May Vs Corbyn live on the telly,

[Guybrush]

fesuvious said:

In 97 Labour inherited an economy in surplus. Showing growth.
All it had to to was maintain the position and create savings. Just like responsible people do. So when hard times arrive there is a backup.

Just like every other Labour Government they spent spent spent. We were already in debt by the time recession arrived.

This lot are like Blair/Brown on steroids and delusional.

This is the main issue for me. Nothing that Corbyn and his team of Abbott and the other marxixts are promising will be any different from before. Well it will be worse. Hopefully, people are intelligent enough to look back those few years and either learn or be reminded, it's not long ago so hopefully not to much of a stretch in this information age.

[MiniMan64]

TomTheTyke said:

Just to clarify a couple of further things (for the sake of openness I am a Labour Party member and 2x Corbyn for leader voter).

Quite a few posters pointing out that JC didn't have his figures; everything in the Labour manifesto has been costed and documented. Whether you believe the tax take which actually cover what is in the costings document is another matter but the Tories haven't even bothered to give this information.

Secondly, as far as 'saddling the country with more debt,' Labour have committed to reduce the deficit and balance the books for day to day spending at some point in the parliament, I can't remember exactly off the top of my head. They will borrow to invest but that is for major infrastructure projects etc which by nature we can afford and will ultimately pay for themselves.

So I would say by all means voice your opinion that you don't agree Labour can deliver their promises, but I think it's a bit harsh to play the 'land of milk and honey card' when they've done more work than the Tory party to actually identify where and how things will be paid for.

ETA: On the debate itself I do think Corbyn looked better, if only because he was reasonable enough to dispel his image as a bumbling buffoon the Sun likes to put across. May does seem to get very flustered and her repeated U turns seem to be coming back to bite her. The main mistake the Tories have made (although I think Abbott apart the Lab campaign has been strong) is to create a personality cult around TM and then realise she can't really engage with people/make a particularly convincing case for her policies.

Edited by TomTheTyke on Tuesday 30th May 03:32

These two statements seem fundamentally incompatible to me.

You can't borrow to reduce a debt/deficit.

Isn't that like trying to escape quicksand by reaching down with your arms to pull out your legs?

[jakesmith]

Guybrush said:

Hopefully, people are intelligent enough to look back those few years and either learn or be reminded, it's not long ago so hopefully not to much of a stretch in this information age.

They aren't and they won't. The people I know who will be voting Labour are simply voting for Corbyn as a genuine man vs May, and his lovely manifesto that will help the poor. They genuinely believe that Tories love kicking the poor etc.
You can thank Social Media in part for this tidal wave of moronic ignorance

[London424]

TomTheTyke said:

Just to clarify a couple of further things (for the sake of openness I am a Labour Party member and 2x Corbyn for leader voter).

Quite a few posters pointing out that JC didn't have his figures; everything in the Labour manifesto has been costed and documented. Whether you believe the tax take which actually cover what is in the costings document is another matter but the Tories haven't even bothered to give this information.

Secondly, as far as 'saddling the country with more debt,' Labour have committed to reduce the deficit and balance the books for day to day spending at some point in the parliament, I can't remember exactly off the top of my head. They will borrow to invest but that is for major infrastructure projects etc which by nature we can afford and will ultimately pay for themselves.

So I would say by all means voice your opinion that you don't agree Labour can deliver their promises, but I think it's a bit harsh to play the 'land of milk and honey card' when they've done more work than the Tory party to actually identify where and how things will be paid for.

ETA: On the debate itself I do think Corbyn looked better, if only because he was reasonable enough to dispel his image as a bumbling buffoon the Sun likes to put across. May does seem to get very flustered and her repeated U turns seem to be coming back to bite her. The main mistake the Tories have made (although I think Abbott apart the Lab campaign has been strong) is to create a personality cult around TM and then realise she can't really engage with people/make a particularly convincing case for her policies.

Edited by TomTheTyke on Tuesday 30th May 03:32

If it's been costed and documented can you tell us how much is it going to cost to renationalise the water companies?

[ralphrj]

MiniMan64 said:

TomTheTyke said:

Secondly, as far as 'saddling the country with more debt,' Labour have committed to reduce the deficit and balance the books for day to day spending at some point in the parliament, I can't remember exactly off the top of my head. They will borrow to invest but that is for major infrastructure projects etc which by nature we can afford and will ultimately pay for themselves.

These two statements seem fundamentally incompatible to me.

You can't borrow to reduce a debt/deficit.

Isn't that like trying to escape quicksand by reaching down with your arms to pull out your legs?

They aren't incompatible, you've missed out the bit about "day to day spending". You can measure a deficit/surplus 2 ways including or excluding investment (i.e. expenditure of major infrastructure projects).

For example in 2016-17:

Day to day spending aka Current budget deficit £14bn (excluding investment, this is down from £100bn in 2010)

All spending aka Total budget deficit £54bn (including investment, this is down from c.£170bn in 2010)

Labour are saying that they will balance the first one.


Of course, they haven't got a snowballs chance in hell of achieving it. Despite the claims they have costed their manifesto pledges - even the BBC spotted that they had not costed their pledge to provide free childcare to all 2,3,4 and some 1 year olds.

[PositronicRay]

TomTheTyke said:

Just to clarify a couple of further things (for the sake of openness I am a Labour Party member and 2x Corbyn for leader voter).

Quite a few posters pointing out that JC didn't have his figures; everything in the Labour manifesto has been costed and documented. Whether you believe the tax take which actually cover what is in the costings document is another matter but the Tories haven't even bothered to give this information.

Secondly, as far as 'saddling the country with more debt,' Labour have committed to reduce the deficit and balance the books for day to day spending at some point in the parliament, I can't remember exactly off the top of my head. They will borrow to invest but that is for major infrastructure projects etc which by nature we can afford and will ultimately pay for themselves.

So I would say by all means voice your opinion that you don't agree Labour can deliver their promises, but I think it's a bit harsh to play the 'land of milk and honey card' when they've done more work than the Tory party to actually identify where and how things will be paid for.

ETA: On the debate itself I do think Corbyn looked better, if only because he was reasonable enough to dispel his image as a bumbling buffoon the Sun likes to put across. May does seem to get very flustered and her repeated U turns seem to be coming back to bite her. The main mistake the Tories have made (although I think Abbott apart the Lab campaign has been strong) is to create a personality cult around TM and then realise she can't really engage with people/make a particularly convincing case for her policies.

Edited by TomTheTyke on Tuesday 30th May 03:32

I wouldn't disagree with much of your post, it does seem you've been "suckered in"

Who could forget this? Or has the Labour party fundamentally changed?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2347524/On...

[///ajd]

fblm said:

SpeedMattersNot said:

...it's about which party will look after you...
It's a no-brainer...surely?

Yup. Don't vote for the party that destroys the economy every single time they get near it. You can't pay for services when 'there's no money left'. In any event no it's really not about which party will 'look after' me and my family, its about which party just lets me look after myself. It's certainly true that if you have no self respect and just want hand outs it's a no brainer.

Unfortunately brexit shows us that the UK electorate are not too bothered about wrecking the UK economy at the moment.

[hedgefinder]

fblm said:

Yup. Don't vote for the party that destroys the economy every single time they get near it. You can't pay for services when 'there's no money left'. In any event no it's really not about which party will 'look after' me and my family, its about which party just lets me look after myself. It's certainly true that if you have no self respect and just want hand outs it's a no brainer.

Edited by fblm on Tuesday 30th May 05:35

yeah, its a far better idea to continually asset strip the country every time you get into power........ has huge long term benefits doesnt it?

[Lance Catamaran]

SpeedMattersNot said:

reck the economy? Labour did not cause the global financial crisis.

The conservatives benefit/ed from improved public services and enhanced infrastructure, without investing any extra into it.

You're right, no-brainer.

Tories are cutting public services, including education and NHS...it's not good enough. Time to bring us into the future, not drag us back into the past.

Corbyn dominated this evening. Fact.

Edited by SpeedMattersNot on Monday 29th May 23:57

Talking of going back to the past, Labour want to put a man who is on record as stating he is a Marxist and was overjoyed when the banking crisis happened in charge of our economy. The unions will also be free to repeatedly bring the country to a halt as they did in the 70s. Utter lunacy.

[turbobloke]

fblm said:

SpeedMattersNot said:

...it's about which party will look after you...
It's a no-brainer...surely?

Yup. Don't vote for the party that destroys the economy every single time they get near it. You can't pay for services when 'there's no money left'. In any event no it's really not about which party will 'look after' me and my family, its about which party just lets me look after myself. It's certainly true that if you have no self respect and just want hand outs it's a no brainer.

Also it's about which Party will look after the country. Labour has swapped not fiixing boom and bust for cultivating borrow and bust.

Corbyn didn't support the Falklands campaign, won't use the nuclear option, won't sanction drone strikes, cuddles up to terrorists, has republican tendencies he tries to hide including from Paxman (why, if it's a vote winner), and wants to take us back to the 70s.

No thanks, the UK will do much better without Corbyn but he can stay with Labour until at least 2022 if he likes.

[rovermorris999]

With over a week to go last night's telly will be long forgotten come polling day.

[Murph7355]

SpeedMattersNot said:

...
Tories are cutting public services, including education and NHS...it's not good enough. Time to bring us into the future, not drag us back into the past.
...

Out of interest, can you note which government services are currently receiving less money than they were in 2015/2010...?

