitute for EU migrant workers?
Unemployment nationally, based on seeking work not the (lower) claimant count, is around 5%. Statistically, allowing for churn in the Labour market, that's close to full employment. Where there may be an issue though is with people working just enough hours to get Working Tax Credit.
|
>> Unemployment nationally, based on seeking work not the (lower) claimant count, is around 5%. Statistically,
>> allowing for churn in the Labour market, that's close to full employment. Where there may
>> be an issue though is with people working just enough hours to get Working Tax
>> Credit.
I do wonder if unemployment figures are worth whatever medium they are written on. There is the unemployment rate (about 5%) and the employment rate for persons aged 16-64 (about 73%). c. 22% therefore are not accounted for in those numbers.
The employment rate is at a record high.
What may have changed is the nature of employment and unemployment. I worked, though not in the shops, for retail multiples for 22 years. In that time, full time contracts where store employees worked 40 hours rostered over 7 days with extra money for unsocial hours were switched to contracted hours with no extra payments, many of them part or "key" timers working only afternoons/evenings/weekends.Where a shop say might have employed 20 assistants all full time, it may now employ 50 people part time, possibly on zero hours contracts. That's net 30 people transferred from unemployment to employment, but with no more work being done and a lower wage bill. Many of those "employed" people may in fact be looking for full time work or additional part-time work (unless of course they are on a zero hours contract that prevents them being available to do other work).
There are also legions of 55+ inactives who have been disposed of by their erstwhile employers and who do not sign on because it is not worth their while (I am a case in point) and who either quietly do nothing while using savings to bridge the gap to retirement, or who appear in the burgeoning number of self-employed, many of whom are not doing very much work at all. Add to those however many more inactives looking for work are lurking in the ESA universe.
That's before you start on any manipulation that takes place, bearing in mind that unemployment is in effect a performance measure for government. It has certainly been massaged in the past.
It's very difficult to get a picture IMO.
|
Manatee's point about the changing nature of the labour market is well made. And it's not just in retail. What's not clear is how many of those working are, through choice, doing just enough hours to get Working tax Credit (for which the rules vary according to circumstance) and how many are subject to perverse incentives on employers (eg National Insurance regs).
There's a useful link here tinyurl.com/zmpagoz (Office for National Statistics). The whole thing is far too long to read without professional need but the first few pages give a helpful overview of terminology.
The 22% mentioned are regarded as economically inactive; they have not sought work in last four weeks and are not able to start in next two weeks. This group covers those unfit for work, looking after the family or home and students as well as people like me, until I tumbled into a job at Citizens Advice, in various forms of early retirement and not actively seeking work.
The numbers are determined from the Labour Market Survey and not the claimant count so should pick up those in Manatee's position who, albeit ineligible for benefit, are still looking for work.
|
>> The NHS needs to be halved in size. We cannot afford to keep people alive
>> the way we currently do. Nobody envisaged this for the NHS. No healthy person wants
>> to pay for the prolonging of the lives of the unhealthy.
What is the NHS for then? I've had no need to use it whilst in a healthy condition. When life threateningly unhealthy it has saved me on at least one occasion I can think of. Perhaps I should have gone quietly to save you a few quid?
|
>> Nobody envisaged this for the NHS. No healthy person wants
>> to pay for the prolonging of the lives of the unhealthy.
So exactly what do you want the mission of doctors and hospitals to become, if its not fixing the sick?
|
= = > summa- cum-laude
I had to look that up.
:o)
|
I think Labour will hold Oldham West with a substantial reduction in its majority. The anti-Labour vote was evenly split between Conservative and UKIP at the general election, each with about 20% of the vote v. Labour's 55%. Labour would need to lose 40% of its vote to be in real trouble unless here is a material transfer of votes between Conservative and UKIP.
Corbyn being perceived as soft on jihadists won't play well though, in a constituency that in 2001 had race riots and the BNP taking 16% of the vote. Michael Meacher was also a popular MP by all accounts, so Labour could take a big hit even if it scrapes through. The Labour candidate is a local lad currently leader of the council, no idea how popular he is.
|
>> Interesting to see the UKIP spin. But In the real world we call it massive
>> hype followed by abject failure.
