Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2
Discussion
technodup said:
Shakermaker said:
- Everyone says JC is a terrorist sympathiser. But as far as I can tell, he's never actually made a bomb and killed dozens of people, or gone to such lengths to try and do anything to that end.
Erm, that's why he's called a terrorist sympathiser and not a terrorist.This is hard work.
Burwood said:
technodup said:
Shakermaker said:
- Everyone says JC is a terrorist sympathiser. But as far as I can tell, he's never actually made a bomb and killed dozens of people, or gone to such lengths to try and do anything to that end.
Erm, that's why he's called a terrorist sympathiser and not a terrorist.This is hard work.
jimmyjimjim said:
Burwood said:
technodup said:
Shakermaker said:
- Everyone says JC is a terrorist sympathiser. But as far as I can tell, he's never actually made a bomb and killed dozens of people, or gone to such lengths to try and do anything to that end.
Erm, that's why he's called a terrorist sympathiser and not a terrorist.This is hard work.
turbobloke said:
jimmyjimjim said:
Burwood said:
technodup said:
Shakermaker said:
- Everyone says JC is a terrorist sympathiser. But as far as I can tell, he's never actually made a bomb and killed dozens of people, or gone to such lengths to try and do anything to that end.
Erm, that's why he's called a terrorist sympathiser and not a terrorist.This is hard work.
She did bad things but because she said sorry, it makes it OK? And she must have the support of Theresa May, even if it only tacit, because she is an elected Conservative council member.
He did nothing bad, but said he understood the reasons people did bad things?
Shakermaker said:
turbobloke said:
jimmyjimjim said:
Burwood said:
technodup said:
Shakermaker said:
- Everyone says JC is a terrorist sympathiser. But as far as I can tell, he's never actually made a bomb and killed dozens of people, or gone to such lengths to try and do anything to that end.
Erm, that's why he's called a terrorist sympathiser and not a terrorist.This is hard work.
She did bad things but because she said sorry, it makes it OK? And she must have the support of Theresa May, even if it only tacit, because she is an elected Conservative council member.
He did nothing bad, but said he understood the reasons people did bad things?
Lance Catamaran said:
Shakermaker said:
turbobloke said:
jimmyjimjim said:
Burwood said:
technodup said:
Shakermaker said:
- Everyone says JC is a terrorist sympathiser. But as far as I can tell, he's never actually made a bomb and killed dozens of people, or gone to such lengths to try and do anything to that end.
Erm, that's why he's called a terrorist sympathiser and not a terrorist.This is hard work.
She did bad things but because she said sorry, it makes it OK? And she must have the support of Theresa May, even if it only tacit, because she is an elected Conservative council member.
He did nothing bad, but said he understood the reasons people did bad things?
Shakermaker said:
OK I've got it now
She did bad things but because she said sorry, it makes it OK? And she must have the support of Theresa May, even if it only tacit, because she is an elected Conservative council member.
He did nothing bad, but said he understood the reasons people did bad things?
He did more than just say he understood the reasons. He met with the senior leadership of the IRA, condemned British military actions and commemorated IRA terrorists who were killed by the SAS whilst in the act of planting a bomb at a Police Station. Mcdonnell is just as bad as Corbyn and has even received an award from IRA supporting bodies that was presented to him by the murderous terrorist Gerry Kelly.She did bad things but because she said sorry, it makes it OK? And she must have the support of Theresa May, even if it only tacit, because she is an elected Conservative council member.
He did nothing bad, but said he understood the reasons people did bad things?
You say he did nothing bad; myself, many ex servicemen and women and members of the public feel that his words of support for the IRA and lack of support for the British Military were and still are a bad thing, especially as he continually refuses to condemn the IRA.
I don't mind people standing up for a politician who I disagree with, that's politics and it's good to debate matters, but, to try and justify a politician's support for a terrorist organisation that has killed over 600 British soldiers and many, many civilians is beyond the pale.
Sums it up
Just 2 of the estimated 1823 people killed by the IRA.
edh said:
Where does it say that? Do you just give them a free pass?
Surely it should explain how the changes to policy affect the budget? Otherwise why bother with a manifesto?
How many people get no winter fuel allowance?
What money will be raised by the dementia tax?
Where is the £8bn /pa for the NHS coming from? is it £8bn every year or will it only be in the last year of the parliament (or is it no new money as Damien Green claimed?)
Why is the balanced budget now coming in 2025 not 2020? What are the changes in income & expenditure that drive this?
How much will reducing migration to "tens of thousands" cost us in reduced GDP (and therefore reduced income)
If you weren't so deluded it'd be funny.Surely it should explain how the changes to policy affect the budget? Otherwise why bother with a manifesto?
How many people get no winter fuel allowance?
What money will be raised by the dementia tax?
Where is the £8bn /pa for the NHS coming from? is it £8bn every year or will it only be in the last year of the parliament (or is it no new money as Damien Green claimed?)