[Biker 1]

I managed about 20 minutes of this show, & then Paxman started his normal 'interview' technique, where the victim is simply not allowed to finish a single sentence before he's barked at. Mind you, it seemed like JC couldn't answer a direct 'yes/no' question anyway, so all fairly pointless. I didn't see any of May, but assume it was much the same crap. I couldn't help notice the diverse audience - it didn't seem that representative of the UK as a whole. Anyway, the £15 billion Railway at 9pm was far more interesting.

[Cobnapint]

It seems most people are declaring the winner as the one Paxman was prepared to be less rude to.

What a shambles.

[Burwood]

SpeedMattersNot said:

On top of this, Corbyn was totally calm. He'd make you fold pocket aces with a 2-7 off-suit and not even have to brag about it. Pure class.

The wannabe always has it far easier than the incumbent. Apparently, on nukes, he will write the appropriate letters. He lost the interview. And thank fk he will never see power.

[hairyben]

amgmcqueen said:

Corbyn is anti- British and against everything this Country stands for....

He's anti-establishment, and the british "establishment" pretty much defines the term. This is why he cudddles up the likes of the IRA etc rather than actual sympathies I think, the "enemies enemy=friend" mindset and never moving past a childs deeply simplistic outlook on life.

Wanted to give this a look on catch up but for whatever mad logic they use the beeb seem to think theres no demand for party leader interviews a week before an election.

[williamp]

TEKNOPUG said:

These tv debates are so pointless. We aren't voting for a president, we are voting for a party to run the country. These people for example http://www.labour.org.uk/people/filter/c/shadow-ca...

Not a president, but the leader of the party whose MP we voted for is of importance. They do, afterall represent the government in all matters internal and external, will have to argue with Trump, Putin, the EU and others... bring the country together after a terrorist attack, lead the country forward, and will lead their party according to their views (they do form the cabinet, afterall and will always fill posts with those wishing to say "yes").

On every score, you simply cannot vote for Corbyn. He has been aback bencher who refused to tow his party live over 500 tmes, had no role in cabinet but now, as leader things he has the cudos and political clout to lead a country in negotiations??

A man who DOES have links to the IRA despite lying about it. And he cannot answer a straight question on the matter. Who HAS shown support for other terrorist organisations in the past. There is eveyr indication he will do the same in the future.

He cannot- and does not care- that his manifsto can not be costed. He is happy to divide the country along the lines of envy. And rather then work to bring everyone UP to the same level, wants to bring everyone DOWN to the same level. The gutter. And whilst you may want to look at the stars, your own way of achieving this is through party membership. Not off your own back.

We know his future includes Abbott to represent all our affairs at home. And the purse strings will be co ntrolled by the real danger, McDonnell. Happy to say (on camera) that democracy doesn't work and advocates violent insurrection against the British people.

Abd he cannot count, but thinks that "rich businesses" will pay for everything. There wont be any rich businesses after they have finished. There will overseas, but not in this country... (and remember any move oversseas wont be their fault, but they wil say the fault of brexit)

[Cobnapint]

Jockman said:

sidicks said:

Cobnapint said:

Sky are trying to portray this as some kind of mega important moment in British electoral history.

Well I suppose it was, for Paxman's reputation which is now in ruins, and for the future career opportunities of the producer at Sky who must be somewhere in the building sobbing loudly in a locked toilet cubicle.

Wasn't this on Channel 4?!

Yup. However the entrance of the building was wrapped in Sky News adverts.

The event was held at Sky's HQ and hosted by Sky's political editor Faisal Islam. Channel 4 obviously chucked some money at it so they could get in on the act too.

[Yertis]

hairyben said:

Wanted to give this a look on catch up but for whatever mad logic they use the beeb seem to think theres no demand for party leader interviews a week before an election.

Try Sky/Channel 4

[///ajd]

jsf said:

///ajd said:

The fact she can't say "yes" to no deal speaks volumes - she doesn't mean it, she desperately wants a deal, but has been persuading to play the "no deal" charade.

Perhaps it is only to fool the gullible and has no real purpose in the negotiations, it does seem to work on some after all.

She did say yes, at 87 minutes into the program. She said it twice, they then pan to the audience and women on the end of the row in black dress with pendant round her neck pulls a "blimey" face.

she then says "you have to", when asked again, and expands on that.

open your eyes and ears slasher, go look at it again.

my eyes are open

ironic that some are accusing me of sneering whilst doing that themselves (xjs post)

if you put aside the tribal slasher nonsense for one minute, she did actually reveal something of here hand.

she only ever said "no deal" quickly followed by better than no deal. she also stressed "you have to say that", which revealed (as many have commented), its just a tactic, and a rather transparent pointless one, as she just doesn't believe in no deal.

to give her more credit, she is saying it to placate the brexiteers, and this thread shows she is right to.