Losing by 600 odd votes in neighbouring Heywood by-election?
Not abject.
|
>>Where is this army of the unemployed who should or could substitute for EU migrant workers?
On the sick. "I get my benefits because I go to my doctor once a year and drink a can of Special Brew before I go so he signs me off for another year." So that's probably 2 million people.
Unemployed - that 5% is nearly 2 million people. TWO MILLION PEOPLE! To a Civil Servant (rtd) like you they're just numbers on a spreadsheet, and it's a small number. But these are real people, men and women, who have no job.
And then the 22% economically inactive include plenty who have given up hope.
|
>> On the sick. "I get my benefits because I go to my doctor once a
>> year and drink a can of Special Brew before I go so he signs me
>> off for another year." So that's probably 2 million people.
It doesn't work like that now and in reality it never did.
Two million might just about equal the number on ESA but they range from a shifting population with minor or self repairing problems through to people with serious and permanently disabling conditions, whether physical or mental.
|
>> Losing by 600 odd votes in neighbouring Heywood by-election?
>> Not abject.
1 won Seat nationally is abject in anyones book.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 1 Dec 15 at 21:43
|
4,000,000 VOTES = more than the Lib Dems and Greens combined.
Our support is not concentrated into pockets, which under FPP makes it extra tough to win seats.
.....anyway back to Corbyn........................
I think he is a man of strong beliefs, who is out of his depth.
I disagree profoundly with many of his policies, but he is entitled to hold them.
Last edited by: Roger. on Tue 1 Dec 15 at 18:09
|
>> I think he is a man of strong beliefs, who is out of his depth.
Heaven help us; I agree with Roger........
|
Looking at this from another angle, should the escapade in Syria go horribly wrong, with downed airmen being publicly beheaded, ground forces going in because of an escalation in conflict leading to a b***** and protracted campaign with a messy result and nothing achieved it could end up with Corbyn becoming the next PM.
Afghanistan Mk 2 would destroy the government.
|
|
I'd assumed a lot of the offensive stuff would use unmanned planes. Arms length and all that.
|
>> Afghanistan Mk 2 would destroy the government.
I think Daisy Cameron has cocked it up. By going on the offensive with this "those who dont vote aye are terrorist sympathisers" leaked remark he may well have shown the red rag to a few bulls who may slap him back for it when it comes to vote time.
Politicians are very poor at humble empathetic persuasion.
|
“Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.â€
~Hermann Goering
|
>>I think Daisy Cameron has cocked it up.
It is certainly possible that you are right.
It is equally possible that the ideal position for Cameron would be to be seen as the great avenger willing to kick the bad man only to be stopped from doing so by the traitorous Labour Party who voted against action and then subsequently have to shoulder the political blame for any attacks which Cameron will maintain would otherwise have been prevented..
All the same reputation enhancing glory, no expenditure or risk, a scapegoat and a safety net - doesn't get much better than that in politics.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 2 Dec 15 at 15:25
|
>>
>> Afghanistan Mk 2 would destroy the government.
>>
You mean Iraq Mark 2. Afghanistan was really a success- for the first few years.
|
|
God save us all from men with strongly held beliefs. The source of nearly all our troubles.
|
|
How strongly do you believe that?
|
The voters have strong opinions and said opinions are getting stronger:
"Corbyn's YouGov well/badly ratings drops to new low. Just 24% saying he is doing well and 65% badly. Amongst GE2015 LAB voters he's a net -6"
tinyurl.com/o5zvdcu
Last edited by: madf on Wed 2 Dec 15 at 10:06
|
>> 4,000,000 VOTES = more than the Lib Dems and Greens combined.
>> Our support is not concentrated into pockets, which under FPP makes it extra tough to
>> win seats.
Ok I'll take your word for it, 1 seat was a good result and you never had any chance of winning anyway.
Glad we agreed on something.
|
>>Our support is not concentrated into pockets,
i.e. you're not very popular. Getting a few votes here or there is why you have no seats.
|
Labour Leader thread - Volume 6 - No FM2R