Why is the balanced budget now coming in 2025 not 2020? What are the changes in income & expenditure that drive this?
How much will reducing migration to "tens of thousands" cost us in reduced GDP (and therefore reduced income)
Labour's plans are not fully costed, its as simple as that.
They can't even decide what they are going to do, let alone decide how to pay for it - Just see the comments on Trident. I haven't caught up with todays news, is it in or out ? Because they appear to change their minds daily.
Crafty_ said:
If you weren't so deluded it'd be funny.
Labour's plans are not fully costed, its as simple as that.
They can't even decide what they are going to do, let alone decide how to pay for it - Just see the comments on Trident. I haven't caught up with todays news, is it in or out ? Because they appear to change their minds daily.
So no explanation of an uncosted Theresa May party manifesto, just some baseless assertions & a bit of ad hom......Labour's plans are not fully costed, its as simple as that.
They can't even decide what they are going to do, let alone decide how to pay for it - Just see the comments on Trident. I haven't caught up with todays news, is it in or out ? Because they appear to change their minds daily.
edh said:
So no explanation of an uncosted Theresa May party manifesto, just some baseless assertions & a bit of ad hom......
I wasn't the one running around proclaiming that everything was "fully costed", which you still haven't proven by the way.Do run along now, there's probably a marxist rally somewhere that needs your support.
Burwood said:
He dismissed falklands. He'd give it back to the Argies.
Agree with your post, but please don't say "give it back". The Falklands have never been owned by the argies, aside from for a very short time in the early 80s. We couldn't "give them back" if we wanted to. Give them away, maybe.Crafty_ said:
edh said:
So no explanation of an uncosted Theresa May party manifesto, just some baseless assertions & a bit of ad hom......
I wasn't the one running around proclaiming that everything was "fully costed", which you still haven't proven by the way.Do run along now, there's probably a marxist rally somewhere that needs your support.
You were the "one running around proclaiming" this:
Crafty_ said:
As I understand it the tory one just continues from budgets already set out.
What does this mean? - you don't actually know do you? Does it mean all their 120+ pages of policies (and subsequent changes) are entirely cost neutral? There is no explanation at all.As for the Labour manifesto.
1. There are clear costings showing how this will affect annual budgets.
2. Nationalisation is not accounted for in annual budgets, which is why it is not set out. It adds to debt (and assets), not deficit, and is likely to unfold over many years.
You can express an opinion over the validity of those costings, but men in glass houses.....
edh said:
You can dispute the costings in the Labour manifesto, but at least the policies are set out, clearly costed, and spending funded with tax rises
What I find interesting about the labour manifesto documents is that there is a rule to leave total borrowing no higher at the end of parliament than at the start and another rule for the deficit to be eliminated within five years. But then it talks about at times when interest rates are extremely low the above rules can be suspended... Looks to me like the Labour manifesto has set out hidden in plain sight it's intention to go on a massive splurgeAnd all this argument about economists saying renationalising industries doesn't add to the deficit: well, if you are borrowing lots of money, you have to pay interest on it, which will add to the deficit unless the industries or other investment provide an immediate positive return in cash. Now investing in council houses might generate cash a year or so after you've bought the land and paid for them to be built but it won't be immediate. And the idea that the State will be able to generate profits from nationalised industries doesn't have a particularly strong history
You can go on about costing forever.You either run a decent health service and social care or you find any excuse not to.
Look after disabilities and people with mental health problems.The Tories brought in the bedroom tax another meany it is their make up the nasty party.
Keep taking the micky out of Jeremy the youngsters like him.
Look after disabilities and people with mental health problems.The Tories brought in the bedroom tax another meany it is their make up the nasty party.
Keep taking the micky out of Jeremy the youngsters like him.
edh said:
You can dispute the costings in the Labour manifesto, but at least the policies are set out, clearly costed, and spending funded with tax rises
Insufficiently funded from the analysis read so far, and there's still the weak assumption that raising the burden of taxation via tax rates, to the highest level since the 50s, would actually produce the claimed increase in tax-take. If there were prizes for manifesto consistency, then consistent fantasy might win the top prize for Labour.
pim said:
You can go on about costing forever.You either run a decent health service and social care or you find any excuse not to.
Look after disabilities and people with mental health problems.The Tories brought in the bedroom tax another meany it is their make up the nasty party.
Why should the government pay for people to have rooms they don't need, an]t the expense of people who do need support?Look after disabilities and people with mental health problems.The Tories brought in the bedroom tax another meany it is their make up the nasty party.
pim said:
Keep taking the micky out of Jeremy the youngsters like him.
Those youngsters are ignorant fools!sidicks said:
technodup said:
ake news before fake news was a thing.
It wasn't a tax.
He either knows that and is trolling or he doesn't understand, in which case you're wasting your time!It wasn't a tax.
It's quite frustrating.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff